Aug 17, 2023 Planning Commission

[00:00:01]

WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO THE SOUTH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT, OUR REGULAR MEETING, OUR REGULAR AUGUST MEETING.

[I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]

WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF HEARINGS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN TONIGHT.

I'M GOING TO ASK IF EVERYONE WOULD STAND AS WE RECITE OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.

ALLEGIANCE].

I'M GONNA ASK IF YOU'LL REMAIN STANDING, AND WE'LL JUST HAVE A SHORT INVOCATION.

PLEASE, HEAVENLY FATHER, WE GIVE THANKS FOR THIS DAY THAT WE CAN COME TONIGHT AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HEAR THOSE THAT HAVE INTERESTING PROJECTS ON THEIR MINDS.

AND, LORD, LET US HAVE OPEN MINDS AS WE HEAR THE TESTIMONY FOR THESE APPLICATIONS.

AND WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THE ONES THAT HAVE COME TONIGHT.

LORD, WE APPRECIATE THE RAINS WE'VE BEEN EXPERIENCING LATELY.

WE APPRECIATE OUR HEALTH, LORD, AND THAT WE CAN COME TO SERVE YOU.

AND WE ASK THAT THE DECISIONS TONIGHT.

WILL BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST AND BE PLEASED TO SEE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY.

THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT THE LORD JESUS NAME.

AMEN. MAY BE SEATED.

AGAIN. THANK YOU. AND WE WELCOME YOU TO OUR REGULAR AUGUST MEETING.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT DOWN THE AGENDA.

WE HAVE AGENDA NOTICES IN THE BACK IF YOU DIDN'T PICK UP ONE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY MEETING.

[II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

I WANT TO ADMIT I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED TO MISS LEWIS MY PACKET WAS A LITTLE BIT LATE COMING JUST DUE TO THE MAIL SERVICE, BUT I KIND OF BREEZED THROUGH THEM. I DIDN'T FEEL I DIDN'T READ THEM REAL CLOSE.

SO I KNOW SOME OF YOU ALL PROOFREAD THEM.

BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS.

OTHERWISE I'LL ACCEPT THE MOTION FOR ADOPTION.

MOTION FOR APPROVAL, HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND.

I HAVE A PROPER SECOND BY MISS ALSTON.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED LIKE SIGN IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

[III. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD]

WE'LL ASK IF YOU'LL COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND MAYBE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SO THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

PLEASE COME FALL. THANK YOU, MR. DRAKE. MY NAME IS ASH [INAUDIBLE] AND I LIVE AT 29018 DARDEN POINT ROAD CORTLAND.

I HAVE TWO COMMENTS.

FIRST OF ALL IS THAT I DON'T THINK THE CHINESE OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO OWN A SINGLE ACRE IN THE USA.

MY SECOND COMMENT IS A LITTLE MORE INVOLVED IN WHETHER IT'S BECAUSE I'M ON THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OR I SERVED ON THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION YEARS AGO, OR I WAS AN APPRAISER HERE FOR 23 YEARS.

BUT SEVERAL PEOPLE, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS MUST THINK I KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THE ZONING REGULATIONS, BUT I DON'T.

BUT SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME ABOUT THIS PURCHASE OF THE CUTCHENS FARM.

AND WHAT MOST PEOPLE ASK ME IS, WELL, IT REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AND I'M SORRY TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

THE ZONING MUST COVER IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? LET'S GO.

ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT, WE WILL GO DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[IV. PUBLIC HEARING]

SO, MISS LEWIS, I'LL LET YOU ELABORATE.

PRIOR TO MISS LEWIS MAKING HER PRESENTATION, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT IN MY CAPACITY NOW ACTING AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THIS POINT, I'VE RECUSED MYSELF FROM THIS.

MR. WHITMIRE IS MY CLIENT AND I'M REPRESENTING HIM IN CONNECTION WITH HIS APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE 26.27 ACRES FROM

[00:05:10]

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

WOULD THAT BE NOTED FOR THE RECORD? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MISS LEWIS, YOU MAY PROCEED.

OKAY. THIS IS A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL 106 DASH 15 FOR FROM THE RIVERDALE VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL AND FORRESTAL DISTRICT.

THAT TAX PARCEL TOTALS 71.27 ACRES.

AND THIS IS A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW 26.27 ACRES.

THE PROPERTY HAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST OPEN SPACE AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION OF A1.

AND MR. WHITMIRE PUT THIS PROPERTY IN THE AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY DISTRICT IN 2018.

IT WAS PART OF A 2000 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, GROUP THAT JOINED THE RIVERDALE DISTRICT AT THAT TIME.

IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SCHOOLHOUSE ROAD, WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH SMITH'S FERRY ROAD.

AND IT'S HE SEEKS TO WITHDRAW THE PROPERTY SO HE CAN APPLY IN A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BORROW PIT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT YOUR.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAST MONTH.

YOU SPOKE ABOUT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AS IS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE, AND IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THE PROPERTY IS POSSIBLY BETTER USED FOR MINING THAN IT IS FOR GROWING CROPS BECAUSE OF THE THE SOIL THAT'S OUT THERE.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE MINING IS CONSIDERED A IN THE AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY DISTRICT AND NOTICES WENT OUT TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS BOTH TIMES.

NO, JUST THIS TIME NOTICES WENT OUT TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AS REQUIRED FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT.

AND I DIDN'T GET ANY PHONE CALLS OR ANY CONTACTS OR ANYTHING.

AND YOU DO HAVE CRITERIA TO REVIEW AS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE.

THE FIRST ONE IS THE PROPOSED NEW LAND USE WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE OR FORESTRY OPERATIONS ON LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT.

THE SECOND ONE IS THE PROPOSED NEW LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE THIRD ONE IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE COUNTY AND THAT IT PROMOTES THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTY RATHER THAN ONLY THE PROPRIETARY INTEREST OF THE OWNER.

AND THE FOURTH ONE IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE WAS NOT ANTICIPATED BY THE OWNER AT THE TIME THE LAND WAS PLACED IN THE DISTRICT AND THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THAT TIME. IN YOUR PACKET YOU HAVE A COPY OF AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT SHOWS WHERE THIS AREA IS AND YOU CAN SEE THAT VERY CLOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE IS ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN USED FOR MINING.

IT WAS A BORROW PIT.

SO IT DOES SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE USES IN THE AREA.

AND MR. WHITMIRE AND HIS ATTORNEY ARE BOTH HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MISS LEWIS, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE HEARING? ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK.

AT THIS TIME, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, AGAIN.

AND AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, UNDER VIRGINIA LAW, THERE HAS TO BE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND A VOTE BY THIS BOARD, WHICH IN THIS SITUATION IS ONE AND THE SAME.

THEREFORE, WE'VE GOT BASICALLY THE SAME COMMENTARY THAT WE HAD AT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING, AND I WOULD SUMMARIZE IT IN SUPPORT OF MR. WIDMYER'S APPLICATION.

HE SUBMITS THAT THE PROPOSED END USE WILL NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND OR FORESTRY OPERATIONS ON HIS OR THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY AS IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL IMPACT AND IT COULD FORESEEABLY HAVE SOME POSITIVE IMPACT WITH RESPECT TO USING THE SAND FOR FOR PROJECTS IN THE COUNTY FROM VDOT, PRIVATE PROJECTS OR OTHERWISE.

AND LASTLY, THE LITTLE BIT TRICKY ONE IS WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED? THE ONLY REAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE CHANGED ARE THAT WHEN HE PLACED THE SUBJECT PIECE INTO THE DISTRICT, HE WASN'T AWARE OF ITS

[00:10:01]

PASTURE ET CETERA.

HE KEEPS A SMALL HERD OF COWS AND IT'S COMPLETELY UNSUITABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

AND ALSO HE WASN'T AWARE OF THE SAND RESERVES THERE.

HE'S SINCE RETAINED MCCALLUM TESTING LABORATORIES AND RECEIVED A REPORT THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL SAND RESERVES ON HIS PROPERTY OF HIGH QUALITY SAND SUITABLE FOR VDOT SPECIFICATIONS ETCETERA.

SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT HE MEETS THAT CRITERIA AS WELL.

ALSO, PERHAPS IT'S MORE SUITED FOR WHEN HIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION IS MADE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS MADE INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCESS AND HE WOULD HAVE ACCESS FROM INGRESS AND EGRESS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY HIM TO THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY.

THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT WHATSOEVER.

I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

AND MR. WHITMIRE IS ALSO HERE.

HE'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY AND HE'S HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OR TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MR. RIGLER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. REILLY? ANY COMMENTS? YES, SIR. I HAVE ONE.

I GUESS, UM, THE MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED, WHICH IS LOOKS LIKE THAT.

IT SHOWS THE SITE.

AND I GUESS GOING BACK FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT AND BORROW PITS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN YOU DIG A HOLE, MOST OF THEM WILL FILL UP WITH WATER.

NICE BOND I HAVE.

FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD USE FOR THIS PROPERTY AFTER THE POND HAS BEEN DUG? TO ME, RESIDENTIAL MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD DO, BUT IF YOU DON'T LEAVE ROOM ENOUGH AROUND THE EDGES OF THE PROPERTY, IF YOU MINE STRAIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ROOM FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BESIDE THE POND.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT PROCESS PLANNING PROCESS REGARDING AN ISSUE LIKE THAT? WELL, I BELIEVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE WOULD REQUIRE A REZONING AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE MINING REGULATIONS, BUT I BELIEVE THEY REQUIRE A 65 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO. MR. WHITMIRE WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF THOSE REGULATIONS IF HE MINES RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND HE OBVIOUSLY INTENDS TO FOLLOW ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S LEGAL TO MINE TO THE LINE.

BUT HE'S NOT CONTEMPLATED THE FUTURE USE AND PERHAPS HE COULD ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.

BUT IF SO, I BELIEVE IT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER VISIT TO THIS BOARD AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS WELL TO WHERE IT COULD BE DETERMINED AT THAT TIME.

GOT A QUESTION.

HOW BIG IS THE ACTUAL PIT GOING TO BE? HE'S TAKING 26.278.

HOW BIG IS THE PIT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE? WELL, HE'S THINKING 20 ACRES.

IT WILL BE DUG AS NEEDED.

BUT THAT'S HIS IDEA OF WHAT THE PIT WILL BE AND WHAT HE'S LIKELY GOING TO APPLY.

IF HE GETS THE REQUISITE APPROVALS WITH SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, WITH THE STATE TO OBTAIN HIS MINING PERMIT.

HE'S LOOKING FOR A 20 ACRE BAR PIT, SO HE'LL HAVE SIX ACRES AROUND THE PERIMETER FOR THE BUFFERS OR WHATEVER.

YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

YOU CAN FOLLOW UP, PLEASE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO, SIR.

JUST ELABORATE. THAT'S FINE.

COME ON UP. THIS IS FRANCIS WHITMIRE.

HE'S THE LANDOWNER.

HE'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY.

AND HE'S HAD SUBSTANTIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE STATE AGENCY THAT CONTROLS IT.

I WANT TO CALL IT DME, BUT I'M.

IT'S NOT THAT ANYMORE.

GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

UM, I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, I KNOW IT'S HARD TO READ.

IT'S HARD TO TELL, BUT I OWN ALL THE ROAD FRONTAGE IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED BORROW PIT ALSO.

SO IT'S ALMOST.

IT'S BETWEEN 350 TO 400 FOOT SETBACK OFF THE ROAD BEFORE THE LINE WOULD EVEN START FOR THE BORROW PIT.

SO AS FAR AS THE FUTURE USES OF IT, THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF ROOM TO BUILD HOUSES OR SELL LOTS.

AND THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION AT ALL.

BUT IF ANYONE'S CONCERNED ABOUT IT, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM.

[00:15:01]

DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? ON ONE SIDE OF THE POND, I GUESS.

YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THESE TWO GENTLEMEN. BUT, MR. WHITMORE, YOU OWN.

THE WELL THE PINK MRS LEWIS I'LL ADDRESS YOU TO PINK IS MORE OR LESS A PROPERTY LINE OF THE ENTIRE TRACK.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S THE 76 POINT.

THERE'S SOMETHING ACRES.

YES. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT FOR A CORRECT.

THIS IS PULLING IT OUT OF THE AG AND FOREST DISTRICT.

THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'LL BE ANOTHER PROCESS TO COME, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND WE'LL PROVIDE.

WE'RE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE TONIGHT, BUT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, WE'LL PROVIDE A REQUISITE AMOUNT OF DETAIL.

IF THERE'S NO MORE COMMENTS.

THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? PUBLIC COMMENT. YES, IT IS.

I KNOW ABOUT BUYING PROPERTY THAT'S NOT SUITABLE FOR WHAT YOUR INTENTION WAS BECAUSE I BOUGHT A 57 ACRE FARM A FEW YEARS AGO IN ACCOMACK COUNTY WITH THE IDEA OF RAISING A FEW COWS AND THEN DISCOVERED IT WASN'T SUITABLE FOR LIVESTOCK AT ALL.

AND I HAVE SOME PROPERTY THAT IS SUITABLE FOR A BORROW PIT, 15FT OF SAND ON ABOUT 20 ACRES AND RESPOND TO MR. CHESSON COMMENT. I DON'T THINK A 20 ACRE BAR PIT IS GOING TO ATTRACT VERY MANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

IT'S PROBABLY JUST NOT BIG ENOUGH TO BE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY.

PLUS, I KNOW YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT NATIONALLY, EVERY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN THIS COUNTRY COST THE MUNICIPALITY ABOUT $1.30 FOR EVERY DOLLAR GENERATED IN REAL ESTATE TAXES.

THANK YOU. IT'S UP TO $1.52.

NOW, HERE'S THE MOST RECENT.

ALL RIGHT, I'M BEHIND THE TIMES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING.

I OWN A 100 ACRE SAND PIT NEXT TO THIS PROPOSED THING, AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH SAND FOR OVER 50 YEARS.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER WITH MINING SAND FROM THIS PROPERTY.

MY CONCERN IS SAFETY.

THAT IS ONE HELLACIOUS ROAD FROM SCHOOLHOUSE ROAD DOWN TO MY PROPERTY AND I GOT RUN OFF.

WELL, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO ACCIDENTS ALMOST, WHERE WHEN YOU COME SHOOTING AROUND A CORNER, IT'S LIKE TRUCKS LEAVING HIGHWAY.

THEY DON'T STOP VERY FAST.

THEY ARE REAL SLOW MOVING AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.

BUT MY SUGGESTION IS THAT THE INGRESS AND EGRESS NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND DETERMINED BY VDOT.

THERE IS SOME GOOD STRAIGHT ROADS ALONG THE PROPERTY THAT HE OWNS, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME THAT TOUCHES UP AGAINST THE THING THERE THAT VERY DANGEROUS.

THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE TRAFFIC ON THAT ROAD NOW THAN THERE WAS WHEN I STARTED.

IT USED TO BE A DIRT PATH AND NOW IT'S SURFACED OVER, BUT SCHOOL BUSSES RUN UP AND DOWN THERE.

AND ALSO IN THE MORNING THE SUN WILL BLIND YOU WHEN YOU'RE LEAVING THAT AREA, GOING OUT TO 258.

I CAN ATTEST TO THAT AFTER HAVING BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS.

AND LIKE I SAY, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT.

I JUST THINK THAT THE SAFETY ASPECT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED.

THAT'S 4 OR 5 TERRIBLE BENDS FROM FROM 258 DOWN TO THAT PROPERTY.

THAT WOULD PRESENT A REAL ACCIDENT SITUATION ON.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SURE. BRIEFLY. IF NO ONE ELSE, JUST VERY BRIEFLY, WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE REMOVED FROM THE AG AND FORESTRY DISTRICT

[00:20:08]

I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT HE'S MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT.

IT'S STILL DISCRETIONARY WITH THIS COMMISSION, BUT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU GRANT HIS APPLICATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE. LAST CALL.

IF NOT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE HEARD THE COMMENTS AND THE CONCERNS.

AND THEY'VE BEEN NOTED.

AND WE'LL SEE THEM AGAIN AT OUR NEXT FOLLOW UP MEETING IF IT PROGRESSES.

SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IF EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH THE FOUR CONDITIONS YOU SEE WITH DOWN IN FRONT OF YOU, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM.

WE MET. I THINK IT WOULDN'T BE ANY CONDITIONS FOR JUST REMOVAL.

I THINK THE CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL FROM THE CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL, CRITERIA FOR CONDITIONS AND I AGREE, DR.

EDWARDS, I THINK WE'VE MET THOSE FOUR POINTS.

I SEE SOME NODS AT THIS POINT.

I THINK WE MET. WE'VE MET THAT CRITERIA AT THIS TIME.

SO. THE EMOTION.

I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

CAN I MAKE JUST ONE COMMENT? YES, SIR. DOES MINING NOT PART OF AGRICULTURE? DO THEY FALL INTO TWO? AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY.

IT'S ALLOWED IN THE SAME ZONING.

CORRECT IS MONEY IS ALLOWED IN AGRICULTURAL AREA WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND IT IS CONSIDERED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY.

BUT IT IS A MORE INTENSE USE THAN IS NOW.

OKAY. AND THAT'S WHY IT NEEDS TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM THAT AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY DISTRICT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

DID I GET A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE HIS APPLICATION.

TURNER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE.

FROM THE RIVERDALE AGRI AND FORESTRY DISTRICT.

AND MISS ALSTON YOUR SECOND IN THAT SECOND.

NOW, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I GOT A QUESTION. YOU DID? DO YOU USE THE WORD INTENSE USE? SO IF WE PUT A IF WE HAVE AN AG AND FORESTRY DISTRICT AREA AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT A CHICKEN ICE ON IT OR HOG HIGH SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT OUT OF THE AG AND FORESTRY DISTRICT BECAUSE THAT'S THAT IS MORE OF AN INTENSIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT WOULD BE A DECISION FOR, I GUESS, ME AS A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.

BUT I WOULD CONSIDER THAT JUST A DIFFERENT FLAVOR OF AGRICULTURE.

BUT MINING IS NOT A DIFFERENT FLAVOR OF AGRICULTURE.

IT IS A DIFFERENT USE.

ALL RIGHT. SO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO PUT A SOLAR FACILITY IN, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AS WELL.

CERTAINLY. OKAY. AND I'M ASKING A QUESTION.

I FELT THE SAME WAY BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO REFER TO SOLAR AS SOLAR FARMING.

WE DO NOT REFER IT AS THAT ON THIS BOARD.

BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IN THE MINUTES.

YES. OKAY, GOOD.

GOOD POINT. FOR CLARIFICATION.

YES. IN THE OTHER DISCUSSION, WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND DISCUSSION.

I'M IN FAVOR OF REMOVAL, REMOVING THIS FROM THE AG AND FORESTRY DISTRICT.

I WOULD. YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT IF FROM TO POSSIBLY ALLOWING A LARGER BUFFER ZONE FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT AND MAYBE THAT BE IN I RECOGNIZE THAT WOULD BE NEXT MONTH OR WHENEVER THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BUT IF I SAY I'M IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING HIM TO PULL THIS OUT OF THE AG AND FORESTRY DISTRICT AND I UNDERSTAND.

YES, MA'AM. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I APPROVE.

I THINK THAT IT IS GOOD THAT WE SUPPORT ENTERPRISE THAT IS GOOD FOR OUR COUNTY, THAT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEVELOPING SMALL BUSINESS.

AND AS LONG AS SAFETY PRECAUTIONS ARE DONE AND WE'LL DISCUSS THAT AT ANOTHER MEETING, BUT FENCING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I JUST THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD INSIGHT.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A PRESENT OWNER, DOESN'T THE NEXT OWNER DOWN THE ROAD MIGHT.

YOU KNOW, HE MAY. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU NEVER KNOW.

[00:25:01]

IN ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

I. IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE 26.27 ACRES FROM THE RIVERDALE VOLUNTEER FIRE DISTRICT.

SAY AYE. AYE.

OPPOSED. LIKE SIGN. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING.

OKAY. PROPERLY NOTED.

THANK YOU, MR. MANN. SO IT'S UNANIMOUSLY EXCEPT ONE ABSTAIN.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE RIGHT ALONG UNTIL WE HAVE ANOTHER HEARING.

APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELL TOWER UP NEAR THE ARBOR AREA.

AND, MISS LEWIS, I WILL LET YOU ELABORATE ON THIS, PLEASE.

YES. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL 20 3-1.

THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THAT PARCEL IS 158.22 ACRES, MORE OR LESS IN THE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED IS 10,000FT² OF DISTURBED AREA.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THIS IS A PROPOSED MONOPOLE IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF IVOIRE ROAD AND MILLFIELD ROAD WITH THE PROPERTY ITSELF HAS AN ADDRESS OF 32061 MILLFIELD ROAD.

IN 2013, A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER FOR VERIZON WAS APPROVED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF I-4 ROAD AND MILLFIELD ROAD.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS HAVE TO BE ACTED UPON WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING PHYSICAL IN 12 MONTHS OR THEY EXPIRE.

SO THAT COULD BE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS PUTTING UP A FENCE.

IT COULD BE DOING SOIL TESTING, SOIL, BORING THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND THEY HAVE THIS ONE EXPIRED.

THE 1 IN 2013 EXPIRED.

THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2013 WASN'T INTERESTED, AS I UNDERSTAND, IN ANOTHER APPLICATION.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MILLFIELD ROAD.

IT'S STILL GOING TO SERVE THE SAME PART OF THE COUNTY.

AND THE ENGINEERING REPORT WAS DONE BY THE COUNTY'S CONSULTANT AND THEY FOUND THAT IT IS THIS IS APPROPRIATE AND IT'S CERTAINLY NEEDED IF IT WAS NEEDED IN 2013.

IT IS EVEN MORE NEEDED NOW, TEN YEARS LATER.

THE MONOPOLE HEIGHT, INCLUDING THE LIGHTNING ROD, WILL BE 199FT.

IT'LL BE NEAR NEAR THE CENTER OF THE 158 ACRE PROPERTY, WITH THE 40 BY 40 FOOT EQUIPMENT COMPOUND ENCLOSED WITH AN EIGHT FOOT TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE TOPPED BY BARBED WIRE.

IT WILL BE ACCESSED BY A 12 FOOT WIDE GRAVEL ROAD.

WE'LL PUT LANDSCAPING AROUND THE FENCE COMPOUND TO BUFFER AND SCREEN THE TOWER AND EQUIPMENT FROM VIEW, WHICH I ALWAYS FIND AMUSING BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SCREEN THE TOWER. ALL YOU'RE GOING TO SCREEN IS THE BOXES THAT ARE ON THE GROUND.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1400 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE NORTHEAST, 1600 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST PROPERTY LINE TO THE EAST AND 1700 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTH AND 435FT FROM I-4 ROAD.

IT'S THE CLOSEST OFFSITE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES OVER 525FT AWAY.

THERE IS A STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IN USE, BUT.

IT'S THERE. THE TOWER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE USERS, INCLUDING VERIZON WIRELESS.

AND THEY WILL USE THE OTHER AS LEASE SPACES.

IT WON'T BE MARKED OR LIT AND IT WILL HAVE NO ADVERTISING AND NO SIGNAGE EXCEPT WHAT'S REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW.

IT WILL OPERATE CONTINUOUSLY AND WON'T REQUIRE ANY OCCUPANTS OR EMPLOYEES ON THE SITE.

IT WILL BE VISITED QUARTERLY BY A TECHNICIAN FOR MAINTENANCE AND AS NEEDED DURING SERVICE OUTAGES.

THE NOISE EMITTED FROM THE EQUIPMENT ON THE GROUND WILL NOT BE ANY LOUDER THAN NORMAL RESIDENTIAL HVAC EQUIPMENT AND THE POND SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL.

THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE A REPORT FROM A REGISTERED STRUCTURAL OR CIVIL ENGINEER INDICATING TOWER HEIGHT AND DESIGN STRUCTURE, INSTALLATION AND TOTAL ANTICIPATED CAPACITY OF THE STRUCTURE.

AN FAA DETERMINATION AND AN UPDATED REPORT FROM THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.

NOTICES WENT OUT AND WERE IN THE MAIL, WENT OUT IN THE MAIL, AND IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER TWICE AS REQUIRED.

AND I RECEIVED NO TELEPHONE CALLS OR COMMENTS FROM ANYONE IN THE AREA AND THE CONSULTANTS.

THE. VERIZON'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I JUST HAVE A CURIOSITY QUESTION.

[00:30:02]

WILL THAT POLL BE REMOVED? THAT TOWER? IT WAS NOT PUT UP.

THERE WAS NO, IT'S NOT.

BUT THAT WAS A CURIOSITY QUESTION.

THERE IS NO NOTHING WAS EVER CONSTRUCTED.

OH, NOTHING WAS CONSTRUCTED? NO, THEY NEVER STARTED ANYTHING.

THAT'S WHY IT EXPIRED. IF SOMEONE HAD BUILT A POLL.

HAD BUILT A TOWER, THEN IT COULD BE USED, BUT NOTHING WAS EVER BUILT.

THAT CLEARED THAT UP.

I WAS THINKING THERE WERE GOING TO BE THESE TWO.

TOWERS FACING EACH OTHER.

RIGHT. OKAY.

CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? YES, SIR. GO AHEAD. GIVEN THE I GUESS SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE PROJECT NARRATIVE THAT WAS REFERENCE TO A PASSING OF VIRGINIA CODE 15.2 TO 2316 FOUR COLON TWO A DID THE.

PASSAGE OF THAT LAW CALLS OUR CODE OUR COUNTY CODE, TO BE OUTDATED.

AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR AN ATTORNEY.

I'M LOOKING AT THE CODE SECTION AS WE SPEAK.

IS IT 23, 16 FOUR COLON TWO A? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YES.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST REFERENCE.

AND MAYBE THE AUTHOR OF THE NARRATIVE MIGHT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

BUT JUST REQUIRING OR IT SEEMED LIKE MAYBE OUR CODE ASKED FOR A CONSULTANT'S REVIEW OR THAT INCLUDED MAPS, BUT THEN MAYBE THE PASSAGE OF THE CODE SAID NO COUNTIES CAN'T ASK FOR MAPS ANYMORE.

RIGHT. AND I'M JUST WONDERING, DOES THAT MAKE OUR CODE OUTDATED? ASKING FOR THAT.

PERHAPS THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

OKAY. ANYWAY, I JUST HAD THAT QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT. WHO HAD THE LAST PERMIT? THE ONE THAT WAS. IT WAS VERIZON.

IT WAS VERIZON. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. NOW ON THIS, IT'S ROOM FOR FOUR MORE OCCUPANTS.

ALL THOSE OTHER SPOTS ALREADY LEASED OUT IN A QUESTION FOR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TONIGHT.

I EXPECT OUR OUR ORDINANCE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT, CORRECT? IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT WHEN A CELL TOWER GOES UP, THAT ALL FIVE SPOTS ARE CERTAINLY NOT.

NO, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU CAN'T PUT UP A SPECULATIVE TOWER.

BUT THIS TOWER DOES HAVE A USER AND THAT'S VERIZON.

OKAY. SO IT ONLY REQUIRES ONE SPOT TO BE RENTED OUT.

WHEREAS WITH THE WHICH WOULD FALL INTO CATEGORY WITH THE SOLAR FACILITIES, WE REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY PICK IT UP AND USE THEM.

THAT'S GREAT. AND I ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE REALLY EVERYBODY COMES IN AND WANTS TO PUT UP A SPECULATIVE TOWER WHEN WE'VE GOT SPOTS FOR FOUR MORE.

AND THEN A LOT OF TIMES YOU RIDE BY AND YOU NEVER SEE THE OTHER FOUR COMING INTO PLAY.

NO, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, IN THE PAST.

2 OR 3 YEARS WE GET WE'VE GOTTEN APPLICATIONS TO ADD ANTENNA AND SWAP OUT ANTENNA.

4 OR 5, SIX TIMES A YEAR.

SOME OF THE ANTENNAS HAVE SOME OF THE TOWERS HAVE HAD THE ANTENNAS REPLACED AND ADDED TO SEVERAL TIMES.

SO IT WOULD NOT BE SURPRISING TO ME THAT ONCE THIS ONE GOES UP, IT GETS FILLED UP PRETTY QUICKLY.

IF YOU LOOK AT HOW MUCH ACTIVITY WE'VE SEEN ON OTHER ONES, THERE'S ONE NEAR SCHOOLHOUSE ROAD OR ON SCHOOLHOUSE ROAD AND MR. WHITMIRE'S AREA THAT IT SEEMS LIKE TWICE A YEAR THEY COME IN AND REPLACE AND ADD ANTENNA TO THAT ONE.

AND WHEN YOU SAY REPLACE, THEY MAY COMPANY TAKES THEIRS DOWN, ANOTHER COMPANY PUTS IN OR THAT SAME COMPANY PUTS UP A NEWER ONE.

AND SO THEY'VE GOT TO COME IN TO PUT UP A NEW ANTENNA.

THEY'VE GOT TO COME IN AND REQUEST THAT, TOO.

THEY ONLY NEED TO GET THEY DON'T NEED TO COME BACK THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THIS PROCESS IS FOR THE TOWER.

BUT THEY DO NEED BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL PERMITS.

YES. WHICH YOU CAN APPROVE IN YOUR OFFICE.

AND THEY CAN. YES. OKAY.

AND YOU'VE SEEN MORE ACTIVITY OF THAT IN THE LAST 2 OR 3 YEARS.

YES. OKAY.

OUT OF THE TOWERS THAT WE HAVE IN THE COUNTY.

THINK THIS IS NOT A QUESTION YOU CAN ANSWER NOW, BUT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THEM ARE MAXED OUT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THAT ENCOURAGING TO USE THE SPOTS THAT WE DO HAVE AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

SO BUT AS I SAID, THIS ONE WAS FOUND TO BE NEEDED TEN YEARS AGO, SO THAT'S A DEAD SPOT.

[00:35:05]

I UNDERSTAND. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY.

YES. I'VE REVIEWED THE CODE SECTION THAT THE INQUIRY IS MADE OF, AND IT'S INAPPLICABLE IN THIS SITUATION.

AS THE APPLICATION IS WRITTEN, IT DEALS WITH VERY SMALL FACILITIES, CONSIDERABLY OR EXPONENTIALLY SMALLER THAN THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY HERE.

SO IT WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE, AT LEAST AT MY CURSORY REVIEW OF IT TONIGHT.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

THANK YOU, MR. BOYLE. MISS LEWIS, I HAVE ONE QUESTION BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE HEARING.

ONE IN THE PAST.

WASN'T A SPOT ALWAYS MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE COUNTY? PUBLIC SERVICE RADIO SYSTEM WAS NOT AN OPTION IN THE PAST.

HAS THAT CHANGED THAT? FOR MOST OF THE CELL TOWER APPLICATIONS THAT I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST YEARS, THAT HAS BEEN AN OFFER MADE BY THE.

OKAY. THE APPLICANT? YES. OKAY.

IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.

NOT A CRIME. OKAY. I KNEW IT.

I KNEW IT HAD BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE.

IT HAS BEEN AN OFFER IN THE PAST.

CAN IT BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITION SINCE THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? WELL, WE'LL FIND IT FROM THE APPLICANT.

APPLICANT IS HERE. BUT I KNOW OUR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS REPRESENTING AND PROBABLY SOME FIREMEN OR WHATEVER, BUT.

AS THE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS UPGRADE AND THESE MORE ELABORATE SYSTEMS THAT THE PERFORMANCE IS BETTER, BUT THE DISTANCE IS SHORTER.

I THINK I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY AND IT COULD BE A TIME IF SOME OF THESE TOWERS WOULD BE VERY SIGNIFICANT TO GET THAT BETTER SERVICE IN THE COUNTY.

BUT I JUST MENTIONED THAT.

LET'S FIND OUT WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS, IF MAYBE ANOTHER QUESTION I'VE HAD IN REVIEW OF THIS AND WOULD IT BE IS IT POSSIBLE TO OFFER AS A CONDITION OR THIS BOARD TO PLACE A CONDITION? WHERE? I GUESS, BACKING UP.

YEAH, WE WERE.

THIS TOWER WAS NEEDED TEN YEARS AGO AND THE BALL WAS DROPPED NINE YEARS AGO.

RIGHT. OKAY.

HOW CAN WE AS A COUNTY ENSURE THAT THE BALL DOES NOT DROP AGAIN? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN, BUT THAT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S A BUSINESS DECISION ON THE PART OF VERIZON.

WE CAN'T REQUIRE SOMEONE TO BUILD WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD IF THEY DON'T.

BUT WE DO THIS IN DEVELOPMENT.

UM, AND MY AND WE DO AND WE HAVE A GUARANTEE.

AND WE UTILIZE A BOND.

A PERFORMANCE BOND.

AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, CAN AS A CONDITION OF A SIMILAR APPLICATION.

ASKED FOR A PERFORMANCE BOND THAT THIS PLAN BE COMPLETED.

THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR AN ATTORNEY, BUT I WOULD PRETTY MUCH SAY NO.

I WOULD SAY NO.

YOU COULD ASK FOR A PERFORMANCE BOND IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PAVING OR LANDSCAPING OR SOME CONSTRUCTION.

BUT IF SOMEONE GETS APPROVAL FOR SOMETHING AND THEY CHOOSE NOT TO GO FORWARD.

WHAT? I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE MEANS TO REQUIRE VERIZON TO BUILD A TOWER THAT THEY NO LONGER WANT TO. WHAT'S THE LOSS IF IT'S NOT COMPLETED? LACK OF SERVICE TO OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT WE NOT WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE CALL OURSELVES CONSERVING CONSTITUENTS, BUT TO ME IT WOULD BE A FAILURE TO THE COUNTY RESIDENTS.

NOT TO ENSURE GOOD, GOOD SERVICE.

WHAT IF YOU DECIDED TO ADD A.

SCREEN ROOM TO YOUR HOUSE AND THEN YOU CHOSE NOT TO.

I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'D WANT THE COUNTY TO REQUIRE THAT YOU ADD A SCREEN ROOM TO YOUR HOUSE JUST TO ADD VALUE TO YOUR HOUSE, WHICH MAKES YOUR HOUSE MORE VALUABLE TO SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY.

I MEAN, THAT'S A VERY SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF PARALLEL.

ANYWAY, JUST THOUGHT PROCESS BEFORE AND I'LL GO BACK TO THE FIRST APPLICATION THE TEN YEARS AGO, THAT IF SOMEBODY DECIDE TO ABANDON AGAIN, WHICH I DON'T THINK THEY WILL, BUT THEY MAY.

HE WILL EXPIRE AFTER A YEAR.

CORRECT. IF THE APPROVAL GOES THROUGH.

AND THEN IF THEY DON'T COME BACK AGAIN, SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT.

WE MIGHT BE GETTING AHEAD OF OURSELVES.

BUT STILL GOOD COMMENTS.

BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THE LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE HEARING AND SEE WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD TO SAY.

[00:40:03]

AND IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND ELABORATE, SORRY, WE'RE GETTING KIND OF AHEAD OF THE GAME, BUT.

OH, NO THAT'S OKAY.

WE WELCOME YOU TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE YOU ALL HAVING ME.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF.

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS LISA MURPHY.

I'M A LOCAL ZONING ATTORNEY HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS AS VERIZON WIRELESS.

I HAVE WITH ME HOWIE DESILVA AND LARRY BICKINGS, WHO ALSO MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

ONE OF THE THINGS I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, AND THIS IS A SOMEWHAT COMMON MISCONCEPTION, SO WHEN ARTICLE 72 ZONING FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE WAS INITIALLY ADOPTED OR INITIALLY PASSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2017, IT WAS MEANT TO ADDRESS SMALL CELL SITES AND AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL SITES.

SO WHAT MISS LEWIS DESCRIBED ADDING ANTENNAS TO AN EXISTING FACILITY.

THEN IN 2018, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CAME BACK AND ACTUALLY ADDED PROVISIONS DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH THE LARGE CELL SITES.

SO THE MACRO CELL SITES, AND THAT'S WHAT, 15.2 DASH, 23, 16.4 COLON TWO A ADDRESSES THOSE SITES THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.

AND THERE WERE AND IT'S NOT UNUSUAL IF YOU ALL HAVEN'T HAD A TOWER APPLICATION IN SEVERAL YEARS, THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO LOOK INTO THIS AND FIGURE OUT THAT THIS HAD CHANGED.

AND I MEAN, IT'S THE FIRST TIME I CAN THINK OF THAT.

A WHOLE SECTION WAS ADDED TO THE STATE LAW ON ZONING, BUT IT'S SPECIFIC TO WIRELESS SMALL CELL SITES AND THE LARGE TOWER SITES LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

AND AS THE CONSULTANTS MENTIONED AND COMMISSIONER CHESSON AND MS. LEWIS MENTIONED, THIS SITE WAS NEEDED TEN YEARS AGO, THE CHALLENGE THAT VERIZON WIRELESS AND A LOT OF THE OTHER CARRIERS HAVE IS THAT THEIR RF ENGINEERS LOOK AT A LOCALITY OR LOOK AT ALL OF HAMPTON ROADS, ALL OF AN AREA OR A REGION, AND FIND OUT WHERE THEY'VE GOT THEIR GAPS IN COVERAGE.

AND THEN JUST LIKE ANY BUSINESS, THERE'S COMPETITION FOR THE CAPITAL TO INVEST TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE GAPS IN COVERAGE.

SO THE WORK THAT WE DO, THE ZONING WORK TYPICALLY COMES AHEAD OF THE ALLOCATION OF THE RESOURCES FOR FOR BUDGETARY PURPOSES.

SO THE ENGINEERS IDENTIFY A NEED, THE SITE ACQUISITION FOLKS GO OUT THERE AND LOOK FOR A SITE AND THEN THEY GET INVOLVED IN A PROCESS. TYPICALLY, THERE'S ONLY A 12 MONTH LEAD TIME BETWEEN ZONING AND WHEN THEY ACTUALLY START CONSTRUCTION.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST CASE, I'M QUITE SURE, WAS THAT THEY RAN INTO BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS.

SO THE WAY YOU END UP WITH A SITUATION WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A TOWER WITH NOBODY ON IT IS YOU'VE GOT A PERIOD WHERE IT EXPIRES.

SO IF THE AND IN THIS CASE, VERIZON DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO ACTIVATE THAT CFP BECAUSE WE CHECKED WITH WITH MISS LEWIS INITIALLY TO SAY, HEY, CAN WE REACTIVATE THE CFP? AND TEN YEARS HAD PASSED, IT WAS JUST TOO LATE.

SO BECAUSE THAT TOWER WAS NEVER BUILT, THE CFP EXPIRED AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE NOT HAVING TOWERS ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER. IT'S SOMEWHAT OF AN UNUSUAL SITUATION WHERE YOU GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANDLORD AND ARE NOT ABLE TO COME TO TERMS GOING FORWARD.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

SO WHENEVER A CARRIER AND I CAN TELL YOU MISS LEWIS HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, THE CARRIERS WOULD PREFER TO BE ABLE TO HANG THEIR ANTENNAS WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE THEY HAVE TO BUILD A TOWER AND GO THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND GET CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.

THE EASIEST AND THE FASTEST THING FOR THEM TO DO IS HANG.

ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING TOWER.

DOESN'T TAKE ANYWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL RESOURCES.

AND IT CERTAINLY IS A MUCH QUICKER PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

THEY CHANGE OUT THE ANTENNAS, THEY ADD ANTENNAS.

WHAT I CAN ALSO TELL YOU IS ONCE A TOWER GOES UP FOR A PARTICULAR CARRIER DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CARRIERS COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER USER ON THAT TOWER VERY LIKELY FAIRLY QUICKLY ONCE THEY SEE THAT THAT TOWER GETS BUILT.

A LOT OF. ZONING ORDINANCES REQUIRE FIVE SPOTS BE MADE AVAILABLE.

THE REALITY IN TODAY IS MAYBE YOU HAVE THREE CARRIERS THAT ARE ACTIVE IN YOUR MARKET.

MAYBE A FOURTH.

SO IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT ALL FIVE OF THOSE SPOTS WILL EVER GET USED, BUT IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT AT LEAST TWO OF THEM WILL BE USED.

[00:45:03]

SO THAT IS IS WHY WE HERE TONIGHT.

YOU KNOW, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHY THE NEED HAS GOTTEN EVEN GREATER IN THE LAST TEN YEARS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU ALREADY KNOW.

BACK IN 2007, ONLY 16% OF AMERICANS WERE WIRELESS ONLY AT HOME.

FAST FORWARD TO 2022.

SO YOU GO THROUGH THE PANDEMIC WHERE EVERYBODY'S GONE HOME TO WORK AND GONE HOME TO ATTEND SCHOOL.

AND YOU'VE GOT JUST UNDER 71% OF ADULTS ARE WIRELESS ONLY.

THEY KEEP TRACK DIFFERENTLY.

FOR CHILDREN, IT'S 82% OF HOMES THAT ACTUALLY HAVE CHILDREN IN THEM.

SO YOUR YOUNGER DEMOGRAPHIC, YOUR FAMILIES ARE GOING TO HAVE ACTUALLY A SITUATION WHERE THEY'VE NEVER HAD A LANDLINE PHONE.

IRONICALLY, MY PARENTS, WHO ARE A LITTLE BIT OLDER AND LIVE IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA, TEXTED THE WHOLE FAMILY TEXT CHAIN AND SAID, OH, WE GOT RID OF OUR LANDLINE PHONE.

YOU CAN ONLY GET US ON OUR WIRELESS PHONE NOW.

SO THEY'VE CUT THE CORD LIKE SO MANY OTHER FOLKS.

BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, WIRELESS COVERAGE.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, HIGH SPEED INTERNET HAS BECOME A HAVE TO HAVE NOT A NICE TO HAVE.

AND IN A LOT OF THE RURAL JURISDICTIONS WHERE WE'RE GOING BACK AND EITHER REDOING SITES OR ADDING SITES, THE DEMAND CERTAINLY IS THERE AND AND THE CONSTITUENTS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT.

IT'S A SERVICE THAT THE CARRIERS PROVIDE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE BECAUSE THE CARRIERS COME IN AND ADD THIS INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO IT'S A AGAIN, A DELICATE BALANCE AS FAR AS THE BUDGETING SITUATION, AS MS. LEWIS INDICATED.

AND SHE DID A GREAT JOB.

SHE HIT ALL OF MY HIGHLIGHTS.

SO SHE HASN'T LEFT A WHOLE LOT EXCEPT FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.

BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, SO I DID MENTION IN THE NARRATIVE THAT THE PROPAGATION MAPS THAT YOU ALL USED TO GET THAT REALLY WEREN'T ALL THAT EASY TO UNDERSTAND ANYWAY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S CONSIDERED PROPRIETARY.

AND UNDER THAT STATE LAW SECTION I MENTIONED, WE CAN'T BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.

AND AS I OFTEN TELL THE CARRIER, WELL, HOW DO I EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR THE TOWER IF WE CAN'T SHOW FOLKS? BUT WHAT YOU DO HAVE IS AN ACTUAL AERIAL MAP OF OF THE AREA THAT'S EXHIBIT A IN YOUR PACKET AND IT SHOWS YOU THE WHAT YOU PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW.

SO THE THE WORLD CANDIDATE, THE SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS IN THE MIDDLE, THAT CENTER PIN THAT'S LABELED BERLIN WORLD CANDIDATE.

THE CLOSEST TOWER TO THE NORTH IS IN WAKEFIELD AND THAT'S 7.8 MILES AWAY.

SO THAT'S VERY FAR AWAY AS FAR AS WIRELESS GOES TO THE NORTHEAST, YOU'VE GOT A TOWER IN IVER THAT'S JUST UNDER FIVE MILES AWAY TO THE EAST, DIRECTLY EAST, YOU'VE GOT THE TOWER LABELED ZUNI THAT'S JUST UNDER EIGHT MILES AWAY TO THE SOUTHEAST.

YOU'VE GOT MAYNARDS CROSSING TOWER THAT'S NINE AND A HALF MILES AWAY.

TO THE SOUTH, YOU'VE GOT THE SEDLEY TOWER THAT'S JUST UNDER SIX MILES AWAY.

AND THEN THE NEXT TO TOWER, SIEBEL AND BARRETT STORE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND THE WEST.

THOSE ARE GOING ON TEN MILES AWAY.

SO THAT'S A BIG AREA THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY BEING COVERED.

AND THAT'S WHY RESIDENTS ARE EXPERIENCING THE DEAD SPOT.

SOMEBODY MENTIONED IT WAS A DEAD SPOT.

AND SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU'RE HAVING, ATC DID BUILD A TOWER A FEW YEARS AGO.

THAT'S ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MILES AWAY.

AND THAT ACTUALLY WOULDN'T PROVIDE THE COVERAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE.

IT WOULD LEAVE SOME OF THAT AREA UNCOVERED.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE BACK.

I MEAN, THE NEED IS STILL THERE.

NO, TOWERS HAVE CROPPED UP IN THE LAST TEN YEARS TO HELP SATISFY THE NEED.

IF THEY HAD, THEN VERIZON WOULD BE CO-LOCATING ON THOSE TOWERS.

SO THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU VISUALLY WHAT YOU'RE EXPERIENCING DIRECTLY, AGAIN, FROM A DEAD SPOT OR LACKING COVERAGE.

THAT'S WHY YOU'RE EXPERIENCING THAT.

AS WAS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WHEN ANY CARRIER FINDS THAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE BECAUSE REMEMBER, IT'S EASIER TO JUST FIND A STRUCTURE AND HANG THE ANTENNAS, THEY LOOK FOR A LARGE PARCEL.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S 158 ACRES, PLUS OR MINUS.

THEY LOOK FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS NICE TREE BUFFERING, AND IT'S LARGE ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN PUT THE FACILITY FAR ENOUGH OFF THE ROAD AND FAR AWAY FROM OTHER USES SO THAT IT REALLY HAS A MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.

[00:50:02]

AS THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION SHOW, THE THIS IS A THIS IS ACTUALLY A GREAT SITE AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT FROM THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.

AS WAS MENTIONED AT THE TIME OF THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL, WE WILL SUBMIT THE FAA FINAL FAA DETERMINATION AT THIS HEIGHT. THE TOWER WILL NOT BE MARKED OR LIT.

WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE STATE BUILDING CODES AND ALL OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

WE PROVIDED A NEAR REPORT WITH THE APPLICATION ON THE TOE AIR REPORT, WHICH IS REALLY THE PRELIMINARY FAA AND THEN THE PRIOR STATE HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT.

AND THAT WILL BE UPDATED AS WELL FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE, AS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT, OBVIOUSLY MORE WIDESPREAD AND BETTER WIRELESS COVERAGE IS A CONCERN THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

THIS IS HOPEFULLY A NEED THAT VERIZON WILL BE ABLE TO ASSIST THE COUNTY WITH IN THIS LOCATION.

IT COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE CONSULTANTS HAVE REVIEWED IT AND HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE APPROVED AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ALSO APPROVE THE TOWER.

ONE THING THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION, THE THE REQUIREMENT OF PUTTING COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON THE TOWER WAS ANOTHER REQUIREMENT THAT THE STATE LAW NOW SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T DEMAND OR YOU CAN'T ADD A CONDITION TO THAT EFFECT. VERIZON ACTUALLY HAS A CONSULTANT CALLED THAT THERE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET.

AS FAR AS CO-LOCATION, THE COUNTY CAN SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO KGB AND THEY CAN LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S HARD TO KNOW.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY? HEIGHT WISE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED UNLESS THE COUNTY CAN SAY, OKAY, HERE'S THE HEIGHT WE NEED, HERE'S THE EQUIPMENT WE WANT TO PUT ON THE TOWER AND GIVE THE VERIZON AND THEIR CONSULTANTS THE ABILITY TO EVALUATE THAT.

I MEAN, CERTAINLY IT'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR CO-LOCATION FOR ANYBODY, INCLUDING THE COUNTY'S EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, BUT WITHOUT A PRETTY HIGH LEVEL OF DETAIL AS FAR AS WHAT YOU WOULD WANT TO PUT ON IT, IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, HOPEFULLY.

IS THE TOWER GOING TO BE.

IT'S A GALVANIZED STEEL TOWER, BUT STEEL GALVANIZED STEEL WANTED TO PAINT GREEN.

I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE COLORED TOWERS.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY LOOK SILLY, BUT THEY STICK OUT MORE WHEN THEY'RE AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE SKY.

SOME JURISDICTIONS WANT THE BLUE, SOME WANT THEM BROWN.

UNLESS YOU'RE IN A STAND OF TREES, IT ENDS UP, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, STICKING OUT MORE AGAINST THE SKY BECAUSE THE SKY CAN EITHER BE AN OVERCAST DAY, IT CAN BE A SUNNY DAY. SO THE GALVANIZED STEEL TENDS TO BLEND A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

WE COULD ENTERTAIN ANY PAINTING, BUT A LOT OF PLACES THAT HAVE REQUIRED PAINTING END UP NOT LIKING IT A WHOLE LOT BECAUSE IT DOES. HOW ABOUT IF WE WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE A PINE TREE THOUGH? YEAH, THOSE ARE APPROPRIATE IN IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS.

OBVIOUSLY THAT IS SOMETHING IT'S A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE STRUCTURE IF YOU GO TO THE PINE TREE ROUTE. BUT THE IN THIS TYPE OF RURAL AREA, THE PLAIN GALVANIZED STEEL MONOPOLE, NO GUIDE WIRES, NO LATTICE TOWERS, NO LIGHTS IS GOING TO BLEND ABOUT AS WELL AS ANYTHING ELSE.

WELL, IF WE SAID WE WANTED TO LOOK LIKE A PINE TREE, WOULD YOU STILL DO IT OR NOT DO IT? UM, YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S NOT LIKELY BASED ON THE COST INVOLVED.

SO I THINK WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS GET THE AREA COVERAGE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE BEST TYPE OF FACILITY THAT WE CAN PUT UP THERE, YOU KNOW, WITHIN REASON.

AGAIN, I THINK FROM A VISUAL STANDPOINT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS AND THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS IS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

YOU MIGHT FIND THAT A PINE TREE WOULD DRAW MORE ATTENTION THAN JUST A SIMPLE MONOPOLE DESIGN.

WE OFTEN GET THAT COMPLAINT, TOO.

WHY IS THAT ONE PINE TREE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIELD? YOU KNOW IT. IT CAN LOOK SILLY.

SO. YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES THAT NO LIGHTS.

[00:55:01]

SO ACTUALLY, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE LIGHTS THAT FLASH FOR AIRCRAFT, THESE TOWERS, NOT AT THIS HEIGHT.

IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE LIT.

YEAH. OKAY.

ANYTHING UNDER 200FT.

SO IT'S RIGHT AT 199, UNLESS IT'S CLOSE TO AN AIRPORT, RIGHT.

OR NEXT TO THE INTERSTATE AND THERE'S OR A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MILITARY FACILITY.

I MEAN, BUT AT THIS LOCATION, YEAH, AT 199FT, IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE LIGHTS.

YEAH. DOES THE FAA GET INVOLVED? IF IT'S A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP, AN INDIVIDUAL HAS A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP.

THEY WILL SEE IF THERE HAS TO BE A STUDY.

SO THERE ARE CERTAIN TRIGGERS FOR WHETHER OR NOT THE FAA HAS TO DO A STUDY AND THAT WAS THE FIRST INDICATOR OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE NEEDS TO BE A FULL STUDY.

IF THE FAA DOES A STUDY, THEY'LL LOOK MORE BROADLY AT PRIVATE AIRSTRIPS.

AND WE'VE HAD CASES WHERE THAT'S COME INTO PLAY.

BUT IT BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WOULD BE A STUDY REQUIRED AT THIS LOCATION.

GOT A QUESTION. I GOT A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE WHO USED TO WORK FOR VERIZON.

AND WHEN WE TRAVEL AROUND THE COUNTY, YOU LOSE CELL SERVICE HERE AND THEN YOU PICK IT BACK UP.

AND HE SAYS IT'S BECAUSE OF LACK OF BANDWIDTH.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT TERM.

CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT MEANS? YEAH. SO IN MORE HEAVILY POPULATED AREAS, YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF USERS AND THE TYPES OF USAGE, SO DOWNLOADING, STREAMING, WATCHING VIDEOS AND YOUTUBE, THAT TYPE OF THING, IT'S GOING TO SHRINK THE COVERAGE COMING OFF OF THOSE OR COMING OFF OF THAT SITE, COMING OFF OF THOSE ANTENNAS.

AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK HE'S MEANING BY LACK OF BANDWIDTH.

SO THERE'S ACTUALLY TOO MANY PEOPLE USING A PARTICULAR TOWER.

AND IF YOU'VE GOT TOO MANY PEOPLE LOSING IT, YOUR COVERAGE THAT MIGHT BE LIKE THIS GETS SHRUNK DOWN.

SO YOU GET AROUND THE EDGES, YOU'D GET FEWER PEOPLE THAT HAVE QUALITY SERVICE.

I'VE NOTICED BEFORE, SEVEN IN THE MORNING, GREAT COVERAGE ALL OVER THE COUNTY WHERE WE TRAVEL.

AND THEN AFTER SIX AND THE REST OF THE DAY, YOU CAN'T TALK ON THE PHONE.

THEN AFTER SIX, IT PICKS BACK UP AGAIN.

AND THAT COULD BE BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF USERS DURING THE DAY TIME COMING UP 58 QUARTERS.

YEAH. SO IF YOU'RE HOME, YOU MIGHT ALSO NOTICE THAT IN THE EVENINGS OR FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, IT'S YOU HAVE LESS COVERAGE.

THAT'S BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE ARE HOME USING THEIR CELL PHONES.

SO ANY PLACE WHERE YOU'D HAVE A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE EITHER TRAVELING OR BUSINESSES AROUND YOU, THAT'S GOING TO BE SOAKING UP THAT SIGNAL.

BUT IN THE MORE RURAL AREAS LIKE THIS AREA, IT'S JUST A LACK OF COVERAGE, PERIOD.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS TOWER WILL HELP COVERAGE IN THIS AREA THEN, CORRECT? CORRECT. SPECIFIC AREA.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

SO NOW THAT WE'VE GONE TO A LOT OF DATA USAGE, IF I RECALL, YOU KNOW, IT STARTED OUT WE NEEDED TOWERS EVERY TEN, TEN MILES APART.

SO HAS IT NARROWED DOWN? DO WE NEED THEM EVERY FIVE MILES APART? IS IT A SO THE CORRELATION IS NOT SO MUCH IT'S NOT DIRECTLY JUST DATA, IT'S A NUMBER OF USERS AND NUMBER OF USES. SO IN THE MORE HEAVILY POPULATED AREAS IN THE CITIES, YOU COULD HAVE A TOWER EVERY MILE.

IT MIGHT BE 125 FOOT TOWER, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE SOME STRUCTURE, SOME ANTENNAS EVERY MILE.

IN THE MORE RURAL AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE FEWER USERS THERE, THEY CAN GET A BETTER SIGNAL OFF OF THE SET OF ANTENNAS THAT THEY DO HAVE.

SO WHAT'S GOING TO AFFECT HOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN TOWER SITES OR ANTENNAS IS GOING TO BE THE POPULATION, THE DENSITY, FOLIAGE, TOPOGRAPHY, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

IN ADDITION, IN ADDITION TO THE NUMBER OF USERS, AND THE TYPES OF USERS.

SO THERE'S NO SET DISTANCE, I CAN TELL YOU KNOW, IN A CITY TYPE ENVIRONMENT, IT'S ABOUT A MILE.

BUT THERE ARE SMALLER, LOWER TOWERS.

IN MORE RURAL AREAS, IT COULD BE.

3 TO 5 MILES.

TEN MILES WOULD BE A BIT OF A STRETCH, EVEN FOR AN AREA THAT'S COMPLETELY FLAT.

NO VEGETATION, BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO AFFECT THE SIGNAL.

SO FIVE MILES ISH IN A VERY RURAL AREA WOULD BE.

ABOUT WHAT YOU'D SEE NOW, WHETHER THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT OVER TIME, AS YOU KNOW, TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON HOW THE AREA BUILDS OUT AROUND IT, WHERE WE HAVE ISSUES IN THE COUNTY THAT YOU'RE IN SIGHT OF THE TOWER, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE LIGHT BLINKING, STILL CANNOT GET THE SERVICE.

[01:00:01]

YEAH. AND ACTUALLY SEE A TOWER AND IT'S A LOT CLOSER THAN THREE MILES OR TWO MILES AND IT'S AT 199FT. SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THE ANTENNAS WERE DIFFERENT IN THE RURAL AREAS VERSUS THE CITIES BECAUSE AS YOU RIDE THROUGH THE CITIES, I NOTICED ACTUALLY YESTERDAY IN CHESAPEAKE, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD SEE ANTENNAS ON WATER TOWERS RIGHT ALONG ANY STRUCTURE.

AND YOU MENTIONED IT WAS A LOT CHEAPER TO PUT IT UP THERE.

AND I'VE MENTIONED THAT IN THE COUNTY IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE ANTENNAS ON EVERY WATER TOWER IN THE COUNTY.

IT JUST WILL ADD TO OUR COVERAGE BASE.

THEY'RE NOT LOCATED LIKE THEY WOULD BE IN A CITY, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A WATER TOWER IN THE COUNTY THAT HAS AN ANTENNA ON IT.

THAT MIGHT BE A MISS LEWIS QUESTION.

IN SOME JURISDICTIONS, IT'S BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WORKS.

FOLKS DIDN'T WANT ANYBODY TOUCHING THEIR WATER TOWERS.

I WOULD SUSPECT IT'S NOT FOR LACK OF ASKING ON THE PART OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR ANTENNA SITES BECAUSE THEY TYPICALLY WILL LOOK FOR WATER TOWERS.

IF YOU'VE GOT THE HIGH POWER TRANSMISSION LINES VEPCO RUNNING THROUGH AN AREA, SOMETIMES THOSE CAN BE USED A VERY TALL BUILDING.

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE MANY 200 FOOT BUILDINGS, TRANSMISSION LINE.

THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL A MONOPOLE AS WELL.

CORRECT. THE ONE THAT GOES OUT THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION LINES? WELL, IT IS A MONOPOLE.

IT'S TYPICALLY CALLED A FORT WORTH.

SO THEY DROP THAT POLE INTO THE VEPCO TRANSMISSION LINES AND THEN THEY ATTACH IT TO THE STRUCTURE.

YEAH. IF IT'S A LATTICE TOWER THAT VEPCO HAS, SOMETIMES VEPCO HAS MONOPOLES THAT CAN BE ATTACHED TO THOSE THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED.

BUT I DON'T KNOW TOO MANY TIMES THAT'S USED UTILIZED IN THE COUNTY AS WELL.

IF IT'S A TALL ENOUGH STRUCTURE, IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE HAS LOOKED INTO.

THEY WOULDN'T PASS ON SOMETHING THAT WAS TALL ENOUGH TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE.

IT JUST SEEMS THAT ALL OF THOSE THAT YOU MENTIONED NEVER GET UTILIZED INSIDE THE MCCAIN.

IT'S ALWAYS A TOWER THAT GETS PUT IN.

AND YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT AN ATC TOWER, I THINK.

YEAH, THREE MILES AWAY.

YEAH. IT'S IT'S TO THE SOUTHWEST.

YEAH. AND THAT I'M NOT SURE WHO IS ON THAT TOWER AND WE DID LOOK AT THAT STRUCTURE.

BUT IF YOU CAN IMAGINE LOOKING AT THAT MAP THAT PULLS YOUR COVERAGE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND THAT STILL LEAVES THAT HOLE TO THE NORTH AND TO THE NORTHEAST. SO WHEN THE RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS LOOK AT THIS, THEY LOOK TO SEE, OKAY, HOW CAN I PLUG THE BIGGEST HOLE THAT I CAN? AND ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION, WHAT ATC STANDS FOR.

WHAT IS THAT THE COMPANY I THINK IT'S AMERICAN TOWER COMPANY.

IT'S A TOWER COMPANY.

YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ARE WE READY? WELL, KIND OF TAGGING OFF WHAT MR. MANN WAS SAYING IN YOUR DETERMINATION ON APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR TOWERS.

OF COURSE, YOU MENTIONED FIVE MILES IS A PRETTY GOOD RADIUS.

BUT DOES THE PUBLIC INPUT HAVE ANY BEARING UPON VERIZON'S LOCATION? SO WHAT I'LL TELL YOU IS THAT UNLIKE BUILDING A WAWA OR A ROYAL FARMS OR ANY TYPE, OTHER TYPE OF CONDITIONAL USE.

CITING A TOWER FACILITY REQUIRES THIS INTERSECTION OF YOU'VE GOT THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS, YOU'VE GOT THE STATE REGULATIONS, YOU'VE GOT THE LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TO FIND A WILLING LANDLORD.

SO THE WIRELESS CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS OF CONDEMNATION.

SO EVEN IF YOU SAID THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD GO, STILL HAVE TO HAVE A WILLING LANDLORD.

SO REALLY, THE.

UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FIVE MILES, BUT THE RF ENGINEERS REALLY NARROWED DOWN TO TWO LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE, MAYBE EVEN LESS THAN THAT.

THE SEARCH, THEY CALL IT A SEARCH RING WHERE THEY COULD PUT THEIR ANTENNAS TO BE ABLE TO GET THE DESIRED COVERAGE.

AND THEN THE FOLKS LIKE HOWIE AND LARRY GO OUT AND TRY TO FIND A WILLING LANDLORD IN THAT SEARCH RING ON PROPERTY THAT MEETS THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD MEET THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE REQUIREMENTS.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY.

THE WIRELESS CARRIERS HAVE TO FOLLOW NEPA, SO THEY HAVE TO SCRUB FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES.

THEY HAVE TO SCRUB FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES.

AND SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO LINE UP FOR FOR A SITE TO BE AN APPROPRIATE SITE.

[01:05:02]

WELL, AGAIN, IT'S WE DON'T HAVE ANY IN THE OTHER PART OF THE COUNTY.

SO IT'S DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF USERS AND AND FRANKLY, COMPLAINTS FROM CUSTOMERS. SO THERE ARE HOLES, A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES.

HAS THE BUDGET BEEN PRIORITIZED TO ADDRESS THOSE HOLES IS A WHOLE NOTHER QUESTION ENTIRELY.

IF THERE ARE HOLES IN PLACES WHERE THERE AREN'T EXISTING STRUCTURES TO CO-LOCATE ON, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE AND THAT IS A HUGE INVESTMENT.

SO THERE ARE LOTS OF PLACES THAT WE'RE GOING BACK TO NOW IN THIS TEN YEAR PERIOD, JUST JUST LIKE HERE WHERE THEY'RE GOING BACK AND ALLOCATING THOSE RESOURCES. BUT IT'S A BUDGETARY CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT IS A HUGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

AND WE ARE BACK AND VERIZON DOES WANT TO INVEST IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY AND SPECIFICALLY IN THIS LOCATION.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.

SO IF THIS PASSES THE PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE PROBABILITY IS VERY HIGH THAT THIS WILL GO INTO EFFECT, WILL BE BUILT.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SITE, RIGHT? THIS IS SOMETHING CALLED A ROOT SITE.

AND IT WON'T BE BUILT TOMORROW, BUT IT WILL BE BUILT NEXT YEAR AT SOME POINT AFTER GOING THROUGH A SITE PLAN, TEN MORE YEARS AND THEN NOT GOING TO BE TEN MORE YEARS.

THEY WOULDN'T. I MEAN, IMAGINE HOW.

TROUBLING. IT WAS WHEN THEY REALIZED THEY HAD A CUP THAT EXPIRED AND THEY WERE READY TO BUILD THE SITE SO THAT BECAUSE IT EXPIRED IS WHY WE'RE HAVING TO GO BACK THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

BUT YEAH, THEY'RE READY TO DO IS BUILD A PATH TO THIS SITE.

IS THAT RIGHT? AND IS ACTED ON OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT A FENCE AROUND IT? AND I WAS WHAT? IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO TO THIS SITE TO GET HAVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO THAT THEY DON'T RUN OUT OF TIME.

SOMETHING PHYSICAL.

SO A PASS WOULD NOT WITH ROCKS ON IT WOULD THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING PHYSICAL.

THEY IT WOULD BE UNREALISTIC FOR THEM TO MOBILIZE A GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT TO BUILD A TOWER.

SO ONCE THEY GET THE SITE PLAN APPROVED, THEY WOULDN'T JUST DO DO SOME PRELIMINARY WORK IF THEY WEREN'T READY TO BUILD THE TOWER.

WELL, I GUESS MY POINT IS, IF YOU JUST LAY THE PATH AND BUILD THE ROAD, THE LAST TIME, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE THIS TIME.

RIGHT. AND PROBABLY THE COST OF THIS TIME WOULD HAVE FAR OUTWEIGH JUST LAYING A PATH IS MY POINT.

SO, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF LETTING THIS TOWER RUN OUT, TELL THEM TO DO SOMETHING.

YEAH, WE. I DON'T THINK THEY'LL LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN.

I MEAN, THEY WERE EVEN IN A STRANGE SITUATION WHERE THEY HAD PAID RENT FOR.

MORE THAN FIVE YEARS ON A SITE THAT THEY NEVER BUILT A TOWER ON.

SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, TOO, IF THE TOWER BECOMES OBSOLETE.

THE TOWER HAS TO COME DOWN, OF COURSE.

ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE, IF THERE ARE NO ANTENNAS ON IT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

RIGHT. WELL, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHT IS WE'VE GOT STARLINK THAT KEEPS MOVING IN THE AREA.

AND IF THEY GET INTO BUSINESS, THEY DON'T WORRY ABOUT LANDLORDS AND THEY DON'T WORRY ABOUT DEAD SPOTS.

THEY CAN JUST BEAM IT DOWN FROM A SATELLITE.

SO AND THEN YOU'VE GOT COVERAGE IN THE MOST RURAL AREA.

FROM THERE ON, AND THEN IT BECOMES A MATTER OF ECONOMICS.

CAN WE KEEP THIS TOWER UP? SO IF IT GETS TO THE POINT THAT ECONOMICALLY THE SATELLITE PHONES COMPETE WITH THE TOWER WIRELESS, EVENTUALLY IT WOULD BE THAT THE TOWERS, IF THEY'RE NOT IN USE, HAVE NO ANTENNAS.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT DEAL WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS FROM THE STATE DOESN'T CHANGE THAT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MRS ALSTON HAS A QUESTION.

OKAY. ADVANTAGE OF HEIGHT FOR THE TOWERS.

YOU CHOSE 199, AND I NOTICED THERE ARE TOWERS THAT ARE TALLER.

WHY DID YOU DECIDE? 199 200 AND THE FEDS GET IT RIGHT? BUT THEY DO HAVE TALLER TOWERS.

AND I WANTED TO KNOW THE ADVANTAGES TO HAVING A TALLER TOWER AS OPPOSED TO THIS ONE.

THAT'S 199.

SO IT YOU KNOW.

YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST STARTED DOING THIS, I WOULD GET THIS QUESTION, YOU KNOW, CAN I DO A 300 FOOT TOWER AND COVER THE WHOLE COUNTY? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.

THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER IS SOMEWHAT DETERMINED BY THE SIZE OF THE AREA THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO COVER.

SO SOME OF THESE TALLER TOWERS YOU CAN SEE ARE PRETTY FAR AWAY FROM ANY OTHER TOWERS.

[01:10:03]

199 IS LARGELY SELECTED BASED ON REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE HEIGHT AT WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT LIGHTS ON THE TOWER. SO MOST FOLKS DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT THE LIGHT ON THE TOWER.

IT'S LESS VISUALLY IMPACTFUL, CERTAINLY IN THE EVENING AND DURING THE DAYTIME IF IT DOESN'T HAVE LIGHTS ON IT.

SO WITH 199FT, VERIZON IS PRETTY COMFORTABLE THAT THEY CAN COVER THE HOLE THAT THEY HAVE TO COVER.

I GUESS MY THOUGHT WAS WE TALK ABOUT HAVING WEEK SERVICE LIKE THE ONE BAR IN A5G CITY LOCATION, BUT WHAT HOW DO YOU WHAT IS NECESSARY TO IMPROVE COVERAGE IN AREAS THAT NOW ARE HAVING VERY POOR COVERAGE.

MORE HAVE SOMETHING BUT NOT THE BEST.

YEAH IT'S MORE ANTENNAS.

I MEAN THAT'S REALLY A BIG PART OF THE ANSWER.

SO AS MISS LEWIS INDICATED BACK IN THE DAY, THE CARRIERS PUT UP ANTENNAS FOR A CERTAIN MEGAHERTZ RANGE, WHICH IS WHAT THEIR LICENSE WAS FOR.

NOW, THE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE FOLLOWED, BUT THE FCC AUCTIONED OFF ALL KINDS OF BANDWIDTH AND HIGHER RANGES, MOSTLY SOME IN LOWER, BUT MOSTLY IN HIGHER RANGES. AND SO AS THE CARRIERS ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL FREQUENCIES IN A PARTICULAR MARKET, THEN THEY GO CHANGE OUT THE EQUIPMENT BECAUSE THEY CAN GET ANTENNAS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE FREQUENCIES THAT THEY CAN OPERATE COVER NOT SO MUCH A BIGGER AREA, BUT PROVIDE THAT HIGHER DATA DOWNLOAD SPEEDS AND THAT THE BETTER COVERAGE FOR THE MORE INTERNET TYPE USAGES, LESS SO FOR THE VOICE, BUT MORE FOR THE INTERNET.

SO AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE MODIFICATIONS.

ARE YOU FINDING MORE OF THOSE LITTLE TOWER.

PERSONAL USE HOTSPOTS, I CALL THEM, BUT THEY'RE LITTLE MINIATURE TOWERS THAT PEOPLE HAVE IN THEIR HOMES.

NOW, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO OUR BANDWIDTH? WELL, IT REALLY HELPS THE PERSON WHO HAS IT.

AND A LOT OF RURAL AREAS, ESPECIALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC, THAT WAS ALL THAT THE CARRIERS HAD TO OFFER PEOPLE TO TRY TO GET THEM BETTER COVERAGE AT HOME.

THIS SOLUTION WOULD BE A SOLUTION WHERE THE FOLKS IN THIS AREA WOULDN'T NEED TO HAVE THE PERSONAL HOTSPOT BECAUSE THEY'D HAVE THE ANTENNAS MUCH CLOSER TO WHERE THEY ARE.

SO THAT'S THE TRADE OFF.

I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, DURING THE PANDEMIC, THAT WAS THE BEST THAT A LOT OF FOLKS COULD DO.

ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT ONE MORE.

YES. GOING BACK TO THE FIRE AND RESCUE, BEING ABLE OR THE COUNTY BEING ABLE TO USE THE TOWER FOR THEIR USE.

I KNOW YOU SAID THERE WAS A LAW PREVENTING US TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

YEAH. SO THERE'S YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO CONDITION THE APPROVAL ON THE CARRIER PROVIDING SPACE ON THE TOWER.

BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, THE REALITY IS, GIVEN THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER, AGAIN, NOT KNOWING WHAT HEIGHT OR WHAT TYPE OF EQUIPMENT YOU WOULD NEED, THERE WOULD BE SPACE ON THE TOWER FOR THE COUNTY.

BUT HOW DO WE GUARANTEE WE CAN USE THAT SPACE? WE NEED IT BECAUSE I KNOW FROM OTHER COMMITTEES THAT I'M ON, THEY'VE ALREADY THEY'RE GOING TO UPGRADE THE COUNTY RADIO SYSTEM IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

SO NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE THOSE SPACES ARE, THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO ACQUIRE OR BUILD A TOWER VERSUS IF WE COULD USE THAT TOWER.

SO I THINK, YEAH, WE WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVING TO BUILD YOUR OWN TOWER.

IT WOULD BE THE COUNTY MAKING AN APPLICATION TO KAGI, WHICH IS THE CONSULTANT THAT HANDLES CO-LOCATION TO BE ABLE TO CO-LOCATE ON THE TOWER.

SO IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ANYBODY TO USE, INCLUDING THE COUNTY.

ALL I'M SAYING IS WE'RE APPROVING A REQUEST TO BUILD THE TOWER, BUT THEN WE APPLY AND THEN THEY DENY OUR REQUEST TO USE THE TOWER.

THE COUNTY IS IN THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW OF.

BEEN A LOT OF MONEY TO PUT IN A NEW SYSTEM WHICH SHOULD COVER ALL THAT.

CORRECT. BUT WE MAY HAVE DEAD SPOTS TO WHERE WE COULD USE THIS TOWER TO BENEFIT FROM.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE ANY DEAD SPOTS FOR SEVEN, $8 MILLION.

I DON'T I REALLY DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN DEAD SPOTS BECAUSE I'M IN FAVOR FOR THE TOWER BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING MORE FRUSTRATING THAN HAVING NO SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE WHEN YOU NEED IT.

BUT JUST FOR AS A COUNTY STANDPOINT, IF WE CAN USE IT DOWN THE ROAD.

THAT'S JUST TO HAVE THE OPTION TO BE ABLE TO USE IT IS KIND OF WHAT I'M ASKING.

IF THERE WAS A NEED, IF THERE WAS A NEED DOWN THE ROAD FOR COUNTY RESOURCES.

YEAH. AND I THINK WE CAN MAYBE BETWEEN NOW AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAYBE TALK ABOUT SOME LANGUAGE.

I MEAN IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ANYBODY TO CO-LOCATE ON IT.

AGAIN, DEPENDING IF YOU WANT TO BE AT THE TOP SPOT, THAT MIGHT BE WHERE AT&T OR SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO BE.

[01:15:02]

HOW MUCH? NO.

I MEANT THE SECOND SPOT NOW.

YEAH, VERIZON WOULD BE ON TOP.

YEAH, VERIZON WOULD BE ON TOP.

BUT THEN THOSE IF YOU THINK OF IT THIS WAY, FROM A REAL ESTATE STANDPOINT, THE HIGHER THE SPOT, THE MORE EXPENSIVE THOSE SPOTS ARE.

AND THE OTHER CARRIERS ARE GOING TO WANT THOSE.

BUT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF TOWER AT 199FT.

SURE. AND SO, AGAIN, I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY WORK ON SOME LANGUAGE THAT GIVES YOU AS WE DEVELOP AND AS WE CHANGE AS THE COUNTY THAT MAY BE A VIABLE ASSET DOWN THE ROAD.

I'M NOT SAYING LIKE RIGHT THIS SECOND, BUT AS WE UPGRADE, LET'S SAY ANOTHER UPGRADE COMES UP AND THAT'S A PRIME SPOT FOR SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO USE FOR A REPEATER OR ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST TO HAVE THE ACCESS TO IT WOULD SAVE THE COUNTY, I THINK, MONEY THAN IN THE LONG RUN.

SO WHEN THE KIND OF USES A SPOT, THEY HAVE TO PAY RENT JUST LIKE ANOTHER CELL PHONE COMPANY.

YEAH. AND IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHERE THE COUNTY WOULD NEED TO BE AND WHAT THEIR WEIGHT LOADING REQUIREMENTS.

SO YOU REALLY DO NEED TO BE FAIRLY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT AND THE LOCATION.

IN THE PAST, BEFORE THIS NEW LAW WAS WRITTEN, WAS IT DESIGNED SO THAT THE COUNTY HAD A FREE SPOT ON THE ANTENNA? THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS APPLIED WAS APPLIED.

SO NOW THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN, THE COUNTY'S DO NOT HAVE A FREE SPOT ANYMORE, YOU CANNOT DEMAND A FREE SPOT.

YEAH, WELL THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMANDING AND HAVING.

RIGHT. I KNOW, I KNOW.

AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE WORK ON SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD GIVE YOU ALL THE COMFORT LEVEL THAT YOU WANT, THAT THIS WOULD BE AVAILABLE AGAIN, WITH THE CONSTRAINTS OF NOT REALLY KNOWING WHERE YOU WOULD NEED TO BE AND WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO INSTALL.

AND THAT'S REALLY THE PROBLEM THAT THEY FOUND IN SOME JURISDICTIONS THEY WERE REQUIRED TO EITHER DO A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL OR TO RESERVE A CERTAIN SPOT AT THE TOP OF THE TOWER, AND IF SOMEBODY ELSE NEEDED TO USE IT, THEY COULDN'T GIVE IT, THEY COULDN'T LEASE IT TO THAT OTHER CARRIER.

THEY HAD TO KEEP IT FOR THE COUNTY.

EVEN IF THE COUNTY OR THE CITY NEVER ENDED UP NEEDING TO USE IT.

SO IT LOGISTICALLY IT DID CREATE PROBLEMS. AND THEN SPEAKING TO MS. LOWE, THE CFO FOR THE COUNTY, THERE ARE TOWERS THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE ANTENNA ON THAT WE DO PAY RENT ON.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO THERE ARE FIVE THERE, UP TO FIVE ANTENNAS ON THIS ONE TOWER, RIGHT UP TO THERE ARE SPOTS FOR UP TO FIVE WIRELESS CARRIERS.

YEAH. OKAY. SO THEY'RE ALL SHARING THE SAME AMOUNT OF BANDWIDTH.

THAT TOWER CAN ONLY PUT OUT SO MUCH BANDWIDTH, CORRECT? NO, THERE'S NO.

SO EACH EACH CARRIER HAS 9 TO 12 ANTENNAS THAT THEY CAN PUT ON THE TOWER WITH THOSE ANTENNAS THAT HAVE DEVELOPED OVER TIME, THEY CAN OPERATE MULTIPLE FREQUENCIES.

SO EACH CARRIER HAS THEIR OWN SPOT.

THAT'S WHY THERE'S TEN FEET OF SEPARATION SO THAT THEY'RE NOT INTERFERING WITH EACH OTHER.

BUT EACH OF THEM CAN OPERATE AT ALL OF THE LICENSED FREQUENCIES INDEPENDENT OF YOUR.

EXACTLY. EACH CARRIER IS GOING TO OPERATE THEIR OWN ANTENNAS.

THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE FIVE SPOTS SEPARATED BY TEN FEET.

SO THEY'VE GOT THE DISTANCE SO THAT THEY'RE NOT INTERFERING WITH EACH OTHER.

OKAY. BUT THEY CAN HAVE AS MANY AS 9 OR 10 ANTENNAS IN THEIR SPOT ON THE ANTENNA, PROBABLY 12.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL YOU. MS. MURPHY IS A SEDAN.

I'VE GOT A BAD BACK, TOO.

I FEEL LIKE I AM AN EXPERT ON CELL TOWERS, BUT, NO, IT'S ALL GOOD.

I THINK THE LAST ONE I DID MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN YOUR DISTRICT.

YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF.

YOU'VE ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION, SO YOU'RE VERY INFORMED.

DID YOU SAY YOU WERE AN ATTORNEY? YEAH. OKAY.

WELL, I HAVE TO ADMIT, YOU'RE THE FIRST ATTORNEY I'VE MET AND KNEW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT CELL TOWERS AND YOU KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT CELL TOWERS.

I'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE THE LATE 1990S, SO IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

YEAH. AND I WILL SAY, AND I'M ALMOST 100% IT WAS HERE AND I THINK IT WAS IN NEWSOMS WHERE THE ONE BENEFIT THAT THE FARMERS IN THE AREA SAW FOR THIS TOWER BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO HAVE LIGHTS ON IT WAS THAT THE RED LIGHT AT NIGHT ATTRACTED THE DUCKS AND THIS WAS GOING TO BE A GREAT DUCK HUNTING SPOT.

SO I'VE TOLD THAT STORY TO OTHER FOLKS.

BUT I WAS ON THE PHONE.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. LET'S JUST GO AHEAD BEFORE YOU TODAY.

AND SO YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME.

HAS VERIZON WIRELESS EVER HAD A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED WHERE THERE WAS A PERFORMANCE BOND REQUIRED? SO THAT'S COVERED IN THE STATE LAW AS WELL.

IF YOU REQUIRE PERFORMANCE BONDS FOR SIMILAR TYPES OF UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, THEN YOU CAN IMPOSE A SIMILAR PERFORMANCE BOND.

TYPICALLY IT'S FOR REMOVAL.

SO MOST PLACES THAT REQUIRE A PERFORMANCE BOND, IT'S NOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, IT'S FOR THE REMOVAL SO THAT THEY MAKE SURE THAT THE FACILITY COMES DOWN AT THE END OF THE

[01:20:10]

AND OUR ORDINANCE STILL RETAINS THAT, RIGHT.

WAS IT $50,000? I THINK IT'S JUST THEY NEED TO SUPPLY AN ESTIMATE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ARE WE GOOD? WITH HER.

MURPHY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME.

THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE, COME FORWARD? YES, I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

I'M IN FAVOR OF CELL TOWERS.

I HAVE ONE ON MY FARM.

OVER 20 YEARS, I REMEMBER THE DAY THAT THE CROWN CASTLE PEOPLE WERE THERE.

IT WAS SEPTEMBER 15TH, 1999, WHEN HURRICANE FLOYD HIT, AND WE WERE WAITING AROUND IN WATER OVER OUR ANKLES JUST TO LOOK AT THE SPOT WHERE THEY WANTED TO PUT THE CELL TOWER.

I THINK CELL TOWERS ARE ABOUT THE GREATEST INVENTION SINCE THE AIRPLANES OR TELEVISION.

SO I RECOMMEND YOU APPROVE IT.

BUT I HAVE A QUESTION.

MR. MANN MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT IF IT'S ABANDONED, THE TOWER GETS REMOVED.

WHAT ABOUT THE CONCRETE FOOTING THAT SUPPORTS THE TOWER? IS THAT GOING TO BE REMOVED ALSO? AND THEN ASK THIS ATTORNEY, HAVE YOU EVER ABANDONED A TOWER AND HAD TO REMOVE IT OR ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED STILL THERE? I CAN ADDRESS BOTH OF THOSE IF YOU WANT.

IN MY BY 27, 28 YEARS DOING THIS, I'VE NEVER SEEN A TOWER ABANDONED.

THE ONLY EXCEPTION WOULD BE THERE ARE SOME TOWERS UP IN IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA ON INTERSTATE 95 THAT WERE BUILT.

AND THEN VDOT WAS SUED BY THE COUNTY.

AND SO THOSE HAVEN'T BEEN USED.

SO I HAVE SEEN TOWERS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY ANTENNAS ON THEM.

BUT ONCE A TOWER GOES UP AND THEN THE ANTENNAS GO ON IT, THEY'RE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE SERVICE FROM THOSE ANTENNAS ARE NEVER GOING TO WANT THAT TOWER TO COME DOWN.

SO I HAVE NEVER SEEN, SHORT OF A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD A BUILDING THAT HAD TO BE REMOVED OR, YOU KNOW, ANTENNAS ON A BUILDING AND IT HAD TO BE DEMOLISHED OR A SITE NEXT TO THE INTERSTATE, LIKE THE HAMPTON ROADS CENTER PARKWAY, WHERE THEY LITERALLY HAD TO MOVE THE TOWER BECAUSE OF THE INTERSTATE.

I'VE NEVER SEEN THE REMOVAL OF A TOWER.

HOW FAR DOWN THE TOWER IS REMOVED IS SOMETHING THAT'S COVERED IN THE LEASE.

SO I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT GENTLEMAN'S LEASE WITH CROWN CASTLE, BUT THE LEASE BETWEEN THE LANDOWNER AND THE TOWER COMPANY OR THE WIRELESS PROVIDER IS GOING TO DICTATE HOW THE PROPERTY GETS LEFT, WHETHER THE CONCRETE IS TAKEN OUT, WHETHER WHAT CONDITION IT'S LEFT.

SO I THINK YOUR BOND WOULD JUST ADDRESS THE REMOVAL AND THEN THE LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP WOULD TAKE OVER FROM THERE.

AS FAR AS WHAT WHAT'S IN THE GROUND? WHAT'S NOT IN THE GROUND.

WHEN I THOUGHT WHEN WE DID THE ORDINANCE, WE ADDRESSED THE FACT THAT THE CEMENT AND THAT WAS YEARS AGO AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BACK WHEN WE DID THE ORDINANCE. SO AT LEAST IT WAS REMOVED AT LEAST 2 OR 3FT BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE LAND.

SO A FOOT IS STANDARD.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THE ON THE YOU KNOW, THE TYPICALLY THE LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP AT THAT POINT.

SO THE REMOVAL OF THE TOWER ITSELF IS TYPICALLY AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.

AND THEN HOW FAR DOWN BELOW THE SURFACE IS TYPICALLY BETWEEN THE LANDLORD AND THE TENANT? WELL, AND I AGREE WITH YOU UP TO A CERTAIN POINT, BUT TO QUOTE MR. PETE BYRUM, THAT USED TO BE ON THIS BOARD.

WE DON'T OWN THE LAND.

WE ARE CARETAKERS OF IT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF THE COUNTY DIDN'T STEP IN AND SAY WE REQUIRE THIS UP TO A CERTAIN POINT, ANY ANY LANDOWNER COULD, WE'D HAVE WE'D HAVE CHAOS TO SOME EXTENT.

AND AND I SAY THAT WITH TONGUE IN CHEEK BECAUSE AS A LANDOWNER, I WANT MY OWN LAND RIGHTS TOO.

BUT I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS ADDRESSED.

SO THAT WOULD GIVE US SOMETHING TO CHECK INTO.

AND OF COURSE, THAT WOULD GIVE SOMETHING FOR THE STATE TO COME BACK IN AND OVERRIDE, YOU KNOW.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK OF 2FT OR 3FT BEING A LITTLE MORE REASONABLE THAN JUST ONE FOOT BECAUSE EROSION CAN TAKE 12IN OF SOIL AWAY IN A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME.

BUT HOW DEEP ARE THESE FOOTINGS FOR THIS TOWER? PROBABLY DEPENDS ON THE SOIL.

I MEAN, THEY COULD BE SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE FEET DEEP INTO THE GROUND.

SEVEN OR 8 OR 9.

YEAH. DEPENDING ON THE SOIL CONDITION.

YEAH. COULD BE.

YEAH. AND SAY WE'VE GOT SOME CONSTRUCTION IN THE COUNTY THAT REQUIRED 45 FOOT DEEP CEMENT TO DO THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WAS.

[01:25:02]

APPRECIATE IT. YOU'RE WELCOME.

AND WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT WITH MS. LEWIS, AS FAR AS THE REMOVAL BOND AND WHAT THAT COVERS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE THAT COMES FORWARD? LAST CALL. ANYONE ELSE HEARING IS STILL OPEN.

IF NOT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

I'LL ASK. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS OR I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE IMPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY PUT.

THERE WAS 11 OF THEM HERE.

OKAY. HAVE A PROPER MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. TURNER MADE A SECOND.

OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE? AYE. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN.

IT IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. I'D STILL LIKE TO SEE THAT PINE TREE SOMEDAY.

I'VE SEEN ONE ANOTHER.

AND IT. YEAH, IT KIND OF STANDS OUT LIKE IT DOES STAND OUT BECAUSE THE NATURAL TREES AREN'T THAT.

I'LL BRING YOU A PICTURE. IT ACTUALLY DRAWS YOUR ATTENTION MORE.

I KNOW. I'LL GET WE HAVE SOME GUESTS THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO TRAVEL AWAY.

IF YOU ALL WILL BE EXCUSED, IF YOU LIKE.

WE'VE GOT A LITTLE MORE TO DO.

BUT IF ANYBODY IF ANYONE NEEDS TO BE EXCUSED, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SAY MISS LEWIS HAS YOUR CONTACT INFO.

RIGHT. OKAY.

I'LL BRING YOU A PICTURE.

YEAH, I'VE SEEN IT. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING.

NOW, Y'ALL. SALVATORE. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CONTINUE ON DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

[V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ]

MISS LEWIS COMBS.

OKAY, GOODBYE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES AND DISCUSSION.

OKAY, YOU HAVE I TYPED UP A LIST OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE COLLECTED AT THE FAIR.

ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMENTS.

SOME CAN BE ADDRESSED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SOME PEOPLE WERE ARE VERY HAPPY.

I TYPED THEM JUST AS THEY APPEARED ON THE LITTLE STICKY NOTES WITH CAPITAL LETTERS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS.

I DIDN'T HAVE A KEY THAT WOULD TYPE A HEART, BUT THERE WERE A FEW HEARTS.

SO YOU HAVE THOSE COMMENTS.

VERY GOOD. UM, TONIGHT AT YOUR PLACE, YOU HAVE A BLUE NOTEBOOK WITH THE.

WITH THE DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT'S ALL THERE.

IT'S PRINTED ON ONE SIDE SO YOU CAN MAKE COMMENTS ON THE BACK OF THE PAPER SINCE YOU'LL START YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONVERSATIONS NEXT MONTH.

I THOUGHT I'D GIVE YOU TIME TO READ IT.

LOOK THROUGH IT, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT, IT'S ALL THERE.

I'D ASK THAT YOU THAT YOU PAY ATTENTION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES THAT ARE IN EACH SECTION.

SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH THEM.

IF THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE OR LESS REWORDED WHATEVER, YOU'LL HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONVERSATIONS AND SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I BELIEVE, IS PLANNING TO HAVE A.

PLANNING SESSION AMONG THEMSELVES WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SOMETIME AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR.

SO THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT COME OUT OF THAT MEETING.

THEN NEXT FEBRUARY, MARCH.

YOU MAY HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

TO ADOPT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN PASS IT ON TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

SO THE END IS IN SIGHT.

THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT AS TO MARK IT UP, MAKE ANY COMMENTS YOU WANT AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT EACH MONTH.

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE ADS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PLANNING CONVERSATIONS WILL BE IN THE TIDEWATER NEWS THE FIRST WEDNESDAY IN SEPTEMBER, THE FIRST WEDNESDAY IN OCTOBER, AND THE SECOND WEDNESDAY IN NOVEMBER, BECAUSE YOUR NOVEMBER CONVERSATION IS LATER IN THE MONTH.

SO WELL, MISS LEWIS, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER FOR US.

AND LIKE SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, AS WE REVIEW IT, THE OPPOSING A PAGE, WE CAN MAKE COMMENTS, MAKE YOUR NOTES.

SO WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING OR MEETINGS, WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

AND THEN AS WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY MEETING, THERE WILL BE OTHER NOTES TAKEN.

AND LIKE I SAY, WE'VE BEEN ON A LONG ROAD, BUT WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS NOW AND WE'LL SEE WHAT COMES UP AT THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

[01:30:04]

ONE THING THAT WE, I THINK NEED TO EMPHASIZE AT THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, BY DOING THIS IN HOUSE, WE HAVE SAVED THE COUNTY A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY.

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE LAST ONE WE OUTSOURCED AND GOT COST OVER $60,000.

THAT WAS 27 YEARS AGO.

SO IT'S PROBABLY THREE TIMES THAT NOW IF WE OUTSOURCED IT.

YEAH, YEAH, WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE STAFF THAT CAN DO A LOT OF LEGWORK FOR US.

SO I SEE THE NOTEBOOKS HAVE OUR NAMES IN IT.

SO IF YOU LEAVE IT BEHIND, I KNOW WHO IT BELONGS TO.

WELL, I WAS WONDERING IF I PICKED UP SOMEBODY ELSE'S.

WOULD THAT INFORMATION BE THE SAME AS MINE AS WHAT I WAS GOING? SO YOU'RE DOING THIS TO TEST US, IS THAT RIGHT? I'M DOING IT. SO IF IT GETS LEFT SOMEWHERE, WHETHER IT'S HERE OR AT A NEIGHBORHOOD CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW WHO YOU KNOW, WHO THE RETURN IT TO.

YES, I LIKE THAT IDEA.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OUR PERSONAL NOTES IN IT BY THEN, RIGHT? RIGHT. LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOUR MOM PUT LABELS IN YOUR BACKPACK AND YOUR LUNCHBOX.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER UNFINISHED BUSINESS YOU DO, MR. WILLIAMS? PROPERTY WERE THE PHEASANT HUNTING WAS, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD LIKE HE WOULD CONSIDER A RESIDENTIAL USE FOR THAT AREA.

I JUST DID ANOTHER LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD SKETCH.

IT IS AN AREA THAT THESE LOTS ARE THE MINIMUM OF THESE LOTS IS 50,000FT², WHICH IS JUST OVER AN ACRE.

BUT THERE IS SEWER AVAILABLE DIAGONALLY ACROSS SOUTHAMPTON PARKWAY, WHERE THE LITTLE STORE WAS, WHERE THE HIGH SCHOOL KIDS USED TO GO GET HOT DOGS.

SO SHOULD SOMEONE WANT TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, THEY WOULD NEED TO EXTEND THAT SEWER AND DO ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE WORK, BUT THE CAPACITY IS THERE. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A NEW BUSINESS? WELL, I WAS ON FACEBOOK.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY NEW BUSINESS OR WAS THAT YOU?

[VI. NEW BUSINESS]

OKAY. BUT THE CONSULTANTS REPORT INDICATES THAT THE CONSULTANT WAS HIRED, WAS CONTRACTED BY VERIZON WIRELESS.

AND I GUESS MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS THAT'S THE FOX LOOKING OUT FOR THE HENHOUSE.

NO, THE CONSULTANT REPORT THAT YOU ALWAYS GET WAS DONE BY MR. KONDYLIS. HE'S THE BEEN THE SAME CONSULTANT THAT THE COUNTY'S USED FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

MR. KONDYLIS HAS PASSED AWAY, BUT HIS WIFE IS DOING THE WORK.

AND IT'S THE SAME CONSULTANT REPORT THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE, ALWAYS BEEN CONTRACTED OUT SO THAT WHEN I KNOW. OKAY, SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONSULTANT, RIGHT? MAYBE THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT.

OKAY. BECAUSE THE REPORT JUST TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE DANGERS OF TOO MUCH EXPOSURE TO.

AND I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS.

NO, THEY SEND OUT I SEND IT OUT TO THE SAME CONSULTANT THE COUNTY'S ALWAYS USED WAS A COPY OF THAT.

WHERE IT IS. I GOT IT, THOUGH, AND IT RECOMMENDS IT RECOMMENDED THAT THIS TOWER BE APPROVED.

AND IT BASICALLY SAID IT WAS NEEDED TEN YEARS AGO.

IT'S NEEDED MORE. SO TODAY THE I SENT IT OUT TO THE CONSULTANT.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THAT.

THEY PAY THE COUNTY FOR THAT WORK.

SO IT DOESN'T COME OUT OF TAXPAYERS MONEY, BUT IT'S REQUIRED BY YOUR ORDINANCE.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? TAKE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

MAKE A MOTION, WE ADJOURN. I HAVE A SECOND TO THE MOTION.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR.

[01:35:01]

VERY ENLIGHTENING TONIGHT.

I THINK IT WAS CELL PHONE.

CELL TOWERS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.