Loading...
07-21-2016 Regular MeetingREGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD IN THE ROBERT C. CLAUD, SR. BOARD ROOM OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COURTHOUSE ON THURSDAY, THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY OF JULY IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN AT 5:00 P.M. PRESENT: Rex W. Alphin, Chairman Rudolph Jefferson, Vice -Chairman Joel C. Acree Richard L. Grice William M. McCarty Also Attending: Mark C. Popovich, County Attorney Sanford B. Wanner, Interim County Administrator Donald T. Robertson, Assistant County Administrator Carey Mills Storm, Clerk CALL TO ORDER/CLOSED MEETING At 5:00 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Chairman Alphin and matters for closed meeting were identified by County Attorney Popovich as follows: Discussion regarding the appointment of specific appointees to County boards, committee or authorities pursuant to subsection 1; discussion regarding the performance evaluation of the County Attorney pursuant to subsection 1; consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body regarding engineering costs for the Benns Church Intersection project pursuant to subsection 7; consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body regarding the Gaston pipeline pursuant to subsection 7; discussion of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose regarding new 911 communication tower location where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body pursuant to subsection 3; consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body regarding potential annexation agreement with the Town of Smithfield pursuant to subsection 7; consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body regarding actual litigation with the International Paper Company, pursuant to subsection 7; consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body requiring the provision of legal advice related to the Nike Park Trail project, pursuant to subsection 7; consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body regarding probable litigation related to employment discrimination and retaliation claim of Ms. Brandy Day, pursuant to subsection 7; and, discussion regarding the expansion of an existing business where no previous announcement has been made of the business' interest in expanding its facilities in the community, pursuant to subsection 5. Supervisor McCarty moved that the Board enter the closed meeting for the reasons stated by County Attorney Popovich. The motion was adopted by a 1 vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. At 6:00 p.m., Supervisor McCarty moved that the Board return to open meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Jefferson moved that the following Resolution be adopted: CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712(D) of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. VOTE AYES: Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0 INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The invocation was delivered by Supervisor Acree and the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag was conducted. CITIZENS' COMMENTS Albert Burckhardt, representing the Isle of Wight Historical Society, requested that the Board defer action on the Society's request to use the 1820 2 Circuit Court Clerk's office and requested that the old logo be restored on County signs. Jane March of Zuni was supportive of the Isle of Wight Historical Society being allowed to utilize the old Circuit Court Clerk's office. Herb DeGroft recommended that the cost associated with imminent domain in association with the Cypress Creek to Nike Park bike/walking path be reviewed with respect to whether or not the County should halt this project. Rosa Turner, on behalf of the Rushmere Community Development Corporation, requested a total contribution of $500,000 over a ten-year period for the Hughes Heritage and Watermen Conservation project. Steve Hailey of the Newport District recommended that the County construct a facility for lease to a private entity as a method of generating revenue. CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor McCarty moved that the following Consent Agenda be adopted as presented, which was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion: A. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the Virginia Cooperative Extension Plastic Pesticide Container Recycling Program ($1,875) B. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Insurance Proceeds from VaCorp Risk Management for repairs to the Health Department Building ($8,846) C. Resolution to Congratulate Rushmere Volunteer Fire Department on the Occasion of Its 25" Anniversary D. June 9, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes REGIONAL REPORT Supervisor Grice reported that the County's 2030 water distribution plan had been submitted and the reallocation of the Gaston pipeline water back to the County approved by the Western Tidewater Water Authority. Mr. Wanner reported that members of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission discussed a change to the governance model and received a presentation on the need for affordable housing in the region. 3 Mr. Wanner reported that the Federal Highway Administrator had provided Federal certification at the most recent meeting of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization and recommended that the City of Franklin and Southampton County be given certain rights as a member of the Organization. He advised that additional information will be forthcoming on major transportation improvements with public comments solicited in August and September followed by public hearings. Supervisor Jefferson reported on a tour of ST Tissue and discussion of future plans for that business. Supervisor Jefferson reported on mental health issues and improved services for affected Western Tidewater Regional Jail inmates. He advised the Jail experienced a $32,000 savings in its water bill as a result of certain recent improvements and noted the Jail is being well managed and operated within budget. APPOINTMENTS No appointments were offered for consideration. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: A. One -Year Extension of the Lease of Public Property to Isle of Wight Hunt Club County Attorney Popovich presented the Isle of Wight Hunt Club's interest in extending its lease of certain parts of the Blackwater property for a one- year period at an annual rental fee of $2,396. Chairman Alphin called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed lease extension. Charles Bailey of Holly Run Drive commented on the inability of taxpayers to utilize this property which was purchased by taxpayer money and being proposed for lease to the Isle of Wight Hunt Club. Chairman Alphin closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Grice moved that the Chairman be authorized to execute the Real Property Lease Agreement Extension with the Isle of Wight Hunt Club as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 4 Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: B. One -Year Extension of the Lease of Public Property to Mill Swamp Hunt Club County Attorney Popovich presented the Mill Swamp Hunt Club's interest in extending its lease for a one-year period at an annual rental fee of $14,174. Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed lease extension. John Stiltner, member of Mill Swamp Hunt Club, appeared and spoke in support of the lease extension. Chairman Alphin closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor McCarty moved that the Chairman be authorized to execute the Real Property Lease Agreement Extension with the Mill Swamp Hunt Club as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: C. Lease of Public Property to Stallings Farms, Inc. County Attorney Popovich presented the Stallings Farms, Inc.'s interest in extending its lease for a five-year period. Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed lease extension. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Alphin closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Acree moved that the Interim County Administrator be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: D. Application of Ray and Lisa Betterton for an Exception to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance, Specifically, Section 4002, to Allow for Encroachment into the 100 -foot -wide Resource 5 Protection Area Buffer to Build a Single -Family Home at 13604 Bowling Green Road in the Windsor Election District. Kim Hummel, Environmental Planner, presented the application's background. Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. Charles Bailey of Holly Run Drive commented that requirements on stormwater runoff are stifling growth in the County and taxpayers are being burdened with paying it. Ray Betterton, applicant, distributed copies of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act citing an exception for all development/redevelopment within RPA's which do not exceed 2,500 square feet. He opined that the Department of Planning & Zoning had not followed the rules of the Act with respect to his application. Chairman Alphin closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Richard Rudnicki, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, clarified that Mr. Betterton is referring to the General Performance Standard of the Ordinance and not the specific requirements of the Resource Protection Area (RPA). He referred to Section 4001 Development Criteria for RPA's, specifically Item (B) which states that a Water Quality Impact Assessment (WQIA) shall be required for any proposed land disturbance development or redevelopment within the RPA; however, Section 4003, specific to WQIA's, Item (B.1), states that WQIA's are required for any development which will disturb any portion of the 100 foot RPA. He continued that if only Performance Standards are addressed, the fact that Mr. Betterton's property is in an RPA has not been addressed which is why staff has said since the beginning that a WQIA is required. He concluded that staff s opinion is that the exception is warranted. Supervisor Acree moved that the exception request be approved with the condition that the approved principal structure be the only principal structure allowed on the property, consistent with Article 4, Section 4002 b.2. Of the local Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: E. Application of American K-9 Interdiction, LLC, Applicant and Owner, for a Conditional Use Permit on 57.44 Acres, Composed of Four 0 Parcels of Land, Located at 4007 Burdette Road in the Carrsville Election District to Allow for a Shooting Range to be Operated on the Site. Mr. Rudnicki briefed the Board on the history of the application. Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. William Riddick, the applicant's Attorney, advised that American K-9, which has been in business since 2001, had previously attempted to rezone property in Zuni in 2008. He stated the same arguments raised in 2008 are being raised tonight, resulting in them relocating to South Carolina and that the previous Board of Supervisors had reached out and facilitated their purchase of the property at the site in Walters. He advised that the type of business conducted there has changed to providing dogs and training of law enforcement agencies with training to be provided to veterans in the near future. He stated firearms have always been utilized to acclimate their dogs so that they are effective at what they do and they have chosen as part of the proposed application to have a public shooting range. He advised that the applicants are requesting that the application be amended to work with staff and the Planning Commission to develop conditions that will address citizens' concerns. He suggested that the dates of operation be restricted to Tuesday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. He commented that the traffic will be much less today than in the past years and they have the ability to construct a large berm and other programs to create a safe and secure facility. He stated American K-9 voluntarily spent $150,000 to further shield their dog kennels because they wanted to be good neighbors and he requested the Board give the applicants an opportunity to develop reasonable conditions under the Conditional Use Permit that will address the public's concerns. He clarified that he is asking that the application be returned to the Planning Commission. Elizabeth H. Britt of Walters Highway spoke against the application due to offensive noise. Dean Jones of 28419 Holly Run Road spoke against the application because of the effect on his property value and the impact on his horses. David Chitwood of 4422 Stephens Drive spoke against the application because of additional traffic and noise. Kimberly Epperson of 4056 Burdette Road distributed informational packets and showed a video of activities at the range in May of 2016 depicting individuals laying down and shooting up in the air and shots fired missing the berm. 7 Roger Epperson of 4056 Burdette Road spoke against the application due to a higher traffic volume; the impact on that community's existing peace and quiet; and, the impact to his honey bee's flight patterns and mating area. Don Rosie of 29557 Walters Highway spoke against the proposed shooting range stating that this is the wrong application for this location. Mills Braswell, II of 27130 Ballard Road spoke against the application due to the destruction of that community's current tranquility. Mark Carr, 28001 Carrsville Highway, representing the Walters Ruritan Club, relayed the Club's opposition to the proposed application. Pat Burgin of 3190 Burdette Road spoke against the application because of its impact on the existing peace and tranquility of that rural community. Donald and Deborah Dogan of 3482 Burdette Road appeared in favor of the existing peace and quiet of this community. Ray LaFrance of 3470 Burdette Road spoke in opposition because of the impact to surrounding property values and the disruption to the neighborhood. Emily Lankford of 41167 Ryland Lane expressed concern with increased noise and the impact the noise from shots will have on her horses. Lynn Lankford Hawkins spoke in opposition to an increase in noise and the stress that noise will have on area horses. Jennifer Boykin of 28539 Walters Highway expressed opposition to the application and advised that the shooting range is already in operation at this facility in violation of County ordinances. Vopie Boykin of 28539 Walters Highway spoke in opposition and requested that the quality of life in the Walters community be saved by denying the application. Phillip Bradshaw of Collosse Road spoke in opposition stating this application is being considered at the wrong location. He made reference to the County's Comprehensive Plan and encouraged the Board to follow Chapter 4, Section 7 and preserve the unique character of the County's many existing small rural villages. Tom Sigmond of 27143 Walters Highway spoke in opposition due to the decline in his property value and stress to his horses. 0 Jim Hart of 24576 Delaware Road in Courtland and a real estate broker in Franklin briefed the Board regarding the adverse noise impact on surrounding real estate. Following a short recess, Calvin Evans of 116 Laurel Cove in Smithfield stated he grew up on Burdette Road and, as a member of the military, is familiar with the proposed kind of sound and he asked the Board to deny the application. Al Watson of Watson Road addressed the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the County and designed to address growth and changes in the next twenty years and should be used as a guide on the County growth and development. Bill Harrell, adjoining landowner on Sparrow Lane, spoke in opposition because of increased noise and the impact it could have on his horses. Mike Bohand of 26413 Sparrow Lane requested that the application be denied due to the noise. Jennifer Napier of 30003 Walters Highway spoke in opposition to the decrease a shooting range will have on the existing value of the surrounding homes. Karlus Bailey spoke in opposition and asked the Board to deny the application. Pete Green of Hunter's Lane asked the Board to allow the citizens to retain the quality of life they are accustomed to living in Walters. Phil Bankley, President of the Virginia Defense League, of Midlothian, spoke in support of training facilities. Ray Sorrell of Carrollton spoke in favor of training facilities, commenting that sacrifices are necessary. Tiffany Hope of 3185 Burdette Road voiced her opposition citing an increase in noise and safety while riding her horse. She stressed the need to address all environmental issues before moving forward. Mike Malniski of 3078 Burdette Road expressed concern that American K-9 had not been truthful to the Planning Commission regarding no work occurring on the property prior to its approval, when the range had opened with no permit. He stated that no one had been notified about high powered riffles being fired and that the berm is inadequate with a horse and walking trail located directly behind it. He requested that all environmental concerns be addressed and expressed his opposition to the increase in noise and traffic. 6 Lauren Lombard of 3269 Burdette Road spoke in favor of the present quality of life and in opposition to increased noise and potential safety issues. William Radford of Chesterfield, a firearms instructor, provided clarification on the video shown earlier and stated that tactical shooters are supposed to fall on their backs and shoot up, but, no one should have been shooting over the berms. He further addressed the velocity of bullets and commented on his experience with shooting ranges in other areas. Teresa Kurnoot of 4427 Stephens Drive expressed concerns about the impact the proposed shooting range will have on her farm animals. Nancy Tyler of 1807 South Church Street in Smithfield noted that there is an existing range at that facility and the residents moved there knowing that the range existed. She commented that American K-9 was asked to return to the County and it needs to be recognized that change is evident and we must learn to live with that change. Carly Echols of 4302 Stephens Drive spoke in favor of the existing State Police training activities and commented that this issue is one dealing with quality of life and not simply an inconvenience. Michelle Bradshaw Perry of 28657 Walters Highway recognized that the majority of those speaking tonight are against the application and those living in the Walters community are not responsible for the applicant's lack of business planning. She spoke in favor of the existing State Police training which occurs once in a while and she wishes to retain the peace and quiet that exists today in Walters. She stated this is not the right type of business for this area and the applicants will not bring the kind of revenue into the County that is needed. Attorney Riddick clarified the type of ammunition to be used and advised that high powered riffles are not being proposed. He advised that the applicant had to leave early due to scheduled surgery in the morning and his departure was not due to a lack of interest or concern. Chairman Alphin closed the public hearing and moved that the application be denied. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: F. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Following Section of the Isle of Wight County Code, Appendix B, Zoning: Article V, Supplementary Use Regulations for Residential Use Types, Section 5-5002.I (Home Occupation, Type I and II) in Order to Allow "Gunsmith" as a Type II Home Occupation with a Conditional Use Permit 10 Mr. Rudnicki provided background on the proposed amendment to add gunsmithing with a Conditional Use Permit which was recommended to the Board by the Planning Commission by a unanimous vote of (9-0). Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance amendment. Mark White of 7026 Green Level Road in Ivor spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance amendment. Chairman Alphin closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor McCarty moved that the following Ordinance be adopted as presented: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Following Section of the Isle of Wight County Code, Appendix B, Zoning: Article V, Supplementary Use Regulations for Residential Use Types, Section 5-5002.I (Home Occupation, Type I and II) in order to allow "Gunsmith" as a Type II Home Occupation with a Conditional Use Permit. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, has the legislative authority to make reasonable changes to the ordinances that govern the orderly growth and development of Isle of Wight County; and WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors is also concerned about the compatibility of uses on public and private lands within Isle of Wight County and seeks to allow flexibility in the administration of the ordinance regulations while protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents and businesses of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Appendix B, Zoning, Article V, and Supplementary Use Regulations for Residential Use Types, Section 5-5002.I (Home Occupation, Type I and II) of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 5-5002(I): Home occupation, Type I and Type II. 1. Intent...... These provisions are adopted in recognition that certain small - scaled commercial activities may be appropriate in conjunction with residential uses. The character and scale of such commercial activities must be subordinate and incidental to the principal use of the premises for dwelling purposes, and must be consistent with the predominant residential character of the property and/or surrounding neighborhood. In addition, these 11 provisions are intended to limit the size of such home occupations to not create an unfair competitive advantage over businesses located in commercially zoned areas. 2. Types of home occupations...... Recognizing the divergent needs of the developing areas of the county from the rural areas of the county, two (2) levels or types of home occupations have been established. Type I home occupations afford the greatest degree of protection to surrounding residents in those areas that are developing and becoming more suburban in nature. In contrast, Type II home occupations have been established to recognize the greater spaces between residents as well as the types of activities that are similar to those associated with the more traditional agricultural and forestry related activities found in the rural areas. 3. Uses for home occupation: Type I. ..... Type I home occupations are allowed in the following zoning districts: VC, NC, SE, SR, UR, PD -R, PD - MH, and PD -MX. The following is a representative listing of uses which may be conducted as Type I home occupations within the limits established in this section, however, uses not listed below require a specific letter of confirmation from the zoning administrator: • Art, handicraft, music, writing, photography, or similar studios • Computer and home typing services • Direct sales product distribution as long as products are directly delivered to the customer • Dressmaker, seamstress, tailor • Babysitting (up to five (S) children) • Hair cutting and styling • Home typing or computer services • Mail-order sales for delivery directly to the customer • Non -principal offices of physician, dentist, veterinarian, insurance agent, real estate or similar profession • Offices of accountant, architect, engineer, surveyor, land planner, soil scientist, lawyer, income tax preparer, minister, priest, rabbi, member of a religious order, psychotherapist, counselor, management consultant or similar professional • Preparation of food for off -premises catering • Telephone sales and order -taking • Tutor 4. Uses for home occupation Type II...... Type II home occupations are allowed in the following zoning districts: RAC and RR. The following is a representative listing of uses that may be conducted as Type II home occupations within the limits established in this section, 12 however, uses not listed below require a specific letter of confirmation from the zoning administrator: • All Type I uses • Carpentry shop • Contractor businesses • Electronic sales and service • Facilities for service and repair of agricultural equipment and incidental sale of parts and supplies • Glazier's or painter shop Gunsmith with a conditional use permit • Heating, plumbing, or air conditioning services • Landscape and horticultural services • Limousine service • Machine shop/metal working provided all is completed in a completely enclosed building • Massage, physical therapy • Motor vehicle display for purposes of sale of up to four (4) vehicles per year (no more than one (1) vehicle may be displayed at any time) • Repair of small appliances, small engines and limited machining of small parts, office machines, cameras, and similar small items • Repair or servicing of small internal combustion engines used in lawn mowers, edgers, hedge trimmers, power saws and similar yard maintenance equipment inside enclosed structure • Retail sales of agricultural, craft and woodworking products principally produced on-site • Taxidermy (See supplementary use regulations section 5-5005.AA) • Telephone answering service • Veterinary services • Waterman's operation with on -premises wholesale and retail sale prohibited • Wood working and furniture repair, upholstery and cabinet making 5. Uses that are prohibited as home occupations...... The following uses shall be prohibited as home occupations: • Vehicle or boat repair or painting • Equipment or vehicle rental • Seafood or bait sales • Furniture sales • Funeral director, mortuary or undertaker • Laboratory shop • Medical or dental clinic • Private clubs • Restaurants • Animal hospitals • Commercial stables • Commercial kennels • Antique shops 13 • Gun shops • Bed and breakfast • Fortune-teller, including a clairvoyant, a practitioner of palmistry, a phrenologist, a faith healer, a star analyst, a handwriting analyst who attempts to predict the future or any other person who attempts to predict the future • Tattoo parlors 6. General standards for all home occupations. a. The maximum floor area devoted to home occupations shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the finished floor area of the dwelling unit. b. More than one (1) home occupation may be permitted provided the total floor area used for all home occupations is not exceeded. c. No dwelling or structure shall be altered, occupied, or used in a manner, which would cause the premises to differ from a character consistent with a residential use. The use of colors, materials, construction, lighting, or other means inconsistent with a residential use shall be prohibited. d. There shall be no outside storage of goods, products, equipment, excluding motor vehicles, or other materials associated with the home occupation. No toxic, explosive, flammable, radioactive, or other hazardous materials used in conjunction with the home occupation shall be used, sold, or stored on the site. e. The type and volume of traffic generated by a home occupation shall be consistent with the traffic generation characteristics of other dwellings in the area. f Off street parking shall be provided as appropriate for the specific nature of the home occupation. g. The home occupation shall not involve the commercial delivery of materials or products to or from the premises. This excludes delivery by the United States Postal Service, Federal Express (FEDEX), United Parcel Service (UPS) or similar delivery services customarily found in residential areas. h. The home occupation shall not increase demand on water, sewer, or garbage collection services to the extent that the combined demand for the dwelling and home occupation is significantly more than is normal to the use of the property for residential purposes. i. No equipment or process shall be used in a home occupation which creates noise in excess of sixty (60) dB(A) measured at the property line, or vibration, glare, noxious fumes, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the premises or through common walls. In the case of 14 electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises or through common walls. j. No activity in conjunction with a home occupation shall be conducted that adversely impacts or disturbs adjoining property owners. k. Signs are permitted in accordance with article IX of this ordinance. Only one (1) sign shall be permitted regardless of the number of home occupations, and must be setback ten (10) feet from the road as measured from the front property line. 1. All state, federal and local licenses and/or permits shall be obtained prior to operation. 7. Specific standards for Type I home occupations. a. Home occupations shall be confined to the primary dwelling. To conduct a home occupation in an accessory building, a conditional use permit must be obtained from the board of supervisors pursuant to section 1-1017. b. No one other than permanent residents of the dwelling shall be engaged or employed in such occupation. c. There shall be no display or storage of goods or products visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent property. d. Lessons in the applied arts shall be permitted, provided the class size for any lesson does not exceed five (5) students at any one (1) time. e. Except in the RAC and RR districts, no commercial vehicles shall be parked or stored on the premises associated with the home occupation. S. Specific standards for Type II home occupations. a. Storage of goods or products shall not exceed ten (I 0) percent of the finished floor area devoted to the home occupation. b. One (1) person who is not a permanent resident of the dwelling may be engaged or employed in the home occupation. c. An accessory building or structure may be used with the home occupation, provided that the total floor area devoted to the home occupation in the accessory structure and dwelling unit does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the finished floor area of the dwelling unit. 15 The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: G. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Following Sections of the Isle of Wight County Code, Appendix B, Zoning: Article V, Supplementary Use Regulations; Section 5007, Supplementary Use Regulations for Miscellaneous Use Types in Order to Include a Provision for Exemption of Public Safety Communications Towers Mr. Rudnicki presented the ordinance amendment which exempts public safety communications towers from the Conditional Use Permit process to help expedite it which was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission by a unanimous vote of (9-0). Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance amendment. No one appeared and spoke and Chairman Alphin closed the public hearing. Following no comments from the Board, Supervisor Acree moved that the following amendment to the Ordinance be adopted as presented: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Amending and Reenacting the Following Articles of Appendix B, Zoning: Article V, Supplementary use regulations; Section 5007, Supplementary use regulations for miscellaneous use types; in order to create an exemption for public safety and emergency services communications towers. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, has the legislative authority to make reasonable changes to the ordinances that govern the orderly growth and development of Isle of Wight County; and WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors is also concerned about the compatibility of uses on public and private lands within Isle of Wight County and seeks to allow flexibility in the administration of the ordinance regulations while protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents and businesses of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Appendix B, Zoning, Article V, Supplementary use regulations, Section 5-5007, Supplementary use regulations for miscellaneous use types; of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 5-5007. - Supplementary use regulations for miscellaneous use types. r A. Reserved. B. Amateur radio tower. 1. The maximum height allowed shall be no greater than two hundred (200) feet pursuant to Section 15.2-2293.1 of the Code of Virginia. 2. The following setback requirements shall apply to all towers and antennas: a. The tower must be set back from any off-site residential structure no less than the full height of the tower structure and height of any mounted antenna. b. Towers, guys and accessory facilities must satisfy the minimum setback requirements for primary structures. C. Aviation facility...... An aircraft landing area or airport may be permitted, provided: 1. A satisfactory airspace analysis by the Federal Aviation Administration for operation under visual flight rules shall be submitted with the use permit application. 2. For fixed -wing aircraft, a clear zone extending one thousand (1,000) feet from the end of all runways shall be secured through ownership or easement, but, in no case, shall the end of a runway be closer than two hundred (200) feet from any property line. 3. For both fixed- and rotary -wing aircraft, neither the landing area nor any building, structure, or navigational aid shall be located within four hundred (400) feet of any property line adjacent to a residential district or use. i. Landing areas for rotary -wing aircraft shall be designed to comply with the Airport Design Guide of the Federal Aviation Administration. D. Communication tower (and associated substation). 1. General description...... The purpose of this section is to establish general guidelines for the siting of towers and antennas. The goals of this section are to: a. Encourage the location of towers in nonresidential areas and minimize the total number of towers and tower sites throughout the community. b. Encourage strongly the joint use of new and existing tower sites. c. Encourage users of towers and antennas to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal. 17 d. Encourage users of towers and antennas to configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the towers and antennas. e. To provide adequate sites for the provision of telecommunication services with minimal negative impact on the resources of the county. This section is intended to comply with all federal and state regulations. 2. Applicability. ..... This section shall not govern any tower, or the installation of any antenna, that is: a. Under fifty (50) feet in height; b. Owned and operated by a federally licensed amateur radio station operator; or c. Used exclusively for receive only antennas for amateur radio station operation; or d. Used solely as part of an agricultural operation. e. Towers or antennas used primarily by governmental agencies for public safety communications and emergency services are exempt from the Conditional Use Permit process, provided they meet the guidelines set forth by 5-5007 D 13 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance as determined through the Preliminary Site Development Plan process. 3. Existing structures and towers...... The placement of an antenna on or in an existing structure such as a building, sign, light pole, water tank, or other freestanding structure or existing tower or pole shall be permitted so long as the addition of said antenna shall not add more than twenty (20) feet in height to said structure or tower and shall not require additional lighting pursuant to FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) or other applicable requirements. Such permitted use also may include the placement of additional buildings or other supporting equipment used in connection with said antenna so long as such building or equipment is placed within the existing structure or property and is necessary for such use. The following shall be required of any proposed antenna or "co -location": a. All utilities required will be placed beneath the surface of the ground. b. Commercial wireless service co -locations shall not include facilities for transmitting or receiving signals by governmental agencies. c. All co -locations must be in compliance with Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards for non -ionizing electromagnetic emissions. V In addition, a non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) report shall be required for any proposed co -location if an impact analysis for that co - location port was not included within the NIER report submitted at the tower approval stage. 4. General guidelines and requirements. a. Must consider county -owned locations first in considering new builds. b. Must agree up front to escrow or payment in lieu of escrow. c. Principal or accessory use: i. For purposes of determining compliance with area requirements, antennas and towers may be considered either principal or accessory uses. ii. An existing use or an existing structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of antennas or towers on such lot. iii. For purposes of determining whether the installation of a tower or antenna complies with district regulations, the dimensions of the entire lot shall control, even though the antennas or towers may be located on leased area within such lots. iv. Towers that are constructed, and antennas that are installed, in accordance with the provisions of this section shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use or structure. 5. Inventory of existing sites...... Each applicant for an antenna and or tower shall provide to the department of planning and zoning an inventory of its existing facilities that are either within the locality or within five (5) miles of the border thereof, including specific information about the location, height, and existing use and available capacity of each tower. The department of planning and zoning may share such information with other applicants applying for approvals or conditional use permits under this section or other organizations seeking to locate antennas within the jurisdiction of the locality, provided, however that department of planning and zoning shall not, by sharing such information, in any way represent or warrant that such sites are available or suitable. 6. Design and lighting requirements...... The requirements set forth in this section shall govern the location of all owners and the installation of all antennas governed by this section; provided, however, that the board of supervisors may waive any of these requirements if it determines that the goals of this section are better served thereby. a. Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA (Federation Aviation Administration), be painted a neutral color, so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness. Dish antennas will be of a neutral, nonreflective color with no logos. b. At a facility site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities to the natural setting and surrounding structures. c. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. d. Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the board of supervisors may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views. e. No advertising of any type may be placed on the tower or accompanying facility unless as part of retrofitting an existing sign structure. i To permit co -location, the tower may be required to be designed and constructed to permit extensions. 7. Federal requirements. ..... All towers must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and any other agency of the federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. In addition, the tower owner shall implement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service procedures for communication tower construction, operation, and decommissioning to protect endangered night -migrating birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, and Bald and Golden Eagle Act. 8. Building codes...... To ensure the structural integrity of towers, the owner of a tower shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable federal, state and local building codes and regulations. 9. Information required for conditional use permit. ..... Each applicant requesting a conditional use permit under this section shall submit a scaled plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation, signed and sealed by appropriate licensed professionals, showing the location and dimensions of all improvements, P011 including information concerning topography, radio frequency coverage, tower height requirements, setbacks, drives, parking, fencing, landscaping and adjacent uses. The county may require other information to be necessary to assess compliance with this section. Additionally, the applicant shall: a. Provide actual photographs of the site from all geographic directions (north, south, east, and west) and from any additional vantage point specified by the zoning administrator; and b. Erect a temporary structural marker of fluorescent color, not less than ten (10) feet in height and two (2) feet in diameter, to mark the base of the proposed tower on the site. The photographs shall contain a simulated photographic image of the proposed tower and include the foreground, the mid -ground, and the background of the site. The structural marker shall be erected at the time of application and removed within ten (10) days after the final public hearing for the proposed conditional use permit request. The objective of the photograph simulations and structural marker shall be to provide a vertical representation of the structure for survey of the visual impacts the tower will have from significant highway corridors, residential properties, and historic/significant areas. In addition to the above required information, the applicant shall also submit the following: a. An engineering report from a qualified radio-frequency engineer that is sealed and signed and specifies the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co -location antennae and the minimum required separation distances between antennae to ensure no frequency interference. b. An engineering report from a qualified structural engineer that is sealed and signed, and supports the proposed vertical design separation of antennae and includes the following: i. The tower height and design including cross-section and elevation. ii. Structural mounting designs and materials list. iii. Certification that the proposed tower is compatible for co -location with a minimum of six (6) users (including the primary user) at the heights proposed and specification on the type of antennae that the tower can accommodate. c. The applicant shall provide copies of its co -location policy. d. The applicant shall provide copies of propagation maps demonstrating that antennas and sites for possible co -locator antennae are no higher in elevation than necessary. 21 e. The personal communications service carrier shall be a co -applicant for all applications. f. For the purpose of determining the tower's suitability for use in the case of a local, state, or national emergency, the applicant shall provide written information specifying what measures will be provided to accomplish continued communications operations in the event of power outages caused by a manmade or natural disaster, i.e., backup generators, etc. 10. Factors considered in granting conditional use permits for new towers. ..... The board of supervisors of Isle of Wight County shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a conditional use permit for new towers. The board of supervisors may waive or reduce the burden on the applicant of one (1) or more of these criteria if the board of supervisors concludes that the goals of this section are better served thereby: a. Height of the proposed tower; b. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries; c. Nature of the uses of adjacent and nearby properties; d. Surrounding topography; e. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage; f. Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness; g. Proposed ingress and egress; h. Co -location policy; i. Language of the lease agreement dealing with co -location; j. Consistency with the comprehensive plan and the purposes to be served by zoning; k. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures as discussed below; 1. Proximity to commercial or private airports; and m. Level of emergency preparedness for the individual site and contribution to the county -wide emergency response plan. 22 11. Availability of suitable existing towers or other structures...... No new tower shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the board of supervisors of Isle of Wight County that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. Evidence submitted should consist of the following: a. No existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet applicant's engineering requirements; b. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet applicant's engineering requirements; c. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment, and cannot be retrofitted to accommodate additional users; d. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; e. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure or to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable; and f. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. 12. Setbacks. ..... The following setback requirements shall apply to all towers and antennas for which a conditional use permit is required; provided, however, that the board of supervisors of Isle of Wight County may reduce the standard setback requirements if the goals of this section would be better served thereby. a. The tower must be set back from any off-site residential structure no less than four hundred (400) feet. b. A setback of one (1) foot horizontally for each foot in height shall be provided from the base of the tower structure to any adjoining property line (other than the property of the lessor). c. Towers, guys and accessory facilities must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirements for primary structures. 13. Security fencing...... Towers shall be enclosed by security fencing not less than six (6) feet in height and shall also be equipped with an appropriate 23 anti -climbing device; provided, however, that the board of supervisors of Isle of Wight County may waive such requirements, as it deems appropriate. 14. Landscaping. ..... The following requirements shall govern the landscaping surrounding towers for which a conditional use permit is required; provided, however, that the board of supervisors of Isle of Wight County may waive such requirements if the goals of this section would be better served thereby: a. Tower facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screen the view of the support buildings from adjacent property. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip at least four (4) feet wide outside the perimeter of the facilities. b. In locations in which the board of supervisors of Isle of Wight County finds that the visual impact of the tower would be minimal, the landscaping requirement may be reduced or waived altogether. c. Existing mature tree growth and natural landforms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. In some cases, such as towers sited on large, wooded lots, the board of supervisors of Isle of Wight County may determine the natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. d. Existing trees within the lesser of two hundred (200) feet or the area controlled by the applicant/owner shall not be removed except as may be authorized to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicle utilities. 15. Local government access...... Owners of towers shall provide the county a right of first refusal for co -location opportunities as a community benefit to improve radio communication for county departments and emergency services, provided it does not conflict with the co -location requirement of subsection 9.a., of this section. 16. Removal of abandoned antennas and towers...... Any antenna or tower that is not operated for a continuous period of twenty-four (24) months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of each such antenna or tower shall remove same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the county notifying the owner of such removal equipment requirement. Removal includes the removal of the tower, all tower and fence footers, underground cables and support buildings to a minimum depth of three (3) feet. If there are two (2) or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. At the discretion of the county, a surety bond in a form acceptable to the county attorney may be required to insure that the funds necessary for removal are available to the county in the event the structure is abandoned. 24 17. Required yearly report...... The owner of each such antenna or tower shall submit a report to the board of supervisors of Isle of Wight County once a year, no later than July 1. The report shall state the current user status of the tower. 18. Review fees. ..... Any out-of-pocket costs incurred for review by a licensed engineer of any of the above -required information shall be paid by the applicant. E. Composting system, confined vegetative waste or yard. 1. All composting operations shall submit the following in order to make application for a conditional use permit: a. A written plan operation demonstrating the composting facility owner and operators understand and will apply the principles and proper methods of composting. The plan also must demonstrate that the composting facility will be operated in a manner that will not pose a threat to human health and the environment, and the intended use of the compost. b. The plan shall include standards for siting, design, construction, operation, closure, and permitting procedures for vegetative waste management facilities, including yard waste composting facilities. c. The plan shall also specifically address odor minimization, including seasonal variations that effect wind velocity and direction shall be described. 2. All state, federal and local permits shall be obtained and submitted to the department of planning and zoning prior to operation. 3. A composting system shall not include the land application of compostable organic material to forestall or agricultural lands. F. Reconstructed wetland. 1. Intent...... The purpose of requiring a conditional use permit is to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan and appropriate land use. Reconstructed wetlands, once permitted by state and federal agencies, become a permanent long-term land use that is expensive and difficult to re - permit if it is poorly placed on the landscape. Such facilities should therefore be evaluated in relationship to the long range plans of the county. Issues related to the technical design, feasibility, etc., shall remain the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Quality and shall not be a consideration in evaluating the conditional use permit request. G. Shooting range, outdoor. 2 I. General standards: a. The site or area used as a shooting range or match shall be fenced, posted every fifty (50) feet or otherwise restricted so that access to the site is controlled to insure the safety of patrons, spectators and the public at large. b. The county sheriff shall review and make recommendations for the design and layout of any shooting range or match as to its safety to patrons of the range as well as surrounding property owners. As a general guideline, the following distances shall be maintained unless modified in writing by the county sheriff: i. The minimum distance from any firing point measured in the direction of fire to the nearest property line shall not be less than three hundred (300) feet; ii. Where a backstop is utilized to absorb the discharged load, the minimum distance may be two hundred (200) feet; and iii. No firing point shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of an adjoining property line. H. Turkey shoot. 1. General standards: a. A turkey shoot shall be on a site of not less than three (3) acres. b. The firing line or points shall be located at least one hundred (100) feet from any public road. c. The site shall be so designed that the distance to any adjacent property measured from the firing point or points in the direction of fire shall be not less than six hundred (600) feet, or an earthen backstop of twenty (20) feet or greater shall be provided a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from the firing line. d. Shotguns only shall be used in a turkey shoot. e. The use or discharge of firearms shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. f. A zoning permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed sixty (60) consecutive days. g. A turkey shoot shall not be conducted on the same property for more than ninety (90) days in any twelve-month period. 26 The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: H. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code Regarding Dangerous and Vicious Dogs; Cruelty to Animals County Attorney Popovich briefed the Board regarding the amendment which was to make the ordinance more user friendly. Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance amendment. Upon no one appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Following comments from the Board, Supervisor Jefferson moved that the following amendment to the Ordinance be adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING AND REENACTING ARTICLE II. DOGS AND CATS. CHAPTER 3. ANIMALS AND FOWL.SECTION 3- 24. CONTROL OF DANGEROUS OR VICIOUS DOGS; AND BY ENACTING SECTION 3-24.1. CONTROL OF VICIOUS DOGS.; AND, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING ARTICLE IV. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. SECTION 3-29. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS; PENALTY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, deems it necessary to revise its local ordinance related to dangerous or vicious dogs to conform with state law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 3. Animals and Fowl. Section 3-24 be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 3-24. - Control of dangerous dogs. (a) As used in this section, "dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat. When a dog attacks or bites a companion animal that is a dog or cat, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous: (i) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the dog or cat as a result of the attack or bite; (ii) if both animals are owned by the same person; (iii) if such attack occurs on the property of the attacking or biting dog's owner or custodian; or (iv) for other good cause as determined by the court. No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a p4A result of biting, attacking or inflicting injury on a dog or cat while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event. No dog that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person shall be found to be a dangerous dog if the court determines, based on the totality of the evidence before it, that the dog is not dangerous or a threat to the community. (b) Any law enforcement officer or animal control officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within the county is a dangerous dog shall apply to a magistrate serving the county for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before the General District Court in Isle of Wight County. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. If a law- enforcement officer successfully makes an application for the issuance of a summons, he shall contact the animal control officer and inform him of the location of the dog and the relevant facts pertaining to his belief that the dog is dangerous. The animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. If the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal in a manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of this section. Further, if the court, upon finding the animal to be a dangerous dog, may order the owner, custodian, or harborer to pay restitution for actual damages to any person injured by the animal or whose companion animal was injured or killed by the animal and may, at the court's discretion, also order the owner to pay all reasonable expenses incurred in caring and providing for such dangerous dog from the time the animal is taken into custody until such time as the animal is disposed of or returned to the owner. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors and the County shall be required to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. (c) No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor shall ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed be prohibited. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was: (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog. No animal which, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, or its owner or owner's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog. (d) The owner of any animal found to be a dangerous dog shall, within forty-five (45) days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate from the local animal control officer for a fee as shall be set forth in the Isle of Wight County Uniform Fee Schedule, as adopted by the board of supervisors, as it may be amended, in addition to other fees that may be authorized by law. The local animal control officer shall also provide the owner with a uniformly designed tag that identifies the animal as a dangerous dog. The owner shall affix the tag to the animal's collar and ensure that the animal wears the collar and tag at all times. By January 31 of each year, until such time as the dangerous dog is deceased, all certificates obtained pursuant to this subsection shall be updated and renewed for a fee as shall be set forth in the Isle of Wight County Uniform Fee Schedule, as adopted by the board of supervisors, as it may be amended, in the same manner as the initial certificate was obtained. The animal control officer shall post registration information on the Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry. (e) All dangerous dog registration certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons eighteen (18) years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence: (i) of the animal's current rabies vaccination, if applicable; (ii) that the animal has been neutered or spayed; and (iii) that the animal is and will be confined in a proper enclosure or is and will be confined inside the owner's residence or is and will be muzzled and confined in the owner's fenced -in yard until the proper enclosure is constructed. In addition, owners who apply for certificates or renewals thereof under this section shall not be issued a certificate or renewal thereof unless they present satisfactory evidence that: (i) their residence is and will continue to be posted with clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property and (ii) the animal has been permanently identified by means of electronic implantation. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons who present satisfactory evidence that the owner has liability insurance coverage, to the value of at least $100,000 that covers animal bites. The owner may obtain and maintain a bond in surety, in lieu of liability insurance, to the value of at least $100,000. (f) While on the property of its owner, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked structure of sufficient height and design to prevent its escape or direct contact with or entry by minors, adults, or other animals. While so confined within the structure, the animal shall be provided for according to Section 3-3 of this ordinance. When off its owner's property, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be kept on a leash and muzzled in such a manner as not to cause injury to the animal or interfere with the animal's vision or respiration, but so as to prevent it from biting a person or another animal. 9 (g) If the owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this section. (h) After an animal has been found to be a dangerous dog, the animal's owner shall immediately, upon learning of same, notify the local animal control authority if the animal: (i) is loose or unconfined; (ii) bites a person or attacks another animal; (iii) is sold, given away, or dies; or (iv) has been moved to a different address. In addition, the owner shall cause the local animal control officer to be promptly notified of (i) the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all owners; (ii) all of the means necessary to locate the owner and the dog at any time; (iii) any complaints or incidents of attach by the dog upon any person or cat or dog; (iv) any claims made or lawsuits brought as a result of any attack; (v) chip identification information; (vii) proof of insurance or surety bond; and (vii) the death of the dog. (i) The owner of any animal which has been found to be a dangerous dog who willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the court may (i) order the dangerous dog to be disposed of or (ii) grant the owner up to 45 days to comply with the requirements of this section, during which time the dangerous dog shall remain in the custody of the animal control officer until compliance has been verified. If the owner fails to achieve compliance within the time specified by the court, the court shall order the dangerous dog disposed of. The court, in its discretion, may order the owner to pay all reasonable expenses incurred in caring and providing for such dangerous dog from the time the animal is taken into custody until such time that the animal is disposed of or returned to the owner. (j) Any owner or custodian of a canine or canine crossbreed or other animal is guilty of a: (1) Class 2 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration arose out of a separate and distinct incident, attacks and injures or kills a cat or dog that is a companion animal belonging to another person; or (2) Class 1 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration arose out of a separate and distinct incident, bites a human being or attacks a human being causing bodily injury. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, or when the animal is a police dog that is engaged in the performance of its duties at the time of the attack. 30 (k) All fees collected pursuant to this section, less the costs incurred by the animal control authority in producing and distributing the certificates and tags required by this division, shall be paid into a special dedicated fund in the Isle of Wight County treasury for the purpose of paying the expenses of any animal control officer training required under Section 3.2-6556 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). (1) (STATE LAW REFERENCE—Sec. 3.2-6540 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 3. Animals and Fowl. be further amended by enacting Section 3-24.1 as follows: Sec. 3-24.1 - Control of vicious dogs. (a) As used in this section, "serious injury" means an injury having a reasonable potential to cause death or any injury other than a sprain or strain, including serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of bodily function and requiring significant medical attention. "Vicious dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person, (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as may have been authorized by ordinance that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding. (b) Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within the county is a vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate serving the county for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before the Isle of Wight General District Court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. If a law-enforcement officer successfully makes an application for the issuance of a summons, he shall contact the local animal control officer and inform him of the location of the dog and the relevant facts pertaining to his belief that the dog is vicious. The animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian, or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with applicable law. The court, upon finding the animal to be a vicious dog, may order the owner, custodian, or harborer thereof to pay restitution for actual damages to any person injured by the animal or to the estate of any person killed by the animal. The court, in its discretion, may also order the owner to pay all reasonable expenses incurred in caring and providing for such vicious dog from the time the animal is 31 taken into custody until such time as the animal is disposed of. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. The county shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (c) No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited. No animal shall be found to be a vicious dog if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a vicious dog. No animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, shall be found to be a vicious dog. (d) Any owner or custodian of a canine or canine crossbreed or other animal whose willful act or omission in the care, control, or containment of a canine, canine crossbreed, or other animal is so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life and is the proximate cause of such dog or other animal attacking and causing serious injury to any person is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, or when the animal is a police dog that is engaged in the performance of its duties at the time of the attack. (STATE LAW REFERENCE ---Sec. 3.2-6540.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 3. Animals and Fowl. be further amended by amending and reenacting Section 3-29 as follows: (a) Any person who: (i) overrides, overdrives, overloads, tortures, ill- treats, abandons, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly or unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills an animal, whether belonging to himself or another; (ii) deprives any animal of necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment; (iii) sores any equine for any purpose or administers drugs or medications to alter or mask such Boring for the purpose of sale, show, or exhibition of any kind, unless such administration of drugs or medications is within the context of a veterinary client -patient relationship and solely for therapeutic purposes; (iv) ropes, lassoes, or otherwise obstructs or interferes with one or more legs of an 32 equine in order to intentionally cause it to trip or fall for the purpose of engagement in a rodeo, contest, exhibition, entertainment, or sport unless such actions are in the practice of accepted animal husbandry or for the purpose of allowing veterinary care; (v) willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal; (vi) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering; or (vii) causes any of the above things, or being the owner of such animal permits such acts to be done by another is guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. In addition to the penalties provided in this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, require any person convicted of a violation of this subsection to attend an anger management or other appropriate treatment program or obtain psychiatric or psychological counseling. The court may impose the costs of such a program or counseling upon the person convicted. (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the dehorning of cattle conducted in a reasonable and customary manner. (c) This section shall not prohibit authorized wildlife management activities or hunting, fishing, trapping, or farming activities as regulated under the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). (e) Any person convicted of violating this section may be prohibited by the court from possession or ownership of companion animals. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, in a Principal Amount Not to Exceed $8,000,000 Jimmy Sanderson, Davenport & Company, briefed the Board regarding the proposed issuance of bonds for the County's E-911 public radio communications system. Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Resolution. Upon no one appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Supervisor Acree moved that the following Resolution be adopted: 33 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,000,000 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10(b) of Article VII of the Constitution of Virginia and Section 15.2-2639 (formerly Section 15.1-227.40) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Code"), Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), has elected by affirmative vote of the qualified voters of the County, to be treated as a city for the purpose of issuing its bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA: It is determined to be necessary and expedient for the County to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of facilities and equipment related to public safety purposes and uses (the "Project"), to borrow money for such purpose and to issue the County's general obligation public improvement bonds therefor. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, there are authorized to be issued general obligation public improvement bonds of the County in a principal amount not to exceed $8,000,000 to provide funds to finance the cost of the Proj ect. The bonds shall bear such date or dates, mature at such time or times not exceeding 40 years from their dates, bear interest at such rate or rates, be in such denominations and form, be executed in such manner and be sold at such time or times and in such manner as the Board may hereafter provide by appropriate resolution or resolutions. The bonds shall be general obligations of the County for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on which its full faith and credit shall be irrevocably pledged. The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official intent" within the meaning of Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150- 2, promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Clerk of the Board, in collaboration with the County Attorney, is authorized and directed to see to the immediate filing of a certified copy of this resolution in the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County, Virginia. This resolution shall take effect immediately. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 34 Chairman Alphin called for a public hearing on the following: J. Resolution Providing for the Issuance, Sale and Award of a General Obligation Public Improvement Bond of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, in a Principal Amount not to exceed $8,000,000 and Providing for the Form, Details and Payment Thereof Chairman Alphin called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Resolution. Chairman Alphin closed the public hearing and called for comments of the Board. Supervisor McCarty moved that the following Resolution be adopted: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND AWARD OF A GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,000,000, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10(b) of Article VII of the Constitution of Virginia and Section 15.2-2639 (formerly Section 15.1-227.40) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), has elected by affirmative vote of the qualified voters of the County to be treated as a city for the purpose of issuing its bonds; WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") adopted a resolution on July 21, 2016, authorizing the issuance of general obligation public improvement bonds of the County in a maximum principal amount of $8,000,000 to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of facilities and equipment related to public safety purposes and uses (the "Project"), none of which bonds has been issued and sold; WHEREAS, the Board desires to issue a general obligation public improvement bond (as further described herein, "the Bond") in a maximum principal amount not to exceed $8,000,000 to finance the Project and to pay the costs of issuing the Bond; WHEREAS, the County administration and a representative of Davenport & Company LLC, the County's financial advisor (the "Financial Advisor"), have recommended to the Board that the County issue and sell the Bond through a private placement with a commercial banking or other financial institution; WHEREAS, at the request of the County, the Financial Advisor has solicited bids for the purchase of the Bond; and 35 WHEREAS, the Board desires to delegate to the County Administrator the authority to award the sale of the Bond and to determine the final pricing terms of the Bond within certain parameters set forth below; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGIMA: • Issuance of Bond. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, the Board hereby provides for the issuance and sale of the Bond to provide funds to finance the Project and to pay related costs of issuance. Further, the Board hereby authorizes the County Administrator to determine, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, which bid is in the best interests of the County to accept and to award the Bond to such commercial banking or other financial institution (the `Bank"). • Details of Bond. The Bond shall be designated "General Obligation Public Improvement Bond, Series 2016," or such other designation as shall be determined by the County Administrator, shall be in registered form, shall be dated such date as determined by the County Administrator and shall be numbered R-1. The Bond shall be sold to the Bank with final terms that the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, determines to be in the best interests of the County; provided, however, that the Bond shall (a) be issued in a principal amount not to exceed $8,000,000, (b) bear interest at an annual rate not to exceed 3.00°x, subject to adjustment, if any, as determined by the County Administrator, (c) be sold to the Bank at a price of 100% of the original principal amount thereof, and (d) mature no later than December 31, 2027. Interest on the Bond shall be payable semi-annually on dates determined by the County Administrator. Principal on the Bond shall be payable in installments in amounts and on dates determined by the County Administrator. Following the determination of the final pricing terms, the County Administrator shall execute a certificate setting forth such final pricing terms and shall file such certificate with the records of the Board. The actions of the County Administrator in selling the Bond shall be conclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bond shall be necessary on the part of the Board. If the date on which any payment is due with respect to the Bond is not a Business Day (as hereinafter defined), the payment shall be made on the next succeeding Business Day. "Business Day" shall mean a day on which banking business is transacted, but not including a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday or any other day on which banking institutions are authorized by law to close in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 6 Principal and interest shall be payable by the Registrar (as hereinafter defined) by check or draft mailed to the registered owner at the address as it appears on the registration books kept by the Registrar on the date selected by the County Administrator as the record date for the Bond (the "Record Date"); provided, however, that at the request of the registered owner of the Bond, payment will be made by wire transfer pursuant to the most recent wire instructions received by the Registrar from such registered owner. Principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. • Redemption Provisions. Subject to the limitations contained herein, the County Administrator is hereby authorized to determine the redemption provisions of the Bond. Such redemption provisions may include the payment of a call premium not to exceed 3.00% of the par amount of the Bond (or portion thereof) to be redeemed and/or may include a "make - whole" payment based on market conditions, all as the County Administrator may determine to be in the best interests of the County. • Execution and Authentication. The Bond shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board and shall be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board, and the Board's seal shall be affixed thereto or a facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided, however, that if both of such signatures are facsimiles, the Bond shall not be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or employee of the Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon. • Form of Bond. The Bond shall be in substantially the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the officers signing the Bond, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution of the Bond and delivery thereof to the Bank. • Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bond. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of the Bond, the Board shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all locally taxable property in the County sufficient to pay when due the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bond. 7 • Registration, Transfer and Owners of Bond. The County Treasurer is hereby appointed to act as the registrar and paying agent for the Bond (the "Registrar"). Upon request of the County Treasurer, the Board may appoint a bank or trust company to serve as successor paying agent and registrar for the Bond. The Registrar shall maintain registration books for the registration and registration of transfers of the Bond. Upon presentation and surrender of the Bond at the office of the County Treasurer, or the corporate trust office of the Registrar if the County Treasurer is no longer serving as Registrar, together with an assignment duly executed by the registered owner or its duly authorized attorney or legal representative in such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar, the County shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate, if required by Section 4, and deliver in exchange a new Bond having an equal aggregate principal amount, of the same form and maturity, bearing interest at the same rate and registered in names as requested by the then registered owner or its duly authorized attorney or legal representative. Any such exchange shall be at the expense of the County, except that the Registrar may charge the person requesting such exchange the amount of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect thereto. The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person shown as owner on the registration books on the Record Date. • Preparation and Delivery of Bond. After the Bond has been awarded, the Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to take all proper steps to have the Bond prepared and executed in accordance with its terms and to deliver the Bond to the Bank upon payment therefor. • Mutilated, Lost or Destroyed Bond. If the Bond has been mutilated, lost or destroyed, the County shall execute and deliver a new Bond of like date and tenor in exchange and substitution for, and upon cancellation of, such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for such lost or destroyed Bond; provided, however, that the County shall so execute and deliver only if the registered owner has paid the reasonable expenses and charges of the County in connection therewith and, in the case of a lost or destroyed Bond, (a) has filed with the County evidence satisfactory to the County that such Bond was lost or destroyed and (b) has furnished to the County satisfactory indemnity. 39 • Deposit of Bond Proceeds. The County Treasurer and the Director of Budget and Finance, either of whom may act, are authorized and directed to provide for the deposit of the proceeds of the Bond in a special account to be used to pay the costs of the Project and the costs incurred in issuing the Bond. • Arbitrage Covenants. (a) The County represents that there have not been issued, and covenants that there will not be issued, any obligation that will be treated as part of the same "issue" as the Bond within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150(c). (b) The County covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or omission of which will cause the Bond to be an "arbitrage bond" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or otherwise cause interest on the Bond to be includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owner thereof under existing law. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the County shall comply with any provision of law that may require the County at any time to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the gross proceeds of the Bond, unless the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not required to prevent interest on the Bond from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owner thereof under existing law. The County shall pay any such required rebate from its legally available funds. • Non -Arbitrage Certificate and Elections. Such officers of the County as may be requested by bond counsel for the County are authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth (a) the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bond in order to show that such expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code, and (b) any elections such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States for purposes of complying with Section 148 of the Code. Such certificate shall be prepared in consultation with bond counsel for the County, and such elections shall be made after consultation with bond counsel. * Limitation on Private Use. The County covenants that it shall not permit the proceeds of the Bond or the facilities financed therewith to be used in any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds or facilities being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds or facilities being used with respect to any output facility (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within 39 the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such covenants need not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Bond from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owner thereof under existing law, the County need not comply with such covenants. • Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligation. The County Administrator is hereby authorized to designate the Bond (or a portion thereof) as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" for the purpose of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code if the County Administrator determines that it is in the best interests of the County to do so and that the County can satisfy the requirements of Section 265(b)(3). Before designating the Bond as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation," the County Administrator must determine as follows: (a) The County will in no event designate more than $10,000,000 of obligations, including the Bond, as qualified tax-exempt obligations in calendar year 2016 for the purpose of such Section 265(b)(3); (b)The County, all its "subordinate entities," within the meaning of such Section 265(b)(3), and all entities that issue tax- exempt obligations on behalf of the County and its subordinate entities have not issued, when aggregated with the Bond, more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations in calendar year 2016 (excluding for this purpose "private activity bonds," within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code, other than "qualified 501(c)(3) bonds," within the meaning of Section 145 of the Code);] (c)Barring circumstances unforeseen as of the date of delivery of the Bond, the County will not issue tax-exempt obligations itself or approve the issuance of tax-exempt obligations of any of such other entities if the issuance of such tax-exempt obligations would, when aggregated with the Bond and all other tax-exempt obligations theretofore issued by the County and such other entities in calendar year 2016, result in the County and such other entities having issued a total of more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations in calendar year 2016 (excluding for this purpose private activity bonds, other than qualified 501(c)(3) bonds); and 40 (d)The County has no reason to believe that the County and such other entities will issue tax-exempt obligations in calendar year 2016 in an aggregate amount that will exceed such $10,000,000 limit. Should the County receive an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that compliance with one or more of the covenants set forth in (a) and (c) above is not required for the Bond to be a qualified tax-exempt obligation, the County need not comply with such covenant(s). • SNAP Investment Authorization. The Board has received and reviewed the Information Statement describing the State Non - Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") and the Contract Creating the State Non -Arbitrage Program Pool (the "Contract"), and the Board has determined to authorize the County Treasurer to utilize SNAP in connection with the investment of the proceeds of the Bond, if the County Treasurer determines that the utilization of SNAP is in the best interests of the County. The Board acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the County in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the Contract. • Other Actions. All other actions of officers of the County in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bond are ratified, approved and confirmed. The officers of the County are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all such further action as may be considered necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bond. • Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. • Filing. The Clerk of the Board, in collaboration with the County Attorney, is authorized and directed to see to the immediate filing of a certified copy of this resolution in the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County, Virginia. • Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT The request of the Historic Society to use the 1820 Clerk of Circuit Court's building was presented and discussed by the Board with regard to the public being allowed to utilize County government buildings. The Board was advised by staff that there have been many requests by staff to use the space, however, to date, sufficient funding has not been identified to renovate the space. The misconception was discussed that this space is sitting vacant when in actuality, the office is being actively utilized at this time by the County's IT Department for storage. Supervisor Jefferson moved that the request of the Historic Society be denied. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-1) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice and Jefferson voting in favor of the motion and Supervisor McCarty voting against the motion. The County's receipt of a Government Finance Officers of America (GFOA) Award and Certificate for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015 was brought to the Board's attention. For the Board information, efforts of the County's volunteer fire and rescue organizations, to include community events, fund-raising activities, duty crew hours and training events, were captured and presented to the Board via a Volunteer Fire -EMS Activity Report by Jeffrey Terwilliger, Chief of Emergency Services. The following matters were highlighted for the Board's information by Interim County Administrator Wanner: Monthly Reports: Tax Levies & Collections as of June 2016/Cash Position/Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability as of May 2016; Isle of Wight County Monthly Fire/Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Report — Incidents by Zone Map; Incidents by Zone Data, as of June 2016; Isle of Wight Website Statistics/June 2016; Solid Waste Division Litter Pickup; and, the Isle of Wight Extension Report/June 2016. UNFINISHED/OLD BUSINESS There was no business offered for discussion. NEW BUSINESS For the Board's input and thoughts regarding future welcome signage, Mr. Wilson presented option designs and associated cost for replacement of the welcome signs at the James River Bridge, Rushmere Volunteer Fire Department and entering the County leaving the City of Suffolk, as well as replacement signs on Route 460 at the entrances of Zuni and Carrsville, and one at the Blackwater Bridge. 4 Supervisor McCarty expressed his desire that the County seal also be included on the County entrance signs and the Board deferred action until a future meeting noting the lateness of the hour. A Resolution to Provide Payment for Design, Engineering and Other Services Related to Construction of the Benns Church Intersection/Benns Grant Subdivision Infrastructure was presented by County Attorney Popovich for adoption. Supervisor Acree moved that the following Resolution be adopted: RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE PAYMENT FOR DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND OTHER SERVICES RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE BENNS CHURCH INTERSECTIONBENNS GRANT SUBDIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has agreed to provide payment for design, engineering and other services related to construction of the Benns Church intersection/Benns Grant subdivision; and, WHEREAS, an invoice in the amount of one hundred four thousand fifty dollars ($104,050) for design and engineering services is due; and, WHEREAS, the County will pay costs up to one hundred eighty five thousand five hundred dollars ($187,500) representing 50% of anticipated costs in the amount of $375,000 for others services; and, WHEREAS, funding for said payments will be deducted from proffers received from the development of the Benns Grant subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that payments in the aggregate amount of two hundred ninety one thousand five hundred fifty dollars ($291,550) be made for design, engineering and other services related to construction of the Benns Church intersection/Benns Grant subdivision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Interim County Administrator of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate accounting adjustments in the budget for these payments and to do all things necessary to give this resolution effect. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Jefferson moved that the County Attorney be authorized to handle the litigation matter as discussed in closed meeting. The motion was adopted 43 by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. A Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Funding from the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program for a Canoe/Kayak Launch was presented for adoption. Supervisor McCarty moved that the following Resolution be adopted: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VIRGINIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO INSTALL A CANOE/KAYAK LAUNCH AT NIKE PARK PIER WHEREAS, the pier and landing located at Carrollton Nike Park was severely damaged by Hurricane Irene in 2011; and, WHEREAS, FEMA and insurance settlements received by the County in 2013 were not enough to cover the entire pier and landing replacement project, so building the gangway, floating dock, and launch was postponed; and, WHEREAS, the County has applied for, and is eligible to receive, funding in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) from the Virginia Department of Environment Quality's Coastal Zone Management Program. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, that twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) or so much as shall be received from the Virginia Department of Environment Quality's Coastal Zone Management Program be appropriated to the appropriate line item in the County's FY 2016-17. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Interim County Administrator of Isle of Wight County is authorized by the Board of Supervisors to make the appropriate accounting adjustments in the budget for this grant and to do all things necessary to give this resolution effect. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin moved that Randy Keaton be appointed as the County's County Administrator effective September 1, 2016 and that the Chairman be authorized to execute the employment agreement as agreed to by the parties. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Alphin read into the record a letter from Randy Keaton thanking the Board for the honor or being selected as the County's County Administrator. At 11:00 p.m., Supervisor McCarty moved that the meeting time be extended which was adopted unanimously (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. CLOSED BUSINESS County Attorney Popovich requested a closed meeting for consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice regarding the Gaston pipeline pursuant to subsection 7; the discussion of acquisition of real property for a public purpose regarding the new E-911 communication tower location where discussion in open meeting could adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body pursuant to A.3; consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body regarding potential annexation agreement with the Town of Smithfield pursuant to subsection 7; consultation with legal counsel employed by this public body regarding actual litigation with the International Paper Company, pursuant to subsection 7. Supervisor McCarty moved that the Board enter the closed meeting for the reasons stated by County Attorney Popovich which was adopted unanimously (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor McCarty moved that the Board return to open session which was adopted unanimously (5-0) with Supervisors Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor McCarty moved that the following Resolution be adopted: CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712(D) of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; 45 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. VOTE AYES: Acree, Alphin, Grice, Jefferson and McCarty NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0 001[Qi1.��1�1���� Chairman Alphin declared the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Re . Alphin, ehairman ov� jn�& grey Wlls Stor , Clerk 46