Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 1 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
BY GERALD OCHS ■ Rappahannock News Special Writer
Despite calls for more restrictive amendments from some Rappahannock residents, the Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed, on Oct. 6, to adopt Draft 4 of the County’s Telecommunications Ordinance. This new ordinance sets forth rules and procedures for the permitting of cell phone towers and conforms to the Federal regulations, as promulgated in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that require that local governments allow for the emplacement of such facilities.
As summarized by ordinance authors County Administrator John McCarthy and County Attorney Peter Luke, Rappahannock’s ordinance:
• allows towers in every zoning district, but only by special exception;
• does not mandate any specific type of tower construction;
• establishes a maximum tower height of 1.99 feet; ! • allows for height limit waivers subject to approval;
• requires that all applications must come under public review, and neighbors within one square mile of a prospective site will be alerted when an application is to be aired;
• does not approve any specific application—all applications must undergo Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review and approval; ; • requires that applicants submit a plan that divulges projections for facilities in ftappahannock and adjacent counties for the next four years; and ! • does not mandate that property owners {jgree to permit towers on their property.
Public response
The public response to the proposed ordinance, with a single exception, reflected a desire for a more restrictive approach to tower siting and design. Bob Weinberg, for example, proposed that the board impose an 80 foot limit on tower height in lieu of the 199 foot limit Specified in the ordinance.
“Like Fauquier [County], . . 80 feet will be the norm in our part of the world,” Weinberg said, "... why make Rappahannock more attractive for towers than Fauquier?” Weinberg went on to address the issue of the constitutionality of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, noting that the Act imposes requirements on State and local governments that may violate the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”). He closed his arguments with the plea: “Let’s protect the landscape . . . let’s be no less strict than neighboring counties.”
Randy Reed asked “if there were any intent [in the height limitation of 199 feet in lieu of a
95.9%