05-19-2005 Regular Meetinggnr~r ~~ .7?~
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HELD THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY IN THE
YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT: Phillip A. Bradshaw, Chairman
Thomas J. Wright, III, Vice-Chairman
Henry H. Bradby. '
Richard K. MacManus
Stan D. Clark
Also Attending: Jacob P. Stroman, IV, County Attorney
W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator
Donald. T. Robertson, Assistant
County Administrator/Operations
E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Assistant County
Administrator/Developrnent
R
Anne F. Seward, Assistant County Administrator/
Administration
Carey Mills Storm, Recording Secretary
Chairman Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
//
Supervisor Bradby delivered the invocation.
//
The Pledge of Allegiance. was conducted.
//
Chairman. Bradshaw called for approval of the agenda.
County Attorney Stroman requested that the following amendments be
made to the agenda: Add an Item (D) under Old Business .concerning a
report on private water systems; ,add two (2) personnel items regarding
.performance of Board appointees under the .Closed Meeting; add an
Appointments section following the County Administrator's report; and, add
one (1) personnel matter under the Closed Meeting.
Supervisor Clark moved that the issue of open burning restrictions be
added under New Business. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with
Supervisors Bradby, .Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the
motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor
MacManus absent for the vote.
1
D
II
ann~ 2~ ~~`~(~
Supervisor Wright .moved that the. Board .approve the agenda, as
amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors
Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no
Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor MacManus absent for
the vote.
/1
Chairman Bradshaw .indicated the Consent Agenda included the:
following items:
A. Resolution of Support that the Virginia Department of Health
.Favorably .Consider the Issuance of a Certificate of Public Need
for the Ambulatary Surgery Center Proposed by the Riverside
Health System
B. Regional Library Membership Review Committee
C. Resolution of Commitment to Consolidate Certain Services
between the County and School Board
D. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Grant-Funds from the .
Virginia Housing Development Authority for the Section 8
Program..
s
E. Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
F. DEQ/Public Notice Dated April 18,.2005
G. Board of Zoning Appeals Action Lists of November 1, 2004,
March 14, 2005 and May 2, 2005
H. Planning Commission Action List of April. 26, 2005
L Open Burning Restrictions for the Newport Development Service
District
J. Tax Refunds for Founders Pointe LLC and Eagle Harbor LLC
K. Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collection Monthly Report
L. Apri12l, 2005. Regular Meeting Minutes
Chairman Bradshaw asked if there were any items-for removal.
Supervisor Clark moved that the Boardadopt the Consent Agenda, as
presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-Q) with Supervisors
2
Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no
Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor MacManus absent for
the vote.
//
Chairman Bradshaw called for Transportation Matters.
s
Sandon S. Rogers, Transportation Planner, advised the- Board that it
would be conducting a public hearing on its Six-Year Plan and Budget at its
meeting on May 31, 2005. .
Responsive to a request by Supervisor Clark as to the status of a sign
being erected on Benns Church Boulevard identifying the Carrollton
community, and a request by Supervisor Bradby for the status of Purvis Lane,
Mr. Rogers advised that those matters would be addressed at the Board's
May 31, 2005 meeting.
Chairman Bradshaw requested the status of Dukes Lane.
Joe Lomax, Assistant .Resident Engineer, VDOT, advised that the
Dukes Lane project has been advertised, and bids are anticipated to be
received on May 25, 2005.
Chairman Bradshaw requested the status of Duck Town Road.
Mr. Lomax advised that the Duck Town Road pre-.construction.
conference is scheduled for May 25, 2005.
MacFarland Neblett, Resident Engineer, VDOT, advised that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board has officially notified VDOT that it
has approved the signs to be installed. on Route 260 over Route 61b (Lees
Mill Road) in recognition of Edna and Anthony King:
Chairman Bradshaw moved that the Board direct the County..,.
Administrator to contact Anthony and Edna King and inquire if they feel a
small ceremony is appropriate to hold when the sign in their names is erected
on Route 260 over Route 616 (Lees Mill Road). The motion was adopted by
a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and .Wright voting
in favor of the motion; . no Supervisors voting against the motion; and,
Supervisor MacNlanus absent for the vote.
Mr. Rogers reported on the outcome of a .recent meeting with Mr.
Neblett concerning the Benn's Church intersection signals. He advised that
these signals have. been retimed during the a.m. peak hours and the p.m. peak
hours, and that the left turn time from the Smithfield direction has been
increased. He further advised that VDOT will be issuing a press. release, and
will continue to monitor this intersection and adjust the timing as necessary.
3
~i
1
i
1
q~n~ ~~ ; ~?`~~
With respect to the installation of a second. turn lane at the Benn's
Church intersection, Mr. Neblett advised that adjustment of the signalization
timing is a short-term solution, and VDOT would .investigate .other
alternatives should traffic continue to be a problem in this area.
With respect to the proposed relocation of the_ VDOT Suffolk
Residency, Supervisor MacManus moved that .the Board direct the County
Administrator to relay the Board's recommendation to VDOT that it consider
the location of a residency in the Windsor area, which is centrally located.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby,
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
I
Teresa Johnson requested that consideration be given to lengthening
the left turn lane and left turn arrow at the Route 17Bartlett intersection to
allow additional cars to proceed through the intersection.
Mr. Neblett advised that VDOT is currently reviewing that intersection
and anticipates obtaining mitigation and air quality funds to remedy the
situation.
Chairman Bradshaw requested that VDOT review the timing cycle for
the light at the Route 17Bartlett intersection.
Joe Ferguson stated advance street signs. help notify motorists before
they reach an intersection of the name of the next road so that the motorist
can make appropriate lane changes. He requested that staff take appropriate
action to request VDOT to install these advance street signs in the County,..
specifically on Route 17 and the other busy thoroughfares. ;
Supervisor Clark moved that the Board direct the County Administrator
to coordinate with the VDOT Resident Engineer and determine the feasibility
of installing advance street signs on the County's major thoroughfares. The.
motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and .Wright voting in favor. of the motion, and no
Supervisors voting against the motion..
//
Chairman Bradshaw called for Citizen's Comments.
Joe Ferguson of the Hardy District .informed the Board about a past
incident involving the County's Codes Compliance Officer. He advised that
he was. previously cited by the County's: Codes Compliance Officer who had
received a complaint that he was running a rubble landfill and violating the
County Code during the period of time that he was building his home on a
farm in the County. He explained that he desired to burn an area of tree
4
k
t
ii
,~.: , 23 X32
stumps located behind his home during the .period of time that his home was
undergoing excavation, and that he had coordinated with an individual who
- had heavy equipment to accomplish this. He stated that the Codes
..Enforcement Officer concluded upon his inspection that 1VIr. Ferguson was
not running a rubble landfill, but that the Codes Enforcement Officer had still
requested him to cease operation. He stated the pile of tree stumps still
remains today and looks unsightly. He stated once the Codes Enforcement
Officer had determined that the complaint was invalid, he should have been
allowed to continue with his efforts. He advised that in 1999, VDOT paved
Raynor .Road and the. excess dirt that was removed from that project was
piled up in a field, where it still remains today. He stated when the Codes
Enforcement Officer was advised of that situation, he was advised that this
was agricultural .land, and that the dirt was being. used to fill low spots and
repair erosion in the fields. He stated that the dirt was stockpiled and sold by
the tenant on that land for his use. He stated he was only trying to clean up
his farm property, yet this pile of dirt .was allowed to remain, and the low
. spot in the field remains a swamp today.
Chairman .Bradshaw moved the Board direct that the County
Administrator,. in conjunction with the County Attorney, to review the
information presented by Mr. Ferguson, and provide a report back to the
Board. at their earliest convenience. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-
0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting
in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the~motion.
Sharon Hart of the Newport District requested the Board to .adopt a
resolution requesting that the. Virginia Department. of Health extend the time
for submission of comments for biosolids permits, and notify the Virginia
Department of Health that no decision has been made by the County to
provide input to the Virginia Department of Health for .the biosolids
applications at this time.
Supervisor Clark moved the ~ Board further discuss the issue of
biosolids later in the meeting under Old Business. The motion.. was adopted
by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and
Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the
motion.
..Gloria Seitz of Carrollton, representing Obici Health Systems,
addressed the Board relative to a Certificate of Public Need for CT and
mobile MRI services in the community. She advised that Obici Health
Systems has also submitted an application -for both of these services to serve
this community. She provided background information demonstrating
Obici's commitment to the community, and asked .that the Board give further
consideration. to Obici Health System's application.
//
5
_.. _
._
1
1
1
t.
90~K 2~ ~Z;3
1
Chairman Bradshaw called for the County Attorney's report.
County Attorney Stroman stated pursuant to .the Board's request are
revised Rules of Procedure that increase from three (3) to five (5) minutes the
amount of time that citizens can speak during public hearings. He
recommended that the Board also. increase the time for applicant rebuttal to
-five (5) minutes. He stated.because the Rules of Procedure do not include a
provision .for changes other than the annual reenactment, he has ..inserted
additional language to allow the Rules to be amended by a majority vote of
the Board. He stated that the Regional Reports section on the Board's agenda
was omitted from the Order of Business, and he would recommend .that it
become Item (H), (when required), as these reports are only offered at the'
Board's first monthly meeting.
Supervisor Clark moved that the Board adopt the revised Rules of
Procedure to allow citizens to speak up to five. (5) minutes in a public
.hearing; to include language under Article IV to provide that the rules may be
amended at any time by a majority vote of the Board; and, to include Item
1
(H), Regional Reports, when required. The motion was adopted by a vote of
(5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright
voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
County Attorney Stroman advised that he had prepared the Purchase of
Agriculture Easements Ordinance which will be considered under Public
Hearings later in the agenda.
County Attorney Stroman presented the survey and appraisal contracts
for the Hazard Mitigation Program for Burwell's Bay for the Board's
consideration. He recommended that the Board. authorize the .County
Administrator to execute the contract on behalf of the. Board pending his
.approval, which will allow him an opportunity to address the issue raised by
the Director of Budget and Finance regarding the County's procurement
program.
Supervisor Wright moved that the Board approve the contract. and
authorize the County Administrator to execute it on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors, upon review and. approval of the County Attorney. The motion
was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with .Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
County Attorney Stroman advised that he has included a proposed set
of definitions concerning the issues of junkyards and automobile graveyards
in the Zoning Ordinance.. He recommended that the Board hold its public
hearing on the Zoning Ordinance before considering these definitions.
I
//
6
~y++bplegg"FyWyrywm'i..ro„u'.aa.:....z..r...~+ta_rr..,w,,,.;a... ..w.~...., .E.:,. ..s:. ~.... .r. :. ~.; ...,.~ .,~. , ,.. ~.~.,,.. ...i ..:.~~. ~.y a ..k .-yfxf..'W-'; a,~-+!swA'Ar7'!rk
eo~r ~3:.,~?34
Chairman Bradshaw called for the County. Administrator's report.
County Administrator Casket' presented the HOME Grant Program for
the Church Manor project for the Board's consideration.
Supervisor -Clark moved the Board authorize execution of the
Subrecipient Agreement to be forwarded to Church \Zanor, Inc. The motion
was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark .and Wright .voting in favor of the motion, and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Beverly H. Walkup, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning,
presented a request of W. C. Sawyer for exemptions to the Highway Corridor
Overlay District to allow work doors to face the highway and a building with
a long, monotonous facade for Sawco Self Storage Expansion, - Mini
Warehouse, Carrollton Boulevard, Newport Magisterial District, Tax Parcel
Number 34-01-OSOB. She stated the request before the Board tonight has
been altered to relocate the buildings to hide the open doors on the other
units. She stated the engineer has also proposed a four (4) foot berm, and
worked with a landscape architect, to include the Beautification Committee,
to enhance the landscaping in front of the existing site.
Supervisor MaeManus moved the Board return the request to the
Planning Commission with the request that it review the entire expansion,
specifically the old and. new facility, as a unified project; that the Planning
Commission ensure that the landscaping far the entire project (both old and
new- sections) are treated as one (1), and landscaping be at the cost of Mr.
Sawyer; that the Planning Commission look more closely at the use of berms,
in addition to the landscaping of bushes and trees, if included, to determine if
the berms can be higher on the new project, and determine if there is a
possibility to insert berms; that consideration also be given to landscaping the
west side of the old project; and, that the Planning Commission provide a
recommendation back to the Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-
0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting
in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Mark Harrup; Long-Range Planner, briefed the Board on proposed
revisions to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by staff and the
Planning Commission.
U
At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Wright moved that the Board amend the order
of its agenda in order to conduct the public hearings. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus,
Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting
against the motion.
1
I
1
1
1
1
. 900N 2J =„'235
//
Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the .following:
.Ordinance to Impose Tax Levies for Fiscal Year July 1, 2005 through
July 1, 2006
County Attorney Stroman certified that the Ordinance contains no tax
increase and the public hearing was duly advertised.
Chairman Bradshaw called. for persons to speak in favor of, or in
opposition to, the proposed ordinance.
Chairman Bradshaw closed the public .hearing and called for comments
from the Board..
.Supervisor Clark moved the Board adopt the following Ordinance with
an effective date of May 19, 2005:
AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE BUDGET OF
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA FOR .
FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2005 THROUGH JUNE 30,.2006
ADOPTED THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY, 2005
BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia, to-wit:
(a) By motion at its May 5, 2005 meeting, the Boardapproved
a budget for fiscal year 2005-2006 in the sum of $78,747,694.00;
(b) That. all proceeds received for the fiscal year beginning July
1, 2005 from. the County general tax rate levies, from other local revenue,
from Federal and State funds and. supplements and from all other funds and
sources for general County functions and purposes, including public schools
.and public welfare, be credited to the General Revenue Fund of this County,
and, when and if appropriated by the Board of Supervisors of this County,
shall be used for such functions and purposes and to defray the charges and
expenses of said County and all necessary charges incident to or arising from
the execution of the lawful authorization of the Board of Supervisors of this.
County;
(c) That categorical appropriations are hereby made to the
School Board of Isle of Wight County on an annual basis for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2005, indicated in the budget adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on the 5t" day of May, 2005 in the following amounts:
Instruction $
8
,,i,.-r>y-,v,.hw..~n..1~,~_,~„ _.. .,~-.~....; iN.~-. ,.,. ~, _.. ..., ..: <,~- ,,..:..._ n.. -~~. ~ ~v. .. ,. .: a. .k _ ._... _ .._.,~.r-~K,~a+,~-aiaw~~sn`a*.npsra"~~`Rid~etSrr~pvs~~wr
~~~f 23 r~236
35,214,011
Administration, Attendance and :Health 2,016,029
Pu it Trans ortation 2,626,711
O eration and Maintenance 4,306,464
School-Food Services and other Noninstructional
O erations
1,642,150
Facilities ~ 0
Debt and Fund Transfers 5,987,835
Contin enc Reserves ~ 0
Total 51,793,200
(d) That -the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
.make all expenditures in payment of all line items in the budget at any time
during the fiscal year in any amounts so long as those amounts are not greater.
than the amounts available in the fund for .such item or category and the
County, Administrator is hereby authorized to make line item transfers within
categories and from category to category so long as the transfers of line items
.are within the budget and do not exceed the funds available for such purpose.
(e) That all encumbered funds which are .earmarked for
specific projects, which are not expended during the current .fiscal year, will
be carried over as encumbered funds for said projects for the ensuing years
. unless the encumbrances are removed by action of the Board of Supervisors.
(f) That. the Treasurer of. Isle of Wight County is hereby
authorized and directed to transfer to the indicated appropriate "funds" in the
aforesaid budget estimates from the General Revenue Fund, from time to
time, as monies become available, sums equal to but not in excess of the
appropriation herein made to such: "funds", for the functions and purposes
therein indicated' from the General Revenue Fund .for the period covered by
this appropriation, ordinance.
(g) That the Treasurer of Isle of Wight County is hereby
authorized to honor and. pay all warrants and to pay out funds from the
various "funds" indicated in said Budget estimates for any contemplated
expenditure for which funds have been made available and .appropriated for
such contemplated expenditures.
That 'this Ordinance be entered in the Minutes of this Board of
Supervisors and that a copy thereof by the Clerk of this Board, be furnished
to the Treasurer of this County.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby,
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and .Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following:
1
1
9
1
1
1
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 11. T, .Music or .Entertainment Festivals,
Section 11.1-3 Permit -Required; Application; Fee
Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor. of, or in
opposition to, the proposed ordinance.
Alan S. Nogiec, Director of Parks and Recreation, offered to answer
any questions of the Board.
County Attorney Stroman certified .that. the public hearing was duly
advertised.
Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor. MacManus moved the Board 'adopt the following
Ordinance, as advertised and discussed:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 11.1,
MUSIC OR ENTERTAINMENT FESTIVALS, SECTION 11.1-3
PERMIT- REQUIRED; APPLICATION; FEE
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of 'Wight County,
Virginia owns and operates ,the Isle of Wight County Fairgrounds for the
benefit and use of all Isle of Wight County citizens.; and
WHEREAS, .the -Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors has
determined that since the Isle of Wight .County Fairgrounds are under its
exclusive control it is not necessary to require citizens,. organizations or other
associations to request a permit for use of the fairgrounds from the Isle of
Wight County Board of Supervisors. I
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Isle of Wight County '~
Board of Supervisors that Chapter 11.1 of the Isle of Wight County Code be ~,
amended to add subsection (d) to Section l 1.1-~ as follows: ''
Section 11.1-3. Permit -Required; Application• Fee; Exemption.
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, no person .shall be required
to obtain an entertainment permit for the staging, promotion or conducting of
any musical or entertainment festival in the Isle of Wight County
Fairgrounds. The Director of the Isle of Wight County Department of Parks
and Recreation shall, however, set forth such regulations and requirements. as
may be necessary to ensure the health and safety of all citizens or
organizations using the -Isle of Wight County Fairgrounds,. as may be
amended from time to time.
-10
8~4K 23.~_.~~38
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby,
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following:
Ordinance Establishing the Purchase of Agricultural Conservation
Easements Program
Chairman. Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of, or in
opposition to, the proposed ordinance.
Rachel Morris, Rural Economic Development Manager, noted the
intended .purpose of the ordinance is to preserve farm and forestry
businesses in the County. She stated this is another tool to compliment the
land use assessment program and the agricultural forestal. district programs
already in place.
County Attorney Stroman certified that the public.. hearing was duly
advertised.
Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Wright moved the Board adopt the following Ordinance, as
presented:
APPENDIX C
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE. PURCHASE OF
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors desires. to establish a
program which will enable the County to acquire agricultural conservation
easements voluntarily offered by property owners as a means of assuring that
-the Co~~nty's agricultural and silvicultural resources are. protected and
efficiently.used; and
WHEREAS, the Open Space Land Act of Virginia expressly authorizes
public bodies to acquire property for such a purpose as designated herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF .ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY,
VIRGINIA:
APPENDIX C
PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS .
PROGRAM
11
t1
1
1
G
9~~f, 23 ~~^c~J~7
STATE LAW REFERENCE SECTION 10.1-1700 et. sec .
Sec. C-l. Short title.
Sec. C-2. Purpose.
Sec. C-3. Applicability.
Sec. C-4. Definitions.
Sec. C-5. Designation of program administrator;. powers and duties.
Sec. C-6. Agricultural conservation easements committee established; powers
and duties.
Sec. C-7. Eligibility criteria. .
Sec. C-8. Ranking system. '
Sec. C-9. Agricultural conservation .easement terms and. conditions.
Sec. C-10. Application and evaluation procedure.
Sec. C-11. Purchase of agricultural conservation easements procedure.
Sec. C-12. Restriction on' buy-back; extinguishment and exchange: of
easements.
Sec. C-1. Short .title.
-This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Purchase of ~,
Agricultural Conservation Easements ("PACE") Program."
Sec. C-2. Purpose.
The purposes of this chapter include, but are not limited to: '
- ~ j
(1) Establishing a program enabling the County to acquire
agricultural conservation easements voluntarilyoffered by owners to serve as
one means of assuring that Isle of Wight County's resources are protected and
efficiently used;
(2) Establishing and preserving the rural character of the. County;
(3) Preserving farm and forest land;
s
(4) Assisting. in shaping the character and direction ` of the
.development of the community; and
(5) Improving the quality of life for the inhabitants of the County.
Sec. C-3. Applicability..
The PACE program shall be available for all qualifying lands in the
County., except .those lands under the ownership or control of the United
.States of America, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Isle of Wight County or
an agency or instrumentality thereof. Any agricultural conservation easement...
acquired pursuant to this chapter shalt be voluntarily offered. by he owner.
12
p~ 23 ~r~:240
Sec. C-4. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and
implementation of this chapter:
Administrator. Administrator is that person placed in a managerial
position over the daily operations of the PACE program.. The Administrator ."
shall-serve as a direct liaison to the program.
Board. The Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County.
Agricultural Conservation Easement. A nonpossessory interest in one
or more parcels by one or more qualified easement holders under section C-9
(d) of the Code of the County of Isle of Wight acquired under the Open-
Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.), whether the easement is
appurtenant or in gross, voluntarily. offered by an owner and acquired by
purchase or donation pursuant to the PACE program, imposing limitations or
affirmative obligations. for the purpose of assuring availability for
agricultural, and forestall use.
Dwelling. Any structure which is .designed for use for residential
purposes.
Owner. The owner or owners of the freehold interest. of the parcel.
Parcel. A lot or tract of land, lawfully recorded in the clerk's Office of
the circuit court of the County of Isle of Wight. An agricultural conservation
easement may contain one. or more parcels, for purposes of this chapter the
term "parcel" shall include all parcels covered by, or proposed to be covered
by, the agricultural conservation easement.
Sec. C-5. Designation of program Administrator; powers and duties.
(a) Designation. The Administrator shall report to the Director of
Economic Development.
(b) Powers and duties. The Administrator shall administer the PACE
program and shall have powers and duties to:
1) Establish reasonable and standard procedures and ,forms
consistent with this chapter for the administration and
implementation of the program.
2) Promote the program, in cooperation with the PACE committee,
by providing educational materials to the public and conducting.
informational meetings.
13
~~,.
1
1
3) Investigate and pursue, other programs available to provide
additional public and private resources to fund the program and
to maximize private participation.
4) Evaluate all applications to determine their eligibility. and their
ranking score, rank applications based on their ranking score, and
make recommendations thereon to the PACE committee.
5) Coordinate the preparation of appraisals.
6) Negotiate with owner relating to agricultural conservation
easement terms and value.
7) Provide staff support to the .Board, and the PACE committee.
8) For each agricultural conservation easement accepted into the
program, establish baseline data, and assure that the terms and
conditions of the .easement are monitored .and complied with by
coordinating a monitoring program with each easement holder.
Sec.C-6. Purchase of agricultural conservation easements committee.
established; powers and duties.
(a) Establishment. The PACE committee is hereby established, as
follows: 3
1) The committee shall consist of five members appointed by the
Board. Each member shall be a property owner in and a resident
of Isle of Wight County. The committee should, but is not
required to be, comprised of members who are knowledgeable in
the fields of planning, real estate, land. appraisal, agricultural
lending, farming and forestry and land. conservation.
2) The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of the
Board. The initial terms of the members shall be as follows:. two
members shall be for one year; two members shall be for two
years; and one member. shall be for. three years. Each term after
the initial term shall be for three years.
3) The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the
Board may, in its discretion, reimburse members for actual and
..necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his/her duties.
4) The. committee shall elect a chairman, vice chairman and
secretary at its first meeting of each calendar year. The secretary
need. not be a member of the committee.
14
..., ~.__ z_~.,.~ ~~.:.- ..._ _.~_,P ~ .. _ . , _. _ .. ,_... ,,~_ ..
o.gn~ 23 ^.~ 242
5) The Administrator and county agricultural extension agent, the
area forester, the director of Planning and- Zoning (or his
designee) and a representative of the local soil and water
conservation district shall be ex officio members of the
committee.
(b) Powers and duties. The PACE. committee shall have the powers
and duties to:
1) Promote the program,. in cooperation and under the guidance of
the Administrator, by providing educational materials to the
public and conducting informational meetings.
2j Review the ranking of applications recommended by the
Administrator, and make recommendations to .the Administrator
and the Board as to which agricultural conservation easements
.should be purchased.
3) Bi-annually review the program's eligibility and ranking criteria
and recommend to the Administrator any changes needed to
maintain the program's consistency with the comprehensive plan,
or to improve the administration, implementation and
effectiveness of the program.
4) Appoint committees to assist in implementation of the
program.
5) A quorum shall consist of three members present and the
committee shall operate on a "majority rule" basis.
Sec. C-7. Eligibility criteria.
In order for a parcel to be eligible for an agricultural conservation
easement, it must meet the following criteria: (i) the use of the parcel subject
to the .agricultural conservation easement. must be consistent with the
comprehensive plan; (ii) the :proposed terms of the agricultural conservation
easement must be consistent with the minimum agricultural conservation
easement terms and conditions set forth in section C-9, unless modified by
the Board; and (iii) the parcel must be located in the County of Isle of Wight.
Sec. C-8. Ranking system.
In order to effectuate the purposes of .this chapter, parcels for which
. agricultural conservation easement applications have been received shall be
evaluated by utilizing a ranking system. The initial ranking system and
changes to the ranking system shall be recommended by the PACE
Committee for approval by the Board. The ranking system may be -used to
prioritize the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements.
n
1
15
Sec. C-9. Agricultural conservation easement terms and conditions.
1
Each agricultural conservation easement shall conform to the
requirements of the Open-Space Land Act of 19b6 (Virginia Code § 10.1-
1700 et seq.) and this chapter. The deed of an agricultural easement shall be
in a form approved by .the County Attorney, and shall contain, at a minimum,
the following provisions:
(a) Restriction on new dwellings. No new dwellings. may be
constructed on a parcel. except as provided hereafter;. the deed of easement
may .allow one new dwelling per 100 acres, with the dwelling location
.specified by plat on or before the agricultural .conservation .easement is
established. The dwellings shall comply with the current zoning ordinance
then in effect, or the terms and conditions .contained in the. agricultural
conservation easement, whichever. is more restrictive.
(b) Agricultural conservation easement .duration. An .agricultural
conservation easement acquired under the terms of this chapter shall be
perpetual.
(c) Other restrictions. In addition to the foregoing, the parcel shall
be subject to standard restrictions contained in agricultural conservation
easements pertaining to uses and activities allowed on the parcel. These
restrictions shall be delineated in the deed of easement and shall include
provision for monitoring by the County.
{
(d) Designation of agricultural easement holders. The County shall
be the easement. holder, and if designated. by the Board, and with the
landowner's consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld one or more
other public bodies, as defined in Virginia Code Section 10.1-1700, or one or
more organizations then qualifying as an eligible donee as defined by Section
i 70(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, shall also be an
easement holder.
cec. C-10-. Application and evaluation procedure.,
Each application for a agricultural conservation easement shall be
processed and evaluated as follows:
1
(a) Application; program materials to be provided to owner.. The.
application materials provided by the Administrator to an owner shall
include, at a minimum, a standard application form and information about the
PACE program.
(b) Application ,form. ,Each application shall be submitted to the
Administrator on a standard form prepared by the Administrator. The
application form shall require, at a .minimum,. that the owner provide: `the
I6
--..
eo~K 23 ," ~?~
names of all owners of the parcel, the address and telephone number of each
owner, the acreage of the parcel, the Isle of Wight County tax map and parcel
number, the zoning designation of the parcel, and permission for the
Administrator and a certified independent appraiser and such other staff as
may be appropriate to enter the property after reasonable notice to the owner
to evaluate the parcel, and for the a certified independent appraiser to
appraise the property. The application form shall also include a space for an
owner to indicate whether he/she volunteers to have his parcel be subject to
greater restrictions than. those contained in the standard deed of easement,.
and to delineate those voluntary, additional restrictions.
(c) Additional application information required by Administrator.
The Administrator may require an owner to provide additional information
deemed necessary to determine: (i) whether the proposed easement is eligible
for purchase; (ii) the ranking of the parcel; and (iii) the value of such
easement.
(d) Submittal of application. Applications shall be submitted to the
Administrator. An application fee may be required. An application .may be
submitted at any time during an open application period designated by the
PACE Committee. However, applications received after an open application
period deadline, shall be .held by the Administrator until the next open
application. period.
(e) Evaluation by Administrator. The Administrator shall evaluate
each application received and determine whether the application is complete..
If the application is incomplete, the Administrator shall inform the owner in
writing of the information that must be submitted in order for the application
to be deemed complete.
When an application is deemed complete, the Administrator shall
determine whether the parcel satisfies the eligibility criteria set forth in
section C-8 and; if it does, shall determine the number of points to ~ be
attributed to the parcel by applying the ranking system in accordance with
.section C-8. The Administrator shall then rank each parcel with the parcel
scoring the most points being the highest ranked and descending therefrom.
The Administrator shall submit the list of ranked parcels to the PACE
committee after each open application period.
(f) Evaluation by PACE committee. The PACE. committee shall
review the list of ranked. parcels submitted by the Administrator. The PACE
committee shall forward to the .Administrator and the Board
recommendations of which agricultural conservation easements should be
purchased.
(g) Evaluation by Board. The Board shall review the list of ranked
parcels submitted by the PACE committee and identify on which parcels it
desires agricultural conservation easements. The Board shall then prioritize
17
1
1
the parcels on which it will seek to purchase agricultural conservation
easements. Nothing in this chapter shall obligate the Board to purchase an
agricultural conservation easement on any property that is .eligible fore
purchase.
u
(h) Requirejnents and deadlines xnay be waived. Any requiremerit or
deadline set forth in this chapter may be waived by the Board if, for good
cause, it is shown that urgent circumstances exist that warrant consideration
of an application. Under such circumstances, the Board may purchase an
agricultural conservation easement at any tirrie it .deems necessary..
(i) Reapplication. An owner of a parcel not selected by the Board
for purchase of an agricultural conservation easement may reapply in any'
future open application period.
Sec. C-11. Purchase of development rights procedure.
Each purchase. of an agricultural conservation easement shall proceed
as follows:
(a) Identification of initial.. pool. From the list of parcels received
under section C-10, the Board shall designate the initial pool of parcels
identified for agricultural conservation easements. to be purchased.
(b) Determining purchase price: The PACE Committee shall be ,
charged with determining a method of valuating properties for which
applications are submitted. Such method shall be .approved by the Board.
The valuation method shall be reviewed by the PACE Committee bi-annually.
as provided for in Section C-6 above. Any .changes to the method of
valuation shall be approved by the Board.
(c) Invitation to sell. The Administrator, subsequent to approval by
the PACE Committee shall invite the owner of each parcel included in the
initial pool of parcels to sell to the County an agricultural conservation
easement on that parcel .for an amount based upon .the appraised value of
such agricultural conservation easement, subject to the terms and conditions
of a proposed deed of easement. The invitation to sell shall be in writing and
shall include the proposed purchase price, the proposed .deed of easement,
and the date by which a written offer must be received by the Administrator
in order to be accepted.
The invitation. may contain a form offer to be returned by the owner if
the owner desires to .sell an agricultural conservation easement.
'~~
(d) Offer to sell Each h d t 11 d/ d t
1
owner w o esires o se an or ona a an
agricultural conservation easement shall submit a written offer that must be
received by the Administrator by the date contained in the invitation to sell.
The offer should include a statement that substantially states the following:
18
CI
1
- r
BOOK ~tJ Pd'~'.~~~
property meeting all of the eligibility requirements as set forth yin
section C-8.
2) Requirements. No such .extinguishment and exchange of
easement shall. be authorized, unless atwo-thirds majority of the
Board finds that:
(i) The extinguishment and exchange is determined to be essential to
the orderly development and growth of the County;.
(ii) The extinguishment. and exchange is in accordance with the
comprehensive plan for the County in effect at he time of the extinguishment
and exchange;
(iii) The extinguishment and exchange does not adversely affect the
County's interests in accomplishing. the purposes of this ordinance;
(iv) There is substituted other real property which is (a) of at
least equal fair market value and at least equal acreage; (b) of greater value as
permanent agricultural or forestry land than .the land upon which the
easement is extinguished, (c) of as .nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness
and location for use as permanent open-space land as is the Land upon which
the easement is extinguished and (d) is in accordance with the Virginia Open-
. ~ Space Land Act, (Virginia Code §10.I-1700 et seq.); and
(v) Agriculture or forestry is no longer viable on the property.
3) Expenses. The petitioner shall bear all expenses and fees in
.connection with the exchange, including, .but not limited to purchase of the
.substituted easement, appraisal, site assessments, surveys, closing costs,
recording fees and taxes, title search, and title insurance if required.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, I
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Bradshaw called for a public. hearing on the following:
Renewal of the Longview Agricultural/Forestal District
Jonathan VV. Hartley, Director of Planning .and Zoning, stated the
functions of the program are to represent a contract between the County and
the property. owners to respect farming, and to continue farming or forestal
efforts on the part of the property owner. He stated the program identifies a
special resource area, which is used by stateand federal agencies to evaluate
projects that may be coming through the County. He stated that the proposed
District, which consists of approximately 8,300. acres, has followed the state '.
s
process, and the renewal of the District is being proposed for a period often
20
eooK 23 ~~f:~248
(10) years. He stated two (2) of the property owners have requested that their
properties be withdrawn, and two. (2) .property owners have requested that
their properties be added. He stated the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the District to the Board, .and he certified for the record that the
public hearing was duly advertised.
Chairman. Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of, or in
opposition to, the renewal of the Forestal District.
Chairman Bradshaw closed- the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board:
Supervisor Wright moved that the Board accept the recommendation of
the Planning Commission that the District be continued for a period of ten
(10) years with parcels. 39-01-066 and 40-01-012 being added, and parcels
42-01-007B and 49-0 l -044 being withdrawn from the District. The motion
was adopted by a. vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following:
2005-2011 Secondary Six-Year Priority -Plan and Fiscal Year 2005-
2006 Construction Budget
Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of, or in
opposition to, the Priority Plan and Construction Budget.
Mr. Lomax presented a brief overview of the Plan and copy of the
budget for the Board's approval.
Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments
by the Board.
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board adopt the 2005-2011
Secondary Six-year Priority .Plan and Fiscal Year .2005-06 Construction
Budget, as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with
Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor
of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following:
The application of William C. Sawyer, Sr. for a change in zoning
classification from Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) to Conditional-
Rural Residential (C-RR) of 9.054 acres of land located. on the north side of
Bowling Green Road (Route 644), between Bob White Road (Route 652) and
Carroll Bridge, Road (Route 654), in the Windsor Election District. The
11
1
21
~~~~ ~~ ~~~:•?49
purpose of the application is for two (2) single-family residential lots, as
conditioned.
Mr. Hartley certified that the public hearing was duly advertised.
Chairman Bradshaw referenced an amended proffer. in his agenda dated
January 31, 2005.
County. Attorney Stroman explained. that there are actually wo (2)
letters, and both are dated January 31, 2005. He stated the. applicant would
clarify that the more .recent letter contains a typographical error with .respect
to the date, and the other letter which was. submitted recently, contains a
revised proffer amount of $11,189. He stated. that staff indicated in .its staff
report that the letter was received after the Planning Commission considered
the application. He expressed concern that there are two (2) proffer letters
that bear the same date, but contain different cash proffer amounts, but stated
if the applicant would clarify this on the record, that would suffice.
Ms. Walkup verified that the letter containing the $11,189 cash proffer
was received on May 11, 2005.
Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of, or in
opposition to, the application.
1
Al Jones, Attorney, explained that when he retrieved the letter from his
computer,. he inadvertently forgot to .change the date. He stated the second
letter was delivered on May 1 1, 2005 and contained an increased cash proffer
amount and addressed the other requests raised by the Planning Commission.
County Attorney Stroman asked Attorney Jones to verify for the record .
that Mr. Sawyer signed the second January 31, 2005 letter after February 2,
2005.
Attorney Jones verified that County Attorney Stroman's statement was ,, I
correct.
Attorney Jones advised that the proffer was raised from $6,000 to
$8,000 at the Planning Commission meeting, and the Planning Commission
recommended that the Board deny the application. He stated that Mr. Sawyer
believes there is a significant difference in the'cost to the County because the
property is located in a rural area, but he did agree to offer the $11,189 for
each lot as a proffer, He stated he originally suggested .another way that the
applicant would pay the proffer, but the County Attorney preferred the deed
of trust method, and Mr. Sawyer also. complied with that request.
1
Chairman Bradshaw closed -the. public hearing. and called for. comments
from the Board.
22
B~nK 23 ''r:~~~tiO
Supervisor ~MacManus inquired why the .applicant did not offer his
final. proffers to the Planning Commission. He .stated apparently the
applicant did not believe that proffers were that critical, but changed his mind
later and decided to increase them.
County Attorney Stroman inquired if .the $11,189 being proffered for
each. lot by Mr. Sawyer is entirely voluntary. z
Attorney Jones verified that the proffer for each lot, is made entirely
voluntary on the part of Mr. Sawyer.
County Attorney Stroman clarified that the actual motion by the
Planning Commission dealt with the impact on services, and not specific
comments on the proffers.
Chairman Bradshaw recommended that the County Attorney meet with
the applicant's attorney to further discuss. the information Supervisor
MacManus desires to have. _
Attorney Jones advised that the proffers offered by his client were on a
voluntary basis, and that it took some time to understand all the issues
involved.
Chairman Bradshaw requested that Attorney. Jones explain his client's
reason for not proffering that there would not be any further subdivision
under the family member transfer.
Attorney Jones explained that Mr. Sawyer has already made a family
member transfer to .one (1) of his children, and he .believes that he should
have the right to use his property as he wants under the terms of the County's
ordinance.
Mr. Hartley advised that the lots that are proposed for rezoning can not
be further subdivided; however, the residual portion of the property that is
not a part of the rezoning could be subdivided. He stated the preferred
method is to also rezone the residual portion, and keep it at the RAC zoning
with a proffered condition that it would not be further subdivided.
Supervisor Wright agreed with Supervisor MacManus' sentiment that.
an applicant's final offer should be presented to. the Planning Commission so
that it has, a clear understanding of the application .before it makes a
recommendation to the Board.
Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board ,take a .five (5) minute recess.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, ,
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
23
1
f
r„ice
Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board return to open session. The
motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
1
Supervisor Wright reiterated that he believes the application should be
returned to the Planning Commission for review.
Supervisor MacManus stated that he is only attempting to ensure that
the Planning Commission gets the first opportunity to review the proffers
because .when proffers are substantially changed after an application is
discussed by the Planning Commission, he does. not believe the Planning
Commission receives the full benefit.
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board return the application to the
Planning Commission for its review and opportunity to evaluate the highest
and best offer made by the applicant.. The motion was adopted by a vote of
(5-0) with. Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus; Clark and Wright
voting in favor of the motion,. and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following:
1
The application of VA Timberline, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit
to install a central sewer collection and treatment system to serve the
Lawnes Point Subdivision. Said property consists of approximately
1,556. acres of land located off the north side of Tyler's Beach. Road
(Route 686) and off the north side of Fort Huger Drive. (Route 676) in
the Hardy Election District.
Ms. Walkup certified that the application has been properly advertised
for public hearing.
Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of, or in
opposition to, the proposed application.
r•,
William Riddick, Attorney, distributed a letter he requested. from the
County Attorney outlining his Hates on the conditions that had been imposed
by the Planning Commission; and a letter from. Attorney Babineau. He stated
prior to the rezoning application being approved on February 19, 2004, his
client engaged a soil scientist. out of Wilmington, North Carolina who
assured him that the soils were suitable for septic tanks. He stated later when
his client hired a local soil scientist. to begin the process. of locating suitable
sites for the septic tanks, he was advised that the on--site soils did not match
those listed in the report submitted. by the Wilmington firm. He stated the
firm from Wilmington admitted that. they had overestimated what the soils
could handle, and his client proceeded to engage Attorney Babineau to bring
suit against the company in Wilmington in the federal court. He stated his
client already. had a contractual obligation to purchase the property; :and
24
eooK 23 r:~.252
following investigation, found that the County's ordinance would permit a
private sewage :treatment system.. He advised that the sewage treatment
system is only sized to provide for the 155 homes that were approved in than
community,. with sufficient capacity to support the restrooms located at the
County park and the Fort Huger site.
He stated the following five (5) conditions were recommended by the
Planning Commission, and they should satisfy the concerns voiced by the
Director of Public Utilities: 1}ownership of the system would be conveyed
to the County and .leased. back to Virginia Timberline .and Sheaffer,
International pursuant to a lease agreement satisfactory to the County;. 2) the
leasees are not permitted to terminate the lease or assign their interest without
the County's approval; 3) the system would serve up to 155 new homes in
the new Lawnes Pointe on the James Subdivision,. plus Fort Huger and the
new County park; 4) the applicant would establish a cash reserve in an
amount satisfactory to the County, and the County would have the right to
access the funds in the event the system requires maintenance and repairs,
and the leasees fail to perform such maintenance or make such repairs; the
applicant would provide generators for backup power; and, 5) the applicant
would implement an erosion and control method satisfactory to the County.
He stated this project would not set a precedent, as each case stands on its
own, and this is a low-density development. Thus, it would be
distinguishable from .other situations. He concluded his presentation and
requested that the Board approve the application tonight.
Mr. Hartley distributed a copy of a letter received. in favor of the
application. from Didi Waters who resides at 502 W. Aurora Avenue in Santa
.Ana, California, and who is an adjoining property owner in Rushrnere
Shores.
Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Assistant County
Administrator/Development, advised that he had previously suggested that
the developer forward information on the. Sheaffer sewage treatment system
to the Department of Public Uti ides; however, the Department of Public
Utilities did not receive such information. He stated the proffer letter makes
it appear as though the sewage treatment system had. been reviewed by staff,
and this is not the case.
Chairman Bradshaw .expressed concern with the growth potential in
that area..- He inquired how could the County legally keep individuals from
hooking onto the sewer line if it has additional capacity.
County Attorney Stroman advised this system is an on-site system and
not a public system, and it is also subject. to a Conditional Use Permit
limiting .its capacity, if the condition that is recommended is imposed by the
1
25
1
II
1
Board. He stated if the Board does .approve the application, it would. not be
creating a situation where an individual could demand-.access to the system.
He advised that to the best of his knowledge, this issue has not been litigated
and there is no legal .authority which definitely answers the question. He
stated that the Board has control over the conditions, and it is equally open to
the Board to conditian that the applicant continue to own and operate the
system. He recommended that the Board consult with the Director of Public
Utilities and Assistant County Administrator Rountree. He stated based on
the laws that exist today, the chances of success by a litigant are remote, but
that could be an additional factor which would lessen what is already a
relatively small risk.
Supervisor Bradby stated the proposed development will bring. upscale
and it is the type of development that the County has been wanting for in that
area. He~ stated the developers have cooperated, and the .Planning
Commission did recommend unanimous approval to the Board.
Supervisor MaciVlanus stated with respect to ownership, .would the
applicant have a problem with language inserted, based on Assistant County
Administrator Rountree's comments, that the Sheaffer system. would have to
be found agreeable by staff.
Attorney Riddick agreed there. would be no problem adding that
language. He .stated the Sheaffer system also has to be approved by DEQ, the
Health Department, and other state agencies. He stated his client simply
misunderstood that he needed to get in touch with the Department of Public
Utilities as quickly as possible.
Supervisor MacManus requested Attorney Riddick to elaborate on a
lease agreement that would be satisfactory to the County.
Attorney Riddick explained that staff initially raised a concern if the
system was not operated properly, He stated if the system was given to the
County, and then taken back on a lease agreement, it would be the applicant's
responsibility, along with Sheaffer, a licensed operator, to operate the system.
Ne stated if the lease agreement included terms and provisions to require that
if-the applicant did not meet the conditions required by his permits issued by
the state, that the County would have the opportunity to suspend the lease
and take over the system. He stated this would be an agreement prepared by
County Attorney Stroman, in conjunction with the applicant, to protect the.
County from ever being liable if the system was mis-aperated. He stated the
applicant could make- it contingent on an agreement satisfactory to the
County.
County. Attorney Stroman advised that if the .Board .would like to have
the lease agreement in place before the applicant proceeds any further, then
the Board should include this as a condition.
26
Mr. Rountree advised staff could review .the system and provide a
report back to the Board in thirty (30) days.
Supervisor MacManus made reference to the letter received by Didi
Waters in support. He stated for the benefit of the public that this is a fixed-
sized system that would only support the proposed 155 homes, the County
park and Fort Huger, and that it would not serve the Rushmere Shores
Subdivision.
Supervisor MacManus inquired if the applicant intended a cash bond
versus a cash reserve for future maintenance and repairs, and did the
applicant have a CPI growth element. associated with the future of the
housing development. He inquired if the applicant. would be open to the
concept of the County. bringing in an independent consultant, at the cost of
the applicant, to advise the Board of the appropriate amount .for the property
cash reserve or bond, as well as what would be the property erosion control.
Chairman Bradshaw inquired who would determine if the applicant.
fails, and the County needs to take part of the cash reserve. He stated there
must be a starting cash base, to include an ,index showing its growth. He
stated the County also needs to know if the money will be held in a reserve
account or would. it be kept in a mutual third party account.
Attorney Riddick stated the agreement suggested by .County Attorney
Stroman would deal with the mechanism of how the County would access
any cash. He stated with the blessing of the County on the Sheaffer sewer
system, the applicant would be willing to be subject to the Board's later
approval of an agreement that is satisfactory to County staff and the County
Attorney.
Supervisor MacManus stated he needs to have a better assurance that
the details with respect to the lease agreement and the cash surety are
incorporated as'a condition before the project moves forward.
Chairman Bradshaw stated before the project moves forward, he needs
to know what the developer will. be legally responsible for. .
County .Attorney Stroman noted he could prepare a draft agreerr~ent for
the Board's consideration.
Supervisor MacManus stated he only needs assurance from the County
Attorney and Assistant County Administrator Rountree that the County is
protected against the Board's concerns.
Chairman Bradshaw stated he still needs the financial assurance that is
tied to the agreement.
27
i
n
1
1
~o~~ ~3 .,:~ ? ~5
Supervisor MacManus suggested. with respect to the condition on
generators, he would prefer "properly sized" generators.
Chairman Bradshaw suggested. a time be listed when the generators
would be provided, and who would be responsible for maintaining them.
1
~_
1
Supervisor MaclVlanus suggested that there be no cost to the County for
the County park or Fort.. Huger for their use of the system. He further
suggested that with respect to the rate structure for the citizens of Lawnes
Pointe, he would like assurance that the citizens are protected against
unreasonable significant increases in the rate structure.
Attorney Riddick noted that the largest factor would be 'the cost of the
electricity, and as the .cost for electricity escalates, then that cost would also
increase. He suggested that the annual budget could be made public.
Supervisor MacManus requested that the lawsuit that the applicant
intends to pursue with Land Management Group be a part of the Conditional
Use Permit.
Chairman Bradshaw recommended that the Board refer to legal
counsel, and that he and Supervisor MacManus would address that issue
later.
Chairman: Bradshaw inc,~uired what. the implementation schedule` vuouLc£
!be, ~ ~=~:l •~ :she ~roc~s poi the ~e~hocl :nf ~~ ~~ion corttrr~'1. ~FIe requ$
that a plan and maintenance schedule be developed.
Supervisor ~'Vright inquired if all 155 homes would be hooked onto the
Sheaffer sewage system.
Attorney Riddick replied that alI 155- homes would be hooked onto the
sewage system.
Supervisor Wright inquired as to the age. of the oldest Sheaffer sewage
system in service at this time.
Dave Mullan, Sheaffer International, stated the oldest system currently
in use today was built in 1980 in Illinois, and it is called Hamilton Lakes.
Supervisor Wright inquired if the residue has ever had to be removed.
Mr. Mullan replied that the residue from the bottom has never had to be
removed, and the containment plan does not produce sludge. He stated that a
system was tested after fifteen (15) years of operation and only three (3) to
six (6) inches were consumed of the two (2) feet available for containment of
solid materials... He stated the system is anticipated to last forty (40) .years.
before any solids need to be removed. He_ stated that all details, including
28
-~.•...
-,::._
technical and engineering questions, will be reviewed and placed in the
permit by DEQ and VDH. He stated with respect to the back-up generators
for the erosion and sedimentation, the construction drawings are being
prepared and they would be presented to the County upon approval by the
state.
Supervisor MaeManus recommended tabling the application to allow
the Public Utilities Department to review the septic system and to ensure that
the issues with respect to the lease and surety agreement are, addressed.
Supervisor Clark noted that the Board had to spend its time discussing-
items that should have been .addressed by the developer and staff before it
reached the Board.- .
Supervisor Wright moved the Board table the application and that the
Board take action at its June. 16, 2005 meeting. In the meantime, staff is to
provide a status update to the Board at its May 31, 2005 meeting. The
motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting
against the motion; and, Supervisor MacManus absent for the vote.
Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following:
Revised Zoning .Ordinance and Amendments to the Zoning Maps
Mr. Hartley stated for the Board's consideration is the August 30, 2004
draft of the Zoning Ordinance, as revised by Errata Sheet #2, as
recommended by the Planning Commission. He stated there are five (5)
items that are modifications pursuant to the. Board's comments at its May 31,
2005 meeting. He stated for the record that the Ordinance has been legally
advertised for public hearing.
Chairman Bradshaw called for comments from persons in favor of, or
in opposition to, the proposed Ordinance and amendments to the maps. .
Robert Duckett, Director of Public Affairs with the Peninsula Housing
and Builders Association, expressed concern that the proposed plan review
process puts the County at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to
attracting quality development. He stated what takes two (2) months in
another jurisdiction takes from nine (9) months to a year in the County.
Teresa Johnson of Carrollton, representing the Carrollton Civic
League, stated the League is not in favor of .limiting the footprints of
commercial buildings to fewer than ,125,000 square feet. She stated the
League further objects to the proposal to ban adjacent same uses. She stated
these requirements would force "big. box" stores to build two (2) story
buildings, which will leave the County with .more strip malls and limit the
County's shopping to certain types of stores and fast food facilities.. She
29
~I
_. _ .. ~._ ~, ._ _ ._ _...:.~. ...r_,_,_. ~ _ .,_,,
,~:~,,
~n~~K 23:x::-2~7
stated a two (2} story "big box" store would not be user friendly for elderly
citizens. She stated the League is also concerned that the ordinances only
apply to the Development Service Districts.
Jerianne Gardner, President of the Isle of Wight Historical .Society,
advised that the .Society voted not to support any reduction in the building
foot print or any measure to restrict any adjacent same user because much of
the property under discussion is in the Benns Church area and located within
a historic district. She requested. that the Board keep in mind that any
measure to make a structure go up in height seriously distorts the .historic
view shed. .
1
Mr. Birch of Smithfield requested that the Board reconsider Article 5,
Overlay District, Section 6-1010, Architectural Guidelines and Development
Standards, paragraph 2. He stated if these are the only materials approved by
the County, new construction costs for new small businesses would rise a
minimum of 25% or $23,000 on a $90,000 building. He stated this would
discourage small business development from locating in the County.
Dean Vincent of Gatling Pointe Parkway. stated usually when there is a
need for conditional use. permits, it is because there are.. gaps in ordinances
that don't require the architectural and. site improvements that the County
will have if the proposed ordinance is adopted.. He stated adopting the
proposed ordinance would put the County at a competitive disadvantage... He
stated the timeframe for review is also a concern for him, and he
recommended that there _be provisions included to allow the .County to
streamline the process.
Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments
.from the Board.
Patrick J. Small, Director of Economic Development, stated if the
Board .feels that it needs an additional layer of control, a good compromise
would be the. 125,000. square foot print. He stated he prefers no cap on the
footprint, and to go lower than the 125,000 square footprint would .hurt the
County economically.
Mr. Hartley noted that the cap is suggested to apply only to commercial
uses.
Mr. Hartley responded to Chairman Bradshaw's question. regarding
how long it takes an applicant to go through the process of approval. He
cited the Sawyer application for. amini-warehouse project. He .stated if a
designer is sensitive to the .County's issues in terms of design, it takes
approximately three (3) months to go through the Planning Commission and
the Board's site plan review process in a Highway Corridor Overlay District.
30
._...._
Chairman Bradshaw requested that County Administrator address with
staff that the Board should not have had to spend its time discussing issues
during a public hearing. He stated questions .should have been addressed, by
staff prior to being presented to the Board, and when projects come through
..for consideration, aTl aspects- should be addressed upfront. He .stated the
applicant needs to know what is expected by the Planning Commission and
the Board.
Supervisor Clark stated other jurisdictions are able to shorten- their
review process because their boards are not as involved, and their staff has
administrative approval. He stated he is primarily concerned. with ensuring
that the County has a good product.
Supervisor MacManus stated an application would not have to be
returned to the Planning Commission if that application comes to the Board
with its best product.
Chairman Bradshaw requested that the County Administrator have staff
address the comments offered tonight with respect to the issues of timing, the
impact to small businesses, the foot print design, and come back to the Board
with a recommendation.
Supervisor MacManus suggested that as opposed to discussing the
Zoning Ordinance in its entirety at one time, issues should be addressed one
at a time so they can be addressed in a quick manner.. He recommended that
any controversial issues be set to the side for further discussion.
Supervisor Wright suggested that a bond be in place so that if a
business closes and the structure is not .utilized by another company, it will
not remain vacant and an eyesore to the community. He stated a time frame
to tear down the vacant building should be included..
Supervisor. MacManus stated the Board previously discussed
incorporating a requirement for an allowance to provide. time for the owner to
find another use for the building,. and if he could not, there would be a
requirement that a building of a certain size would be toxn down.
County Attorney Stroman offered to do additional research and report
back to the Board. He stated he has billion Rule concerns, and the Planning
Commission had discussed addressing this issue through proffers.
Chairman Bradshaw recommended that the Board further discuss the.
.issue of farmers utilizing buses for storage, and automobile wrecking yards.
He stated these should not be jeopardized if they are already located on site.
Supervisor MacManus moved the Beard table the Ordinance and maps
until the Board's May 31, 2005 meeting at which time the Board will take up
the Zoning Ordinance for approval, with a step by step process for changes
31
~I
~I
1
,.
1
i
1
that will be worked through by staff with the Board. The motion was adopted
by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and
Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the
motion.
//
Supervisor Clark moved the Board return to the regular order of the
agenda under the County. Administrator's Report. The motion was adopted
by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and
Wright voting in favor of the motion,. and no Supervisors voting. against. the
motion.
//
Chairman Bradshaw requested that the Board take a ten (10) minute
recess.. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with .Supervisors Bradby,
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and. Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor Wright moved the Board return to open session. The motion
was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with. Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and Wright voting . in favor of the emotion, and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
U
Chairman Bradshaw called for continued discussion on the proposed
revisions to the 2006. Comprehensive Plan.
Supervisor MacManus requested that Mr. Hartley break down the
schedule in greater detail to illustrate how he intends to proceed through the
revie.wprocess, and how public comment will be integrated into the process.
He recommended citizen input be scheduled early on, and that Mr. Hartley
return to the Board with his revised schedule in 30 days.
//
Chairman Bradshaw called for Appointments.
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board appoint Peter Lowry to serve
as the business representative on the Tourism Relations Committee. The
motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in .favor of the motion,` and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board appoint .Brian Pack to serve as
the Town of Smithfield representative on the Tourism Relations Committee.
32
i
.y~^'ti'~.S'f1.~iM!y~q'vtr'4^"t>~.va.!ren..~AeM'mV+~a~TSV'Ar+~etl.v..1...n ~r ~ r...ui. ..;.~.. ..r..,... r :vrm.... .........,.'n .c~nrr.?2'rTA1E~4-~ ,.er.r- Vw. x'y..!W+f::n u.'.AM. w.94+v.'.AisYi6wlS k}il'G+)d~`... .. u
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby,
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Bradshaw requested that Mr. Robertson reinforcethat this is
a County-wide effort, and convey to the Town of Smithfield that it only has'.
one (1) representative on the Tourism Relations Committee, s'
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board reappoint Phillip A. Bradshaw
to serve an additional two (2) year term. on the Hampton Roads Economic
Development Alliance. The. motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with
.Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor
of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor Wright moved the Board appoint. Jackie Blythe to the
Events Committee. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with
Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor
of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
//
Chairman Bradshaw called for Old Business.
Ms. Seward explained that a correction is needed to the adopted school
categorical funding for FY2006. She stated that the grant funding line item
was not an approved category in the Code of Virginia, and staff requested the.
School Board to take that amount and allocate it over the approved
categories. She stated .there is now a needed increase to Instructional
Services in -the amount of $2,559,000 and a needed increase to Pupil
Transportation. in the amount of $30,000. She stated there is no increase in
the total amount of School Board funding.
Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the corrected School
Operating Budget for FY06' in the total amount of $51,793,200, in the
following categories:
Instructional Services (increased by $2,559,OD0) $35,214,011
Administration, Attendance and Health 2,016,029
Pupil Transportation (increased by $30,000) 2,626,711
Operations and Maintenance 4,306,464
School Food Services and Other 1,642,150
Facilities Improvements 0
Debt and Fund Transfers 5,987,835
TOTAL: $51,793,200
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby,
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
33
'~
County Attorney Stroman advised that an ordinance incorporating
these amounts tivould be included in the Board's May 31, 2005 agenda for
consideration.
Chairman Bradshaw called for discussion on the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities Committee.
Alan. S. Nogiec, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated staff has riot
been successful in getting the entire committee to meet, and they are hopeful
of generating enthusiasm through a subcommittee whose focus is more on the
specific components of the plan rather than. the plan. in general.
Supervisor MacManus stated with respect to the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities Committee, the Board had previously requested that a master plan
be in place, and that the Committee provide steps to implement the master
plan, i.e., what actions need to be taken by the Board. He advised that. he is
looking for what the Board can do in support of the different segments, as
opposed to discussing in a conceptual Comp Plan, i.e., developing. the
railroad lines in the middle portion of the County that are abandoned and link
the St. Lukes pro,~ect with some of the Carrollton/Nike Park system.
`Supervisor MaeManus requested that Mr. Nogiec include a report in
the Consent Agenda for the Board's June 1 S, 2005. meeting identifying the
Chairman and Vice-.Chairman, and include a reiteration of the committee's
goals that they are pursuing and steps to implement the master plan that will
be brought back to the. Board for implementation.
Chairman Bradshaw called for consideration of the Subdivision Plat of
Eagle Harbor, Tract 1, Phases 3, 4 and S, property of Eagle Harbor LLC,
Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17), Newport Magisterial District.
Mr. Rogers advised that he has met. with VDOT and looked at several
alternatives for realigning Reynolds and Smith's .Neck Road which could be
done without impact.
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board approve the subdivision plat
of Eagle Harbor, Tract 1, Phases 3, 4 and 5. The motion .was adopted by a
vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and
Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the.
motion..
Chairman Bradshaw called for discussion on private water systems.
Supervisor Clark advised that he had recently attended a meeting where
1
1VIr. Beagle was speaking to various members of the Rescue and Carrollton
community regarding private water systems. He stated sufficient interest was j
..
34
expressed in having a meeting to discuss the options available for correcting
fluoride issues.
Supervisor Clark moved the Board direct staff to set up a community
meeting to be held at the Rescue Ruritan Club to discuss the options available
for correcting the fluoride issues in acost-efficient manner for the water
systems for Rescue and Willing Workers (Brenda Lee). Staff should include
Columbus Grant, a representative from the Department of Environmental
Quality, and, an Environmental Protection Agency representative. The
motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
i,
With regard. to whether or not staff suggested to Mr. Beagle that he
speak with the residents in Rescue who utilize the water system, or any other
people who have fluoride issues with regard to the development and running
the water line down Smith's Neck Road, Columbus Grant, Director of Public
Utilities advised that staff did meet with Mr. Beagle, but at no time did they
direct that Mr. Beale speak with the residents of Rescue, although the general
issue was discussed.
Supervisor Clark moved that the Board direct. the County Administrator
and the County Attorney to .review the above issue with staff, and if found to
be. appropriate, contact Mr. Beagle and .advise that he has no authority to
represent the County in any way, unless it is in writing from the County,
either by the Board or the County Administrator. The motion was adopted by
a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and
v r of the motion and no Su ervisors voting against the
Wri ht votin in fa o P
g g
motion.
Chairman Bradshaw called for discussion on biosolids applications.
Supervisor Clark spoke in support of any and all measures to receive
additional public.input and education on the issue of biosolids applications.
Chairman Bradshaw questioned the objective of the Board at this point
in time. He stated the majority of comments from his. constituents were that
they .had a legitimate time to voice their comments at the public hearing. He
stated the Board should have been more involved a year ago when the
County was first notified. about the applications from the state, and been more
proactive versus reactive.
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board direct staff to request the
Virginia Department of Health fora 90-day delay to allow for additional
public input. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors
Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the
motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
1
35
9U~K 23 r,!i:': ~.;~c~
. SupervisorClarkmoved, between now and the June 1b, 2005 mc;eting,
that the County Attorney be directed to provide an outline of how the process
works from a state level and County level should the -Board decide to enact
such an ordinance, and that the .County Attorney draft an; ordinance
pertaining to biosolids as soon as he can. The motion was adopted by a vote
of (5=0) with. Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, Maclvlanus, Clark. and Wright
voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor .Clark moved that the pros and cons. of this process are to be
included in a report by County staff, with a recommendation on what staff
can and can not handle with respect to monitoring efforts. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5-0} with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus,
Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting
against the motion.
//
Chairman Bradshaw called for. New Business.
With respect to the .issue of open burning. restrictions, Supervisor Clark
moved the Board direct the County Attorney to follow-up .with. Beverly.
Walkup and the appropriate state official to seek their views. with respect to
tdt a
1
f
more or less strict regulations and tf the ordnance can be restr~e e o
single district, and come back with a recommendation to .the Board. The
motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, ,and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
i
Noting that Soteria Church continues to contact him with respect to
what is and. what is not taxable,. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board
direct staff to set up a meeting on site to include himself, the County
Attorney, the Commissioner of Revenue and Pastor Moss. 'The. motion was
adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus,
Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting
against the motion.
With respect to the committee examining the County's membership in
the Blackwater Regional Library, Supervisor MacManus -moved the Board.
amend the Consent Agenda motion establishing the Committee to add the
Assistant County Attorney. The: motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with
Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and,Wright voting in favor
of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against. the motion.
With respect to the issue of central dispatch, .Supervisor MacManus
moved that staff .provide the Board with feedback relative to the Town of
Smithfield advisement that there was a loss of records in the transition to
central dispatch. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors
36
3
Y
:g[hlrc~k~wavry~+a+uxMUV>,. ur~.od'. wc~n, a .-. -.~. ~ e ..,r- r. -.. .,..- ,e r ~ +,ta-...-e.;a~~.+w~<~n.ti.m~«.,.',;,way.xK~"roar%.Nm'e.M.:~S~.'N~~'yM~.MB!'t'L_ _. -..
e~u~K 23 ~~264
Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the
motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
With respect to a request of Riverside Hospital for the County to
support its Certificate of Public Need for CT and MRI Services, Supervisor
MacManus moved that the Board support the Riverside request. The motion
was adopted by a .vote of (5-0) ..with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw,
MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board direct staff to support the letter
sent by Sheriff Phelps to VDOT requesting that "Children at Play" signs be
installed at Zuni Circle. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with
Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting. in favor
of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
With respect to a request from the Public Defender for office space at
the County complex, Supervisor Clark moved the Board refer the request for
office space to staff -for their review and consideration. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus,
Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting
against the motion.
With respect to the issue of the dredging easement at Lawnes Creek,
Supervisor Clark moved the Board. direct the County Attorney to contact the
developer's attorney -and advise of the urgency of time, and that the County
will lose State Port funds if the easement is not in place by June 15, 2005.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradby,
Bradshaw, MacManus, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and
no Supervisors voting against the motion.
//
At 11:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradby moved the. Board adjourn its
meeting:. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors
Bradby, Bradshaw, MacManus Clark and Wright voting in favor of the
motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
P A. Bradshaw, Chairman
37