AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD ON THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN AT TWO O'CLOCK P.M. AT THE COURTHOUSE IN WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA

Present	Present	Absent
Roger A Welch, Chairman S. Bryant Lee, V-Chairman Ronald L. Frazier I. Christopher Parrish Michael J. Biniek	John McCarthy, Co. Adm. Peter H. Luke, Co. Attorney Margaret R. Ralph, Clerk	None

Chairman Welch called the meeting to order. All members were present.

MINUTES: On motion of Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Biniek, the July, 2010 minutes, as corrected, were approved unanimously.

AGENDA: Mr. McCarthy explained the changes in the Revised Agenda: added under Old Business (1) Economic Advisory Committee and (2) Presentation of site plan for the Williams Tree Service special exception. Added to New Business was the (1) Consideration of opposition to Elk Reintroduction (2) Governor's Town Hall Meetings on Privatization (3) Authorization to Advertise "Wills and Administration Tax" amendment to Rappahannock Code. Mr. Welch requested that the VDOT Report be given with the item under New Business. On motion of Mr. Frazier, seconded by Mr. Parrish, the Adoption of the Revised Agenda was unanimously approved.

RESOLUTIONS:

Mr. Frazier, Supervisor from the Jackson District, read a Resolution of Thanks to Paul A. Poling to the audience. On motion of Mr. Frazier, seconded by Mr. Lee, the Board voted unanimously to spread a copy of this resolution on the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisor's Minute Book. Mr. Welch presented the Presentation Copy of this Resolution to the Poling Family.

Mr. Welch, Supervisor from the Wakefield District, read a Resolution of Thanks to James G. Marangoni to the audience. On motion of Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Biniek, the Board voted unanimously to spread a copy of this resolution on the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisor's Minute Book. The Presentation Copy of this resolution will be delivered to the Marangoni family.

ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS: Dr. Boone, the new Rappahannock School Superintendent, reported on a mini-retreat that he and the members of the school board had in Charlottesville. At this meeting the group discussed the goals for the future. In an effort for transparency, an annual report will be provided to the Supervisors, as well as quarterly reports on the progress of the School System and how funds are being spent.

Mr. Lee asked Mr. Boone how things were going. Dr. Boone said he is "doing great", and that he feels very fortunate to a part of the Rappahannock community.

FIRE LEVY PAYMENTS: Mr. McCarthy referred to the Rappahannock County Fire & Rescue Levy Report that was part of the packet delivered to the supervisors. He briefly discussed the information but deferred to Mr. Frazier for any additional comments. Mr. Frazier commented on the report and questioned the heating bills for the fire companies. However, far less money was requested this year, no additional money was spent, and no emergency money was requested. Mr. Welch requested that the Fire Companies look into the higher heating bills in smaller facilities as compared to the lower bills in larger facilities.

The motion of Mr. Frazier, seconded by Mr. Lee, to approve the five levy requests, was unanimously approved by the Board.

DROUGHT DISASTER REPORT: Mr. Kenner Love from the Extension Office presented a report on the effects of the drought on agriculture in the County. The effects have been widespread and there is no money available for help. He suggested that the Board send a resolution to the Governor asking that Rappahannock be declared a disaster area. This should not be done immediately so that current estimates on losses can be determined.

Mr. Lee commended the Farm Committee for setting guidelines for crop yield and losses. He added that these numbers could change with varying weather conditions.

Mr. McCarthy will prepare the resolution and have it ready for discussion at the September Board Meeting.

Mr. Welch commented that this drought relief aid would probably be in the form of a loan and not actual money aid.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Welch opened the meeting to Public Comment.

Bob Dennis, Wakefield District, had no particular comment about the Hazel Scenic River Designation, but added that his property is along another scenic river, the Rappahannock, and he believes that this designation empowers the property owners and does not have a negative effect on their ownership. He spoke on the Virginia Outdoors Foundation easements and the King's Grant issue, noting that this issue is particularly confusing because each grant is different.

Phil Irwin, Flint Hill, spoke in support of the Hazel Scenic River Designation, saying that more people support it than oppose it. He also spoke on the reintroduction of elk into Virginia and urged that the Board not support this.

Bill Fletcher, Piedmont District, spoke briefly about the Hazel Scenic River Designation but at length about the concept of Scenic River Designations as well as the flow of the streams in the County and the quantity and supply of water from these streams. He spoke about the rights of the individual landowners and what may be taken away if these designations continue. He requested that the Board do something to safeguard individual rights that could be controlled by the government.

Rita Grace, Culpeper County, commented on the ecological conditions along the Hazel River and the rights given by King's Grant.

Mr. Welch, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, commented that he received some negative feedback about allowing citizens who are not from Rappahannock County to comment at meetings. He added that the Board conducted open meetings where anyone may comment.

Ben Grace, Culpeper County, commented on the problems along the Hazel River.

Don Loock, Jackson District, and an employee of the Piedmont Environmental Council, suggested that there might be some confusion on what a Scenic Designation actually is and that there is no connection between a designation and a King's Grant. Scenic River Designation simply points out that the river is a valuable asset, and building a dam across it would be the only restriction.

Jamie Fletcher, Piedmont District, asked for clarification of what is and what is not allowed along a river with a scenic river designation. Mr. Luke, Attorney for the Board, read the Code section that speaks to that question emphasizing the part of the statute concerning a dam or structure impeding flow of a waterway. He added that the Board would only be recommending designation and that only the General Assembly could make the actual designation.

Mr. Frazier commented on the low river bridges that obstruct flow along the Hazel.

Mr. Irwin offered his definition of a low river bridge as one you can drive over when the water is low.

There were additional comments by Mr. Welch, Mr. Loock, Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Grace.

There being no further public comments, Mr. Welch declared the public comment session over.

Mr. Welch asked for comments from the Board Members:

Mr. Lee pointed out that in the other scenic river designations, there was no great opposition. A different situation exists when there is opposition.

Mr. Parrish agreed with Mr. Lee, but continued that he only received positive feedback on the designation. He spoke on a program that would give "credits" to the County for such designations.

OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Welch introduced Mr. Sprinkel, VDOT, who spoke on the progress on the Route 729 Battle Run Bridge Project. There was a brief explanation. Mr. Lee said that he received a call from Mr. Massie concerning the access to both sides of Route 729 when the bridge is closed to public use. Mr. Lee requested that Mr. Sprinkel have a meeting with Mr. Massie, Mr. McCarthy, and himself to discuss Mr. Massie's concerns about access. Mr. Sprinkel said he would be happy to arrange such a meeting. Mr. McCarthy added that he had several discussions with Mr. Massie about the situation and that he felt Mr. Massie was aware of all the problems that would occur when this project started, that there would not be a temporary crossing provided and the he was also aware that damages for the loss of use would be forth-coming. The actual loss amount has not been determined yet because the project will not begin until 2012 and circumstances may change the amount to be paid.

Mr. McCarthy asked if Mr. Lee was suggesting that the Board delay the vote on the resolution. Mr. Lee said that he didn't believe that the vote needed to be delayed but he felt a meeting with Mr. Massie was still in order. Mr. Sprinkel said that VDOT could follow up with Mr. Massie. Mr. Lee asked if a delay in the vote would impede the project. Mr. Sprinkel said that there may be a delay, but it wouldn't be too long and that Mr. Massie would not lose any of his rights even if the resolution were passed today.

Mr. Welch asked for a motion on the Route 729 Bridge Replacement and Approach Roadway

Resolution. On motion of Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Parrish, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Resolution supporting the VDOT Intent to replace Route 729, Richmond Road, Bridge and approach Roadway.

The Resolution concerning VDOT's replacement of the Route 522, Sperryville Pike, Bridge Superstructure was discussed. Mr. Sprinkel explained that VDOT would modify the current bridge structure with a concrete deck. The one problem that exists will be the truck traffic during the replacement of the bridge deck. Signs will be posted in the Madison and Culpeper areas and on routes 211 and 522 to re-route traffic around the repair area during that 2-month time frame. Some truck traffic may get through, but VDOT is hoping that additional traffic will be minimal.

Mr. Luke asked if Main Street in Sperryville would be opened to truck traffic. Mr. Sprinkel said that only local truck traffic would use this route. To the extent possible, VDOT will try to keep all other traffic out.

On motion of Mr. Biniek, seconded by Mr. Frazier, the Resolution supporting VDOT's intent to replace Route 522, Sperryville Pike, Bridge Superstructure was passed unanimously.

The speed study in Sperryville has been approved. This is in response of a request from Mr. Biniek to lower the speed limit in the town of Sperryville from 35 mph to 25 mph.

Mr. Lee requested a 5-minute recess. There was no opposition to the request.

Stadium Light Payment: Mr. McCarthy explained that the $37,883 debt-service payment to Musco Lighting is due on August 4 and that RCSSA is short about $13,000.

Rich Hogan, member of the RCSSA, commented that over the past 4 years the RCSSA has contributed $231,353 to the Rappahannock County Public Schools for support of the sports programs. He delivered a report to the Board explaining the association's efforts in fund raising. Still, the association is short about $13,000 for the Musco payment. Several major factors contributing to the shortage were an unforeseen charge of $13,478 to pay for rocky soil removal discovered during construction, inclement weather affecting 50% of the winter sport's schedule, the overall conditions of the economy and administrative and employee turnover within the school.

The RCSSA has a solid plan in effect to reach future goals and the primary mission to make the $37,833 payment each year. They asked that the Board help with this shortfall or the association will have to borrow against a line of credit that they have. The association would not like to do this because it would be "robbing Peter to pay Paul'.

Mr. Parrish asked if the line of credit were used, would it be made up next year. Mr. Hogan said yes.

Mr. Lee requested an explanation of the "rock clause" and payments made in 2008 and 2009. Mr. McCarthy offered an explanation that if this had not happened in 2008, the money would have accumulated over the next years.

Mr. Welch said that he was as disappointed with this situation as anybody, but wanted to compliment the group for what they did raise which was two or three times more than was raised in years past. He asked what the total payment for the lights would be. Mr. McCarthy said it was about $38,000.00 more or less over the next 6 years.

Mr. Parrish personally thinks that the line of credit should be used and if it cannot be made up the association should come back to the Board next year.

Mr. Hogan asked about the $51,000.00 given back to the General Fund by the School Board.

Mr. Frazier commented that the School Board requested that this money be used for maintenance. Before any money is given to the association, he would like to see some type of debt-service agreement.

Mc McCarthy offered some suggestions but added that the payment to Musco had to be made. After a brief discussion on borrowing from the Line of Credit, Mr. McCarthy suggested that the Board ask the association to determine what the interest rate will be on their line of credit and to report back to the Board.

Mr. Welch offered that to borrow money to pay off borrowed money is not good business.

Mr. Lee asked if the RCSSA anticipated this type of shortfall happening again next year. Mr. Hogan says steps will be taken to prevent this type of situation in the future.

Further discussion was tabled until the next meeting.

Economic Recovery Advisory Committee: Mr. McCarthy reported on the meeting of the Advisory Committee with Mr. Welch, Mr. Biniek and himself. There were several initiatives that rose to the forefront at the meeting: Cellular service, sustainable farming proposal (letter from Cliff Miller), a grant team proposal, and alternative farming and tax strategies. A brief discussion followed. No Board action is necessary at this time, but discussion of these topics will be on agenda in the future.

Mr. Lee suggested that the Board request input from the Soil and Water and Farm Services on the Alternative farming programs.

Williams Tree Service Site Plan: Greg Williams appeared as requested by the Board and presented the completed site plan for his shop at BenVenue. The discussion was primarily about the location of lighting around the building, the parking area and the storage yard. The lights have not been installed yet, but when they are Mr. McCarthy will inspect them.

Mr. Parrish commended Mr. Williams for all his efforts to accommodate questions posed by the Board, concerns of his neighbors and his compromise with the lighting situation.

Mr. Parrish offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Lee, to approve this site plan. On further discussion, the motion was amended to say that the Site Plan, as presented, would be approved pending final inspection by Mr. McCarthy. On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Lee, the Board voted unanimously to approve the site plan, pending inspection.

NEW BUSINESS:

Consideration of Opposition to Elk Reintroduction: Mr. McCarthy commented that Mr. Parrish had suggested that the Board follow Bedford County in passing a resolution opposing the reintroduction of elk into Virginia. He added that this reintroduction would only be in Wise, Buchanan and Dickinson Counties.

Mr. Parrish continued saying that it would be better to "nip it in the bud" and send a message that this is not what we need, adding that Rappahannock already has so much crop damage.

On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Lee, the Board voted unanimously to send a letter to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries opposing the reintroduction of elk into Virginia.

Governor's Town Hall Meetings on Privatization: Mr. McCarthy explained that this concerns the privatization of ABC Stores in Virginia. He is commenting on this just to give the Board some additional information because if this passes the Zoning Ordinance will be affected. Our ordinance doesn't address liquor stores at all and changes will depend on the final form of approval passed by the General Assembly. No action taken.

Wills and Administration Tax Amendment: Mr. McCarthy asked that the Board for authorization to advertise for Public Hearing at the next Board Meeting an amendment to the Rappahannock County Code allowing for a $25.00 county fee for the recordation in the Clerk's Office of Affidavits of Intestacy/List of Heirs.

On motion of Mr. Parrish, seconded by Mr. Lee, to authorize Mr. McCarthy to advertise for a Public Hearing on September 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM on this amendment to the Rappahannock County Code. The roll call vote was recorded as follows: Ayes: Mr. Welch, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Lee, Mr. Biniek, Mr. Parrish.

APPOINTMENTS: None

CORRESPONDANCE: None

INFORMATION: The July Building Permit Report and the VDOT Report were included in the Board's Information Packet.

Due to the Monday, September 6, 2010, Labor Holiday, the September Board of Supervisors meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Don Loock commented about speeding in Sperryville and the effect on this issue when VDOT works on the Bridge Project. He also offered assistance of the Piedmont Environmental Council to the Sustainable Agricultural program and with grant writing.

ACCOUNTS: An additional Refuse Disposal expenditure of $13,944.26 payable to the Culpeper County Treasurer was added to the Accounts Payable.

Due to the delay in the September Board Meeting, Mr. McCarthy requested the authority to approve all accounts that will accrue late charges as a result of this change. Mr. Welch will still sign these checks and Mr. McCarty will provide of list of those accounts.

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

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

On motion of Mr. Frazier, seconded by Mr. Biniek, 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. The subject matter of the closed meeting will be the Aileen property and a personnel contract. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Mr. Welch, Mr. Lee, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Biniek, Mr. Parrish. Nays: none.

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

The Board reconvened into Open Session.

The Board adjourned until the 7pm meeting.

Mr. Welch called the 7 PM Public Hearing to order.

Hazel Scenic River Proposal: (The Public Hearing Closed at July Meeting)

Mr. Welch asked for comments from the Board members.

Mr. Lee commented that he does want the River to be protected, but that in previous designations there was always favorable reactions. This designation has elicited a lot of opposition. He feels that he cannot vote in favor of it.

Mr. Frazier, reading from a report on scenic river designations, commented that he is not in favor of the designation because this river does not meet the criteria for a scenic river designation; the report has many inconsistencies and misinformation. Many items in the report are incorrect. For example it mentions the Fort Valley Historic District, which is really the FT Valley Historic District. No water samples have been taken. How did it get this far when many of the main criteria have not been met?

Mr. Welch added that at the July meeting it was pointed out that 9 out of the 13 criteria have not been met. Yet the process for the designation still went on.

Mr. Parrish reported that many of the calls he received from about a dozen property owners in the area are in favor of this designation. Others are opposed to the concept of this designation, but they are not affected by it. It is a democracy and majority rules. His district is running 12 to 1 in favor of the designation. In his opinion, if the people who are directly affected want the designation, they should have it. It doesn't affect anybody else in the County. He added that he is strongly in favor of property rights.

Mr. Parrish continued. We are essentially a clean water donor and we have 20% of our landmass in scenic easement. Mr. Parrish spoke about a new concept – "Credits". We would hopefully be able to sell credit, not water, but these credits are something the government pays to the county. We could use these "credits" for the general fund to reduce taxes for all of the citizens. This is something to consider.

Mr. Frazier commented that we really don't live in a democracy and that the majority must always look out for the rights of the minority. Every now and then the majority is wrong. He is hesitant to go any further with this designation. As far as the "credit" program – that's something for the future.

Mr. McCarthy reported about additional letters received from owners. He also explained about the several errors in the report Mr. Frazier referred to previously. This report is just a working draft and would be correct in its final form, which is then presented to the General Assembly. Mr. McCarthy asked for this report so that the Board would have any additional information that was available.

Mr. Biniek asked if the Board doesn't act on this designation, could it be brought back at a later date when landowners may be in favor of it? Mr. McCarthy answered "yes". Mr. Biniek added that he is concerned that many landowners do not want to participate in this program and he is hesitant to approve this.

Mr. Welch commented that he is in agreement with Mr. Frazier, and his reasons are two-fold: we live in a republic, which is a representative government and not a democracy and hopefully we do the right thing when representing others. This is not always the case. Also, for a majority to rule over a minority, it must not take away the rights of the minority. What we are talking about here is something that is going to affect us for years down the road. Once we give this particular piece of the river to the General Assembly, they will keep it. And, we don't know what the General Assembly is going to do in the future. We don't even know what this Board will be capable of doing in the future. The main thing is: does being a scenic river have any advantages? He doesn't see any. The County has a Code for protection of our rivers. The state doesn't even need our approval to do this. They are just asking us for our approval, and they don't need it—this is suspicious. This river doesn't meet the criteria for a scenic river.

A motion of Mr. Parrish to recommend approval of the Hazel Scenic River Designation failed for lack of a second.

On motion of Mr. Frazier, seconded by Mr. Lee, the Board voted as follows to deny the approval of the Hazel Scenic River Designation: Ayes: Mr. Frazier, Mr. Lee, Mr. Welch. Nay: Mr. Parrish. Abstention: Mr. Biniek. Motion carried.

SE#10-06-02 - Smith & Moon Country Inn: This is a special exception from the Applicants who desire to use an existing house and outbuildings as a nine-bedroom country inn, to include a limited number of events for up to a maximum of 100 persons. Property is described as Tax Map 5, Parcel 16a, 45.6853 ac, zoned "A"-agriculture, Wakefield District. The Recommendation from the Planning is for Conditional Approval (See Papers filed with minutes).

Applicants Dayn and Nancy Smith were present to answer any questions. Mr. Smith explained what his plans for the property are.

Mr. Welch opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, the Public Session was closed.

Mr. Welch made a motion for approval of the application with conditions listed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Parrish.

Mr. Lee asked about the type and frequency of events, number of people at each event, and time limits of the event. There will be approximately 6 events per year, with 100 people, probably weddings, and no big bands, with an 11 PM time limit.

Mr. Frazier commented that with no neighbor opposition, this was a good application.

The Vote was taken, and the Motion for approval was passed unanimously.

On motion of Mr. Frazier, seconded by M. Lee, the meeting was adjourned.

___________________________________

Roger Welch, Chairman