Loading...
11-15-2007 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN PRESENT: Thomas R. Ivy, Chairman Stan D. Clark, Vice-Chairman Thomas J. Wright, III Phillip A. Bradshaw ABSENT: James B. Brown, Jr. Also Attending: A. Paul Burton, Interim County Attorney W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator Carey Mills Storm, Clerk Chairman Ivy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. // Supervisor Clark delivered the invocation. // The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. // Chairman Ivy called for Approval of the Agenda. Interim County Attorney Burton offered the following amendments to the agenda: Under the County Attorney?s Report, amend the dates of the Alliance, Texas trip, Item #3, to Wednesday, November 28, 2007 until Friday, November 30, 2007; under the County Attorney?s Report, remove Item #4, Call of Special Meeting, Board of Supervisors? Retreat; under County Administrator?s Report, add a grant application for a Multi-Modal Planning Grant; under General Services, add an emergency contract with Tolar Construction to construct eight (8) manholes for $50,000; under Special Presentations, add Item (C), Board comments regarding Steven Wright, Director of Economic Development; under the County Attorney?s report, add one (1) Closed Meeting item; under New Business, authorize the transfer of $3,000 from the Board?s Contingency line item to the appropriate line item in the Emergency Services Department?s budget; under the General Services report, add an item concerning the Carrsville water system update, per Supervisor Bradshaw; under the Consent Agenda, remove Item (A), per Supervisor Bradshaw; under Old Business, add an item concerning Consumer Utility Tax exemptions for charitable organizations, per Supervisor Bradshaw; and, under New Business, add an item concerning the 1 Eastern Virginia Health Care Systems, an item concerning the Department of Social Services and an item concerning the VACo Conference, per Supervisor Bradshaw. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board approve the agenda, as amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for Special Presentations/Appearances. Judy C. Wells, Treasurer, advised the Board that the Treasurer?s office, in cooperation with the Commissioner of Revenue?s office, will be rd extending its hours of operation by one (1) hour beginning December 3 th through December 5, 2007 in order to assist taxpayers with paying their personal property and real estate taxes. She noted that an advertisement will be placed in the Smithfield Times, The Tidewater News and the Daily Press and on the County?s website and PEG channel. Chairman Ivy advised Ms. Wells that he wanted to discuss the feasibility of twice-a-year payment of property taxes in lieu of the Isle Pre- Pay Program later in the meeting. Lynn B. Briggs, Executive Administrator (Research, Technology and Planning) and Joshua Spaugh, Director of Technology, Isle of Wight County Public Schools, provided an update regarding ongoing technology efforts within the school system. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that the outside lights at the Windsor High School gym and parking area are in need of replacement. He requested that Ms. Briggs and Mr. Spaugh pass this information along to the school?s maintenance department. Steven J. Wright, Director of Economic Development, expressed his appreciation to the Board for the opportunity he was afforded to work for the County. He stated the County has a bright future and he will miss the business community and staff as he begins his tenure with the City of Chesapeake. Mr. Wright?s visionary talent was recognized by the Board and he was thanked for his many contributions during his tenure with the County. // Chairman Ivy called for Regional reports. 2 Supervisor Bradshaw advised that he had been elected First Vice- President of the Virginia Association of Counties. Supervisor Clark reported that the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission and the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority are discussing whether or not to hire one (1) person to oversee both organizations or divide Art Collins? position up in response to his resignation. With respect to the Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority, Supervisor Wright reported that he, Sheriff Phelps and Sheriff Isaac met with Senator Quayle to discuss why the Commonwealth is deducting funding for Federal inmates. He noted that Senator Quayle will report back in the near future on his findings. County Administrator Caskey reported that the Southeastern Public Service Authority Board (SPSA) received a report from its consultant, R. W. Beck, advising that the regional landfill is the most cost effective option as compared to the cost of using private haulers and a private landfill. He further reported that the SPSA Board of Directors, at its recent Retreat, discussed its Strategic Plan and waste flow control and the Executive Director was instructed to continue to provide direction and increase the educational efforts for the region on flow control. // Chairman Ivy called for Transportation Matters. Chairman Ivy advised those in attendance that the Route 620/Restriction on Through Trucks public hearing had been omitted from the Board?s agenda; however, it had been properly advertised in the newspapers. He requested those present that wished to speak come forward and submit their comments at this time. D. D. Darden of 16429 Bowling Green Road requested the Board not restrict through truck traffic on Route 620 because it could be costly to the agricultural industry. She advised that there are currently two (2) agricultural suppliers in the Town of Ivor that are heavily depended upon and Route 620 is heavily used for hauling these commodities back and forth. She advised that bridge restrictions on secondary roads could make it more difficult to reach certain farms and service representatives may add a surcharge for having to travel along detours to make these deliveries. She stated large trucks traveling on narrow back roads and increased truck traffic on Route 258 present safety concerns. 3 Supervisor Bradshaw distributed a proposed draft resolution to Interim County Attorney Burton exempting agricultural and silvicultural operations for his review prior to the Board?s consideration. Supervisor Clark recommended that the resolution also be forwarded to VDOT for review. // Chairman Ivy called for Citizens Comments. LaGrant Williams, Operations Manager, Allied Waste, was present to discuss all concerns expressed by residents that have been addressed by Allied. He advised that an additional truck and crew have been added to increase the level of service and in order to get the trucks back in prior to the arrival of darkness. He advised that Allied?s pick-up schedule for the holidays has been sent to Mr. Robertson for placement on the County?s website and PEG channel and that Allied is also advertising the schedule in the local newspapers. Patricia Sowell of 31456 See-Gar Drive in Carrsville addressed the Board concerning the proposed Camptown School Park, a model of which is on display in the Administration Building lobby for the next several weeks. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the matter of the Camptown School Park be added as an item for discussion under New Business. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Alonzo Woodard of 13551 Courthouse Highway, in response to a number of accidents which have occurred at the curve on Route 258 at Champion Swamp, submitted a list containing seventy (70) signatures of persons who also share his safety concern about that section of roadway. He notified the Board that a child who lives across the road from him must cross the roadway at a posted speed limit of 55 mph and that he was recently informed that the School Board is concerned with that particular bus stop, as well as certain others. He recommended that VDOT evaluate the feasibility of a complete speed reduction at that location and that a signal light be installed at the intersection of Route 258 and Route 620. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that straightening of dangerous curves along Route 258 from Smithfield to the Courthouse has always been a Board priority; however, the State continues to fail to allocate new funding sources for transportation. He encouraged all residents to contact the General Assembly members and express their concerns. 4 Chairman Ivy moved that County Administrator Caskey be directed to list the matter under New Business on the Board?s December 13, 2007 agenda so that the matter could be revisited to determine if anything can be done at that time as an interim fix; that staff be directed to obtain the accident incident rate for that location so that it can be approached from a public safety factor and not just a maintenance improvement factor; and, that staff also obtain information on the school bus routes and number of stops on that section of highway. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board direct staff to convey to the school system the Board?s concern as a result of a comment expressed by a citizen regarding the safety of this school bus stop and any bus stop located in that area and that the School Board revisit this as it sees fit and take action as quickly as possible to alleviate unsafe conditions. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Cara Daniels of 228 Lane Crescent in Smithfield noted concern with personal property tax bills being issued on an annual basis. She recommended that other options be made available to citizens, such as bi- annual payments, as they are due at another time of the year other than in the month of December. Chairman Ivy referred Ms. Daniels to the Commissioner of Revenue and Treasurer?s offices so that she could obtain information regarding the program entitled ?Isle Pre-Pay,? which allows individuals to prepay their taxes four (4) times a year. He further advised that he may be proposing in the near future that residents have the ability to pay on a bi-annual basis. // Chairman Ivy called for Board comments. The Board offered no comments. // Chairman Ivy called for the County Attorney?s report. Interim County Attorney Burton requested that the Board authorize his office to advertise Chapter 14A Stormwater Management Program for public hearing at the Board?s December 13, 2007 meeting. 5 Chairman Ivy moved that the Board authorize the County Attorney?s office to advertise the matter for public hearing at the Board?s December 13, 2007 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Interim County Attorney Burton reminded the Board of a special meeting with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation on November 20, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Paul D. Camp Workforce Development Center in Franklin to consider making a segment of the Blackwater River a part of the Virginia Scenic Rivers. Interim County Attorney Burton notified the Board of a special meeting called by Chairman Ivy for the Board to visit the Intermodal Park in th Alliance, Texas, which will be held on Wednesday, November 28 through th Friday, November 30, 2007. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board amend its previous motion to set the Board?s Retreat on December 3, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. at The Smithfield Center and that it be changed to 3:00 p.m. on December 13, 2007. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy requested County Administrator Caskey to ensure that the Towns of Smithfield and Windsor are invited and that they be advised of the new date for the Board?s retreat. Interim County Attorney Burton recalled that the Board had previously been provided a copy of the Board?s Rules of Procedure at its meeting on October 4, 2007 for its review. He requested that the Board relay to him any proposed changes for incorporation into the Rules prior to the Board?s organizational meeting of January 3, 2008. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the following items have been scheduled for public hearing later in the meeting: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code Chapter 4. Buildings. Article III. Inspections. Division 2. Fees when Building Permit Required. By Revising, Section 4-8. Construction, Repair or Alteration of Buildings or Structure; Section 4-10. Electrical Services; and, Section 4-10.1 Mechanical and Gas Fees; Renewal of Lease of Property known as the Johnson Farm; an Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 8, Garbage, Weeds and Litter Section 8-15. Certain Refuse Not Acceptable; and, an Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code, Chapter 7. Fire Protection,. Article III. Open Burning. By Adding a New Section. 6 Interim County Attorney Burton advised that he had one (1) item to discuss with the Board in Closed Meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for the Parks and Recreation report. Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator, advised that the Fort Huger project is anticipated to be complete by the end of November 2007. He further advised that a meeting has been set with the Committee and a date for the grand opening of the project would be selected at that time. Supervisor Clark requested that staff and the Committee be formally recognized following completion of the project. Chairman Ivy requested Assistant County Administrator Small to get with Tourism relative to publicity for the project and its opening. // Chairman Ivy called for the General Services report. E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Director of General Services, addressed the issue of the Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Consent Order, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is demanding a great deal of staff time from localities to produce copies of documents that are accomplishing the same thing that the State Consent Order is accomplishing. Interim County Attorney Burton advised the Board that he had recently participated in a four (4) hour conference call with the EPA regarding the original action taken against the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) relative to them entering into a Federal Consent Decree and the issuance of Section 308 letters requiring localities to produce large amounts of records material. He advised that the EPA had also not denied that enforcement actions might be taken against the various jurisdictions, including the County. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the agreement with Timmons Group in the amount of $98,800. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board direct staff to draft a statement regarding what the Board wants done so that the Chairman can take the statement to the Mayors and Chairs regional meeting for distribution to all elected officials of the other cities and counties. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in 7 favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Supervisor Bradshaw, noting that the time was 7:00 p.m., 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 (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for a public hearing on the Route 620/Restriction on Through Trucks. Chairman Ivy called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the restriction. D. D. Darden of 16429 Bowling Green Road spoke in opposition under the Transportation section of the agenda earlier in the meeting. Steve Russell, General Manager of Prescription Fertilizer, advised that Route 620 is that company?s major route to Smithfield and the Pons area because of the low-weight bridges along Mill Swamp Road and that the prohibition of trucks from traveling along Route 620 will be a problem for that company, as well as the agricultural community as a whole. He requested that agricultural businesses be exempted from the restriction on truck traffic. Chris Edwards of Four Square Road advised that his company?s dump trucks travel Route 620 frequently because of weight-restricted bridges in the County. He advised that he pays $33,450 in fuel taxes to the State and Federal governments annually and that being restricted from traveling along Route 620 will add ten (10) miles per day per trip for him. Tom Alphin, Commonwealth Gin, expressed concern with having to detour around the under-weight bridges in the County during the three (3) months of the year that he must travel on Route 620. He requested that agricultural businesses be exempt from the restriction on through trucks. Chairman Ivy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw made reference to a draft resolution that he had provided to the Interim County Attorney earlier during the Transportation 8 section of the agenda. He inquired if businesses located on Route 620 would be exempt as they were not traveling through. Chairman Ivy commented that the restriction would apply to trucks that utilize Route 620 from Route 258 and travel to Southampton on Route 460. He noted that truck getting on or off anywhere in between would not be considered through trucks. Kristen M. Mazur, County Engineer, added that enforcement would also be a responsibility of local authorities. Supervisor Clark inquired if there would be any impact to County businesses if the Board restricts Route 620 to through vehicles under the definition that a through trip is any trip that does business in the County is not a through trip. Ms. Mazur offered to research Supervisor Clark?s inquiry and report back. Supervisor Wright noted that fertilizer trucks traveling from Ivor to the Edwards Farm in Smithfield must travel Route 620 and would qualify as a through truck although they are also agricultural trucks. Ms. Mazur explained that trucks conducting business in the County and traveling from Route 460 at Southampton County to Route 258 are considered through trucks, but all agricultural trucks would be exempt. Chairman Ivy requested that Ms. Mazur include her comments relative to the direct impact to the County at the Board?s public hearing. Interim County Attorney Burton recommended that staff include Supervisor Bradshaw?s proposed resolution for consideration on the Board?s December 13, 2007 meeting. Ms. Mazur advised that the requirement of the Commonwealth Transportation Board is that the County advertise and hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution. She noted that the Board could postpone adopting a resolution until she provides it with an impact report at its December 13, 2007 meeting. Interim County Attorney Burton commented that agriculture and silvilcultural are exempted and the gentleman that lives on Route 620 would not be considered a through truck because he lives on Route 620; however, another person with a similar business who does not live on Route 620 would fall under the prohibition. He stated that is the issue that needs further consideration. 9 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that staff be directed to further investigate the Resolution pertaining to the no-through truck traffic on Route 620 and to include the Department of Emergency Services relative to accident incident rates along this section of roadway. A copy of the Resolution is to be placed under Transportation Matters in the Board?s December 13, 2007 agenda. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy called for a public hearing on the following: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of Isle of Wight County, Virginia to incorporate provisions for ?by-right? cluster development in the Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) zoning district as a development option in the area of the County designated by the Comprehensive Plan as the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District. Beverly H. Walkup, Director of Planning and Zoning, advised that the amendments were mandated by the General Assembly in 2006 and that in 2007 the County joined with other localities requesting that the General Assembly reconsider the mandate for ?by-right? cluster. She noted that the County experienced an 18.7% growth rate and has only 93 people per square mile. She noted that it requires that a minimum of 40% of unimproved land contained in residential and agricultural zoning districts be set aside for ?by- right? clustering and that the proposed amendment meets the minimum 40% requirement by designating the Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) District as designated in the County?s Comprehensive Plan for ?by-right? clustering with a density provided for under the residential zoning classification. She noted that the area maintains the majority of land as RAC which allows one (1) dwelling unit per parcel. She noted that the proposed amendment allows the use of the Rural Residential (RR) density which has two (2) options under the County?s Comprehensive Plan, the sliding scale and the density bonus. She noted that using the sliding scale density for the ?by-right? clustering, a minimum threshold has been set at 100 acres, which will allow four (4) lots. She continued that any additional lots would be allowed based upon forty (40) acres increments. She stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment allows for the density bonus option only if affordable housing is offered as part of the development and only where sewer is available. She advised that allowances for affordable housing has not yet been included in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances because the provisions have not yet been implemented for affordable housing. She advised that each amendment must be voted upon separately and included in the Board?s agenda is a suggested amendment to clarify and ensure that any of the lots that are developed under the Cluster Ordinance that they are developed contiguously so that the intent of 10 preserving large tracks of lands for agricultural and silvicultural uses are met. Chairman Ivy called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. Robert Duckett, Public Affairs Director with the Peninsula Housing and Builders Association, noted that its members support the Ordinance changes proposed and clustering because it allows the housing industry to respond to the demands of the marketplace, while also allowing the County to set aside meaningful sections of open space. He noted that clustering also allows a developer to save on street construction and utilities. He referred to Section 4-2004 in the Zoning Ordinance which stipulates ?shall require rezoning? and noted that the existing wording is contradictory with the proposed section that follows for clustering, sliding scale ?by-right.? He requested assurance from the County that what is proposed tonight for the Comprehensive Plan Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances is truly ?by-right? clustering. He stated with respect to the requirement for a central water system for over fourteen (14) lots, individual wells are suggested because central water systems are extremely expensive. He recommended that the requirements for pedestrian/bicycle connections be deleted as they are more appropriate for new urbanism than what would be developed in the County, which is more of a rural farm cluster. He stated clustering offers benefits to both the housing industry and the County; however, those provisions do not provide that benefit if the cluster option is not utilized and he would encourage staff to keep track of how often the cluster option is utilized. He stated he would encourage the County, in the future, to make the cluster density bonus for affordable housing a ?by-right? option. Pat Clark of Twin Hill Lane inquired if the tracks of land that are already zoned RAC are impacted by the ?by-rights.? Chairman Ivy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw advised the public that this is being forced on the County by the State under the Dillon Rule. He added that the State has opened up the entire County for development, regardless of the County?s Comprehensive Plan. He commended Ms. Walkup for her assistance in the development of restrictions in the Ordinances. Chairman Ivy commented that because the County?s Comprehensive Plan contains Development Service Districts, there is some leeway; otherwise, 80% of the County?s land mass would be open for ?by-right? development. 11 Supervisor Clark commented that while clustering is a positive action in Development Service Districts, the proposed amendments take away all of the County?s discretion regarding where it wants clustering or density. Ms. Walkup advised that under Section 4-2004 wherein it states ?all proposed residential subdivisions shall have zoning,? it states ?other than those expressly exempted in the Subdivision Ordinance, which means that these provisions are contained in the Subdivision Ordinance which exempts and allows for ?by-right? clustering.? She further advised that with respect to the central water system requirement, this is also a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance and applies to any residential development with fifteen (15) or more lots. She advised that under Section 4-2004(A)(1), under the sliding scale provision, a tract of land containing a 100 acres zoned Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC), which is the County?s base zoning and unless a property has been rezoned for development, then the base zoning is RAC. Chairman Ivy advised that it is in the County?s best interest that the Board approve the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan versus having it forced on the County by the legislature. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board accept the recommendations for change to the Comprehensive Plan as presented for the clustering, as required by the State: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2229 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that any amendments to a community?s Comprehensive Plan be recommended by resolution to the governing body by the local planning commission; WHEREAS, the proposed revision to the Comprehensive Plan is necessitated by Section 15.2-2286.1 of the Code of Virginia to establish provisions for clustering of single-family dwellings by designating 40% of unimproved lands zoned residential and agricultural for ?by-right? cluster development so as to preserve open space; WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors on September 20, 2007 directed the Isle of Wight County Planning Commission to prepare an amendment and submit it to public hearing providing for the establishment of said amendment for ?by-right? cluster development; WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Planning Commission finds it advisable to amend Chapter 4 of the plan to replace certain provisions 12 contained under Rural Service Areas to include ?by-right? cluster development; WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Planning Commission has given notice and held a public hearing on said amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on October 23, 2007, after notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Isle of Wight County Planning Commission to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the revisions to the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan as follows: Rural Service Areas Rural/Agricultural Conservation District The Rural/Agricultural Conservation District is intended to maintain and conserve rural character and farmlands in County areas consistent with Comprehensive Plan objectives. Rural/Agricultural Conservation District land areas are intended to provide for a full range of agricultural and farming activities and related uses along with some low-density residential development. The conflicts between farming and rural non-farm development (residential) should be minimized as the needs of farming are acknowledged and non- farm development is accommodated as a subordinate use. When non-agricultural land uses extend into agricultural areas, farms often become the subject of nuisance suits. As a result, farmers are sometimes forced to cease operations. Many others are discouraged from making investments in farm improvements. In recognition of the farmer's ?right-to-farm? without being restricted by neighboring residential areas, hours of operation of farm equipment, restrictions on odor-producing fertilizers, and other restrictions designed to limit the perceived negative impacts associated with reasonable farming practices should not be imposed on farming activities within the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District. The general intent of the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District is to encourage farming and maintain rural qualities in areas so designated in the County. Rural/Agricultural Conservation, as a component of the Comprehensive Plan, is not limited to traditional farming but extends to all aspects of the County's rural character. Agricultural land refers not only to tilled fields, but also to open fields, pastures, and woodlands, which are either prospects for additional farm acreage or are valuable as they are for their many contributions to the environment and to the rural appearance of the County. Agriculturally related or support industries (farm implement dealers, supply services, storage and processing facilities, etc.) should be permitted within this district in recognition of the support they provide to the farming community. 13 Residential Density Residential development and density in the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District should be minimized to avoid future conflicts between farming activities and rural homes. Two options are recommended for residential density in the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District. A property owner or developer should be able to choose the option which best suits their needs and objectives. The first density option is based on a sliding scale approach. Using this option, density is determined by the size of the parcel. The second option provides property owners the incentive of higher possible densities if certain standards of rural residential development are met. These density bonus incentive standards include such conditions as; development clustering, visual enhancement to reinforce rural character, rural highway access controls, and restricting sensitive lands or agricultural lands with conservation easements. Sliding-Scale Approach Under this option, the base density for lots of 20 acres or less should automatically be one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. One (1) additional lot should then be allowed for every additional 40 acres of original parcel size. A 100-acre parcel, for example, would yield four (4) lots. This provision is based on the assumption that parcels of 20 acres or less do not typically constitute adequate land area for productive farming operations, unless they represent specialized non-traditional farming (e.g. nurseries or orchards). The disadvantage of this approach is that, unless managed, it will most likely cause the creation of large lot subdivisions which are land consumptive and do not promote conservation of agricultural lands. To off- set this condition, property owners using the sliding-scale approach should be encouraged to reduce lot sizes through limited clustering provisions that require retention of 70 percent of the original tract size. Clustering/Sliding-Scale Provision Development utilizing the sliding scale approach will be ?by-right? commensurate with the goals and objectives of the rural/agricultural conservation district to maintain the County?s rural character and preserve farmlands and forestal uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The standards governing ?by-right? development as described in the County?s zoning and subdivision ordinances shall be consistent with the regulations described in Section 15.2-2286.1 of the County of Virginia as amended. The standards applicable to the clustering/sliding scale provision will reflect the following development criteria: ?All residential lots created through the act of subdivision should be served by one point of access to County roads. 14 ?Residential structures in the subdivision should be located at least 100 feet from the existing County road right-of-way and screened from the right-of-way by an existing or planted landscaped buffer. ?All residential structures should be setback at least 100 feet from all active farm operations. ?A central water supply system may be provided to serve the subdivisions with over 14 lots. ?Lots can be any size desired by the owner, typically ranging from one acre to five acres in size, provided the Health Department standards for septic systems are satisfied. Clustering/Density Bonus Approach ?As an alternative to the sliding scale approach and assuming public sewer is available, property owners may opt for higher densities as a method to achieve and provide for the County?s affordable housing needs in the rural areas of the community. Under this approach, the base residential density in the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District should be one (1) dwelling unit per 10 acres with at least 50% open space set aside, but may be increased to one (1) dwelling unit per eight (8) acres with at least 60% open space set aside, or one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres if at least 70% open space set aside. The five (5) development criteria referenced above with the clustering/sliding scale approach will also apply to the clustering/density bonus approach. Through the clustering/density bonus approach, the developer is able to decrease lot sizes in return for setting aside permanent open space while meeting the affordable housing needs of Isle of Wight County. This provides many benefits including lower land costs for the lot purchaser and decreased road construction costs since lots are grouped together as opposed to scattered throughout the site. The community benefits through provision of open space, farmlands and rural character. Using this approach, a property owner with a 100-acre farm can create up to 20 lots (one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres) provided they are clustered onto 30 acres of the farm and the remaining 70 acres would be left for farming or open space. The homes would also have to be setback 100 feet from the County road and located on a single access road with driveways. Numerous individual drives onto County roads would not be allowed. The homes would have to be screened from County roadway view, thereby protecting rural character. Homes would also have to be setback from active agricultural operations in order to minimize farming impacts on home sites. 15 The same scenario on a 40-acre property would yield eight lots on 12 acres and would leave 28 acres in open space or farming. Average lot size for lots on both the 100 and 40 acre parcel would be 1.5 acres. The open space land could be left in its natural state or maintained for farming or forestry purposes. Control of the open space land can be left with the original property owner or dedicated to a homeowners association. Land areas encumbered by natural development constraints such as wetlands should be included in the open space . Minimum lot sizes for clustered development in the Rural/Agricultural Conservation district should be a function of soil suitability for septic tank systems. The above described residential density provisions recognize that while rural character and agricultural conservation are important County objectives, there remains a need to allow farmers and rural property owners to subdivide and sell single-family home lots as the need arises. The Plan recommends that rural residential subdivisions be directed to areas of the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District which have good proximity to existing residential areas and commercial and public services. Rural residential subdivisions should not be encouraged in remote areas where County roads are not adequate for increased traffic or in areas where existing agricultural activities predominate, such as in or near the County Voluntary Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The cluster approach described above was adopted by the County in 1997 as part of the new Zoning Ordinance. Previously the County had received proposals utilizing this approach or a variation of this approach, but the Board of Supervisors had denied the requests due to their remote location and lack of adequate roads to serve the proposed development. In 2005, the County approved the first rural cluster that employed the Density Bonus Approach. This development, called Lawnes Point, contains 155 lots on 1,550 acres and is located in the northern most portion of the county. Despite a greater number of established examples of development utilizing this approach, the County will retain this optional form of development for the rural services areas into the foreseeable future. The Rural/Agricultural Conservation Areas is therefore provided in the Comprehensive Plan to preserve rural character and open space, to foster agricultural activities and opportunities, and to protect valuable natural resources. It is further intended to prevent premature urbanization in areas where public utilities, roads and other public facilities are planned to meet rural needs only and where present public programs do not propose infrastructure suitable for development at higher densities. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. 16 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the following amendment to the Zoning Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND Appendix B. Zoning of the Isle of Wight County Code WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia has the legislative authority to make necessary changes to the ordinances that govern the orderly growth and development of Isle of Wight County; and WHEREAS, the proposed revision to the Isle of Wight County Zoning Ordinance is necessitated by Section 15.2-2286.1 of the Code of Virginia to establish provisions for clustering of single-family dwellings by designating 40% of unimproved lands zoned residential and agricultural for ?by-right? cluster development so as to preserve open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Appendix B, Zoning, of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended as follows: 4-2000 Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) District 4-2001 General Description This district is intended to preserve and protect areas of Isle of Wight County that are presently, predominantly in agricultural use and maintain the land base necessary to support agricultural activity. This district is designed to protect the agricultural industry from sprawling residential development that displaces substantial areas of agricultural land for a small number of dwelling units. Non farm residents should recognize that they are located in a rural agricultural environment where the right to farm has been established as County policy. 4-2002 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this Ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards which are listed in Section 5-5000, Supplementary Use Regulations, for those specific uses. A.Agricultural Uses Agriculture ? Agricultural Farming Operation ? Grain Dryer and Related Structures 17 ? Fertilizer Storage ? Assembly and Repair of Farm Equipment ? Accessory Petroleum Storage ? Livestock Operation Aquaculture *Commercial Feedlot Farmer's Market Farm Winery *Forestry Operation ? Forestry, Silvicultural ? Timbering Greenhouse, Private *Livestock Auction Market *Sawmill *Stable, Commercial ? In conjunction with residence ? Not in conjunction with a residence *Stable, Private *Wayside Stand B. Residential Uses *Accessory Apartment ? Residential Accessory Apartment Dwelling, Single Family *Family Day Care Home Group Home *Guest House *Home Occupation, Type I *Home Occupation, Type II *Kennel, Private *Manufactured Home, Class A *Manufactured Home, Class B *Manufactured Home, Family Member Residence *Temporary Emergency Housing C. Civic Uses *Cemetery ? Private Public Safety Service *Utility Service/ Minor D. Commercial Uses *Construction Office, Temporary 18 E. Miscellaneous Uses *Amateur Radio Tower 4-2003 Conditional Uses The following uses are allowed only by Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 1-1017, Conditional Uses. An asterisk (*) indicating additional, modified or more stringent standards which are listed in Section 5-5000, Supplementary Use Regulations, for those specific uses. A. Agricultural Uses *Farm Employee Housing B. Residential Uses *Dwelling, Two-Family *Manufactured Home, Temporary Residence C. Civic Uses *Adult Care Center Assisted Living Facility *Cemetery ? Animal ? Church ? Public *Child Care Institution *Child Care Center Club *Community Center Correctional Facility Educational Facility, College/University *Educational Facility, Primary/Secondary Halfway House Park and Ride Facility Post Office Public Assembly *Public Maintenance and Service Facility *Public Park and Recreational Area *Religious Assembly *Utility Service/ Major D. Office Uses Medical Office 19 E. Commercial Uses *Agricultural Service ? Commercial Assembly and Repair ? Farm and Forestry Implement Storage, Sales, and Service *Antique Shop *Bed and Breakfast Business or Trade School *Campground *Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation *Commercial Outdoor Entertainment/Sports and Recreation *Commercial Outdoor Swimming Pool and Tennis Facility *Crematorium Equipment Sales and Rental *Garden Center *Golf Course *Golf Driving Range *Kennel, Commercial Lawn and Garden Services *Marina Veterinary Hospital/Clinic F. Industrial Uses *Abattoir or Livestock Processing Convenience Center *Landfill, Industrial *Landfill, Rubble *Landfill, Sanitary *Resource Extraction *Scrap and Salvage Service Transfer Station Warehousing and Distribution G. Miscellaneous Uses *Alternative Discharge Sewage System *Aviation Facility, Commercial *Aviation Facility, General *Aviation Facility, Private *Communication Tower Hunt Club *Reconstructed Wetland *Shooting Range, Outdoor 4-2004 Required Zoning 20 All proposed residential subdivisions on properties zoned RAC, other than those expressly exempted in the Isle of Wight County Subdivision Ordinance, shall require rezoning to one of the following zoning classifications prior to final approval of the subdivision plat by the subdivision agent: Rural Residential (RR), Suburban Estate (SE), Suburban Residential (SR), Urban Residential (UR), Village Center (VC), Planned Development Residential (PD-R), Planned Development Manufactured Home (PD-MH), Planned Development Mixed Use (PD- MX). (7-1-97) A. Clustering/Sliding Scale ?By-Right? Provisions for Single-Family Residential Development in the Rural Agricultural Conservation District as designated in the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan: 1. Under the sliding scale development provision, a tract of land containing 100 contiguous acres or greater zoned Rural Agricultural Conservation will be allowed four (4) divisions. One (1) additional lot or dwelling unit will be permitted for every additional forty (40) acres encompassed by the overall tract. For example, a one hundred forty (140) acre tract will yield five (5) lots. Minimum permissible lot sizes shall be encouraged so as not to allow subdivision development which is land consumptive; however, each lot must meet the minimum lot requirements for the Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) District. (7-1-97) B. In addition to the base density permitted above and the minimum area, width and frontage of the underlying zoning district, the following standards shall be met: ?All residential lots created through the act of subdivision shall be contiguously grouped and served by one point of access to County roads and shall comply with Section 4-4-1 (Streets) of the Isle of Wight County Subdivision Ordinance. ?Residential structures in the subdivision shall be located at least 100 feet from the existing County road right-of-way and screened from the right-of-way by an existing or planted landscaped buffer. ?All residential structures should be setback at least 100 feet from all active farm operations. ?A central water supply system shall be provided to serve the subdivisions with over 14 lots. ?The maximum lot size for any new lot created shall be ten (10) acres, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Supervisors or required by 21 the County Health Department. ?Lots shall be located to preserve 70% of the original tract size in order to maximize continued use of the residual parcel for agricultural and silvicultural purposes. ?No lot shall be designed, approved or employed for use in which an area more than 30% of the prescribed minimum lot area is comprised of one or more of the environmentally sensitive areas referenced in the net developable calculations of the Zoning Ordinance. This shall not apply to lots specifically created exclusively to preserve and maintain environmentally sensitive areas. ?All areas not included in lots or public street rights-of-way shall be incorporated into common open space and may be used for natural or landscaped buffers; agricultural uses including farmland and pasture not generating noxious odors such as land application of sewage sludge, hog or poultry farms or similar uses; horticulture; recreational use; historic preservation; forests; wildlife reservations and conservation areas; private stables for personal enjoyment; or other similar use. ?The common open space shall be arranged and designed so as to facilitate its use, ensure continuity of design, and preserve sensitive environmental features. Failure to achieve these goals shall be sufficient reason for the agent to deny applications for open space development plan approval or require modifications that may include loss of lots. ?Recreational areas shall not abut the exterior boundary of the open space development unless entirely adjacent to a publicly-owned facility or community recreation facility of an adjoining residential development. ?Adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be provided which fully interconnect the development and its recreation areas both internally and with existing, planned or desirable external pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ?Final plats recorded and all deeds for lots within the cluster development shall bear a statement indicating that the land is within an approved residential cluster subdivision and shall also bear a statement indicating the ownership status of the development?s open space system and shall reference the covenants creating a property owners association which shall also be recorded at the time final plats are put to record. ?With approval of the Planning Commission, common open space 22 within a cluster subdivision may be held by other than a property owner association for agricultural uses including farmland, pasture, horticulture, recreational use, historic preservation, forests, wildlife reservations and conservation areas or other similar use. ?Family Member Subdivisions shall be prohibited. ?Manufactured Homes, Class A and B and Residential Accessory Apartments shall require a Conditional Use Permit. C. In determining the overall tract size provision, staff shall base the number of lots permitted on the following, listed in order from least to most binding: 1. On the parcel shown on the latest County Tax Maps with the acreage indicated in the Real Estate records of the Commissioner of Revenue's Office, excluding street or road rights-of-way. 2. On documents of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Court, which shall take precedence over the Tax Map information. 3. On a new or modern survey of the property by a licensed surveyor. 4-2005 Lot Size Requirements A. Minimum lot area: 40,000 square feet B. Minimum lot width (measured at the set back line): 150 feet C. Minimum lot frontage (measured at property front): 120 feet D. Minimum frontage on a cul-de-sac: 75 feet 4-2006 Bulk Regulations A. Maximum building height: All buildings: 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever is lesser B. Minimum front yard setback: 1. Where right-of-way is > 50 feet, the minimum front yard setback is 60 feet from property line. 23 2. Where right-of-way is < 50 feet, the minimum front yard setback is 85 feet from center line of road. C. Minimum side yard setback: 1. Principle structures: 25 feet (one side) 50 feet (both sides) 2. Accessory structures: 25 feet (See Supplementary Density and Dimensional Requirements, #1, Accessory Building Requirements) D. Minimum rear yard setback: 1. Principle structures: 50 feet 2. Accessory structures: 5 feet 4-2007 Additional Regulations A. Refer to Section 5-2000, for Supplementary Density and Dimensional Requirements, Section 5-3000, for Restrictions Adjacent to Airports, and Section 5-4000 for standards for Net Developable requirements. B. Refer to Article VI for regulations within the Historic Overlay (HO) District, Highway Corridor Overlay (HCO) District, Flood Plain Management Overlay (FPMO) District, and the Newport Development Service Overlay (NDSO) District. C. Refer to Article VII for General Design Guidelines and Development Review Procedures. D. Refer to Article VIII for Bufferyards, Landscaping, and Open Space standards. E. Refer to Article IX for Sign standards. F. Refer to Article X for Vehicle Parking Facilities, including, loading, parking lot and off street parking requirements. G.Refer to Article XI for Outdoor Lighting Requirements and Restrictions. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. 24 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the following Subdivision Ordinance amendment as presented by State and required by the State: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND Appendix A, Subdivisions, of the Isle of Wight County Code WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia has the legislative authority to make necessary changes to the ordinances that govern the orderly growth and development of Isle of Wight County; and WHEREAS, the proposed revision to the Isle of Wight County Subdivision Ordinance is necessitated by Section 15.2-2286.1 of the Code of Virginia to establish provisions for clustering of single-family dwellings by designating 40% of unimproved lands zoned residential and agricultural for ?by-right? cluster development so as to preserve open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Appendix A, Subdivisions, of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended as follows: 7-28-6 Clustering/Sliding Scale ?By-Right? Provisions for Single- Family Residential Development in Rural Agricultural Conservation District as designated in the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan Under the sliding scale development provision, a tract of land containing 100 contiguous acres or greater zoned Rural Agricultural Conservation will be allowed four (4) divisions. One (1) additional lot or dwelling unit will be permitted for every additional forty (40) acres encompassed by the overall tract. For example, a one hundred forty (140) acre tract will yield five (5) lots. Minimum permissible lot sizes shall be encouraged so as not to allow subdivision development which is land consumptive; however, each lot must meet the minimum lot requirements for the Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) District. (1) In addition to the base density permitted above and the minimum lot size, width and frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district, the following standards shall be met: ? All residential lots created through the act of subdivision shall be contiguously grouped and served by one point of access to County roads and shall 25 comply with Section 4-4-1 (Streets) of the Isle of Wight County Subdivision Ordinance. ? Residential structures in the subdivision shall be located at least 100 feet from the existing County road right-of-way and screened from the right-of-way by an existing or planted landscaped buffer. ? All residential structures should be setback at least 100 feet from all active farm operations. ? A central water supply system shall be provided to serve the subdivisions with over 14 lots. ? The maximum lot size for any new lot created shall be ten (10) acres, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Supervisors or required by the County Health Department. ? No lot shall be designed, approved or employed for use in which an area more than 30% of the prescribed minimum lot area is comprised of one or more of the environmentally sensitive areas referenced in the net developable calculations of the Zoning Ordinance. This shall not apply to lots specifically created exclusively to preserve and maintain environmentally sensitive areas. ? Lots shall be located to preserve 70% of the original tract size in order to maximize continued use of the residual parcel for agricultural and silvicultural purposes. ? All areas not included in lots or public street rights-of- way shall be incorporated into common open space and may be used for natural or landscaped buffers; agricultural uses including farmland and pasture not generating noxious odors such as land application of sewage sludge, hog or poultry farms or similar uses; horticulture; recreational use; historic preservation; forests; wildlife reservations and conservation areas; private stables for personal enjoyment; or other similar use. ? The common open space shall be arranged and designed so as to facilitate its use, ensure continuity of design, and preserve sensitive environmental features. Failure to achieve these goals shall be sufficient reason for the agent to deny applications for open space development plan approval or require modifications that may include loss of lots. ? Recreational areas shall not abut the exterior boundary of the open space development unless entirely adjacent to a publicly-owned facility or community recreation facility of an adjoining residential development. 26 ? Adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be provided which fully interconnect the development and its recreation areas both internally and with existing, planned or desirable external pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ? Final plats recorded and all deeds for lots within the cluster development shall bear a statement indicating that the land is within an approved residential cluster subdivision and shall also bear a statement indicating the ownership status of the development?s open space system and shall reference the covenants creating a property owners association which shall also be recorded at the time final plats are put to record. ? With approval of the Planning Commission, common open space within a cluster subdivision may be held by other than a property owner association for agricultural uses including farmland, pasture, horticulture, recreational use, historic preservation, forests, wildlife reservations and conservation areas or other similar use. ? Family Member Subdivisions shall be prohibited. ? Manufactured Homes, Class A and B, and Residential Accessory Apartments shall require a Conditional Use Permit. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy called for a public hearing on the following: The application of Isle of Wight County Industrial Development Authority, owner, for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed masonry contractor office, showroom, warehouse, and storage yard located at 6261 Carrsville Highway (Route 58) on approximately 0.68 acres of land in the Carrsville Election District. Amy Rink, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, introduced the application. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the application had been properly advertised. Chairman Ivy called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. No one appeared and spoke. 27 Chairman Ivy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the application of the Isle of Wight County Industrial Development Authority. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy called for a public hearing on the following: An application to amend the Comprehensive Plan of Isle of Wight County, Virginia through the addition of the proposed Route 17 Corridor Master Plan and Design Guidelines Handbook prepared by Raybould Associates, LLC. The purpose of creating a Master Plan for growth along the Route 17 Corridor is to accommodate orderly, beneficial development that promotes public health, safety, convenience, comfort and general welfare for the citizens of Isle of Wight County. More specifically, the Route 17 Corridor Master Plan should provide a sustainable, safe, and stimulating design framework to guide the location, form, and design of new development consistent with the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Master Plan should identify Bartlett as a key activity center, treat Carrollton Boulevard appropriately given its role as a major transportation corridor, and designate a mix of uses for a substantial portion of the study area. Jamie Oliver, Planning and Zoning, commented that the Board had previously been provided copies of the Route 17 Master Plan and included in the staff report are additional maps. She advised the objectives of the Plan are to accommodate orderly and beneficial development in the area. She stated that the consultant was tasked with identifying Bartlett as the key activity center, treating Carrollton Boulevard appropriately for its use and designating a mix of uses in the study area as a whole. She advised that the study area was broken down into two (2) sectors and public participation for the proposed Plan was extensive over a fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) months? period, which included stakeholder meetings, design workshops and a public Charette. She noted that staff has also made the document publicly available at local libraries and on the County?s website. She noted key elements of the report included a market study; a policy summary; a land use plan; transportation issues; and, an implementation table and design guidelines. She noted that the market in the County is strong; however, the County continues to have an issue with providing workforce and affordable housing. She noted considering currently approved or expected development, the County has approximately 1.5 million square feet of retail in the corridor market area. She noted considering currently approved or expected proposed housing in the market area, the County can expect to support between 220,000 and 450,000 square feet of retail. She noted that 28 the County?s Comprehensive Plan appears to be on target for having compact growth development patterns and instituting traditional neighborhood development concepts. She noted that certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance appear to be inconsistent with those goals, specifically with the Development Service District areas with respect to restrictive allowable uses, large lot sizes, setbacks and low densities. She advised that the Subdivision Ordinance is currently being updated by staff with respect to strengthening street design standards, flood zone protection and review of open space design standards. She stated with respect to the Land Use Plan, the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations to be easily integrated with our existing Comprehensive Plan and illustrated both T and D and town center concepts. She noted that the newly proposed Land Use Plan recommends change at the Bartlett intersection from commercial, business and employment to a Mixed Use Activity Center with a focus on town center design principles and further down in the southern section of the corridor from a strip of business and employment to two (2) smaller mixed use neighborhood centers with residential in-between. She noted there is a need to maintain Route 17 as a major arterial providing high speed and high-volume travel and access management strategies, such as limited curb cuts, parcel connectivity and street connectivity. She noted that instituting traffic calming measures within neighborhoods is also recommended, as well as on-street and shared parking and the foundation for a pedestrian/bicycle system to interact with the existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. She noted that the implementation table outlines specific action steps for addressing the Plan; identifies the responsible party within the County; and, includes a timeframe for both initiation and completion. She stated that the majority of items are anticipated to be complete within one (1) to three (3) years and some not complete for five (5) to seven (7) years. She stated that the Design Guidelines Handbook addresses design principles for consideration when new applications are submitted. Chairman Ivy called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. Ann Motley of 24301 Bush Creek Circle in Carrollton advised that her property, as well as that of her parents, are located in the southeast near the Chuckatuck Creek Bridge and they would like to be left alone. She noted that the consultant is recommending that area be reserved for a park, which they feel is eroding on their rights as property owners. Elliott Cohen of Carrollton noted that this is simply a plan and it is not etched in stone; however, it will require more work and time to change the Plan. He noted that next to the Carrollton Fire Department would be an excellent location for an auxiliary government building; however, the County does not have the funds to purchase that property. He noted that the pictures depict parking right up against the sidewalk next to the stores, however, there is a seventy (70) foot setback requirement on the front and 29 twenty-five (25) on the side. He noted with respect to the map, the colors are not designated according to the property lines. He inquired how the County will address an applicant requesting a rezoning application when half of a property is zoned business and the other half is zoned residential. Carl Coon of Lake Shores Court in Carrollton advised that he owns one (1) of the twelve (12) residential properties that back up to the lake that is included in the proposed park bounded by Route 17 and Cedar Grove Road. He stated opening up that property to the public will produce litter and disregard of wildlife and will create more problems than would do good for the citizens who wish to use it. He requested that the proposed park be deleted from the Plan. Sharon Hart of the Newport District noted that in Northgate, the proposed connector road shows extension to Reynolds Road, which is not possible unless the land is purchased by the County before the homes are built. She noted that 28 homes are being proposed in the Ashby Brown property up to the cul-de-sac at the location that the connector road is proposed and she would recommend that the County purchase the land before the homes are built. She stated that traffic at Founder?s Pointe as the developers continue to build will require a stop light at Sugar Hill Road before the Cedar Road connector road is built. She inquired if the timetable can be moved up for acquiring that land for the connector road to Cedar Grove Road to avoid an extra stop light on Route 17. She noted that the connector road across Sugar Hill Road appears to go through the Cohen property and the County should not wait until a commercial or residential neighborhood is built before it purchases the land. She stated that homeowners on Newbill Lane purchased their properties for privacy and the hard-surface trail system shows it running behind these properties. She noted that the Turner farm would be an ideal location for a park or community center. She noted that Mr. Owens has sold many of his properties in the County and there are no parks in any of those developments. She notified the Board that some of the homes in the Ashby Subdivision are being built in the RPA, which could be prevented. County Administrator Caskey called the Board?s attention to a letter from Mr. W. D. Owen, which had been placed at the Board?s seats prior to the meeting. Chairman Ivy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Clark advised Ms. Motley that as long as she passes her property down in her family, there could always be a home there as long as she wants it there. He further advised that the County could not designate a trail on Mrs. Hart?s property, nor take the lake that Mr. Coon referred to earlier because doing so would be illegal unless they are conveyed 30 voluntarily. He stated that this is a voluntary conceptual plan, to be used as a planning tool and it does not change anyone?s property rights. Chairman Ivy asked staff to comment on the proposed round about at the Bartlett intersection. Ms. Oliver responded that the Plan originally called for the concept of a round about; however, all three (3) of those plans were removed by staff and the only place that the round about concept remains is in the conceptual image of the town center. She advised that all language regarding that in the proposed County-wide Transportation Plan has been removed. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Supervisor Clark moved that the Board take a five (5) minute recess. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board return to open session. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for a public hearing on the following: Renewal of Lease of Property known as the Johnson Farm Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the lease had been properly advertised for public hearing. Chairman Ivy called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the lease. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Ivy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. 31 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Lease on behalf of the Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy called for a public hearing on the following: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 8. Garbage, Weeds, and Litter Section 8-15. Certain Refuse Not Acceptable. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the Ordinance had been properly advertised for public hearing. Chairman Ivy called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Ivy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Responsive to Supervisor Bradshaw, Mr. Rountree advised that the handouts and signage at each site will be corrected and that he would contact the Assistant Director of Public Works tomorrow to advise that the Board has adopted the Ordinance. Supervisor Clark moved that the Chairman be authorized to execute the following Ordinance on behalf of the Board: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 8. GARBAGE, WEEDS AND LITTER SECTION 8-15. CERTAIN REFUSE NOT ACCEPTABLE. WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors is concerned about the burdens imposed on citizens to dispose of household construction debris; and WHEREAS, in order to address this problem, the Board of Supervisors deems it appropriate to enact revisions to Chapter 8 of the Isle of Wight County Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 8. Garbage, Weeds and Litter. Section 8-15. Certain refuse not acceptable. be repealed and reenacted as follows: Sec. 8-15. Certain refuse not acceptable. 32 (a) The following refuse shall be considered to be not acceptable for collection by the Board of Supervisors, its agent or duly appointed commission: (1) Dangerous materials or substances, such as poisons, acids, caustics, infected materials and explosives or other hazardous wastes as defined by the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) in accordance with state and/or federal laws and regulations. (2) Materials resulting from the repair, excavation or construction of buildings or structures, such as earth, plaster, mortar or roofing material by building contractors and other persons providing construction services. Nothing herein shall prohibit individual homeowners from disposing of similar, reasonable amounts of materials on an individual basis. (3) Materials which have not been prepared for collection in accordance with this Article. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy called for a public hearing on the following: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code, Chapter 7. Fire Protection. Article III. Open Burning. By Adding a New Section. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the Ordinance had been properly advertised for public hearing. Chairman Ivy called for persons to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Ivy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Chairman Ivy moved that the Chairman be authorized to execute the following Ordinance on behalf of the Board: ANORDINANCETOAMENDANDREENACTTHE ISLEOFWIGHTCOUNTYCODE CHAPTER7.FIREPROTECTION. 33 ARTICLEIII.OPENBURNING.BYADDINGANEWSECTION, SECTION7-8.1.LIMITATIONONOPENBURNING,INGENERAL WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, is committed to ensuring the safety and security of its citizens and their property within Isle of Wight County; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to provide for such safety and security by enacting fire protection regulations that are effective in preventing loss of life or property; and WHEREAS, the threat of fire to life or property during exceptionally dry conditions may arise from time to time; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 7. Fire Protection. Article III. Section 7- 8.1 of the Isle of Wight County Code is hereby enacted as follows: Sec. 7-8.1 Limitation on Open Burning, In General. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Article III, when it is deemed necessary by the Isle of Wight County Administrator or his designee, an open burning ban may be imposed on the entire County or sections of the County when conditions exist that would make open burning a threat to life or property, or nuisance as provided for in the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code at any time during the year and for such a duration as may be deemed necessary to protect life or property. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that he had been informed by Steven A. Aigner, Coordinator of Fire and EMS, that following adoption of the Ordinance tonight, the County Administrator will be lifting the ban per the recommendation of the Governor. Supervisor Bradshaw voiced concern with the lifting of the ban noting that the southern end of the County is still in a drought. Chairman Ivy recommended that staff contact the Forestry Department and inquire whether or not the County is still in a severe drought. Mr. Aigner advised that he had spoken with the Forester today and that he had agreed with the Governor?s recommendations. 34 Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the ban could be reinstituted at any time with the Ordinance in place. Chairman Ivy called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code Chapter 4. Buildings. Article III. Inspections. Division 2. Fees when Building Permit Required. By Revising, Section 4-8. Construction, Repair or Alteration of Buildings or Structure; Section 4-10. Electrical Services; and, Section 4-10.1 Mechanical and Gas Fees. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the Ordinance had been properly advertised for public hearing. Chairman Ivy called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Ivy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board, Supervisor Clark moved that the Chairman be authorized to execute the following Ordinance on behalf of the Board: ANORDINANCETOAMENDANDREENACTTHE ISLEOFWIGHTCOUNTYCODE CHAPTER4.BUILDINGS. ARTICLEIII.INSPECTIONS. DIVISION2.FEESWHENBUILDINGPERMITREQUIRED.BY REVISING, SECTION4-8.CONSTRUCTION,REPAIRORALTERATIONOF BUILDINGSORSTRUCTURE;SECTION4-10.ELECTRICAL SERVICES;AND SECTION4-10.1.MECHANICALANDGASFEES WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, is committed to ensuring the safety and security of its citizens and their property within Isle of Wight County; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to provide for such safety and security by enacting appropriate regulations related to the inspection of buildings or structures at a reasonable cost to the citizens of Isle of Wight County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 4. Buildings. Article III. Inspections. Division 2. Fees When Building Permit Required. Section 4-8. 35 Construction, repair or alteration of buildings or structures; Section 4-10. Electrical services; and Section 4-10.1 Mechanical and gas fees of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 4.8 Construction, repair or alteration of buildings or structures. (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum building permit fee shall be thirty dollars. (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall be one hundred dollars. (c) Basic permit fee. (1) Usable area under roof, per building or structure (includes all new construction, finished or unfinished): For the construction of any building or addition thereto where floor area is increased, the fee shall be based on the floor area to be constructed, as computed from exterior building dimensions at each floor. a. All buildings of minimum construction types, for the first forty thousand square feet and under, twelve cents per square foot; b. All buildings over forty thousand square feet, eight cents per square foot. (d) Demolition permit fee. The demolition permit fee shall be as follows: (1) Accessory buildings and structures, thirty-five dollars each; (2) All other buildings and structures, forty-five dollars each. (e) Moving structures permit fee. The permit fee for moving structures shall be as follows: (1) Accessory buildings or structures, forty-five dollars; (2) All other buildings and structures, fifty-five dollars. (f) Industrialized building permit fee. The industrialized building permit fee shall be the same as the basic permit fee in subsection (c)(1) of this section (excluding mobile homes). (g) Modular construction permit fee. The modular construction permit fee shall be the same as the basic fee in subsection (c)(1) of this section. 36 (h) Mobile home permit fees. The mobile home permit fee shall be as follows: (1) Mobile home and other mobile units permit fee, thirty-five dollars each. (i) Sign permit fee. Sign permit fees shall be sixty-five dollars per sign. (j) Tents and other temporary structures permit fee. The permit fee for tents and other temporary structures shall be forty-five dollars each. (k) Chimneys, fireplaces, etc. The permit fee for chimneys, fireplaces, wood and coal stoves and other solid fuel burning heaters shall be thirty-five dollars. (Note: Fireplaces, heaters and chimneys shall be included in new construction permit fees only if so noted at the time of issuing the permit.) (l) Alterations to create a finished space. The fee for alterations to shell buildings, unfinished tenant spaces, garages and attics to create finished space shall be six cents per square foot. (m) Other structures. The fee for all other structures as defined in the Basic Building Code not included in the above fee schedule are as follows: (1) Piers - $35.00; (2) Pools: a. Inground - $65.00 b.Above ground - $45.00 (3) Retaining wall as defined in the Building Code - $30.00 (4) Towers - $30.00 (n) Permit reissuance fee. Permits becoming invalid as specified by the Code may be reissued up to a period of five years and charged a fee of thirty dollars for each six months period thereof. A request for such reissuance shall be in writing and submitted prior to the permit becoming invalid. (o) Plans examination. 37 (1) The fee for plans examination, other than residential and accessory structures, shall be two hundred fifty dollars. (2) A fee of fifty-five dollars shall be charged for the reviewing of residential plans prior to making application for a permit. This fee will be credited to the permit fee if the permit is applied for within six months. (p) Appeals. For each appeal to the Building Code board of appeals, the fee shall be one hundred fifty dollars. (1-10-74, § A; 5-3-79; 6-16-88; 12-16-04; 4-21-05.) For state law as to authority of county to levy permit fees, see Code of Va., § 36-105. Sec. 4-10. Electrical services. (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum electrical service permit fee shall be thirty dollars. (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall be one hundred dollars. (See section 4-8(b)). (c) New service equipment permit fee. New service equipment permit fees shall be as follows (new construction fees based on total capacity of service equipment and subpanels feeder overcurrent protection): 0 ? 200 amps $45.00 201 ? 400 amps $55.00 401 ? 600 amps $75.00 601 + amps $75.00 + $20 per 50 amps above 600 (d) Relocations and service increases permit fee. The permit fee for relocations and service increases shall be as follows (additional work charged according to subsection (i) of this section): (1) Existing service panels only, thirty dollars each; (2) Meter only, thirty dollars each; (3) Service increases, thirty dollars. (e) Temporary service. The fee for temporary service (includes thirty-day power release prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy) shall be thirty dollars. 38 (f) Reconnection fee. The reconnection fee shall be thirty dollars each (this does not include any electrical work within any structure). (g) Mobile home hookup. The fee for a mobile home hookup (excluding electrical service) shall be thirty dollars. For a mobile home hookup plus electrical service, the fee shall be based on the size of service. (h) Connections and outlets. The fee for fixed appliances and equipment connections and outlets to existing service (ranges, water heaters, dishwashers, disposals, furnaces, dryers, baseboard units, exhaust fans, motors, air conditioning units, etc.) shall be thirty dollars. (i) Permit reissuance fee. The permit reissuance fee shall be the same as stated in section 4-8(n). (1-10-74, § C; 5-3-79; 6-16-88; 12-16-04.) Sec. 4-10.1. Mechanical and gas fees. (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum mechanical and gas permit fee shall be thirty dollars. (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall be one hundred dollars. (See section 4-8(b)). (c) Basic permit fee. The basic mechanical and gas permit fee shall be as follows: (1) New construction: a. Up to one thousand dollars contract value, thirty dollars; b. Over one thousand dollars contract value, thirty dollars plus six dollars per one thousand dollars or fraction thereof. (2) Equipment replacement, repair, etc. The permit fee for the replacement, repair or alteration of mechanical systems, or equipment in existing buildings, structures or additions thereof shall be as follows: a. Up to one thousand dollars contract value, thirty dollars; b. Over one thousand dollars contract value, thirty dollars plus six dollars per one thousand dollars or fraction thereof. Exceptions: Domestic cooking equipment and space heaters in dwelling units are exempt from mechanical permit fees. Inspections of this equipment are required. 39 (d) Fuel piping. The fuel piping permit fee shall be as follows: (1) Minimum permit fee, thirty dollars; (2) Each outlet, seven dollars. Note: This fee applies when a permit is issued for fuel piping work only. (e) L.P.G. tanks and piping. The permit fee for L.P.G. (i.e., butane, propane, etc.) tanks and associated piping shall be thirty dollars per tank. (f) Tanks and piping for flammable liquids. Tanks and associated piping for flammable liquids shall be thirty dollars per tank. (g) Removal of fuel storage tanks. Removal of fuel storage tanks shall be the minimum fee; i.e., thirty dollars for each tank. (h) Fire suppression systems. The fire suppression system permit fee shall be as follows: (1) New construction, same as basic fee (subsection (c)(1) of this section); (2) All others, same as basic fee (subsection (c)(2) of this section). (i) Elevators, dumbwaiter, etc. The permit fee for elevators, dumbwaiters, moving stairways, moving walks, construction personnel hoists and conveying equipment shall be thirty dollars per unit. (j) Permit reissuance fee. The permit reissuance fee shall be the same as stated in section 4-8(n). (k) Amusement rides and devices. The permit fee for amusement rides and devices shall be set forth in the then current edition of the Virginia Amusement Device Regulations adopted by the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development. (6-16-88; 12-16-04.) The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // 40 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board revert back to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for the continuation of the General Services report. Kristen M. Mazur, County Engineer, advised the Board that CSX and Norfolk Southern are conducting a railroad project in Camptown and the County has agreed that the four (4) inch sewer force main that is being exposed will be lowered at the County?s expense. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that CSX Railroad has conducted major excavations at that site and are not required to obtain a permit from the County. He noted that this work is also being done in the Highway Corridor Overlay District and it is very difficult for citizens to understand how the Federal government is not required to obtain a permit, yet citizens are not allowed by law to harvest their own timber in that District and they must obtain a permit if they want to haul dirt. He noted that the Southern Development Committee was unsuccessful in getting them to clean up the right-of-way area. Supervisor Clark concurred with Supervisor Bradshaw, but added that railroads are afforded liberal rights under the Interstate Commerce Act. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board authorize funds in the amount of $100,000, which includes the CSX and Norfolk Southern?s fees and engineering design costs only. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Clark moved that he and Interim County Attorney Burton follow-up with staff; review appropriate letters and resolve the definition of railroad right-of-way and the Interstate Commerce Act. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Ms. Mazur advised that construction costs are undetermined by staff at this time. Mr. Rountree advised that construction work is necessary by the end of January 2008 as a result of the sanitary overflow issue. He noted that in 41 order to meet that timeframe, he would recommend that the County enter into an emergency contract with Tolar Construction. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the contract with Tolar Construction for the construction of eight (8) manholes for a sum not to exceed $50,000. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Responsive to Supervisor Bradshaw?s request for a status report on the Carrsville water system, Mr. Rountree advised that the pump issue has not yet been resolved; however, the line can be placed into service as the State has signed off on the County?s operating permit. He advised that problems associated with the control panel will be corrected soon by the manufacture?s representative. // Chairman Ivy called for the Emergency Communications report. Diane Jones, Communications Center Manager, advised that the State has advised that the funding stream for the Communication Center will change effective January 2008. She further advised that the 911 tax changed from $3.00 to $.75. She stated in the interest of continuing with an equitable funding formula and not having to rewrite the Memorandum of Understanding that governs the Communications Center, the Emergency Communications Board is recommending directing 50% of the Communications tax revenue for the funding of E-911 comparable to what the $3.00 E-911 tax was generating previously as a designated funding source for Center, which will allow the Center to operate at its current levels and allow for growth next year. She advised that the Memorandum of Understanding stipulates that the Towns pay a designated percentage, which the Town of Smithfield pays 25% and the Town of Windsor pays 8% beyond what the E-911 tax funds. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that it was brought to VACo?s attention that there were two (2) major vendors who had not paid their correct tax amount and those funds are anticipated to be returned to the localities. He stated that the County is anticipated to return to full funding level according to the information that he has received. Chairman Ivy moved that the Board forward the request of the Emergency Communications Board to direct 50% of the Communications Tax revenue for the funding of E-911 to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; 42 no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy noted that the Memorandum of Understanding may need to be revised. // Chairman Ivy called for the County Administrator?s report. Chairman Ivy requested a scenario be developed illustrating the cost of bi-annual payments versus the proposed Isle Pre-Pay program. Mr. Gwaltney advised that implementation of a bi-annual program would cost approximately $175,000 to implement the first year as opposed to $17,000 to implement the Isle Pre-Pay program. He stated that he recommended the Isle Pre-Pay Program, which is a voluntary program and he presented a Resolution to Appropriate Funds from the Unappropriated Fund Balance for Implementation of Isle Pre-Pay for the Board?s consideration. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ISLE PRE-PAY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia has approved the implementation of a pre-payment plan for personal property taxes referred to as ?Isle Pre-Pay?; and, WHEREAS, funds in the amount of seventeen thousand ($17,000) need to be appropriated from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to the FY 2007-08 Operating Budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that seventeen thousand ($17,000) from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund be appropriated to the FY 2007-08 Operating Budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate accounting adjustment in the budget and to do all things necessary to give this resolution effect. 43 The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. County Administrator Caskey stated responsive to Supervisor Clark?s previous direction at an earlier meeting, included in the agenda is information pertaining to the Southeastern Public Service Authority relative to the limited hours of operation to receive household hazardous waste at the transfer station. Supervisor Clark relayed a constituent?s concern with his inability to dispose of paint and other solvents at the SPSA transfer station unless it was rd between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and noon on every third (3) Friday of the month. He advised that such limited access only encourages law-abiding citizens to break the law. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that his vision is that the County?s convenience centers one day will be able to accept all household waste. He advised that he and Supervisor Wright have already been directed by the Board to work with staff on these types of issues. Mr. Rountree noted that the handling of hazardous waste requires extensive training and certification, which is the reason that the County is not currently handling these materials at its convenience centers. He added that due to cutbacks, SPSA has more than likely had to cut back on its number of certified operators. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board direct staff to invite representatives of SPSA to the Board?s December 13, 2007 meeting to address the hours of availability of the household hazardous collection facility located within the Isle of Wight Transfer Station and operated by SPSA. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator, distributed copies of a grant application for a Multi-Modal Planning Grant available through the State. He noted that the County?s consultant, Moffet & Nichols, is recommending that staff make application for planning assistance in the Central Development Service District. He further noted that the City of Suffolk is also encouraged to be a joint applicant. He advised that staff does not know the amount it will apply for at this time; however, the match is 10% and the City of Suffolk has agreed to split that match with the County. He stated that the County will have to expend funds for a master plan of that area regardless and some of these funds could be used to help offset the costs associated with the County?s Transportation Master Plan in the central 44 area. He noted that the Virginia Port Authority is also encouraging staff to apply for these funds. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board authorize staff to make a grant application and secure the necessary signatures. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for consideration of the Consent Agenda. A. Request for Proposal (RFP) ? Development of Countywide Long-Range Transportation Plan . Resolution to Authorize the Solicitation of Proposals for the Development of a Countywide Long-Range Transportation Plan B. Department of Motor Vehicles . Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Funding from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles C. Donation to Parks and Recreation Department ? Ceramic Bisque Figurines . Resolution to Accept Donated Boxes of Ceramic Bisque Figurines from Alice Cutchins D. Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) Grant Funds Received . Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Funds for the Office of Emergency Medical Services Consolidated Grant Program E. Economic Impact of Tourism in Virginia and Isle of Wight County F. New Business Activity for Calendar Year 2006 G. County Policy Amendments . Resolution to Amend the County Policy Manual Chapter 1, Article VI, Section 6.2, and Article IX, Section 9.0.-9.2 45 H. Monthly Financial Reports for County and Schools I. The application of J. T. Fries, owner, and Monster Storage, LLC, applicant, for a Preliminary Site Plan for proposed contractor warehouses. J. Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collection Monthly Report Supervisor Clark moved that the Consent Agenda be approved with Items (A) and (I) removed. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Relative to Item (A), Request for Proposal (RFP) ? Development of Countywide Long-Range Transportation Plan (Resolution to Authorize the Solicitation of Proposals for the Development of a Countywide Long-Range Transportation Plan), Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the Request for Proposal. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Ms. Mazur offered to request the involvement of the Towns of Smithfield and Windsor. Relative to Item (I), the application of J. T. Fries, owner, and Monster Storage, LLC, applicant, for a Preliminary Site Plan for proposed contractor warehouses, Supervisor Clark moved that the Board allow Fleeta Baggs, Michelle Jones and Drew Forest to speak regarding Item (I) to address deed restrictions and contractual issues regarding the property. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Fleeta Baggs of Newport News advised that she is on the Board of Directors of the Isle of Wight Industrial Park, which is composed of individual land owners. She advised that Attorney Bill Riddick prepared a contract in 1995 that this site will be used exclusively for mini-storage. Michelle Jones of 31 Gurwen Drive in Smithfield advised the Board that she possesses a contractual agreement with the Isle of Wight Industrial Park owners that stipulates that she will be the sole owner of any storage in the Park. She advised that she intends to do what she has to do with respect to civil litigation against the applicant. Drew Forest, Monster Storage, advised the Board that the applicant is applying for a storage facility. He advised that Attorney Suttle of Newport 46 News had made several attempts to contract Attorney Riddick, but was unsuccessful. He provided the Board a copy of the deed restrictions and noted that he had submitted his plans on September 11, 2007. Supervisor Clark commented that this is a civil matter and each person has the privilege of exercising his and her rights. He advised that this Board has no authority in this matter other than the approval of the site plan and he sees no reason for not approving it. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board approve the application of J. T. Fries and Monster Storage, LLC. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for Appointments. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board appoint Durwood Scott to serve on the Historical Architectural Review Committee, replacing Dorothy G. Gwaltney, representing the Windsor District. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Wright advised that William E. Laine, Jr. has requested that he be allowed to serve on the committee reviewing the proposed new courts building following his retirement. Supervisor Clark requested that County Administrator Caskey informally notify Mr. Laine that the Board is agreeable with him serving on the Courts building committee following his retirement. Chairman Ivy moved that the Board appoint Gary Terwilliger to serve on the Board of Building Appeal representing the Smithfield District. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for Old Business. A. The application of William C. Sawyer, Sr., owner, and Travis Latimer, applicant, for a change in zoning classification from Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) to Conditional-General Commercial (C-GC) of approximately 3.143 acres of land 47 located on the east side of Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17), south of Omera Drive in the Newport Election District. The purpose of the application is for commercial development as conditioned. Supervisor Clark recalled that the Board had tabled the application previously to allow time for the Route 17 Corridor Master Plan to be conducted. Ms. Walkup advised that Mr. Sawyer has amended his proffers to include motor vehicle; repair major; and, parts and supplies, which are included in the Board?s agenda package. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board approve the application of William C. Sawyer, Sr., owner, and Travis Latimer, applicant, with proffered conditions as amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4- 0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy called for consideration of the following request. B. The request of Elliot Cohen, owner, and Commonwealth Engineering Group, Ltd. to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Designation of Tax Map Parcels 34-01-108, and 34-01-108B in the Newport Development Service District from Suburban Estate to Business and Employment Growth. Said property, approximately 8.028 acres of land is located on the east side of Carrollton Boulevard (Rt. 17), south of Sugar Hill Road (Rt. 661) in the Newport Election District. The proposed use of the property is for commercial shopping along Route 17 with an office complex in the rear. Ms. Walkup advised that this application was tabled previously to allow for the Route 17 Corridor Master Plan to be conducted. She advised that the applicant has met the criteria that staff felt was appropriate for this application and it is consistent with the Master Plan. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board approve the request of Elliot Cohen, owner, and Commonwealth Engineering Group, Ltd. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy called for consideration of the following: C. The request of Elliot Cohen, owner and contract purchaser, and Commonwealth Engineering Group, Ltd., applicant, to amend 48 the Comprehensive Land Use Designation of Tax Map Parcels 34B-01-014, 34B-01-015, 34B-01-016, 34B-01-017, and 34B- 01-018 in the Newport Development Service District from Suburban Estate to Mixed Use Activity Center. Said property, approximately 2.58 acres of land is located on the west side of Carrollton Boulevard (Rt. 17), north of Cedar Grove Road (Rt. 661) in the Newport Election District. The proposed use of the property is for attached single family homes. Ms. Walkup stated that the above is presented for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and one (1) of the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission is because this is being requested to be changed to Mixed Use Activity Center, that the Comprehensive Plan recommendation or approval is conditional upon single-family attached residential. She advised that this application would also have to go through a rezoning and site plan approval. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the request of Elliot Cohen, owner and contract purchaser, and Commonwealth Engineering Group, Ltd., applicant, based on the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Chairman Ivy called for New Business. Steven A. Aigner, Coordinator of Fire and EMS, requested approval of a transfer of $3,000 from the Board?s Contingency line item to the appropriate line item in the Emergency Services Department?s budget for the purpose of hiring a firm to assist that Department and the Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association with the development of a Strategic Plan. Chairman Ivy moved that the Board authorize the transfer of $3,000 from the Board?s contingency line item to the appropriate line item in the Emergency Services Department?s budget. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw introduced a request by Mayor Frank, as well as from the President of the Virginia Health Care Systems, for financial assistance from the County in the amount of $.05 per capita. Chairman Ivy commented that this is just another example of the State not funding its own responsibilities. 49 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board allocate $.05 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance and direct the County Administrator to send a strongly written letter from the Chairman to the members of the General Assembly, to include a copy of the check, emphasizing the Board?s position that the County can not continue to financially manage the unfunded mandates that are being pushed down from the State as it is unduly placing the tax burden on the real estate tax rate and all property owners in the County. The motion was adopted by a vote of (3-1) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; Chairman Ivy voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that Mr. Catron has announced his retirement as Director of Social Services effective December 1, 2007. He stated that there is currently a lack of leadership in that Department because there is also no Assistant Director at this time. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board authorize County Administrator Caskey to allow Donald T. Robertson, Director of Information Resources and Legislative Affairs, to provide administrative and managerial support to the Social Services Department on a short-term basis, subject to the approval of the Social Services Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Chairman Ivy commented that this is yet another example where the County has to step in and provide manpower for an office that is the responsibility of the State. Supervisor Bradshaw reported that he had been elected First Vice- President of VACo. He noted that regional Courthouse meetings will be hosted in the Spring and that VACo?s legislative program has been adopted. He distributed copies of items discussed in the Board of Director?s meeting to County Administrator Caskey for dissemination to the Board. He further provided a copy of a draft letter for dissemination to the Board from the VACo Board of Directors to the Virginia Congressional delegation regarding immigration, which reflects the VACo Board of Director?s position that although immigration is a Federal issue, local governments are concerned about it, particularly with respect to how it impacts education and other major services within the State. He disseminated copies of information regarding the State tax reform, as well as a report regarding tax reductions that have been enacted since 1985, which reflects that the State budget contains less revenues than in year?s past. He stated that included in the Governor?s biennium budget are the Pre-K and K-12 Program; initiatives regarding the access to higher education by students throughout the Commonwealth; an increase in research and capital for higher education; the First Lady?s program for expanding the foster care program; and, additional 50 funding for mental health issues. He advised that the fiscal analysis reports that the above programs can be accomplished with no increase in revenues. He stated with respect to the budget shortfall, the Governor has closed half the gap; however, the budget was based on expected revenue growth and, of the expected revenue growth, the increase in transportation funding equaled one-half. He advised that transportation funding would be left intact and the Finance Committees of the General Assembly would be meeting in December, 2007 to discuss what other aspects of the budget can be cut. He stated that the Governor, through administrative cuts and other changes, has handled the majority of the cuts in the proposed budget. He noted that the State budget contains no increases for State employees or teachers. He advised that the car tax cost the State $1.9 billion out of a $35 billion two- year budget. He stated the Homestead Exemption proposal is being supported by the Governor and is equal to a 20% reduction in revenues. Supervisor Bradshaw provided County Administrator Caskey with information on the Alliance for Virginia Students, a grass roots organization that is working on fully funding SOQs for dissemination to the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that VACo has established a committee to develop a strategic plan on desired changes to the Dillon Rule for formal presentation to the General Assembly. Supervisor Bradshaw provided County Administrator Caskey with information on the free NACo Cost Control Associates service which provides telecom and energy cost containment for review by the Director of Budget and Finance. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that he had attended a seminar on land preservation. He stated that the County is impacted on the land conservation portion and staff needs to be kept informed on this issue. Supervisor Bradshaw distributed information to County Administrator Caskey relative to mental health programs for dissemination to the Board. He advised that he would be providing County Administrator Caskey with information regarding the Commission on Mental Health?s Patient Advocate Foundation, which he recommends be placed on the County?s website so that citizens can be informed on mental health and other issues. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that he would be meeting with Mr. Robertson and the County?s Policy and Management Team on the Comprehensive Services Act in the near future because Judges are creating undue burdens on the localities when they override a local policy. Supervisor Bradshaw provided Fairfax County?s presentation on energy management. He recommended that an energy development plan be developed at the Board?s Retreat for inclusion in the County?s Strategic Plan. 51 Supervisor Bradshaw advised that the County had received awards from VACo relative to PACE Program and the Social Services Fast Forward Program. Supervisor Clark reported that he had attended a seminar on partisan politics and was able to request Delegate Bryan Moran?s and Terry Kilgore?s support for equal taxing authority between cities, towns and counties He stated they were also favorable about repealing the Abuser Fee Statute. He stated that he also had the opportunity to discuss how the County does not want to repeal the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority, but does want to make changes in the fee structure. He stated that they had indicated that they would be receptive to that, but doubted the will of the General Assembly to make any major changes in that regard. Supervisor Clark reported that he had attended a two (2) part seminar on smart growth which dealt with road impact fees and he suggested that Dan Sloan be invited to address the Board regarding issues surrounding the Benn?s Grant development. Supervisor Clark reported on the High Growth Coalition meeting, an organization which provides an earlier reading of the Bills as they come in on what the development community is doing regarding the County?s ability to control growth. Supervisor Wright reported that he had attended an Agricultural/Environmental Committee meeting wherein the issue of banning of plastic bags was discussed and is supported by the agricultural community. He advised that the issue was forwarded on for further study and presentation to the General Assembly. Supervisor Wright advised that he had attended meetings on immigration, stormwater runoff, economical and affordable homes and communicating with the General Assembly. Relative to the issue of a consumer utility tax exemption for charitable organizations, Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board direct Interim County Attorney Burton to return to the Board with information at its December 13, 2007 meeting relative to how the County can have an exemption for the Consumer Utility Tax for charitable organizations and that the County Attorney be directed to contact the Commissioner of Revenue to determine the impact to the County. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Relative to Ms. Sowell?s comments earlier in the meeting regarding the Camptown School Memorial Park, Chairman Ivy moved that the Board 52 direct County Administrator Caskey to prepare a letter for signature by the Chairman stating that the County is fully behind this project and has funded it to date in an amount of $25,000 as an investment in the community. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that County Administrator Caskey be directed to set up a meeting, to include Supervisor Bradshaw and representatives of IP to investigate the possibility of acquiring the riverfront property due to its visibility for possible use as a site to locate the above project. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // Interim County Attorney Burton requested a Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711.A.7 for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to a specific contract relative to SPSA. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board enter the Closed Meeting for the reason stated by Interim County Attorney Burton. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board return to open session. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the following Resolution be adopted by the Board: 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; 53 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: Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING : Brown Chairman Ivy moved that the Board appoint Supervisor Wright to serve on the Board?s Finance Committee along with Supervisor Bradshaw. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board direct staff to amend the County?s legislative agenda to request that the legislators review appropriate legislation to secure social numbers in the Clerk of Circuit Court?s office. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. // At 10:10 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adjourn its meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent from the meeting. __________________________ Thomas R. Ivy, Chairman ____________________________ Carey Mills Storm, Clerk 54 . WOl] 1U::lSqB UMOJS: lOS!Al::ldnS 'pUB :UO!lOW :::Il.[l lSU!B'6B OU ~UO!lOW ::ll{1 JO .lOAB] 1I! :BunOA ll.[:BPA\ pUB AAI SlOS!A1::ldnS l.[l!M (O-V) JO ::llOA B ,(q p::lldOp13 SUM. 1I0!lOW Sl! UmOfpB plBOS: ~l{l 1Bl.[l p::lAOW M13l.[SpUlg lOS!Al::ldns 0 { 1/ ''6U!l::l::lW ;;)4l WOl] 1U~SqU UMOJg lOS!Al::ldnS 'pUB :UO!lOW ::l411SlI!B'6B '6l1nOA SlOS!Al::ldnS ou :uopow ;:)1.[1]0 10ABj U! '6UpOA lll'6PM. pll13 AAI ')j1B[) 'Mu4spBlg SlOS!Al::ldnS l{l!M (O-v) JO ::llOA 13 Aq P~ldopB SBM uonow ::ll.[.1 '::l::l!Jjo S,lmO;) l!n::lJ!;) ]0 )jl::ll;) ::l4l U! Sl::lqwnu 113)::10S ::lJn:);;)S 01 UO!lBlS!'6::l1