On the agenda: meeting — colocation (Sep 8)

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Franklin County Planning Commission Agenda
September 8, 2026
I.

Call to Order

II.

Roll Call

III.

Approval of Minutes from August 11, 2026, Meeting

IV.

Public Hearing: APPLICATION for SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Application of
Chad Burnopp, Applicant, and David & Sandra Burnopp, Owners, requesting a
special use permit, on an approximate .49 acres of property zoned A-1,
Agricultural District. The parcels are located at 762 Redwood Road in the Union
Hall Election District of Franklin County and further identified by real estate
records as Tax Map/Parcels #0540015900 and #0540016302. The purpose of this
special-use permit request is to allow for sales, service and repair of automobiles,
trucks, recreational vehicles, motorcycles in existing building(s). This property has
a future land use designation of Rural Area – County. (SPEC-26-5 #0540015900
and #0540016302)
a. Staff Presentation (Tina Franklin)
b. Applicant Presentation
c. Citizen Comment

V.

Open Citizen Comment

VI.

Zoning Ordinance Update Work Session

VII.

Adjourn

*** The Planning Commission’s next site visits are scheduled for October 7, 2026.

Department of Planning
& Community Development
A meeting of the Franklin County Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
August 11, in the Board Room located at the Franklin County Government
Center.
THOSE PRESENT:
David Pendleton - Vice Chair, Blackwater District
Victor Evans - Union Hall District
David Clements - Rocky Mount District
C.W. Doss - Blue Ridge District
Ron Jefferson - Gills Creek District
Addison Hancock – Snow Creek District
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jenn Richardson - Clerk
Chris Dadak - County Attorney
Lisa Cooper - Planning Director
THOSE ABSENT:
Matthew Peters - Boone District
Tina Franklin – Planner II

Chairman Evans called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Evans asked if the Planning Commission had any comments or changes to
the July 14, 2026 minutes. There were no changes requested.
The minutes were approved as written.
Mr. Evans introduced the next item on the agenda: APPLICATION for
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMANCE REVIEW – Application of The Towers
LLC/Vertical Bridge and Cellco Partnership/Verizon Wireless, Applicants, and
Rudolph C. Naff, III, Owner, requesting a conformance review on an
approximate 10,000 square foot portion of +/- 21.259 acres of non-zoned
property. The parcel is located off of Cherry Lane in the Blue Ridge Election
District of Franklin County and further identified by real estate records as Tax
Map/Parcel #s 1130016201 and 1130016204. The purpose of this conformance
review is to assess whether a communications facility, telecommunications tower

Department of Planning
& Community Development
is substantially in accord with the 2045 Franklin County Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2232. This property has a future land use
designation of Rural Area – County. (COMP-26-1 #1130016201).
Ms. Lisa Cooper presented the staff report. She stated that Vertical
Bridge/Verizon Wireless is proposing to construct a 195-foot self-supporting,
monopole communication tower, with a 4’ lightning rod, and a 100’ x 100’
leased area for the communication facility which includes a 50’ x 50’ fenced in
gravel compound. The proposed communication facility and compound area
will be located on a +/-21.259-acre tract of land located on Henry Road and
Cherry Lane. The leased area will be fenced with a seven-foot-tall chain link
fence with 1’ barbed wire on top of fence and a proposed 12’ wide double
swing access gate surrounding the 50’ x 50’ compound area with a new 30’
wide and utility easement access road to the leased area through Parcel ID #
1130016204 which also belongs to Mr. Rudolph C. Naff, III. This property is located
in the non-zoned (NZ) area of the County.
Ms. Cooper stated that in 2006, a Comprehensive Plan Conformance Review
(15.2-2232) was approved on Parcel ID # 1130008801 which is located within
6,000 feet of the proposed tower location at the intersection of Henry Road and
Cherry Lane. This tower was to be for the construction of an emergency service
tower, and associated appurtenances on approximately two (2) acres.
Ms. Cooper stated that Vertical Bridge/Verizon Wireless researched the Fire
Department cell tower to co-locate; however, it was determined that this Fire
Department cell tower was too close to the US Cellular (T-Mobile) cell tower to
the north that Verizon has co-located on. Therefore, a new cell tower needed to
be constructed to meet Verizon’s needs for service to this area.
Ms. Cooper stated that this communication facility is to provide needed reliable
cellular coverage to the residents, tenants, business owners, emergency service
providers and all others in the area surrounding and served by the proposed
tower in Franklin County.
Ms. Cooper stated that staff received seven (7) phone calls inquiring about the
application and one (1) phone call opposing the application. She stated staff
2

Department of Planning
& Community Development
had received two (2) additional phone calls, as well as one (1) citizen who
came into the office opposing the application.
Ms. Cooper displayed four (4) GIS maps of the property and two (2) site plans.
Ms. Cooper explained that two Parcel IDs were advertised because the cell
tower would go on one parcel (PID #1130016201), while the access road would
go through the second parcel (PID #1130016204).
Ms. Cooper stated the analysis of the evaluation of visibility. She stated that the
subject site was heavily wooded and the tower would be surrounded by such
vegetation (acknowledging that much of the existing vegetation will be
maintained, as shown across Sheets Z-1 and Z-2 of the Zoning Drawings), the visibility
of the tower will be limited.
Ms. Cooper stated the analysis of the mitigation of impacts. She stated that the
communication facility was +/- 340 feet from Cherry Lane, +/- 390 feet to the
property line along Henry Road, +/-353 feet from the closest existing home located
at 142 Cherry Lane, and +/-657 feet from the existing home located at 6565 Henry
Road. Ms. Cooper stated that the leased area would be surrounded by most of the
existing wood vegetation. She stated that the tower is to be galvanized to better
blend in with the surrounding area.
Ms. Cooper stated the analysis of lighting. She stated that no lighting was proposed
or required by the FAA for this site. She stated that there would be no site lighting
for this project.
Ms. Cooper stated the analysis of the abandoned towers. She stated that Verizon
had stated if the communication facility must be removed from the property it
would be their (Verizon) responsibility and cost to absorb. Ms. Cooper stated that
their ground lease with the property owners required Verizon to remove the facility
in 6 months and restore the area to a satisfactory condition.
Ms. Cooper stated the analysis of the safety certification. She state that should the
communication facility fall due to structural damage, the monopole would be
designed by manufacture and industry standards to collapse straight down. She
stated that the structure would fall entirely within the fenced-in compound. She
3

Department of Planning
& Community Development
stated that the design would be to hold future collocations and to withstand the
required conditions set forth in wind and ice loading standards. Ms. Cooper stated
that the FCC required Verizon to inspect the safety and structural integrity of the
tower each year after construction.
Ms. Cooper addressed the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the area has a
future land use designation of rural county. Ms. Cooper stated that Objective 9.1
Chapter 12 states “continue to develop telecommunication infrastructure to ensure
availability to all residents, businesses, and institutions”. She stated that Strategy 9.1.3
states “the county will work on increasing cell phone infrastructure to enhance
coverage throughout the county through partnerships and capital projects, and
consider if regulatory amendments are needed to create a more efficient
development process”.
Ms. Cooper stated that staff recommended that the Planning Commission make a
finding that the proposed communication facility is in substantial accordance with
the 2045 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July of 2025,
provided the following conditions and design guidelines are met:
1. The proposed use shall be developed in substantial conformance to the
conceptual plan titled “Vertical Bridge The Towers, LLC., Will Hill site and
dated May 6, 2026.
2. Verizon and any future owners or operators of the communication facility shall
allow Franklin County emergency service agencies, to co-locate at no
charge on the tower and with the enclosed leased area for ground
equipment.
3. Verizon shall post with Franklin County, a bond guaranteeing the removal of
the communication facility, which includes the tower and all associated
equipment from the site if the use of the communication facility is abandoned
for a period of six months or more. The bond shall be in the amount agreeable
to Franklin County and Verizon and shall be posted prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. The communication facility will be structurally designed to accommodate up
to three wireless providers and associated ground-based equipment.
Ms. Cooper asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for her.
4

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Hancock asked how the valuation of the removal bond is determined. Ms.
Cooper stated that the applicant’s engineer and the county attorney would come
to an agreement. There were no further questions for Ms. Cooper.
Chairman Evans invited the applicant up to the podium to present.
Mr. Anthony Bologna of the Law Firm of Williams Mullen (agent to Towers
LLC/Vertical Bridge) gave a presentation. He stated that that the area is a nonzoned portion of the county. Mr. Bologna stated that the tower heigh is 195 feet,
with a 4 foot lightning rod, for a total of 199 feet to the highest pertinence. He stated
that it is a monopole tower. He stated that the anchor tenant would be Verizon
Wireless and there would be space for three additional carriers.
Mr. Bologna stated that the purpose of the presentation was to identify how the
telecommunications tower would be in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan. He stated objective 7.3 of promoting the creation of livable communities
through the provision of cellular coverage. Mr. Bologna stated objective 9.1 to
continue to develop infrastructure to ensure the availability to all residents,
businesses, and institutions. He stated objective 10.3 to provide top-notch
emergency services and preparedness to ensure the highest level of safety.
Mr. Bologna stated that his law firm had a tower case in North Carolina involving
residents in a county calling 911 and the calls got routed to a different county’s 911
dispatch. He stated that wireless coverage is imperative in emergency situations.
Mr. Bologna presented a site plan, compound plan, and elevation drawing of the
tower.
Mr. Evans asked about the nearby telecommunications tower. Mr. Rui Da Silva
(consultant of Vertical Bridge) stated that the tower behind the fire department was
researched. Mr. Da Silva stated that there are two towers in the vicinity: Henry Fire
Department and another tower that is 1.3 miles north of Henry Fire Department. Mr.
Da Silva stated that the US Cellular tower covered the area north and an additional
tower would need to be further south in order to not interfere with one another, and
it would not be able to cover the area.
5

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Evans asked the duration of the leased area for the ground equipment in regard
to Condition 2. Mr. Da Silva stated that they had a lease with Mr. Naff for the tower
location. He stated that the part of the condition regarding free space for the
county had not been discussed with the tower company. He stated that a similar
arrangement had been made in Matthews County, in which they allowed for 150
feet and below and about 10 feet by 15 feet of ground space. He stated that the
tower company would agree to a similar free space, but anything beyond that
might be an issue. He stated that space is normally what is needed for emergency
communications.
Mr. Evans asked if Verizon or any future owners or operators of the communication
facility shall allow Franklin County Emergency Service agencies to collocate at no
charge to the tower. Mr. Da Silva stated yes. Mr. Evans asked why this is problematic.
Mr. Da Silva stated that there is some state legislation that does not necessarily give
the county the power to impose it. He stated that Verizon does not want to
compromise the higher real estate that is at the top of the tower.
Ms. Cooper stated that if further discussion with Verizon is necessary, the application
could be tabled.
Mr. Evans stated that certain locations on the tower have other priorities and Verizon
would not want to compromise those priorities for the emergency signal. Mr. Da
Silva agreed with Mr. Evans’ statement. He stated that the space would be
available for anyone that wanted to pay fair market value for rent.
Mr. Da Silva stated that the tower would be built for four (4) carriers, and Verizon
would want the top spot. He stated that the tower would be built for Verizon as the
anchor tenant, and they would lease the space to anyone including the county.
Mr. Da Silva stated that Verizon would need to make the decision regarding a free
space. He stated that 150 feet on the tower and 10 feet by 15 feet on the ground
would be something that Verizon would agree on.
Mr. Evans asked Ms. Cooper if Condition 2 is negotiable. Ms. Cooper stated that it is
negotiable. She stated that it is not unheard of for emergency services to be fourth
or lowest on the tower. She stated that she is unsure if emergency services would
6

Department of Planning
& Community Development
want to collocate. Ms. Cooper stated that this is usually included as a condition for
telecommunications towers in case there is a future need for emergency services.
Mr. Jefferson asked if there was legislation that stated that a county cannot require
a free position on telecommunication towers, but the company can offer a free
position. Mr. Da Silva confirmed.
Ms. Cooper explained that since this is a Comprehensive Plan Review, the Board of
Supervisors could take the Planning Commission recommendation under 2232. She
stated that the Board of Supervisors does not have to hold a public hearing if they
take the recommendation from the Planning Commission. She stated if there were
any concerns about colocation, then the application should be tabled.
Mr. Dadak stated that the condition could be removed, and it is not required.
Mr. Evans asked if the condition should be removed on the grounds that it is
inappropriate for a locality to require free space on a telecommunications tower.
Mr. Dadak stated that the statute does not allow the county to condition or require
the approval of an application solely on the basis of the applicant’s agreement to
follow any wireless facilities provider operation and hold in part by locality or any
other entity.
Mr. Evans stated that the task of the Planning Commission was to review the
application with regard to conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Hancock stated that the presentation seemed to advocate for the need to
communicate effectively with emergency services. He asked if there would not be
a space for the county to use if the other four spaces were leased. Mr. Da Silva
stated that the three major carriers are Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, and that
anything below would not be sought after.
Mr. Doss stated that the county has a tower for emergency services at Henry Fire
Department. Ms. Cooper confirmed that there is a tower at the Henry Fire
Department. She stated that the tower is too close to another tower.

7

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Ms. Cooper stated that emergency services are not on the tower at Henry Fire
Department; there are other cellular companies using the tower.
Mr. Evans invited the property owner to speak. Mr. Naff declined to speak.
Mr. Evans opened the opportunity for citizen comment. There were no citizens who
signed up to comment on the application. Mr. Evans asked the audience if there
was anyone who wished to comment on the application.
Jonathan Cruise, lives behind Mr. Naff, stated that he doesn’t care about the tower.
He stated that he thinks emergency services should be on the tower.
Cynthia Booth spoke in opposition. She stated that property values could be
affected. Ms. Booth stated that she is concerned about road maintenance, traffic,
and ongoing noise. She stated that there are three (3) other towers within a ten (10)
mile radius that could be used.
Scott Cowan, chief of Henry Fire Department stated that there is no cell service on
the Henry Fire Department tower, just internet service that went out of business. He
stated that the tower is not being used.
Virginia Cressenbury, Cherry Lane, stated the road is raggedy. She stated that she
heard cell phone towers throw out radiation. Ms. Cressenbury stated that Mr. Naff is
a good neighbor, but he does not help to maintain the road. She stated that there
is a trailer currently parked in the location of the proposed communication tower.
John Whitlow owns the trailer that Ms. Cressenbury was referring to. Mr. Whitlow
stated that with the 340 foot buffer, the tower will not be visible from the land he
owns. He stated that the road will be maintained so that the tower is accessible for
maintenance. Mr. Whitlow stated that he only saw benefits and no downside to the
tower.
There were no more citizens who wished to comment on the application. Mr. Evans
closed the opportunity for citizen comment.

8

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Bologna addressed citizen comments. He stated that cell towers used
generators with noise dampening. He stated that provided how heavily wooded
the site is, it is extremely unlikely that any neighboring residents would hear any noise
from the tower. Mr. Bologna stated that these generators run once or twice a month
for short period of times. He stated that the site is heavily wooded and will effectively
shield the base and middle portion of the tower from view. He stated that the tower
would be made of galvanized steel and blend well with the backdrop of the sky.
Mr. Bologna stated that tower maintenance would be once a month, and no heavy
equipment would be needed once the tower is built. He stated that a traffic impact
analysis was not provided because the trips to the tower would be infrequent. Mr.
Bologna stated that their focus was on providing an opportunity for residents to
have reliable cellular coverage to access emergency services.
Mr. Evans asked if the type of traffic would be a pickup truck. Mr. Bologna confirmed
that a pickup truck would generally be the extent of the traffic. Mr. Evans asked
how long the period of construction would be. Mr. Da Silva stated that the
construction time would be three (3) to four (4) months. Mr. Bologna stated that
there was a lack of evidence for health effects regarding telecommunications
towers. Mr. Dadak stated that telecommunication towers were preempted by the
FCC.
Mr. Evans stated that the Planning Commission was to verify that the application is
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Da Silva stated that they could provide an exposure report that showed the
levels are not going to affect the population. He stated that he could present an
exposure report when they have a building permit. Mr. Evans stated that the citizens
would like to know this information.
Ms. Cooper stated that the Planning Commission would make a determination if
the application is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that staff would
take that information to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting to see if they
want to hold their own public hearing or do they agree with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation and do not want to hold a public hearing.
The Planning Commission began their deliberations.
9

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Doss stated that many people in the area have Verizon and have poor service.
He stated that it would be helpful to have a facility in the area that would pick up
Verizon cellular signals better. He stated that it would be a benefit to the
community.
Mr. Doss made a motion stating “Pursuant to the requirements of Section 15.2-2232
of the Code of Virginia I find, with the inclusion of the four (4) conditions
recommended by the staff, that the proposal (1) is consistent with adopted
comprehensive plan policies pertinent to the siting of communication facilities, (2)
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent or surrounding properties, (3) is in
character with the project future land use of the community, and (4) that such use
will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan and with
the community’s public, health, safety, and general welfare.”
Mr. Hancock seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted. The motion to find that the proposed
communication facility is in substantial accordance with the 2045 Comprehensive
Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July of 2025, provided the five (4)
conditions are met was approved; 6-0-1-0 voting was as follows:
AYES: Pendleton, Doss, Clements, Hancock, Jefferson, Evans
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Peters
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Evans announced that the Board of Supervisors would have an option to
hear this case on September 15, 2026.
Chairman Evans opened the podium for open citizen comment.
Lauren Walke of the Boone District thanked the Planning Commission for being
receptive to feedback, seeking out ways to better communicate with the
community, and for making meetings more accessible through live streaming. Ms.
Walked stated that she wanted to ask the Planning Commission to be proactive
10

Department of Planning
& Community Development
and to reach out to the Board of Supervisors to amend the Zoning Ordinance plan
to begin the process to develop clear regulations that address issues to high impact
industries, such as data centers. She asked that the Planning Commission consider
what interim protections are available while appropriate standards are being
developed. She stated that economic development should not require a gamble
on public health, quality of life, natural resources, or long-term future of Franklin
County communities. Ms. Walke stated that while developing safeguards is a
priority, she requested that the Planning Commission settle on a public process and
provide the community with a clear timeline of when that work will begin. She
requested that the Planning Commission find third party sources that can provide
reliable information on what can be done, what has been done, what to look out
for, and what to include. Ms. Walke stated that when industries come into Franklin
County, they should come in safely.
Kim Jones, Chair of Franklin County Community Coalition, stated that they are
submitting a draft memorandum for the Planning Commission’s consideration. She
stated that at the community meeting at the depot, Chairman Evans explained
that the full zoning rewrite would be handled deliberately with as much public
participation as possible, and that it would likely take at least twelve (12) months
before something was submitted to the Board of Supervisors. She stated that the
memorandum does not ask the Planning Commission to rush the entire rewrite. Ms.
Jones stated that the memorandum provides a narrow and responsible way to
address an urgent gap in the current Zoning Ordinance. She stated that currently
under Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance, a data center is permitted by-right in
the Regional Enterprise Park and maximum floor area is not regulated. She stated
that this could leave the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the
public without a project specific design regarding the scale, utility demand,
safeguards, and compatibility of a particular proposal. Ms. Jones stated that the
memorandum recommends a two-phase solution. She stated that Phase One
would change data centers in the REP district from by-right to special use with clear
definitions and lawful transition rules. She stated that Phase Two would establish
standards addressing power, water, sound, generators, public safety, cumulative
impacts, and decommissioning. Ms. Jones stated that this is not a moratorium, it is
not a ban, and it does not ask that the Planning Commission prejudge any particular
project or any claim vested right. She stated that it preserves a path for suitable
development while ensuring public review and elected oversight. Ms. Jones stated
11

Department of Planning
& Community Development
that the memorandum includes the supporting record, the legal basis, requested
board action, and an optional motion for commission. She asked that this matter
be placed on a public agenda and consider initiating a targeted amendment
rather than waiting for completion of the entire zoning rewrite.
Laura Carter of Rocky Mount gave the Planning Commission credit for more
communication, notification, allowing public involvement, and a willingness to listen
to different perspectives. She stated that the memorandum presented is not about
being afraid of growth, nor is it about closing Franklin County’s doors to opportunity.
She stated that the memorandum is about keeping options open until enough is
known to make a good decision.
Michael Pagans of the Union Hall district spoke to oppose planning and zoning
changes. He stated that he has lived in Franklin County for over 30 years, and has
been a real estate agent and appraiser for 37 years. He stated that the changes of
lot sizes are going to hurt property values. He stated that it will lower the tax base if
it lowers the property value. He stated that any changes that affect a large
population should be put to a voter referendum.
Cynthia Booth stated that she still opposed the cell phone tower and that Henry Fire
Department should be considered. Mr. Evans stated that this portion of the meeting
was open citizen comment for topics not related to the application. Ms. Booth
stated that she didn’t have any public issues, she just didn’t want the cell phone
tower.
Matt Pagans of the Blue Ridge district stated that the 1988 ordinance should be
referred to as the current or effective ordinance because it has been revised many
times as needed over the years. He stated that the new Planning Commission
members should have some input. He stated that from the past few meetings,
several citizens have brought to the attention of the Planning Commission the need
for standards and protections for nearby residents, schools, churches, and other
public infrastructure and resources as it pertains to data centers or other industry
that could be high resource users or polluters. He stated that this should have been
previously addressed. Mr. Pagans stated that being aware that the county has no
standards or protection, and not taking any actions to protect the citizens while the
12

Department of Planning
& Community Development
county administrator and the Board of Supervisors are in secret communication and
negotiations is by definition dereliction of duty and willful negligence.
Willis Bruggemann of Rocky Mount stated that there needs to be a forum or
committee that looks at what the surrounding counties are doing. He stated that
the lake creates tax revenues and the citizens get pleasure from using the lake. Mr.
Bruggemann stated that there needs to be somebody looking at what’s going on
around the county and the possible impacts.
There were no other citizens that wished to speak; therefore Chairman Evans closed
the opportunity.
Chairman Evans began the discussion on the Zoning Ordinance update. He stated
that Work Sessions typically did not allow for participation by the public. Mr. Evans
stated that it was the decision of the Planning Commission to allow for public
participation as they completed a review of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He
stated that this meeting was the inauguration of the Planning Commission live
streaming their meetings and work sessions. Mr. Evans stated that from this day
forward, when the Planning Commission has public hearings or zoning work sessions
held in the Board Room, they will be livestreamed for the benefit of those who are
not able to attend.
Chairman Evans stated that the Planning Commission agreed to use the format of
the newly proposed Zoning Ordinance as a basis to do the review. Mr. Evans stated
that there are three things to consider when reviewing the articles: what is wanted
by staff, what is mandated by state code, and what is carryover from the current
Zoning Ordinance. He stated that anything outside those three categories would
be seen as recommended best practices and it is up to the Planning Commission
to decide whether it is appropriate for our locality.
Chairman Evans stated that the staff had compiled citizen comments. Mr. Evans
recommended he and Mr. Jefferson take responsibility for the citizen input received
from their town halls, while the remaining Planning Commission members divide up
the remaining citizen comments. Mr. Evans stated that he would work with staff to
divide the comments into bite sized chunks.
13

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Chairman Evans stated that stakeholders and subject matter experts had been
identified as homeowners and property owners; developers, realtors, and surveyors;
builders and contractors; farmers and German Baptists; non-agricultural business
owners; Chambers of Commerce; and large institutional owners.
Chairman Evans asked Ms. Cooper if there was a better way to alert county
residents of general information. Ms. Cooper stated that the county had begun to
send text message alerts regarding Planning Commission meetings to citizens that
had signed up. She stated that information is also posted to the Zoning Ordinance
website. She stated that once it had been finalized, the schedule of Zoning
Ordinance work sessions would be posted to the website. Mr. Evans asked how
citizens sign up for text message alerts. Ms. Richardson stated that there is a link on
the main page of the Franklin County website under “How Do I?” where citizens can
sign up for the Franklin County Mass Notification System. Ms. Cooper stated that the
Planning Monthly that citizens can sign up to receive includes a calendar that lists
work sessions and public hearings.
Chairman Evans stated that there will be different sign ups for speakers: Subject
Matter Experts (SMEs) and general comments. Mr. Evans stated that SMEs would be
self identified and would speak first.
There was a discussion on time limits for speakers. Mr. Dadak recommended that
time limits be set to avoid cutting people off, which has some legal implications. Mr.
Evans stated that five (5) speakers or less receive five (5) minutes to speak, and
anything over five (5) speakers would receive three (3) minutes to speak. Mr.
Jefferson stated that the time limit would be established at the start of the meeting.
Mr. Hancock suggested that after a speaker’s time is over, the Planning Commission
should be able to ask further clarifying questions. Mr. Dadak agreed that this would
work. Ms. Cooper stated, for clarification, that during any additional time spent
addressing the presenter would consist solely of the Planning Commission asking
questions of the presenter, and that the presenter would not finish their presentation.
Mr. Jefferson stated that SMEs providing materials beforehand needed to be
encouraged. He stated that the Planning Commission having the information
beforehand would allow the SME to not rush through their presentation.
14

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Matt Pagans asked about the Planning Commission emails being posted to the
website. Ms. Richardson stated that she would get the Planning Commission emails
posted to the website. Mr. Evans stated that there should not be a string of emails
on the same subject whereby that would constitute a meeting and be in violation
of FOIA. Mr. Jefferson stated that when citizens submit comments to the county,
they are immediately forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Evans stated that work sessions after public hearings would not be
enough and additional work sessions would be needed. He stated that the Planning
Commission agreed to two additional meetings per month: the Wednesday of the
monthly site visit and the 4th Wednesday of the month (both at 6pm in the Board
Room). He stated that whenever the public hearing sessions were short enough, an
additional work session would be held afterwards.
Ms. Kim Jones stated that the Planning Commission engaging with the citizens
during Work Sessions would make them feel like they were a part of the process of
updating the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Evans discussed the proposed Zoning Ordinance update schedule. He
stated that the first three (3) articles were deemed administrative and
straightforward. He stated that Articles one (1), two (2), and three (3) could be
reviewed together in three (3) work sessions starting on September 2nd. He stated
that review of Article four (4) would start on October 7th. Mr. Evans stated that the
review of articles would begin with staff presenting what is wanted, what is the
carryover, and what is required by the Code of Virginia so that the Planning
Commission has a base understanding.
Mr. Hancock asked if confusion would be created with staff working ahead to
prepare articles for the next work session. Ms. Cooper stated that it is the hope of
staff to be ahead of schedule and to not create delays. She stated that a need to
change the schedule would be known ahead of time. She stated that she would
much rather hold on an article than to move ahead and not be completely
satisfied. Mr. Evans stated that the Planning Commission will not move on to the next
article until the previous article is finished. He stated that there is flexibility in the
schedule because the Board Room is reserved until the end of October 2027. Mr.
Evans stated that this schedule is a guideline.
15

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Hancock asked about a schedule of joint work sessions between the Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Mr. Evans stated that the Board of
Supervisors will determine how often joint work sessions would be needed once the
proposed Planning Commission work session schedule is presented.
The Planning Commission agreed that the proposed work session schedule would
be presented to the Board of Supervisors by Chairman Evans.
Mr. Jefferson stated that, in addition to the proposed schedule, The Board of
Supervisors should be made aware that the Planning Commission had received
several citizen comments on high impact facilities. Ms. Cooper stated that if the
Board of Supervisors directs the Planning Commission to amend the 1988 code for
data centers, it will push the schedule out due to limited staff.
Chairman Evans stated that the Planning Commission had been introduced to a
new term called “high impact industries” as a generic term. He stated that this term
would encompass data centers, as well as future similar industries.
Chairman Evans asked if staff had a way to make citizens aware of what articles
would be worked on and when. Ms. Cooper said that information would be posted
and uploaded to the Zoning Ordinance Update website. She stated the Planning
Commission would receive staff comments prior to being posted on the website.
She stated that there would be a legend for clarity on what is wanted by staff and
what is required by state code. Mr. Evans stated that there was an agreement that
staff would have this done two (2) weeks prior to the work session. Ms. Cooper stated
that staff will try their best to get articles completed two (2) weeks prior to the work
session.
Ms. Cooper asked that the memo from the Franklin County Community Coalition
be distributed to the Planning Commission members. (See attached.)
Mr. Evans asked if a tutorial by staff could be conducted on “by-right”. He stated
that there are some procedures and processes with regard to the industrial park. He
stated that he wanted to ensure that citizens understood that there are terms and
16

Department of Planning
& Community Development
conditions with regard to by-right for the industrial park. Ms. Cooper agreed to have
a five (5) minute presentation.
Matt Pagans stated that Summit View is not an industrial park, but a Regional
Enterprise Park.
Mr. Evans stated that the Planning Commission’s next scheduled work sessions
would be Wednesday September 2nd and 23rd in the Board Room to work on Articles
1 through 3. He stated that September 8th is the monthly public hearing which will
include a work session on Articles 1 through 3. Ms. Cooper stated that there is one
(1) application for the September meeting and it is an application for a special use
permit to allow for auto service in an A-1 district.
Mr. Jefferson stated that he would be out of town for the September 2nd meeting
and requested to join via phone.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:01pm.

17

For the record, the Franklin County Community Coalition
drafted a memorandum for the Planning Commission to send to
the Board of Supervisors.

si'AFF.-REPdlit
Case# SPEC-26-5 #0540015900,
0540016302
To:
From:
Date:
Tax #s:
District:
Applicant:
Owner:

Franklin County
A Narum! Set1i11gfor Opportunity

Franklin County Planning Commission
Tina Franklin, Planner II
August 28, 2026
0540015900 and 0540016302
Union Hall Election District
Chad Bmnopp, David and Sandra Burnopp
David and Sandra Bmnopp

APPLICATION for SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Application of Chad Bmnopp,
Applicant, and David & Sandra Bmnopp, Owners, requesting a special use pe1mit, on an
approximate .49 acres of property zoned A-1, Agricultmal District. The parcels are
located at 762 Redwood Road in the Union Hall Election District of Franklin County and
fmther identified by real estate records as Tax Map/Parcels #0540015900 and
#0540016302. The pmpose of this special-use pe1mit request is to allow for service and
repair of automobiles, bucks, recreational vehicles, motorcycles in garage of existing
building. This property has a futme land use designation of Rmal Area - County.
(SPEC-26-5 #0540015900 and #0540016302)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the Planning Collllllission recommend approval of the special use
pe1mit with the following five (5) conditions:
1. The proposed use shall be developed in substantial conformance to the conceptual
plan titled "Bmnopp, 762 Redwood Road, Tax Map #'s 0540015900 and
0540016302, prepared by applicant.
2. The applicant/owner's shall vacate the prope1ty line between the two (2) parcel id
#'s 0540015900 and 0540016302 by plat or deed of vacation approved by the
Planning Depaitment.
3. The landscaping and privacy fence along the southern prope1ty line between
subject prope1ty and 780 Redwood Road and the privacy fence along the northern
property line between the subject prope1ty and 712 Redwood Road shall be
maintained.
4. The applicant must adhere to all VDOT regulations regarding the entrance to the
property for the use to allow for service and repair of automobiles, bucks,
recreational vehicles, motorcycles.
5. No vehicles being se1viced shall be parked in front of the single-family dwelling.