AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN AT TWO O'CLOCK P.M. AT THE COURTHOUSE IN WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA

Present	Present	Absent
Roger A Welch, Chairman S. Bryant Lee, Vice Chairman Ronald L. Frazier I. Christopher Parrish Michael J. Biniek	John McCarthy, Co. Adm. Peter H. Luke, Co. Attorney Margaret R. Ralph, Clerk

Chairman Welch called the meeting to order.

Mr. McCarthy was asked to conduct the organizational meeting for the year 2011. He explained the procedure.

On motion of Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Biniek, Mr. Frazier was elected to serve as the Board's representative to the Rappahannock County Planning Commission. The vote was unanimous.

On motion of Mr. Frazier, seconded by Mr. Lee, Mr. Welch was elected to serve as the Board's representative to the Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission. The vote was unanimous.

On motion of Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Biniek, Mr. Parrish was elected to serve as the Board's representative to the Rappahannock River Basin Commission. Mr. Lee will serve as the alternate. The vote was unanimous.

On motion of Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Lee, Mr. Parrish and Mr. Biniek were elected to serve as members of the Public Safety Committee. The vote was unanimous.

On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Lee, Mr. Frazier was elected to serve on the Fire Levy Board. The vote was unanimous.

On motion of Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Biniek, Mr. Lee was elected to serve Vice-Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. The vote was unanimous.

On motion of Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Biniek, Mr. Welch was elected to serve as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. The vote was unanimous.

On motion of Mr. Frazier, seconded by Mr. Lee, The Organization Meeting Resolution of the Board of Supervisors was approved. The following roll-call vote was recorded:

Mr. Frazier Aye

Mr. Lee Aye

Mr. Biniek Aye

Mr. Parrish Aye

Mr. Welch Aye

MINUTES: On motion of Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Parrish, the Board unanimously approved the minutes, as corrected, of the December 6, 2010 Board meeting.

REVISED AGENDA: There were three additions under New Business (appointment to the Sesquicentennial Committee and two budget amendments) and under Information a change of venue to the High School for the February and March Board meetings. On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Lee, a motion to adopt the revised agenda was passed unanimously.

ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS: Mr. Welch introduced Dr. Boone.

Dr. Boone reported on some boiler and water quality issues at the elementary school. Both have been resolved.

On January 11, a School Board Meeting will be held at 7PM in the Band Room at the High School. There will be an open comment session on the Budget and all are invited to attend and participate and offer their feedback.

The School website has been updated. It will be user-friendlier and contain additional information.

Dr. Boone delivered the most recent copy of The Rapp Review to the Board members.

Mr. Lee asked about the procedure for making up snow days. Dr. Boone said that there are two days that could be scheduled as make-up days (February 21 and 24) but he is not ready to declare any make-up days yet. There are two procedures that can be followed: one based on the number of student days (180 required) and the other based on the number of instructional hours (990). If make up days are necessary, he will use the instructional hours method to compute the make-up time. As previously said, since there are some "banked" hours, extra days may not be necessary.

Mr. Biniek commented that the information on the website concerning snow closings was not available during the last weather episode. Dr. Boone explained that this problem has been resolved.

Mr. Frazier expressed the community's gratitude for the excellent Christmas Band Concert.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Chairman Welch opened the Meeting to Public Comment.

Phil Irwin, Flint Hill, commented on the cell-tower meeting that will be held tonight. He was distressed that The Planning Commission approved the Boston Tower without considering any alternatives.

Rick Kohler, RLEP member, said that this group felt compelled to comment on the 199 feet height on the proposed tower. This is contrary to several portions of the Rappahannock Comprehensive Plan. He delivered a statement from RLEP enumerating these sections of the Plan to the Board.

On behalf of Hal Hunter, who was not able to attend today, Mr. McCarthy presented a Food Pantry/Plant-a-Row Brochure to the Board. He commented on the success of the "Deer Processing" Program that distributed the processed meat to the Food Pantry. This program was very successful. The group is happy to report that it is meeting its fund-raising goals.

Mr. Lee and Mr. Biniek commented on the success of the program.

There were no further comments and Mr. Welch declared the Public Comment closed.

OLD BUSINESS:

Economic Recovery Advisory Committee:

-Mr. McCarthy briefly explained a Farm Pilot Program that will help farmers diversify and use alternative farming methods. He introduced Cliff Miller.

Mr. Miller recognized the Economic Revitalization Advisory Committee. He gave an explanation of the Rappahannock Future Farms Program that will focus on better ways to farm. He specifically reported on HMI – Holistic Management International, an organization that will bring a three-year program to Rappahannock.

During the first year of the program, 5-10 farmers/orchards/wineries will be asked to participate and commit to using HMI principles for their operations. There will be several consultants to assist the participants. At the end of the first year, the participants will present results. In the second and third years, HMI principles will be offered to others in the community.

There will be meetings and discussions with participants and consultants during all phases of this program. The total cost of the program for one year will be $35,000.00. Mr. Miller is hoping to fund the program with $10,000.00 from community members ($2,000.00 already received from the Board of Supervisors) and donations from other sources. HMI will contribute $10,000.00 and has committed to raise an additional $15,000.00 from other organizations.

The first meeting of the organization will be at The Link on January 25 from 10am to 3pm with consultant Peggy Cole. The second meeting will be in March with consultant Ian Mitchell Ennis.

Mr. Miller explained how the program would operate in Rappahannock County.

Mr. Lee commented on this opportunity for Rappahannock.

Mr. Biniek thanked Mr. Miller for his work and efforts.

-Use Value Taxation: As a follow-up to previous meetings, Mr. McCarthy presented a Draft Ordinance in the form of a Resolution on a proposal to adopt the Open Space Category. Today's vote will only authorize the advertisement of the amendments to the Use Value Taxation Chapter of the County Code for public hearing. There will not be a vote on the actual amendments.

These amendments will also update the existing provisions in the Code to match changes in state code over the past several years, and authorized the adoption of the Open Space category. (Copy of Mr. McCarthy's memo to the Board and the Draft Ordinance filed with papers of the meeting)

Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Luke, and Commissioner of the Revenue, Beverly Atkins have had several meetings to discuss and formulate these amendments to the County Code.

A discussion followed.

Comments about land use vs. open space use, golf courses, park and recreational purposes, relevance of the Zoning Ordinance, Forestal districts, Agricultural districts on the open space category, additional standards for Open-space requirements, financial impacts of the open-space category, hunting and shooting ranges were made by Board members, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Luke.

Mr. Parrish commented that he was not sure the Board should even consider the Open Sapace Category because no additional revenue will be generated, there are scenarios when we might even lose revenue, it will be connected to government programs that are usually wasteful, and it will take away the incentive for scenic easement. He sees no benefit for the County with this new category and he would rather see it dropped right here.

Mr. Lee made additional comments. Mr. Frazier agreed with Mr. Parrish.

Mr. Luke suggested that the Ordinance should be updated even if the Board does not add the Open Space Category. The Ordinance has not been redrafted since 1992.

There was a motion by Mr. Parrish to strike the open space category language and to amend the existing land use ordinance in the existing categories to comply with state code, and to advertise the changes for public hearing at the March meeting. Mr. Frazier seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Aye: Mr. Frazier, Mr. Biniek, Mr. Parrish, Mr. Welch. Nay: Mr. Lee. Mr. Luke was directed to prepare a resolution to accomplish this for consideration at the February meeting.

-VCE "Blue Print" for the Future: Mr. McCarthy reported on a letter received from Virginia Cooperative Extension in response to the Board opposition to the proposed organizational plans.

There was a 5-minute recess to allow Mr. Luke to set-up for his presentation.

-County-Owned Properties: Mr. Luke presented a slide presentation on the properties owned by the County.

Properties include the following: The Visitor's Center, the Landfill in Amissville, Stuart Field, Scrabble School, Court House, Jail, County Clerk's Office, Magistrate's Office, Town Hall, Lot behind the Court House, Acreage around the Elementary School and the High School (includes the Convenience Center), Bank Road Property, small lot adjacent to the walking bridge in Sperryville. He commented on any restrictions that may be on these properties.

The Board thanked Mr. Luke for his efforts on this presentation.

NEW BUSINESS:

Tourism Report: Laura Overstreet reported on the past year's success of the Office of Tourism. She acknowledged Sandra Maskas and Candace Wroth for their assistance. The remarkable progress of this group is due to teamwork, volunteers, and the efforts of the community. (Report filed with papers of the meeting)

Some specific accomplishments are: Opening of the Visitors Center, increased "hits" to our website, advertisement in VA Travel Guide. Plans for the future include many Marketing initiatives, 5 events for the Shenandoah National Park Anniversary Celebration, participation in the Civil Way Sesquicentennial Observance, Face Book, Travel Apps, and Partnership with others in the Piedmont Region.

Ms. Overstreet thanked the Board for its support in the past and she is looking forward to the future.

Mr. McCarthy thanked Ms. Overstreet and her committee and the Rappahannock Business Community for their help and dedication.

Line of Duty Benefit Insurance: Mr. McCarthy reported that generally speaking this is an unfunded mandate where the costs are passed on to the local government. It is in addition to Workman's Compensation and is extended to Law enforcement and Fire Personnel who are killed in the line of duty. Formerly it represented a lump-sum payment, but it has been expanded to include health insurance benefits to a surviving spouse and children. Additionally it has been expanded to include job-related illnesses.

This program has not affected us so far, but Mr. McCarthy suggests that we begin to plan for the future.

A brief discussion followed.

Rappahannock Civil War Sesquicentennial Committee: Mr. Frazier gave a brief report on the status and work of the committee. On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Biniek, the Board votes unanimously to appoint the following to this Committee: Art Candenquist, Brian Taylor, Danny Hitt, George Kidwell, Laura Overstreet, Jim Gannon, Jim Massie, Melissa Delcour, Ron Frazier, Ron Maxwell, Rudy Segaar, Sammy Forback, and Tom Taylor. (List with additional member information is filed with papers of the meeting).

Locality Aid to the Commonwealth: For the second year, the Board is required to hand back some money to the State. As it did last year the Board elected to pay back these funds at one time rather than having state funds received reduced in increments.

The amount to be paid back is $80, 808.00. Money for this was allocated in Reserves.

On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Lee, the Board voted to amend line item 1101-5807 by adding $80,808.00. Roll call vote was recorded as follows:

Mr. Frazier Aye

Mr. Lee Aye

Mr. Biniek Aye

Mr. Parrish Aye

Mr. Welch Aye

Mr. McCarthy requested an increase in Line item 1102-5501 of $2158. This is money received from the Insurance Company to cover damages to a car involved in a "deer" accident.

On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Lee, the Board voted unanimously to add $2158 to line item 1102-5501.

APPOINTMENTS: On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Frazier, the Board voted unanimously to appoint Kevin Almond a provider for the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT).

CORRESPONDENCE: None

INFORMATION:

December Building Report

Tourism Report

VDOT monthly report

RRCSB Annual Report

Mr. McCarthy reminded the Board that the Statements of Economic Interest are due on 1/15/11.

February and March Board Meetings will be held at the High School Auditorium for Personal Wireless Services Facilities (cell tower) Applications

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Welch opened the public comment session:

Don Loock, PEC, commented about the Boston Tower Application, especially the 199-foot height. Towers should blend in with the environment and fit into the Comprehensive Plan. 199 Feet is not in keeping with the character of the County and alternative plans are needed.

Reid Folsom, Hampton District, commented that no alternative plan was proposed. Relationship to the skyline should be considered in the positioning of these towers. They should not stare you in the face.

There being no further comments, the Public Session was closed.

ACCOUNTS: On motion of Mr. Biniek seconded by Mr. Lee, the Accounts were approved as presented.

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

On motion of Mr. Biniek, seconded by Mr. Lee, the Board voted unanimously to retire into closed session pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711A. (1) to consult with legal counsel employed or retained by the Board of Supervisors regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel under Section 2.2-3711A.7. (2) To discuss or consider the status of personnel in the County's Employ under Code Section 2.2-2311 A.1. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Mr. Welch, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Parrish. Mr. Biniek, Mr. Lee. Nays: none.

Open Session: On motion of Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Frazier, the Board voted unanimously to reconvene into open session. The following roll-call vote was taken: Ayes: Mr. Welch, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Parrish, Mr. Biniek, Mr. Lee. Nays: none.

Certification: The Chairman polled the members of the Board as follows: "To the best of your knowledge, do each of you certify that only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements under existing Virginia law, and only such public business matter as were identified in the motion by which the executive meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the Board in the executive meeting just held?" The following roll-call vote was taken: Ayes: Mr. Welch, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Parrish, Mr. Biniek, Mr. Lee. Nays: none.

The Board reconvened into Open Session.

There being no further business, the meeting was recessed and reconvened at 7 o'clock p.m. to conduct the following Public Hearing: AT&T BOSTON CELL TOWER

Mr. Welch reconvened the meeting. He asked Mr. McCarthy to comment on the Application, which is the subject of the Public Hearing.

Mr. McCarthy reported as follows:

The Applicant (AT&T Mobility) desires to construct a 199' tall monopole located near the intersection of Route 604 and U.S. Route 522. The subject property is in the Stonewall-Hawthorne District, Tax map 56, Parcel 48A.

There are a number of exceptions to the standards of the County Ordinance having to do with screening around the perimeter of the fencing, the pitch of the shed roof, the paint color of the monopole.

The Planning Commission recommended the approval of the application.

Mr. McCarthy explained the time constraints of the speakers. Mr. Welch asked that any speaker please state his/name and Magisterial District. He then introduced Mr. Ed Donohue, counsel for AT&T. Curt M. Kolakowski and Mustaque Mohamed, associates of Mr. Donohue, were also present.

Mr. Donohue spoke on the presentation of the application to the Rappahannock Planning Commission. The commission asked that a Balloon Fly be conducted to determine the effects of the height of the tower on the surrounding area. This was done in early December 2010.

At the time of approval from the commission several questions concerning selection of the site, height of the tower, lighting, color, plans for the preservation of a cemetery on the site, signal strength, broad band, availability of 3G and 4G network coverage, safety, land use considerations, texting while driving and publication of other carriers. He referred to several maps and to the application examples. Mr. Donohue believes all questions were satisfactorily addressed and answered and pointed out that safety concerns are issues handled by the State Legislature.

Mr. Donohue reported that this application is the first of several applications and that The Planning Commission questioned whether this was an Ad Hoc approach – doing each application separately. There in fact 5 applications for Rappahannock – three new ones and two extensions of existing services. He concluded by saying that the site is well selected. It is heavily wooded and well screened and lighting will not be required.

Mr. Welch asked for comments and questions from Board members.

Mr. Parrish posed the following example: If this tower is approved as is and for various reasons the others are not, then only the area services by this extension of ATT's existing tower at Griffinsburg would get service. Mr. Donohue said that because this is a "Hand-off" tower, that is correct.

Mr. Biniek inquired about service for the FT Valley: No site is planned for this area.

Mr. Lee asked about attachments to the pole for 4G coverage, internet hookup and height of the proposed monopole (195ft vs. 199ft): 4G coverage will not affect the size of the pole – it is a matter of data compression; there will be internet service from this site, height issues are measured differently by each company.

Mr. Parrish asked if the antennae were non-directional or specifically aimed: signal directional with 360 coverage.

Mr. Biniek asked if there was any way to get better coverage: Yes, more towers. He also asked if ATT could put up more poles for more coverage: Certainly. Approval would be a positive step in that direction. Mr. Biniek also inquired about the height of the pole saying that even though the Comprehensive Plan allows 199ft that is not always an appropriate height: Height of the pole is site sensitive and evaluation of the topography is always done.

Mr. Lee asked about other companies using this the ATT pole and how many carries could that be: ATT needs 195ft to make the connection and ATT is proposing 4 users.

There being no further comments or questions by the Board, Mr. Welch opened the Public Hearing.

Thorne Auchter, Piedmont District, Colby May, Stonewall District, Bill Fletcher, Piedmont District, Monica Worth, Sperryville, Tobey Wheelock, Stonewall-Hawthorne, Ron Maxwell, Flint Hill, Ron Makela, Jackson District, Kaye Wilson, Hampton District, ____????_______Piedmont District, Marsha Murray, Stonewall-Hawthorne District, Rick Schumaker, Flint Hill, Jan Makela, Jackson District, Scott McBride, Piedmont District, Don Loock, PEC, and Thom Pellikaan, Red Oak Mountain all spoke in opposition to the approval of the Boston Cell Tower.

Reasons given were as follows: height of the tower, no alternatives given, necessity of constraints on the company, the visibility of the tower, protection of the county, the question of vision for the county, Board control of the site of the towers, piece-meal applications, inadequate planning and alternative plans (Albemarle Policy), economic drivers, need for the Board to negotiate with ATT and determine what is the Plan B, request for smaller towers, safety issues, violation of the Comprehensive Plan, development and convenience, far-reaching consequences of this action, additional planning and information, protection of the view shed, not enough consideration of what the county has to lose, the need for better solutions and proposals that are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.

Speaking in favor of the Application were Harold Beebout, Mary Dixon, Demaris Miller, and Deidre Payne. Each spoke of the need for cell service for safety reasons, convenience, the necessity to consider EMT rescues and fire services, business needs, better standards of living, and the right of the Board to negotiate and set the standards and limits.

There were additional comments by Ron Maxwell and Bill Fletcher.

There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed.

Mr. Frazier asked Mr. Pellikaan to submit the information he had on the Cell tower issue. He also asked if we could require a company to provide more service? Mr. Luke answered by saying that we could not – ATT is not a public utility.

Mr. McCarthy briefly explained the "Albemarle Model".

In comments on safety issues, Mr. Luke explained that federal law severely limits what Localities can do concerning issues of safety. The Board does have certain powers, i.e. where the towers go, the height, etc. You cannot ban cell towers.

Mr. McCarthy added that the Comprehensive Plan is the guiding principle in Rappahannock and the 199ft height is in compliance with the plan. The Board must make the decision based on the Comprehensive Plan and Federal Law. Ten years ago, many citizens and organizations were opposed to the Sprint towers and now these structures have been accepted. Views, times and circumstances change.

Mr. Welch commented on his memories of the original Sprint cell-tower applications. 9 towers, that would service 75% of the County, were requested. We ended up with 7 structures that service about 55% of the County and many people don't even know where these towers are. The application process seems to be different. We can't stick our heads in the sand and ignore the possibility and needs of the younger population in the county. Certainly, no one wants to ruin the view shed of Rappahannock County.

Mr. Lee, who lives at Massie's Corner, commented that the silos can really be seen and that the monopoles are less intrusive. Safety while driving is something we cannot control. We need to provide security for the citizens of Rappahannock County. Emergency services will find the extra coverage very helpful and this is beneficial.

Mr. Biniek referred to the Comprehensive Plan's guidelines for constructing a cell tower. The application before us is not very comprehensive. The attachments to the application do not show how many people in the county will get service. Mr. McCarthy has estimated 35% of the people and 25% of the land mass will get coverage from these 5 towers. This is not much coverage. It doesn't provide us with the protection we need; it doesn't provide us with the coverage we need.

He continued: the regulations require that towers "minimize adverse impact". The Boston pole is questionable and it is an eyesore. Since we are looking at the whole picture, Mr. Biniek believes that we can go back to ATT and ask for a better view of the plans, proposals, and maybe different options. There is room to table this action and ask for other options that would be a better fit for Rappahannock and our Comprehensive Plan to keep Rappahannock a beautiful and unique place.

Mr. Parrish also remembered the Sprint Tower applications 10 years ago. In fact, he was sitting in the audience. He has had numerous calls requesting support of this application. We need to consider our present safety issues and any future safety situation that may arise, i.e. a national emergency. We need to be ready. He was at the Planning Commission meeting and it was a unanimous decision to recommend this application to the Board of Supervisors. This is a community issue. In his opinion, it is only fair that all residents have access to cell service.

He continued: The Planning Commission has recommended that (1) if there is any reason that the tower would require light (i.e. FAA Regulation), ATT would have to lower the tower (2) if the tower becomes obsolete due to newer technology, it would have to be removed (3) it should be color specific.

Mr. Parrish made a motion that the Board approve this particular tower and continue to study this problem and have a broad approach for future applications. Motion was delayed until other Board members had an opportunity to comment.

Mr. Frazier commented that he had mixed feelings on the subject even though he voted with the Planning Commission to recommend the approval of this tower to the Board. We can't require the company to provide more coverage. We can't consider the driving/safety issue. Fire and rescue people do want the additional coverage.

There was additional discussion.

Mr. Parrish renewed his motion that the Board approve this particular tower at the Boston site with the following stipulations: (1) no lighting on the tower; if a light is ever required the tower will be lowered or removed (2) Painting of pole with color(s) to be approved by the Zoning Administrator (3) allow a repeater on top of tower for Fire and Rescue/public safety purposes (4) waivers on the pitch of the shed roof and no perimeter plantings are required for screening.

Mr. Frazier seconded the motion

A roll call vote was recorded as follows:

Mr. Frazier Aye

Mr. Lee Aye

Mr. Biniek Nay

Mr. Parrish Aye

Mr. Welch Aye

Mr. McCarthy announced that the Planning Commission hearing on the cell tower applications for the high school and Sperryville will be held at the High School Auditorium on January 16^th and by the Supervisors at the same venue on February 7.

____________________________

Roger Welch, Chairman