On the agenda: meeting — data center (Aug 11)

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Franklin County Planning Commission Agenda
August 11, 2026
I.

Call to Order

II.

Roll Call

III.

Approval of Minutes from July 14, 2026, Meeting

IV.

Public Hearing: APPLICATION for 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 nonzoned 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 conforms with the 2045 Franklin County
Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2232. This property
has a future land use designation of Rural Area – County. (COMP-26-1
#1130016201).
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 September 2, 2026.

Department of Planning
& Community Development
A meeting of the Franklin County Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
July 14, 2026, 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
Matthew Peters - Boone District
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jenn Richardson - Clerk
Chris Dadak - County Attorney
Tina Franklin - Planner II
Lisa Cooper - Planning Director
THOSE ABSENT:
None
Vice Chair Pendleton called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Pendleton asked for a roll call and then deferred to staff for the next agenda
item.
Ms. Lisa Cooper introduced the new Planning Commission members: Addison
Hancock representing the Snow Creek District and Matthew Peters representing
the Boone District.
Mr. Pendleton continued with the next agenda item: Elections. Mr. Pendleton
called for nominations for Chair. Mr. Jefferson nominated Mr. Evans for Chair. Mr.
Doss seconded this motion. Mr. Pendleton asked if there were any other
nominations. Hearing none and seeing none, he closed the opportunity.
A roll call vote was conducted. The motion to elect Mr. Evans to Chair of the
Planning Commission was approved; 6-0-0-1 voting was as follows:
AYES: Jefferson, Clements, Doss, Hancock, Pendleton, Evans

Department of Planning
& Community Development
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Peters
Chair Evans called for nominations for Vice Chair. Mr. Clements nominated Mr.
Jefferson for Vice Chair. Mr. Doss seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted. The motion to elect Mr. Jefferson to Vice Chair of
the Planning Commission was approved; 6-0-0-1 voting was as follows:
AYES: Jefferson, Clements, Doss, Hancock, Pendleton, Evans
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Peters
Mr. Evans asked if the Planning Commission had any comments or changes to
the June 9, 2026 minutes. There were no changes requested.
The minutes were approved as written.
Chairman Evans introduced the next item on the agenda: APPLICATION for SPECIAL
USE PERMIT – Application of Paulette Bokenko, Applicant, and Joseph & Suzanne
Bokenko, Owners, requesting a special use permit, on an approximate 1.72 acres of
property zoned RC-1, Residential Combined Subdivision District. The parcel is
located at 570 Major Holland Road in the Union Hall Election District of Franklin
County and further identified by real estate records as Tax Map/Parcel
#0530202001. The purpose of this special use permit request is to allow for Home Second single-family detached dwelling on a lot. This property has a future land use
designation of Low Density Residential – County and Lake Influence Area (0.5 mile
buffer) (SPEC-26-3 #0530202001).
Ms. Tina Franklin presented the staff report. She stated that the proposed second
dwelling will be occupied by an immediate family member to the owner. The
proposed second dwelling will be 16’ x 66’ (1056 square feet).
Ms. Franklin stated that the proposed second dwelling will use the existing well of
the main single-family dwelling on the property and have its own septic system in
which the septic and drain field lines will be between the second dwelling and
2

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Major Holland Road. The second dwelling’s PERC test by AOSE allows for a
maximum of three (3) bedrooms.
Ms. Franklin stated that the property is located on Major Holland Road which is a
state-maintained secondary road. This property along both sides of the property
lines is wooded.
Ms. Franklin stated that the parcel consists of a single-family dwelling and an
accessory structure. The proposed second dwelling is to be set up in front of the
main home with access to the existing driveway.
The applicant stated in the letter of application that the purpose of this request for
a special use permit is to provide housing for an immediate family member.
Ms. Franklin stated that staff received one (1) phone call inquiring about the
application.
Ms. Franklin displayed four (4) GIS maps of the property, the foundation survey, and
drainfield location map.
Ms. Franklin explained that the proposed second dwelling on the property is allowed
by a special use permit and this particular use would not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent properties due to the length of the property and the surrounding area
being constructed with a mixture of single-family dwellings and manufactured
housing existing or in the future. The second dwelling will generate similar amounts
of noise and traffic as any other single residence.
Ms. Franklin stated that The Comprehensive Plan as stated supports all types of
housing on various lot sizes in Low Density Residential - County and Lake Influence
Area designations. The Plan is also in support of ADUs in these designations as a
housing type per the primary land use types of each of the future land use
designations. The Plan has an objective wanting to ensure adequate and
affordable housing options for its residents and the second dwelling is one of these
options. ADUs according to the Comprehensive Plan is a way for seniors to age in
place and supports an affordable housing option for them. The second dwelling will
have minimal impact on this established neighborhood.
3

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Ms. Franklin stated that granting the special use permit will not change the
character of the RC-1 zoning district because the use (second dwelling) goes along
with the intent and purpose of the RC-1 district, which is mainly made of single-family
dwelling and manufactured housing types.
Ms. Franklin stated that staff recommend that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the special use permit with the following six (6) conditions:
1. This special use permit authorizes only one second dwelling on Tax Parcel #
0530202001, and no additional residential dwellings shall be permitted on the
property.
2. The occupant of the second dwelling shall only be immediate family,
including siblings, grandparents, parent, children, and spouses, in
accordance with Sec. 25-223 of the Franklin County Code.
3. In reference to Condition 2, the applicant/property owner shall reflect this use
and the occupancy in an affidavit approved by the Department of Planning
and Community Development and recorded in the Clerk of Circuit Court
office with the property.
4. The second dwelling shall have its own address, clearly visible and displayed
on the dwelling for 911 emergency services.
5. The applicant/property owner shall obtain all required permits from the
Franklin County Building and Planning Departments prior to the use and
occupancy of the second dwelling.
6. The applicant/property owner shall comply with all regulations per The
Virginia Department of Health (VDH).
Ms. Franklin asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for her. There were
no questions for Ms. Franklin.
Chairman Evans invited the applicant up to the podium to present.
Ms. Bokenko stated that she is applied for a special use permit to create an
affordable option for her 84-year-old mother-in-law who is unable to continue living
in New Jersey. Ms. Bokenko stated that having her mother-in-law in close proximity
will allow for her care, as well as having her independence with her own place.
4

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Evans asked the applicant if her neighbors were aware of the plan. Ms. Bokenko
responded that her neighbors were aware and supported the plan.
Mr. Evans asked about the timeline. Ms. Bokenko responded that they had chosen
the house and paid for it, and that they are waiting on the special use permit to be
approved.
There were no further questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Evans opened
the opportunity for citizen comment. There were no citizens who signed up to
comment on the application. Seeing none and hearing none, the opportunity was
closed.
The Planning Commission began their deliberations.
Mr. Hancock asked if there were any time constraints on the condition requiring an
affidavit reflecting the use and occupancy of the second dwelling. Ms. Franklin
stated that the affidavit needed to be recorded before the building permit was
issued. Ms. Cooper further explained that this condition became standard a year
and a half ago, and the owners would need to return to the Planning Commission
to request removal of this condition requiring an affidavit. Mr. Addison stated that
he believes this condition to be an additional burden for the family. Mr. Hancock
proposed removing condition number three (3).
Mr. Hancock clarified that the scope of who can occupy the space is limited to
immediate family, and immediate family is defined, but the family has a burden of
returning to the committee to ask for a concession that does not change the nature
of the occupancy.
Mr. Peters stated that the state law is changing to allow ADUs next year. Ms. Cooper
stated that despite ADUs being allowed next year, the special use permit would still
be in place.
Mr. Dadak stated that effective July 1, 2027, ADUs will be allowed by-right and these
conditions will not be allowed at that point moving forward. Mr. Dadak stated that
he would need to check whether it would be retroactive and affect special use
permits that are currently in place.
5

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Evans stated that the concern on behalf of the property owner is that the
conditions are valid due to current Zoning Ordinance stipulations, but with the
change in state law that ADUs become official for all localities would condition
number two (2) still apply and restrict only to family members. Ms. Cooper stated
that condition number two (2) could be removed because the Zoning Ordinance
states in the RC-1 district that a second dwelling can only be occupied by
immediate family.
Mr. Dadak stated that he had checked the past law and it stated that it will not
affect any use approved prior to July 1, 2027, therefore if the condition remains the
property owner would need to return to the Planning Commission when the
occupant of the dwelling changes.
Mr. Evans stated that removing condition two (2) would be appropriate because
that condition will change as the Zoning Ordinance changes. Mr. Peters stated that
removing condition three (3) would alleviate the need for the owners to return to
The Planning Commission to get approval for a non-family member. Mr. Dadak
stated that if The Planning Commission removes condition two (2), then condition
three (3) should be removed as well.
Mr. Hancock made a motion to remove conditions two (2) and three (3) from the
application. Chairman Evans asked if there was a second. Mr. Dadak stated that it
should be a motion to approve with conditions one (1), four (4), five (5), and six (6).
Chairman Evans asked for a second.
Mr. Peters seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted. The motion to remove conditions two (2) and three
(3) recommended by staff was approved; 4-3-0-0 voting was as follows:
AYES: Doss, Peters, Hancock, Evans
NAYES: Clements, Jefferson, Pendleton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Evans asked if there was a motion of recommended action.
6

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Mr. Pendleton made a motion to approve the special use permit because he found
that such use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties, that the
character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will
be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the uses permitted by right in the
zoning district and with the public health, safety, and general welfare to the
community.
Mr. Clements seconded the motion.
A discussion was held regarding procedures. It was determined that Mr. Hancock’s
original motion did not recommend a motion to the Board of Supervisors.
A roll call vote was conducted. The motion to approve the special use permit with
the six (6) conditions recommended by staff was denied; 3-4-0-0 voting was as
follows:
AYES: Clements, Jefferson, Pendleton
NAYES: Doss, Peters, Hancock, Evans
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Evans opened the opportunity for a motion.
Mr. Peters made a motion to approve the special use permit with conditions one
(1), four (4), five (5), and six (6) recommended by staff.
Mr. Hancock seconded the motion.
Mr. Jefferson stated that he was not opposed to the idea of a family member
occupying a single-family dwelling on the property, but he was concerned with
who could potentially occupy this space in the future. Mr. Evans stated that
condition two (2) was not necessary because it is part of the current Zoning
Ordinance. Ms. Cooper further clarified that condition three (3) is not a part of the
current Zoning Ordinance.

7

Department of Planning
& Community Development
A roll call vote was conducted. The motion to approve the special use permit with
conditions one (1), four (4), five (5), and six (6) recommended by staff was
approved; 5-2-0-0 voting was as follows:
AYES: Doss, Peters Jefferson, Hancock, Evans
NAYES: Clements, Pendleton
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairman Evans announced that the Board of Supervisors would hear this case on
August 18, 2026.
Chairman Evans opened the podium for open citizen comment.
Danae Crosby of Moneta spoke about data centers. She stated that she had done
research and read through letters of intent and NDAs received from FOIA requests.
Ms. Crosby asked if there had been research put into the effect data centers will
have on wildlife, wild stock, insects, and humans.
Lauren Walke requested that the Planning Commission prioritize specific zoning
regulations for data centers. Ms. Walke stated that documents obtained through
FOIA indicated that discussions involving potential data center development in
Franklin County had already occurred. She stated that the site being discussed was
Summit View Business Park. She stated that property owners and nearby neighbors
deserved clearly established protections and enforcement standards before a
project is considered. Ms. Walked stated that Franklin County should provide the
same level of protection as Roanoke City, adapted to the needs of a rural county.
Ms. Walke stated that the Planning Commission needs to separate data center
regulations from the larger Zoning Ordinance update, and address these
regulations through a transparent public process. Ms. Walke stated that Franklin
County needed standards that protect nearby residents, schools, churches, and
public infrastructure.
Ron Hines stated that the Zoning Ordinance must preserve the historical right of
families to pass small parcels under ten (10) acres down to children and
grandchildren without massive acreage penalties. He stated that when identifying
stakeholders, to include agricultural groups, multiple generational farmers, rural
8

Department of Planning
& Community Development
homeowners, and homeowners from around Smith Mountain Lake and not limiting
to town consultants or corporate developers. Mr. Hines stated that the by-right
provision in the current Zoning Ordinance should be eliminated, especially for data
centers. He stated that the current provisions make it too easy to avoid
transparency. He stated that rules should be developed and implemented to
require full public hearings, multi-mile property owner notifications, and strict
environmental impact reviews for any tech or other infrastructure.
Joe Norstrand suggested that Franklin County create a model for future data
centers. Mr. Norstrand stated that the state of New York had put a one (1) year
moratorium on data centers to conduct more research, and the state of New
Mexico had pending legislation to do the same. Mr. Norstand provided six (6) ideas
adopted from Greg Abbott in Texas:
• Require data centers to reduce impacts on local communities by
implementing best practices such as setbacks, noise-reduction technology
and other measures
• Codify state regulators’ actions requiring data centers to pay for their own
electric infrastructure costs
• Ensure data centers add to the electric capacity – not just to its electric
demand
• Require that all new data centers be built with water-efficient technologies
such as closed-loop cooling systems
• Require large data centers to report electricity and water usage annually to
state regulators
• Repeal sales tax exemptions and other outdated or unnecessary incentives
for data centers
Daniel Cundiff stated that there should be a moratorium on data centers of all sizes
in Franklin County.
Christine Sizemore stated that the Zoning Ordinance update should be put on hold
and focus on adding the minimum, appropriate standards to protect the county’s
resources from a potential data center.
There were no other citizens that wished to speak; therefore Chairman Evans closed
the opportunity.
9

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Chairman Evans began the discussion on the Zoning Ordinance update. Mr. Evans
stated that the Planning Commission agreed in June that the proposed Zoning
Ordinance needed further improvement before it was appropriate to be presented
to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. Mr. Evans stated that the Planning
Commission agreed on common steps that would be taken in order to make
improvements that involved citizens in the process and provide more feedback. He
stated that the Planning Commission understood that data centers are incredibly
important to different people. Mr. Evans stated that if Virginia is going to impose
requirements on localities regarding data centers, it is important that Franklin
County make sure necessary conditions and standards exist to protect the natural
environment, ecology, and health of the population. Mr. Evans stated that if data
centers are going to come, they need to come with the necessary conditions and
standards to ensure they will not be a detriment.
Chairman Evans reviewed the Zoning Ordinance Proposed Action Plan. Mr. Evans
stated that the Zoning Ordinance did require an overall revision, not merely an
update with the Code of Virginia statues and that the Planning Commission start
with using the format of the newly proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Evans stated
that the key players involve Franklin County residents and the Board of Supervisors
as the final decision makers. He stated that the County Administrator is the overall
manager, the Planning Department would be involved, and that the Planning
Commission are the owners of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and will determine
when the revisions will be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Evans stated
that the citizens participated in each phase of the development and approval
process.
Chairman Evans stated that the desire of the Planning Commission was to create a
Base Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the proposed Zoning Ordinance needs to
be broken down into four (4) components: sections that staff wanted as
improvements, sections that ensure compliance with the Code of Virginia, sections
that are carried over from the current Zoning Ordinance, and the remaining
sections recommended for best practices. Mr. Evans stated that work sessions
between Planning staff and the Planning Commission on the four (4) components
are completed to ensure the Planning Commission is sufficiently informed before
facilitating discussion with local Subject Matter Experts (SME) and the public. Mr.
10

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Evans stated that the Planning Commission proposed at least three (3) work sessions
and one complete Zoning Ordinance version for adoption.
Chairman Evans stated that the Planning Commission recommended that the
county terminate the contract with The Berkley Group and that The Berkley Group
provide staff with electronic files of completed work. Ms. Cooper stated that the
Planning Department is in possession of the electronic files from The Berkley Group.
Mr. Evans asked if the contract had been terminated. Ms. Cooper stated that the
contract had not been terminated at the time.
Chairman Evans stated that there are four major items for the Planning Commission
to decide. He stated that the first item is to identify stakeholders and Subject Matter
Experts (SME). The common stakeholders that have been recognized are
developers, realtors and surveyors; builders and contractors; farmers and German
Baptists; and business owners. Mr. Peters stated that he wanted to ensure that
individual landowners are considered stakeholders. Mr. Hancock proposed adding
representatives of the Chambers of Commerce.
Chairman Evans asked the Planning staff if there is a method by which information
is posted to the public in regard to meetings. Ms. Cooper stated that meetings are
posted on the Franklin County website, as well as the Zoning Ordinance Update
website. She explained that this information can also be posted to Facebook
through County Administration. Ms. Cooper stated that a mass email could be sent
to stakeholders alerting of meetings if we had their email addresses.
Chairman Evans asked the citizens present how they knew about tonight’s meeting.
A gentleman citizen stated that Rocky Mount had an excellent system and that he
had received three text messages that day from the town. Ms. Cooper stated text
message alerts were a good idea and would consult with county IT to get that set
up.
Chairman Evans stated that multiple meetings with Subject Matter Experts would be
required: one meeting to collect input, a second meeting to interpret input and put
it in writing, and possibly a third meeting to do any update of the initial input.
Chairman Evans stated that the public is involved in each phase of development
and approval; the public is invited to all meetings. He stated that what needs to be
11

Department of Planning
& Community Development
determined is how much detail should be included with meeting dates and should
the work sessions be recorded for public view. Ms. Cooper stated that all Planning
Commission meetings and work sessions are audio recorded. Ms. Cooper asked the
Planning Commission if they would like their meetings and work sessions streamed.
She explained that live streaming can only occur in the Board Room.
The Planning Commission agreed to live stream future meetings and work sessions
when held in the Board Room.
Mr. Pendleton stated that the Planning Commission needed to make every effort to
not double-book meetings.
Mr. Evans stated that the Planning Commission clerk would have two sign-up lists:
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and general citizen comment. Mr. Hancock asked if
the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) would be granted a longer speaking period than
three (3) minutes. Mr. Evans stated that the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) would
have opening comments and the Planning Commission would have specific
questions to ask during that time. Mr. Pendleton stated that Mr. Evans as Chairman
would be in control and that a time limit should not be set. The Planning Commission
agreed that general citizen comment will be limited to three (3) minutes per citizen.
Mr. Peters asked if the Subject Matter Experts (SME) would need to be residents of
Franklin County. Mr. Evans stated that he does not want the Planning Commission
to limit their knowledge and understanding of a topic. Mr. Peters suggested that
Subject Matter Experts (SME) are located in Franklin County prior to seeking input
from other locales.
Mr. Evans ensured the citizens that agendas and any applicable documents would
be made available prior to the meeting.
Chairman Evans began the discussion of developing a schedule of actions to
accomplish the task. He stated that Articles 1, 2, and 3 were administrative and
straightforward, and could be handled in one (1) work session. Mr. Evans stated that
Article 1 is General and included Enactment and Authority, Ordinance Conflicts
and Interpretation, Zoning District Maps, and Transition of Regulations After
Adoption. He stated that Article 2 is Administration and included Zoning
12

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Administrator, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, and Enforcement.
Mr. Evans stated that Article 3 pertained to Permits and Applications. Ms. Cooper
stated that Article 3 included what is required to submit an application for a special
use permit or variance, and public hearing notifications. Mr. Evans added that
Article 3 also included information on the appeals process.
Chairman Evans stated that Article 4 pertained to Zoning Districts of which there are
five primary zoning districts: agricultural, residential, commercial, planned, and
industrial. Mr. Evans asked the Planning Commission if Article 4 should be done
separately from Article 7 that defines Use Standards for the districts. Ms. Cooper
stated that Article 4 should be done separately. She stated that the topics in Article
4 include acreage, setbacks, height, height of accessory structures and their
setbacks, and are different than the Article 6 Use Matrix and Article 7 Use Standards.
Ms. Cooper stated that Article 6 and Article 7 are more related. Chairman Evans
suggested two (2) work sessions to complete Article 4.
Chairman Evans stated that Article 6 was a matrix and a roadmap to where those
uses and standards exist in Article 7. He suggested that Article 6 and Article 7 be
done concurrently. Mr. Evans suggested four (4) work sessions to complete Articles
6 and 7.
Mr. Hancock stated that previously a joint work session between the Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Commission every four months was proposed. Mr.
Hancock suggested meeting with the Board of Supervisors on the basis of article or
work session completion, as opposed to a structured four (4) month duration.
Chairman Evans asked the staff if Article 5 on Overlay Districts should be considered
a standalone topic. Ms. Cooper stated that it would depend on citizen comment,
and not much citizen comment had been received on the topic. She stated that
Article 5 could be done in one (1) work session. Mr. Evans stated that they will plan
for two (2) work sessions to complete Article 5.
Chairman Evans stated that Article 8 pertained to Community Design Standards. He
suggested 2 (two) sessions, but given the amount of feedback 3 (three) sessions
would be more applicable.
13

Department of Planning
& Community Development
Chairman Evans continued with Article 9: Nonconformities. Ms. Cooper stated that
much of Article 9 came from State Code. Mr. Evans stated that there was a lot of
misunderstanding by the public in their feedback about the idea of grandfathering.
Mr. Evans suggested two (2) work sessions to complete Article 9.
Chairman Evans continued with Article 10: Definitions. He stated that a separate
work session would be unnecessary, and that definitions will be updated as
necessary during each work session.
Chairman Evans asked what additional meeting times the Planning Commission
needed to add to conduct Zoning Ordinance work sessions. Mr. Evans suggested
dedicating some time of the month on a standard basis to get through the process
in a timely manner. Ms. Cooper suggested the Wednesday after Site Visits. Mr. Peters
suggested not scheduling an extra work session in November and December due
to Thanksgiving and Christmas. Mr. Evans suggested meeting at 6pm for work
sessions: after Site Visits, after Public Hearings, and the 4th Wednesday of the month.
Mr. Jefferson suggested adjusting the time of the Site Visit if the work session will start
at 6pm.
Chairman Evans stated that the Planning Commission is not locked into a specific
time schedule, but a time schedule will be a target. He stated that the Planning
Commission will periodically provide the Board of Supervisors with an update on
progress.
Chairman Evans urged everyone to talk to their Supervisor about data centers,
specifically the idea of a political desire that matters of standards and conditions
related to data centers be taken on without waiting for the eventual Zoning
Ordinance to be finalized for adoption. Mr. Peters asked if a moratorium would be
the Planning Commission’s responsibility. Ms. Cooper stated that the Board of
Supervisors would make that decision, but a memo of recommendation from the
Planning Commission can be provided to the Board of Supervisors.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27pm.

14

STAFF REPORT
Case # COMP-26-1 #1130016201

To:

Franklin County Planning Commission

From:

Tina Franklin, Planner II

Date:

July 31, 2026

Tax #s:

1130016201

District:

Blue Ridge Election District
The Towers LLC D/B/A Vertical Bridge and Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon
Wireless
Rudolph C. Naff, III

Applicant:
Owner:

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 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).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following:
Staff recommends 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:
A

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.

Franklin County Planning Commission

4. The communication facility will be structurally designed to accommodate up to
three wireless providers and associated ground-based equipment.
OVERVIEW:
Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia states that whenever a jurisdiction adopts a
comprehensive plan, the plan controls the general or approximate location character and
extent of each public feature shown on the plan. Unless a public feature such as “…., a
park or other public area, public building or public structure, public utility facility or
public service corporation facility is shown on the adopted plan…”, it shall not be
constructed, established or authorized, unless and until the general location, character,
and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission
which shall communicate its findings to the governing body.
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 +/-21.259acre 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) are of the County.
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. Ve Bridge/Verizon Wireless researched the Fire Department cell tower to colocate; 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 construction to meet Verizon’s needs for service
to this area.
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.
Vertical
Bridge/Verizon Wireless welcomes the opportunity to work with the County’s EMS
department and encourage the collocation of county equipment on the communication
facility.

COMP-26-1 #1130016201

2

July 31, 2026

Franklin County Planning Commission
The application was advertised, site posted, and notifications sent to all adjacent property
owners. The Development Review Team (DRT) reviewed the application at its July 2026,
meeting. As of the date of this report, staff has received seven (7) phone calls inquiring
about the application and one (1) phone call opposing the application. Additional
comments and concerns may be raised as a result of the public hearings.
SITE STATISTICS:
Location:

Henry Road and Cherry Lane

Size:

P/O +/- 23.302 total acres (parcel id #’s 1130016204 and
1130016201

Existing Land Use:

Wooded

Adjoining Zoning:

NZ (Non-Zoned)

Adjoining Land Uses:

Residential, Vacant, and Wooded

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FUTURE LAND USE
Rural Areas comprise the majority of Franklin County, and are predominantly
agricultural in nature, with limited residential development that fits into the landscape.
Rural Areas exemplify the historically agricultural landscape of the county that includes
farms, hay fields, pasture, wooded areas, and rural homesteads. These areas also currently
include some low-density residential development and single-family subdivisions.
This designation consists of those lands where there is an intent for the long-term use of
the land for small-scale agricultural (not industrial scale, as they are located within
DGAs) and forestry uses, homesteads, and limited residential development on large lots.
Appropriate future residential development would include low-density single-family
dwellings on large lots, with or without accessory dwelling units (ADU). Any new
residential development must be carefully planned for – considering soil and septic
suitability, viewshed protection, resource impacts, and adverse impacts to the
transportation network. These areas are served by individual wells or private water
systems and septic systems, and public service is not anticipated to be readily available
for these areas. However, due to their location within DGAs, where water and sewer
infrastructure is present or likely in the future, connection may be possible depending on
the use of the land.
Primary Land Use Types:
• Small-scale agriculture
• Agritourism
• Single-family residential (detached or attached)
• Cluster residential development
COMP-26-1 #1130016201

3

July 31, 2026

Franklin County Planning Commission
•
•
•
•

Manufactured homes
Accessory dwelling units (ADU)
Recreation
Civic

Character/Development Guidelines:
• Avoid disturbance of Prime and Important Farmland, to the extent possible.
• Encourage cluster developments to preserve open space and rural character
• Buffer new residential development when adjacent to non-residential uses.
• Implement low-impact development (LID) and Best Management Practices to the
extent possible.
As telecommunications technology continues to evolve, landlines are becoming less
common, though they are still very much in use within the commercial and institutional
sectors. Most telecommunications activity is cellular – 98% of Americans own a
cellphone! Wireless and broadband-based communications will continue to be the
infrastructure standard for the foreseeable future, with other, more advanced technologies
eventually supplanting these.
At present, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are the leading cellular providers and all
service Franklin County. However, cellular infrastructure is not widely available
throughout the County, and many areas are left with spotty or no coverage. Currently the
areas with the best cellular coverage include the Town of Rocky Mount, the Westlake
area, and along Route 220. To usher in needed cellular infrastructure, the County should
work with providers and applicants for efficient applicant processes. As of 2024, there
are no state or federal programs that offer financial assistance or grant funds for localities
to proactively build cellular infrastructure. As broadband infrastructure continues to be
built out, it can close some gaps where cellular coverage is lacking. However, as not all
households have computers, smart phones, and/or affordability for broadband service,
cellular infrastructure is also a critical infrastructure need.
Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan is the implementation chapter which promotes the
goals of each chapter, such as the Utilities Chapter.
Objective 9.1 states continue to develop telecommunications infrastructure to ensure
availability to all residents, businesses, and institutions.
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.
This proposal for the construction of a new cellular tower will also support two other
objectives of the comprehensive plan which are objective 7.3: Promote the creation of
“livable” communities and objective 10.3 provide top-notch emergency services and
preparedness to ensure the highest level of safety.
COMP-26-1 #1130016201

4

July 31, 2026

Franklin County Planning Commission

ANALYSIS
1. Evaluation of Visibility: Each new applicant will include sufficient
information to enable the County to measure the visibility of the facility.
The application states that the subject site is heavily wooded and the tower will 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.
2. Mitigation of Impacts: Objectionable aspects of individual facilities should be
addressed through a combination of realistic performance standards,
buffering, setbacks, consideration of less intrusive alternative locations and
mitigation strategies such as camouflage, concealment, disguise, and/or the
placement of towers with less height.
The submitted application states the communication facility is +/- 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. The leased area will be surrounded by
most of the existing wood vegetation. Tower is to be galvanized to better blend in
with the surrounding area.
3. Lighting: New facilities shall not be artificially lit, unless required by the
FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the lighting
alternatives and design chosen must cause the least disturbance to
surrounding views.
The submitted application states no lighting is proposed or required by the FAA
for this site. There will be no site lighting for this project.
8. Abandoned Towers: The County will request applicants to notify the County
at such a time that the tower becomes inoperable or that its intended purpose
is no longer needed. The County will have the right to require that the then
tower owners remove the tower, if it is not used for a period of six (6)
months. The County may require a bond for the removal of said tower.
Verizon has stated if the communication facility must be removed from the
property it will be their (Verizon) responsibility and cost to absorb. In addition,
their ground lease with the property owners requires Verizon to remove the
facility in 6 months and restore the area to a satisfactory condition.
9. Safety Certification: The applicant must demonstrate that any proposed
facility shall not create a safety, health or other hazard, and that regular
COMP-26-1 #1130016201

5

July 31, 2026

Franklin County Planning Commission
monitoring as well as, current and overall maintenance is assured, listing all
responsible parties. After construction of any facility that becomes unsafe
shall be immediately repaired. If the unsafe situation is not corrected in a
timely manner, the County shall act appropriately to cause the facility to be
removed.
The application states should the communication facility fall due to structural
damage, the monopole is designed by manufacture and industry standards to
collapse straight down. The structure would fall entirely within the fenced-in
compound. In addition, the design is to hold future collocations and to withstand
the required conditions set forth in wind and ice loading standards. The FCC
requires Verizon to inspect the safety and structural integrity of the tower each
year after construction.
The goal is to develop and implement a long-range countywide utility infrastructure,
which assures equitable level of access for all County citizens which includes
telecommunication, broadband access, water and sewer to name a few. One of the main
two objectives in this Chapter is to provide countywide cellular service and to develop
broadband internet opportunities for the citizens of the entire county. This proposal of a
communication facility does meet the intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with the goals, objectives, and strategies of the Plan.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM (DRT) COMMENTS:
AEP: Elijah Meador had no comments or concerns due to the nature of the application.
VDOT: Lisa Lewis stated the following:
1. Please provide sight distance for Cherry Lane which looks to be the access for the
proposed tower. If sight distance cannot be met, “Trucks Entering Highway”
signs shall be installed during construction. Include a note on the plans if this is
the case.
2. A Land Use Permit (LUP-A) will need to be obtained upon plan approval. This
will include a $250 application fee and a $1500 bond.
VDH: Darrin Doss had no comments or concerns due to the nature of the application.
WVWA: Aaron Shearer had no comments or concerns due to the nature of the
application.
STORMWATER / E&S: Bill Raney, Development Review Manager, had the following
comments:
1. An erosion and sediment control plan needs to be submitted for review and
approval before a land disturbance permit can be issued. If the total area of
COMP-26-1 #1130016201

6

July 31, 2026

Franklin County Planning Commission
disturbance for the site and the road reaches an acre, stormwater permitting will
also be required.
2. Approval from other regulating agencies will need to be obtained before the
erosion and sediment control and/or storm water management plan can be
approved.
BUILDING: John Broughton, Building Official, stated the applicant/owner shall obtain
all necessary permits for the building department.
FIRE & EMS: Staff has not received any comments from Andy Pendleton.

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
(1) (RECOMMEND) 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.
(2) (DENY) I find that the proposal for a communication facility on Henry Road/Cherry
Lane is inconsistent with adopted policies contained in the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan
and that the proposal will not aid in the creation of a convenient, attractive, or harmonious
community. There, I move to recommend denial of the request for a determination of conformance
with Franklin County’s Comprehensive Plan.
(3) (DELAY ACTION) I find that the required information for the submitted petition is
incomplete. There, I move to delay action until additional necessary material are submitted to the
Planning Commission.

COMP-26-1 #1130016201

7

July 31, 2026