Planning Commission Approves Plans for Proposed Parklawn Monopole

The Fairfax County Planning Commission will recommend the Board of Supervisors approve AT&T's application to construct a 128 ft. tall cell phone tower in the Parklawn community of Mason District.

More than 25 residents addressed the Planning Commission Wednesday night arguing in favor of and against the monopole during a three-hour long public hearing.

If approved, the tower would be built on the Parklawn Recreation Association (PRA) property at 6011 Crater Place in Alexandria.

“The reality is people use cell phones. Most young people don’t have landlines, and when people retire they don’t want to pay for a landline and a cell phone. The reality is people want the service,” said Janet Hall, who represents Mason District for the Planning Commission and supported the motion to recommend the application be approved.

The unanimous vote from the commission echoed previous approvals from Fairfax County Planning and Zoning staff and the Mason District Land Use Committee (MDLUC), who recommended the application be approved back in May.

A Community Divided

The monopole has been a divisive issue for the community since plans were announced earlier this year. Both sides have created petitions and gathered signatures from their neighbors and some speakers at the public hearing came prepared with powerpoints and screenshots of phone coverage to support their positions.

Resident Darren Shumate spoke out in support of the tower, but also mentioned the ongoing tension in the community, saying he wished everyone could rally together in favor of the tower. 

“This issue has cost me some friendships and I wish we didn’t have this animosity between us,” said Shumate. 

Community organizations such as the PRA and Lincolnia Hills/Heywood Glen Civic Association support the tower, but the Parklawn Civic Association has not taken an official position on the cell phone tower. 

Residents Voice Opinions on Proposed Cell Tower 

Prior to the vote from the commission, which came just before midnight, each of the speakers had an opportunity to share their views on the proposed tower. About half of the residents who spoke at the hearing agreed with AT&T's reasoning that the Parklawn community and surrounding areas need the tower in order to correct a gap in data coverage and allow residents to make phone calls in an emergency.

“This is about public safety and a public utility that we need desperately in our parks,” said resident Stephanie Liller, who told the commission she supports the tower because she’s uncomfortable with allowing her teenager children to run along Holmes Run without adequate cell phone coverage.

“My husband and I need to start thinking about where we will grow old. We will have to consider how secure we will feel living in an area without reliable options for communication,” said resident Ivy Sinaiko. “People do not always have their emergencies while convenient to a working landline. To ensure the safety of our neighborhood, we would need more reliable cell phone coverage." 

Hall agreed that the community had a clear need for increased coverage, explaining that she spoke to lifeguards and residents at the Parklawn pool at a community visit earlier this week. Not only did she not have coverage, but Hall said many of the people she spoke with said they also did not have coverage near the pool and Holmes Run trail.

The other half of the speakers disagreed with their neighbors, accusing AT&T of misleading residents to believe that additional coverage would correct data issues and arguing the tower would be an eyesore and disrupt the "beauty" of the community.

“We neither want nor need the tower in our backyard,” said resident Charles Bell who said he and his wife felt the tower would disrupt their enjoyment of their home. 

Mike Gates with PACACT, a community group formed to protest the tower, called the monopole inconsistent with the Fairfax County comprehensive plan and said Peave Lutheran Church was a better option for the tower rather than the PRA property. Gates said the Board of Supervisors previously declined applications in McLean and Fort Hunt for violating the zoning ordinance he believes the AT&T application also violates.

Resident Rob Stapleton, said he was considering selling his home if the tower’s approved and accused AT&T of wanting the tower in order to expand its network capacity rather than address a community’s need.

Opponents to the tower also argued that the tower would ruin their property values and affect the visual appearance of the community.

“Given the topography of the Holmes Run area, it’s impossible to camouflage the propose tower in a way that allows it to blend seamlessly with the surrounding forestry. It will create an unsightly blemish on what is an otherwise beautiful urban oasis,” said resident Donald Bisemus, who has lived in the community for 20 years. Bisemus added that the “statue of Liberty size tower” would “cause irreparable damage to the community”. 

Next Steps

With the Commission’s recommendation, the application will go in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals on Wednesday, July 17 at 9 a.m. The final decision is up to the Board of Supervisors.

The date of the public hearing in front of the Board of Supervisors has not yet been announced.