Loading...
10-21-1993 Regular Meeting ~ REGULAR .MEETING OF THE ISLE OF .WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY THREE PRESENT: Steve W. Edwards, Chairman O. A. Spady, .Vice Chairman Henry. H. Bradby Joel C. Bradshaw, Jr. Also Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney (Arrived at 6:35 p.m.) Myles E. Standish, County Administrator ' W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County Administrator/Community Development Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the .County Administrator Carey H. Mills, Assistant Clerk Absent: Malcolm T. Cofer Chairman Edwards called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The invocation was delivered by Supervisor Spady. // Chairman Edwards called for Citizens Comments. Richard L. Turner distributed a sheet illustrating the fence installed around the two lakes on the Renney .property behind the Smithfield Shopping Center; In addition, Mr. Turner distributed a survey between the owners of the property, specifically the Camps and the Renneys, in which the property was deeded to the Gwaltneys. Mr. Turner stated fence posts -have been installed from the Gwaltney properky around the lake to the Gwaltney property although the fence has not yet been stretched. Mr. Turner noted under the Carnp's original application there was not a fence requirement; however, the current ordinance does require fencing and he needs direction. from khe Board on how he should proceed in this regard. Supervisor Spady noted that the County Attorney was not yet present; however, he 'would recommend Mr. Turner install the ,fence up to the Gwaltney property after County staff has had an opportunity to contact the Gwaltneys as to whether or not they want the fence located there. Chairman Edwards stated the Board may wish to receive the County Attorney's comments before taking any action on the matter. ~~ n i~ Supervisor Bradshaw stated it may be appropriate for the County to acquire written documentation concerning the fence so that problems do not occur later when lots are subdivided. Supervisor Spady stated if lots are subdivided and plats recorded the fence can be removed because it will no longer be a borrow pit, but rather a subdivision. 90~K ~5~-'~^f487 1 ~• Chairman Edwards noted when property is subdivided, fencing .requirements will be addressed under the conditions of the subdivision application. Mr. Turner .stated the County fair is scheduled for the weekend of September 15, 1994 and requested the Board to take action to incorporate the upcoming 360th anniversary into the celebration. Chairman Edwards moved the Board extend an invitation to the officials of Isle of Wight, England and that the County incorporate the upcoming 360th anniversary into the celebration. The motion was unanimously {4-0) adopted. // Chairman Edwards called for Transportation Matters. MacFarland Neblett, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, noted the South Church Street project in Smithfield is anticipated to be completed by the contractor this calendar year and the Route 646 project, replacing the wooden bridge with a concrete structure, is also on schedule. 1 Supervisor Bradshaw requested the status of signatures for the right of ways. Mr. IVTeblett replied VDOT is in the process of right of way research and the VDOT survey party has not had an opportunity to meet with Ms. Rhodes to stake off the curve. Supervisor Bradshaw requested the status. of the road at Joyner's Bridge.. Mr. Neblett stated he would ask.David Stanley to begin working on this matter. Supervisor Bradby requested the status of Route 681, specifically if the right of way has been staked off. Mr. Neblett stated the VDOT survey party should be able to have this completed within the next two weeks. Mr. Bradby requested the status of Route 650, specifically VDOT acquiring the necessary signatures of landowners in order to .proceed. Cliff Overby of Whispering Pines Trail stated Mr. Atkins, who formerly would not sign, is deceased and his wife is willing to cooperate. Mr. Neblett stated he would speak with Mr. Overby regarding the matter. Supervisor Spady requested the status of Laurelwood Drive. David Stanley with VDOT stated. he met last week with the: City of eodK 15:R.:~488 ~.~. Suffolk and wishes to meet with County staff because of the problem regarding the turn around and additional right of way that is required. Supervisor Spady requested VDOT repair the potholes on Highways 1002 and 1004. Supervisor Spady noted there is a drainage line under Route 665 that continually sinks and requested VDOT repair the road. Supervisor Bradby requested VDOT repair the hard surface shoulder on Bradby Lane where school buses are turning around causing the payment to break. Chairman Edwards requested Mr. Neblett to elaborate on the road along Rowland Equipment Company. J. B. Whitmore of Smithfield requested the road be upgraded between the pole and. ditch line. Mr. Whitmore stated the utility pole is located in the middle of the road creating a traffic hazard and, to date, he has been unsuccessful in determining the owner of the pole. Mr. Neblett stated upon review of VDOT's records they did not reveal any agreement with Virginia Power regarding the pole and Virginia Power is now checking their records to see if there ever was such an agreement or easement so that it can be determined who is responsible for the pole. Mr. Neblett stated the road was originally built as a service road to part of the Delk farm which was divided by the bypass when ik was built. Since 1972, several businesses have developed along this road and he has informed Mr. Whitmore that once the pole is moved VDOT would then be in a position to make improvements to the road. Mr. Whitmore stated when VDOT bought the property for the bypass they bought the right of way with the pole on it and the .road was built around it on both sides. Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Neblett if Virginia Power had an easement prior to VDOT purchasing the property. Mr. Neblett stated not that he was aware of. This pole is a service pole to the building owned by Mr. Whitmore. Mr. Neblett stated the service road's original intent when it was built in 1972 in conjunction with the bypass. was to serve the landlocked piece of property owned by the Gwaltneys. .What was constructed was. satisfactory for .that purpose and since that .time businesses have developed along .the road. Mr. Neblett stated Virginia Power representatives have informed him it would take two to three weeks to complete their research and get back to him and at that time hopefully a suitable arrangement can be reached between the two. County Attorney Crook arrived at 6:35 p.m. stating that he had been delayed in a court trial in Surry. Mr. Neblett stated he will advise the Board within the next ten .days on action taken by the Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding which alternative. for the Jones Creek bridge replacement will be pursued. W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County Administrator/Community ~` 1 1 ,; BONN 15.~~r..'4g~ ~» Development, stated included in the agenda is a brief report on the status of the Comprehensive stormwater Detention Agreement provided to the County by VDOT which the County Attorney briefed the Board on at the last meeting. Mr. Caskey stated there are now seven localities out of ninety four that have entered into the agreement with VDOT. Mr. Caskey noted VDOT's policy has changed relative to acceptance of roads into the State's Secondary Road System. Mr. Neblett stated James City County and York County have also entered into an agreement with VDOT in addition to the seven localities listed in the agenda. Mr. Neblett stated VDOT will now be able to accept subdivision or rural addition roads that do not necessitate a stormwater detention pond; however, VDOT will still require the agreement to cover those roads now and in the future that do necessitate a stormwater detention pond. Mr. Neblett stated an offer has been made to the County through Mr. Casket' and the City of Suffolk to have a joint. meeting with VDOT secondary roads personnel to answer any questions concerning the agreement. Mr. Neblett stated VDOT does not review subdivision plans for stormwater detention or retention ponds, rather under the Chesapeake Bay Act those responsibilities are left to the County. 1 County Administrator Standish stated the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC} has adopted a position calling for a more equitable approach by VDOT and -the matter will be taken up as a legislative item this year. Mr. Standish pointed out .that the Board of Supervisors of James City County .and York County adopted the VDOT agreement with amendments. Supervisor Spady suggested the Board may wish to table action on the .matter until the meeting between the City of Suffolk and. the County with VDOT has occurred because it may result in some kind of amendment to the .agreement. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board table action on the matter. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. 1 Mr. Caskey stated in June several citizens approached the Board addressing a potentially hazardous condition at the intersection of Carrollton Boulevard and Kings Cove Way adjacent to the Racetrac facility. Responsive to that, VDOT was requested to conduct an analysis of the intersection and submit recommendations as to whether or not there was a potentially adverse situation there. with the new traffic counts and, if so, what recourse should be .taken to resolve these problems. Mr. Caskey stated included in the agenda are VDOT's recommendations for the Board's information. Mr. Casket' noted RaceTrac is willing to install the necessary , stop signs on their side of the property line and the details to accomplish same are in the process of being worked out. Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form SR- 5(A), (specifically Johnson Circle from Route 616 to Route 58 to a cul-de- eo~~ ' '15 -RCr4~~0 ,.~. sac), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the street(s) meet the requirements established in accordance with secondary road policies and the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Isle of Wight County Subdivision Ordinance relating to acceptance of streets into the State's Secondary Road System.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and .the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this Board guarantees a clear and _ unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Mr. Casket' stated included in the agenda is a report involving a primary revenue sharing surplus of $15,036.16 available from a previously completed transportation safety project. Mr. Casket' stated the County's share of the surplus balance is $7,518.08. Supervisor Spady moved the Board return the funds to the revenue sharing fund. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Mr. Casket' noted included in the agenda is a status update of Raynor Road for the Board's information. // Chairman Edwards called for the Community Development report. W. Douglas Casket', Assistant County Administrator/Community Development, presented the following for the Board's consideration: A. Application of the Trustees of Whitehead's Grove :Baptist Church for a Conditional Use Permit to locate an identification sign eighteen (18) feet from. the street right-of-way at 18366 Berms Church Boulevard (Routes 10/32) in Newport Magisterial District. Mr. Casket' stated the Planning Commission considered the application. and no opposition was presented. There was, however, discussion relative to the applicant's representation of the proposed sign I ~~ 1 Bo~K 15:~~-4~1 ~.~. and following the public hearing the Planning Commission discussed the , application relative to the new sign's location as compared to the existing sign's location.. and its compliance with the Highway Corridor Overlay District. Mr. Caskey stated the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application as presented. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve the application of the Trustees of Whitehead's Grove Baptist Church. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. B. Application of George F, Walls, owner, and Cliff A. Overby, lessee, for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a business sign one and one-half (1 1 / 2) feet from the street right-of-way at 17176 Courthouse Highway (Route 258) in Newport Magisterial District. 1 Mr. Caskey stated the property is currently zoned B-1 Business and the applicant has requested a variation to the required setback of thirty-five feet from the public right of way for an on-premises business identification sign. Mr. Caskey noted there is a guardrail at this location which separates the sign location and the property from the vehicular roadway and the Planning Commission in considering this application was presented a letter and petition of support of the request. During .the public hearing the applicant presented information representing the need for the sign and verifying that the sign would be comparable in design to existing signage that appears on the Courthouse property located in the historical district. The Planning Commission discussed the design of the. sign, particularly its importance with keeping with the Courthouse historic district, and expressed concerns relative to the approval of the detached sign so close to the right of way and the precedent this will set. Mr. Caskey stated the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend .denial of the application to the Board. Cliff Overby of Whispering Pines Trail appeared to .answer any questions the Board might have. Chairman Edwards asked Mr. Overby if the sign could be installed eight feet from the right of way and still be visible from both directions. Mr. Overby stated the sign could be installed in front of the pine trees which is approximately eight feet. Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Overby how far the pines trees were from the right of way. Mr. Overby replied from the pine trees to the road right of way is approximately fifteen feet. Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Overby if he would be willing to install the sign further back. Mr. Overby replied "'yes" if the sign can be installed where it can be seen from the roadway. ~, eooN ' 15 ~~r-4~? ~ Fred Walls, representing the landowner, stated the pine trees would have to be removed if the sign was installed any closer to the building to .make the sign visible to motorists. Supervisor Bradshaw noted the building was built before any of the existing County ordinances and could possibly fall under the. Grandfather clause. Supervisor Bradshaw stated the Courthouse complex has been in need of a restaurant for quite some time and he saw no reason to deny the request. Supervisor Bradby concurred with Supervisor Bradshaw in that the Courthouse complex has been in need of a facility close by that sells food and he would be in favor of allowing Mr. Overby to install a sign at a location where it can be seen because this would determine whether or not the facility can stay in business and continue to serve the Courthouse facility. Mr. Overby stated he would be willing to install the sign back as far as the pine trees. County Attorney Crook stated the Board's motionshould include a designated number of feet. Mr. Overby stated he believed he could install the sign seven feet from the right of way. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board allow Mr. Overby to install the sign seven. feet from the road right of way. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. // At 7:08 p.m., upon. Supervisor Spady moving the Board amend the order of the agenda, which passed unanimously (4-0), .Chairman Edwards called for the following public hearings: A. FY1994-1999 Capital Improvements Program Robert P. Leber, member of the Planning Commission and Chairman of the Capital Improvements Subcommittee, stated the proposed CIP was prepared in accordance with State law and the County's Comprehensive Plan. .Section 15.1-464 of the Virginia law states local Planning Commissions may, and at the direction of the governing body, shall prepare and revise annually a CIP based on the Comprehensive Plan of the County for a period not to exceed the ensuing five years and such CIP shall include the Planning Commission's recommendations and estimates of costs of such facilities and the means of financing same. In preparation of the recommendations, the Chief Administrative Office and other heads of departments and interested citizens and organizations shall be consulted as deemed. necessary. In addition, the County's Comprehensive Plan requires the CIP be structured to support the goals and objectives of the Plan and the Planning Commission kept the eight following objectives in mind while developing .the program: 1) to build facilities required to support the County's public service responsibilities, (2) to support the Comprehensive 1 l BOOM ~5 ~^^~~:73 1 1 1 Plan's physical development. objectives of growth management and preservation of the County's rural character, (3) to ensure the availability of sufficient developable ..land to accommodate 'and attract private development consistent .with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, (4) to improve financial planning by comparing needs with available resources and estimating future bond and debt service and identify tax rate implications, (5) to establish priorities among projects so that scare resources are effectively used, (6) to plan public facility construction so as to coordinate timing and functional relations, (7) to provide a concise central. source of information on all planned public construction and acquisitions for interested citizens and agencies and interested groups, and (8) to allow the County to use its full zoning authority upon adoption of the CIP.. OE particular importance is Section 15.1-491-2-1 of Virginia law which states rio proffer shall be accepted by the County unless it has adopted a CIP pursuant to Section 15.1-464. The following major components of the CIP are:. 1) $15.1 million for public schools; 2) Public Utilities at $10.2 million; 3) development of the County Recreational Facilities- at $2.2 million; 4) development of the industrial park in Windsor at $1.7 million; and 5) construction of the new Health Department facilities at $1.3 million. These components represent $30.5 million of the $33.9 million of the CIP and the Planning Commission recommends the planned expenditures in these five components be financed through a combination of general obligation and revenue bonds supplemented by annual revenues. The remaining 10% of the planned expenditures amount to $717,000 in annual expenditures for the smaller projects that reflect the historical capital program which consist of law enforcement and fire and rescue vehicles .that would be funded with annual revenues. The transmittal letter from the Planning Commission to the Board for the. CIP includes a list of eight recommendations included in last year's plan for implementing the 1992-1997 CIP. In addition to these eight recommendations, there are four recommendations included in this year's program. It is the Planning Commission's recommendation that in order for the CIP to be successful these twelve items should be addressed by the Board and the recommendations. followed. Chairman Edwards stated the newspapers reported on a proposal for a building for emergency services in the future. Chairman Edwards further stated there was a discussion relative to a requirement of the rescue squads and Eire departments raising half of the funds for any future building and asked Ivlr. Leber if this recommendation was in the final :report. Mr. Leber stated included in the cover letter dated September 14,1993 from the Planning Commission to the Board were four recommendations of which three address the emergency service organizations in the County. Mr. Leber stated the fourth recommendation states "It is recommended the Board of Supervisors establish a funding formula which clearly sets forth the maximum amount of the County's financial contribution toward the purchase of capital equipment by the County's emergency service organizations." The purpose of these recommendations is aimed at helping the County's emergency service organizations better plan for the future and the Planning Commission is recommending that the Board have a consensus as to what will be the practice for sharing ratios on major projects. Chairman Edwards called for comments from the public on the proposed Plan. ,. eoeK ; . 15 -~~r~4~4 Wesley Garris, President of the Windsor Volunteer Fire Department, requested the Board move the purchase of an engine for the Windsor Volunteer Fire Department from FY1996-97 to FY1994-95. Chairman Edwards moved the Board approve the 1994-99 CIP as presented with an amendment to move the purchase of an engine for the Windsor Volunteer Fire Department up to FY1994-95. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. • B. The application of Daniel M. Keusal for a change in zoning classification from A-1, Agricultural Limited to CR-A, Conditional Rural Residential approximately 70 acres of land located ~ on the east side of Smith's Neck Road (Route 665), between Yellow Rock Lane and Johnson Lane in Newport Magisterial District. The purpose of the. application is for no more than. twenty (20) rural residential single family home sites. William Riddick, attorney representing Daniel M. Keusal, presented the Board aerial photographs of the property which is a 70 acre tract of land located off Route 665 in-the Carrollton area. Attorney Riddick stated at the Planning Commission meeting his applicant proffered an additional condition stipulating none of the other lots would ever be subdivided thereby making the. property limited to no .more than twenty lots. The property would be served by a private central water system and individual septic systems and Mr. Keusal has offered restrictive covenants such as a square footage requirement and a tree preservation provision, he stated. Supervisor Spady inquired whether there was a dedicated right of way for ingress and egress for the subdivision. Attorney Riddick stated there is a deed of easement of record in the Courthouse although there is not a plat and Mr. Keusal would proffer that the exact location would be established and platted before any lots were conveyed. County Attorney Crook stated Mr. Keusal's written proffers provide that the access road shall be designed, engineered and .constructed in .conformance. with the minimum VDOT standards for such subdivision roads; however, when the subdivision plat is presented for approval Mr. Keusal will have to have the access .road platted and bonded along with the subdivision streets. .Upon no one speaking in favor of or opposition to the application, Chairman Edwards closed the public hearing and called for a motion from the Board. Supervisor Spady moved the Board approve the application of Daniel M. Keusal. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. // At 7:35 p.m., Supervisor Spady moved the Board proceed with the .; eooK 15.~~,~4~5 ~.~. regular order of the agenda. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted.. ~'~ ~' At 7:36 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board take a kert-minute break. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. At 7:59 p.m., upon returning to open session, Chairman Edwards called for the remainder of the Community Development report. C. Preliminary subdivision plat of Cedar Grove, Owen Farm Road (Route 1903), .Newport Magisterial District. 1 Mr. Casket' stated the tract of land totals twenty five acres in size, is currently :zoned R-1 Residential and lots #26 through #33 are proposed for final plat approval. The development plans were originally submitted in June of 1990 and the preliminary plat was previously reviewed, considered and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in 1990. The Board may wish for the County Attorney to address the fact that since. the point in time that the Planning Commission previously reviewed and recommended approval of the preliminary plat the County has adopted certain ordinances and requirements that do and may affect certain aspects of this subdivision. The question which needs to be addressed. is whether or not there. is any degree of vesting on the part of the developer's prior actions. and submittal of this plat and engineering plans, and the process that was followed in 1990. At the Planning Commission's meeting in September of 1993, the preliminary plat was considered and discussed relative to its relationship to the County's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance and Floodplain Management District ordinances. Mr. Casket' stated the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the preliminary plat to the Board subject to the revisions requested by the Department of Community Development staff pertaining to incidental revisions that must occur in terms of notations or additional information on the plat and specifically the issue of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance's application to the subdivision. Supervisor Spady questioned why the preliminary plat went before the Planning Commission but was never brought to the Board for consideration. Mr. Casket' stated because the process did not complete itself from. the developer's side. The Subdivision Ordinance provides that if a preliminary plat is not followed up with a final plat submitted within six months then the plat is considered null and void. W. B. Owen of Carrollton. stated at the time the plat was submitted it was done at the direction of the former County Planner, Bill McKay. Mr. Owen stated his understanding at the time the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance was being discussed was that if the development plans were submitted and approved they meet the criteria of the commitment to develop. County Attorney Crook stated there is a letter submitted by Mr. Owen to the Board dated October 18th and attached is the letter of Mr. Courtney and a letter to Mr. Owen from Bryan David. Mr. Crook stated if Mr. Owen eoeN 1J :~~• agreed, he would like to ask that his letter be made a part of therecord but Crook continued, ~,he would first like to correct something in the letter. Mr. in the letter Mr. Owen is saying that he discussed the matter with the County Attorney and that he was advised according to a court decision only the Board of Supervisors had the authority to grant the limited vested rights. Mr. Crook stated this is a misunderstanding on Mr. Owen s part. He had informed Mr. Owen that under the Virginia Supreme Court decision, an administrative official cannot grant limited vested rights. The Virginia Supreme Court has held that it is a judicial determination and not properly- performed by an administrative official. Mr. Crook stated he suggested to Mr. Owen that he bring the matter to the Board because neither Mr. Casket' nor Mr. Standish could make that kind of decision under the Supreme Court cases. Mr. Crook explained the Chesapeake Bay Act has brought most of these questions about and there are more requirements under the Chesapeake Bay.Act than the County had when the preliminary plat was submitted to the Board. The qu rdinancesthat the Owen have to comply with the Act as well as the other o County has adopted, stated Mr. Crook. -This question came up in the Ashby Subdivision previously and it is not clear as to .what determines whether something is vested or not. Rather, it depends on what they have done, such as development and subdivision plans, engineering, expending sums of money to the .point that it would be inequitable. to say that they cannot proceed. The Ashby Subdivision was approved with the requirement that the owner comply with all ordinances and. all requirements, including the Chesapeake Bay Act, to the maximum extent feasible which is the best that the Board can do. Mr. Crook stated this can be taken to court by the State department concerning the Chesapeake Bay Act or any environmental agency, or the developers among others. Carrolltorr, VA 23319 • Octob~t 18, 1993 Board of supervisors Isle of Wight County Isle of Wight, VA 23397 fiE: Cedar Grove Gentlemen: I submit ttrr following in regards to the above suUdivision. At the tinrC I decided to leave titr: County Adurinistratot position in 198G, I began long. t~•zru planning of tltC development of oux family property. wi: lrad part of the pzop~rty rezoned, fi-1 at that time, This amounted to about one-half of the fazri~ and i:; the part I e:•.peeted to develop in the foreseeable future. Thi:; would bG a continuation of ttrr property development that began in t1•re 1950'::. In the 1970's and 1)80's additional parcels of tyre .farm wets developed. It was d~terrnined at that time that the future of the tarm would be residential developrirent, rsprcially since all Land Use Plans stated this way ttre are•~ 'for residential growth. when di:.cussiotls Dey~ar~ or, t1~-e C-•~e:;lpeake Bay. ordir-•_rllc~, I inquired of William McKay, then, the County Planner and thr Chesapeake Bay Ordinance person, as to haw we could pzotc:ct the development rights or our property that had been rezoned for development. Mr. McKay said if we went to the expense of having an engineered set of developu-ent plan:;.{purvey, topography reap, stYCUts, ~>:ainagu, and waLcr lines) ;;uburitted to acrd approved by thr Planning Corruui~sion, this would ureet the criteria to earn some vested benrtlt:.. {COZr?shor,drrrcr fzorn H. Wayne Courtney, L.s. of Azt fiat' Corp to Mr. Mck:ay attacl~~ed an also in the County's ':ile. ) .t~a 1 1 1 1 1 BOCK ~5 ~'r:'4:'7 Therefore in accordance with.Mr. McKay'3 direction, we ,,,pent thousand of dollars. in ha~•iny engir-eereWCa~vsubpitted plans prepared for two tract:: of land. They to and approved by the Planning Commissior-. one is Quail 1::, t... Meadows and the other is Cedar Grove. Quail Meadows was to have bezn started first and p were prepared toward that end. Because of the topography, several hill site 1otJcdvit_~guthem~tar,d theiBoardooffZoninge on the curved t•L'rect Appeals granted a variance. Alvo a con:,iderable amount oY underbrush and :;mc-il trees wvrc learcdT! i;;rnishinfor atiortto to make them more open and appea_ing. let you know of our attempt to develop. t1-e The intrndcd source of water fur Quail Mc:aduws wa*, Itrewcr':. Creek water ;;y;;t.c,n, t.t-cu under corrstruct~~~n• However, Brewer's Creek, like Ashby in which I am involved, has beer, ,~tyrn::d by L't-e new E.P.A. rules anc] r.uuld not y_~st its watez ~ystzm approved. Slnce water was not available, ©c:velopmc:nt of Quail Meadow:; 1~-ad to stop. In 1991, in antic:ip~-tion of having tv develop-some of cYdar Grove, I reyue~:ted a clarification, from tl~-z Cvur-vested t1~-e :status of C~uail Meadows and Cedar Grove regarding benefits under the Chesapeake Bay Ordir,ancc. A letter ftoin Bryan David is attached. In ttte middle of ti-e third ted paragraph Mr. David state:: the property has "11-nited vc:. rights". While the letter addtes::ed Qua-il Meadows, tltc e:~:aet s,a-ne :situation exi_;t. reyardiny_ C.ud~ei Grove. Several uwnt.h:, ay~~, ~ t, t,~_~Jmr• n~.~,cr.`•ary to i~ruceed with a 17art Of GciiC-r (iruve lute l.u 1~1 1-!l.:, ~~u •.-,~ ~_:..~•L1uy w..,LuY i,yst~.rrr) , I was tl•,en advised Cry Mr . David that tl~-z "1 i,nited vested rights" on Cedar Grove and Qu.ri1 Meadows nu lungur existed because there had nut been "cuntir-uous development" ever- though there i:; no definition fur "continuous development" . Two things arc important to note here. Or-~ i~awCewcre ur-able to develop as we planned be~~ause of circwns beyond our control and the .other is our^histoJections based development. We t--ave always deve~oped ,,mall nn need. We do iiot have the itruai;:rse financial rESOUrce:: necessary to develop all the property at one ti-nE--nor do we think that st,ould be requited. In a subse~7uent discussion of this prohlc~,n with County Attorr-ey Woodrow Grouk, I was advised that acc''adit9rto a court decision, only the Eoard of Supe:rvisors~~ We believe authority to yr~nt the "limited ve::ted riyht~ . the "limited vested right:," should be granted. All cffort~ were made to meet tfic: re~7uirerrrents fur that . tae bel is 1 t-We.~s have earned tyre "r igt~-t~" ti, carry ~~ut our lor-g-ran-ye p a continuation of the devclopme:nt ~f the family faun. 1i ll,~: "liu,iL~:d vi:si:i~r] i i,ihl" ar~• r-Ut ~)r~-nt•-il, it' will nut only re::ult. In tl,uus~nJ:: vi d•~ll.+r:. vt ~-,y_ i r,ceL my c....t.:. being lost, but it will result In several hur-dred thuu::.xnd dollars of lossi:a of lots. some of tl~-ese lot: are l~,ills two or more acres in aria. . We thank you for your fwozable rc:;ponse to this teque~t. Yours truly, W. $. ~ ~n Arun Owen Gildncz .. eoo~ 15 ~~n~4~8 ~. May 4, 1990 Mr. Bill Mckay, County Planner. Isle of Haight Oo., VA 23397 Bill 60o p~( Dear , _ Relative to our discussion o! approximately four ~~which were~underwaye Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and its irtq?act on projects at the time of ita itcplemteof converbsation~~ty of Isle of Wight, I offer my understanding of the roc ro acts completed. As you know my major concern was not what would occur to P ~ but about prior to the act or projects began after its adoption by the coun~e aunty. I those that .were in progress at the time of its implementation b1- fanning of zelated to you my concern as to bow to advise my clients concerning p projects that were at this time in the preliminary stages. You gave me Your opinion as to how the county would view these matters and related what I thought to be a very common sense approach to the matter. If you recall the bottom line of our discussion came down to the following scenario; That is that if a developer had sub~aitted an engineered se_ttt1e a teVCO P de= plans, the county would as far as its jurisdiction concerning fans based the developer somewhat vested in the project, and would review the p on all requirements that superseded the act. ' You said that you would not axept preliminary Plans as a basis for this consideraiton, nor would You require a recorded plat prior to the act on which . to base your decision. We then discussed how I,had been inuormed Ihthoughtolsle would probably handle their enforcement and I related to yo of blights position made the most sense of any locality I had talked to in terms of these "vested" projects. I have since been advising my clients on this subject based on our conver- sation and felt the necessity to recall our conversation for everyone s sake, so that at a later date, aftera~i.n~rb 9t~es~~ yeo~eaaforementionedebasis• clients, that theiz plans ar P Y If you have any comments relative. to this subject I would appreciate your. imput, so I can relate it to my clients. Sincerely, ~~~ 8. Wa a Co tey, .S. w. B. Owen Route 1, Boat 118 Carrollton, Virginia 23430 Rg= Quail Mesdov May 8, 1991 Dear Mr. Owen: Th~snk you for recent inquiry concerning application of the County's Chesapeake .Bay Preservation Area Ordinance to the above- referenced subdivision. R COUNTY of ISLE OF WIGHT 1 1 1 r~_ 1 1 1 - 15 :r;:~4~~ 800N .. • As a brier point . or inrormata.ott, uie ~:owi~Y ' b ~uU~•~• vi Supervisors adopted the Chesapeake Hay Preservation Area ..ordinance on November 15, 1990. The Ordinance alters the method of land . development in the James.River`watershed in order to protect water • quality and sensitive land features. . Quail Meadow. lies entirely within the County's Chesapeake. Bay Preservation .Area, and therefore, is subject to the Ordinance's .:jurisdiction. Because this subdivision was preliminarily subdivided .prior to November 15, 1990, development of individual... lots contained in Quail Meadow are granted a "limited 'vested right", or as alternatively worded in an opinion rendered by the Attorney General addressing•this issue, these lots are required to comply with-the Ordinance""...to the maximum extent Possible."• The application of the Ordinance to lots in Quail Meadow primarily centers on requirements for a 100 reserve drainfield, tha installation and~.maintenance of :Erosion and Sediment Control devices prior to and during land disturbance, and a 100' vegetated Buffer Area landward from the geographical extent of any Resource Protection Area (RPA). These areas include tidal shorelines, wetlands, and tributary streams. Additionally, development in a Resource Protection Area and its Buffer Area is strictly contx°olled. • _ • The 100 reserve sewage disposal area requirement holds that any lot under the jurisdiction of the Ordinance needing issuance of a Hsalth Department permit will dedicate a reserve area provided two (2) standards are met:' The lot must be capable of supporting a reserve area ~ dedication of the reserve area must leave a buildable area on the lot for .the principle structure, any adcessory structures, and necessary utilities. If these standards cannot be met, then the lot is exem~it from this requirement. Prior to and during the development phase of each lot, the ordinance requires Erosion and Sediment control devices to The installed and maintained in order to retain sediment on site. most practical and effective device for sediment retention during the development of a single-family home is a silt fence. The Buffer Area requirement holds that a 100' vegetated Buffer Area must be established landward from any Resource Protection Area (RPA). I have performed a preliminary evaluation for lots in Quail Meadow contiguous to a RPA and/or its Buffer Area. This preliminary evaluation indicates that .following lots might be affected: X10 through #19. If site specific information demonstrates that a RPA and/or its Buffer Area are contiguous to the foregoing lots, or perhaps any other lots, then these lots will need to comply with the Ordinance's Buffer Area requirements in a manner similar to the reserve area requirement, i.e., "..to ~.he maximum extent possible." This means the full 100' Bi:ffer Area is applied provided it does • note render the lot unbuildabls. The Buffer Area .can be administratively reduced to the minimum necessary to allow a buildable area provided a water quality Best Management Practice is installed which achieves a non-point source pollutant reduction equivalent to the full Buffer Area. • The requirements for a reserve area, Erosion and Sediment Control, and a Buffer Area along with the ordinance's other provisions are administered by the county through a site development plan review process which precedes the issuance of a building permit. The contents of each site plan will vary according to whether a lot f s contiguous to a RPA and/or .its Buffer Area. I should add that a site development plan for each lot must be approved by the County prior to any type of land disturbance, dearinq, construction, etc. I know the foregoing presents a great deal of information in a comprehensive manner. That being the case, please contact me should you or anyone else have. any questions concerning application of the Ordinance to Quail Meadow. ` s rul R. Bryan David . Environmental Planner Enclosures soon, . 15 R~~500 Supervisor Spady moved .the Board approve the plat with the condition that the owner comply with all ordinances and requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Act to the maximum extent feasible. The motion passed (3-1) with all members voting in favor except Chairman Edwards who voted against the motion.. D. Consideration of the final subdivision plat for Gatling Pointe South -Phase 1B, Battery Park Road (Route 704), in Newport Magisterial District. Mr. Caskey stated the preliminary plat and subdivision plat for this phase has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Board..: Branch Lawson, Gatling Pointe Management Corporation, stated regarding. the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act requiring developers to install stormwater management facilities, Gatling Pointe would. ask that if they sign the stormwater Detention Agreement that there be included an amendment stating that should an agreement be reached between VDOT and the County that Gatling Pointe would be released from the obligations of this stormwater detention agreement. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board approve the plat subject to the recommendations of staff with an amendment to the Declaration of Covenants for storm and surface water facilities system maintenance and that the agreement will be subject to any changes in the policies of VDOT on their requirements so that VDOT maintains such facilities and, if so, that they would be relieved from that obligation. The motion passed (3-0) with Supervisor Spady abstaining from discussion and voting, due to a conflict of interest. E. .Request of Richard W. Campbell, lessee, and Thomas L. Harris, owner, for exemption from certain requirements of the Isle of Wight County Highw~ Corridor Overlay District with regard to the location of a structure to be used for the retail sale of fruit and produce on .26 acres of land located at t11e intersection of Windsor Boulevard (Route 460) and Old Suffolk Road (Route 636), located. in Windsor Magisterial District. Mr. Caskey stated Community Development staff met on site with Mr. Campbell in May of 1993 because he had an on-site produce stand at this location and Mr. Campbell approached the County with alternatives he was exploring relative to how he could market and store his produce on site. Mr. Caskey stated County staff informed Mr. Campbell that for any structure placed in a fixed location the .County would have to apply its ordinances to the use of the property because it is located in the Highway Corridor Overlay District w11ic11 has restrictions that apply to that piece of property that would normally not apply to this same business loca#ed away from an arterial highway. It was resolved with Mr. Campbell that as long as he kept his stand to a movable fixture then the County would .not have to apply the ordinance .which would require extensive paving and landscaping requirements, in addition to a setback requirement that Mr. r1 1 1 . •. 804N 15:Ri:~501 1 1 M Campbell could not comply with. However,. stated Mr. Caskey, if the structure required a building permit fora fixed structure then the County would have to apply the ordinance and he may. then be required to seek exemptions from the ordinance. Since May of this year, Mr. Campbell has placed a modified mobile home unit structure consisting of 11.5 feet by 40 feet used as a fruit and produce stand which now requires that exemptions be granted by the Board to the Highway Corridor District in its application to this proposal, specifically Section 8C-5-2 dealing with the minimum visual buffer along the corridor right of way; Section 8C-8-1, paragraph A dealing with yard and height requirements; and Section 8C-10-3, paragraph G dealing with development of standards.. The Planning Commission discussed this application at their recent meeting and such. discussion included the major reconstruction of the mobile home unit and the need for building and zoning permits in order for that unit to remain a permanent unit on site. The lessee's representation is that the trailer needs to be located as far from the existing retail business and that the trailer is in compliance with the minimum setback requirements for the zoning ordinance B1 District, however, it is not in compliance with the Highway Corridor Overlay District. The Planning Commission expressed concerns relative to the permanency of the trailer and the precedent that may bE set in allowing the subject property to have these exemptions. It was also noted that an office trailer placed on property zoned B1-Business requires a CUP and the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the request to the Board. Richard W. Campbell of Zuni appeared and stated the building will be closed with red metal which will be used as an awning and at night used to close it. Supervisor Bradshaw stated the southern end of the County does not. have a place. for produce to be sold for consumption and asked why NasCar could sell souvenirs in the County, but this is considered a different situation. County Attorney Crook stated if the structure were mobile then it would be allowed on a temporary basis; however, the structure has become so permanent in nature that the Building Official has determined it requires a building permit. If the Board were to allow this, the Board may wish to condition an exemption on the fact that it remains mobile and that it be for Mr. Campbell's use only, stated Mr. Crook. Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Caskey if the property combined with the adjoining property could comply with the Highway Corridor Overlay District. Mr. Caskey stated "no". Supervisor Spady asked County Attorney Crook if Mr. Campbell kept the unit where it was mobile, would this put it in the category of requiring a CUP. i~ i County Attorney Crook stated Mr. Campbell is asking for an exemption, but he is suggesting that the Board approve it conditioned upon it remaining mobile on a temporary basis to be removed when he stops ~.» 800K ~~ ~Arr~t1~ operating it. Chairman Edwards moved the Board approve the request contingent upon -the structure's continued movability and that it is solely for the use of Mr. Campbell and not to be transferred or used by any other party on site. The motion passed (3-1) .with all members. voting in favor. except Supervisor Spady who voted against the motion. F. Draft Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Program Supplement to the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan.. Mr. Caskey stated. as a separate enclosure in the Board's agenda is a draft Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Program Supplement which is an addendum to the County's Comprehensive Plan that is mandated by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. Localities in the, Bay watershed are required to update their Comprehensive Plans to include this information. The Planning Commission held a public hearing earlier this month on the Supplement and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Supplement to the Board. It is staff's recommendation that the Board schedule. a public hearing for the Supplement at their November meeting and John Oarlock, Director of Environmental Planning with HRPDC, can be invited if the Board so desires, stated Mr. Caskey. Supervisor Spady moved the Board table the matter until the January 20, 1994 meeting. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Mr. Caskey stated the Planning. Commission took action on recommending to the. Board an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance whereby developers of new .subdivisions will be required to install street lights. Mr. Caskey stated it was anticipated that the entire issue of street lights would be brought back to the Board at tonight's meeting, but the matter was tabled for one month at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Caskey stated there will be a public hearing on the proposed amendment for street light requirements in new subdivisions at the Board's November meeting and all issues of street lights will be addressed at .that .time. Mr. Caskey stated since the County Attorney is now present, the Board may wish to take action on Mr. Turner's November 1,1993 deadline on the Renney borrow. pit. Supervisor Spady moved the Board allow Mr. Turner's deadline of November 1, 1993 be extended to December 1, 1993. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. // Chairman Edwards called for the County Attorney's report. County Attorney Crook stated he had numerous items to report to the Board on at their November meeting and tonight he would request an executive session later in the meeting concerning potential litigation. x 1 ~I // eoeM ~5 ,:,.r:~5~:? ,... Chairman Edwards called for the County Administrator's report. 1 Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the County Administrator, stated. before the Board is a proposed legislative .priority list consisting of a combination of issues from last year which includes five new items including funding for regional residential facilities, mandatory family court bailiffs, small water system regulations, meals tax and cigarette tax. Mr. Robertson further stated the Board's solicited suggestions are being sought for additional items or deletions from the list. County Administrator Standish stated in the past, the County had a severance fee .or tax on borrow pit operations and in order for the Board to consider adopting such a fee in the County requires an amendment to the State Code. 1 County Attorney Crook stated when the County .first adopted its Borrow Pit Ordinance, which was prepared with the assistance of the Planning Director, they went to Richmond to the various departments in charge of State law regarding borrow pits who reviewed the ordinance and discussed it at length. Mr. Crook stated a tax or fee was being asked for every cubic yard of sand or dirt .removed from the borrow pit and it was his opinion that it was illegal because it was not provided for by the General Assembly by statute. The only severance tax in Virginia was for coal and the Department of Development in Richmond agreed with him at that time that it was questionable if it was legal because there was no State statute authorizing it. The Board of Supervisors elected to adopt that fee anyway because borrow pit operators. were promoting it because it was a selling point to get permission for borrow pits. The history of it was that the County did not receive funds from this because the borrow pit owners did not pay it because they knew it was not legal and at his insistence, the Board relented and repealed it. Now the Board has a request to consider it again because Suffolk has it. Mr. Crook stated it is still illegal because it is not authorized by State statute and the Board should not consider this fee without a State statute authorizing the County to impose it. Supervisor Spady moved- the Board amend the legislative list, to include. authorization for severance fees for borrow pit excavations, and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY'S LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES TO BE PR OF THEDGENERA AOSSEMBLY DELEGATION TO THE 1994 SESSION WHEREAS, the .General Assembly considers numerous issues that affect local governments both directly and indirectly; and, WHEREAS, the County of Isle of Wight has specific interest in matters dealing generally with local governments, as well as with matters directly impacting Isle of Wight; and, WHEREAS, such interest should be shared with Isle of Wight County's General Assembly Delegation so that they. may know of Isle of Wight County's position on these important issues. i - _.- eock~ 15 Y~~r504 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the. County of Isle of Wight endorses the attached legislative .proposals for the 1994 General Assembly Session and directs that both this resolution and the legislative proposals be forwarded to Isle of Wight County's General Assembly Delegation and that the County Administrator and his staff work with and assist .the Delegation as appropriate. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. County Attorney Crook stated he had one matter under the County Attorney s section of the agenda that he failed to report on and he would like to do so now. Mr. Crook. stated. Ashby Land Trust came before the Board with a request that the Board approve another section of that subdivision to consist of fourteen lots to be sold with a separate water.. system for those lots. Mr. Crook stated. he suggested at that time that the matter be tabled in order for the County Administrator and he to meet with the developer and review the matter. Mr. Crook stated they did meet with the developer and discussed the matter at length regarding various proposals, but an acceptable. agreement has not been reached at this .time. Supervisor Spady moved the Board table .the mater until the Board's November 18, 1993 meeting to allow the County Attorney and County Administrator time to meet with the developer and. County staff.. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. County Administrator Standish. stated included as separate items in the agenda were the proposed VACO legislative program, as well as the Hampton Roads Mayor and Chairs, HRPDC and the Virginia Peninsula Association of Realtors.. Mr. Standish stated the HRPDC agenda was considered by Supervisor Spady" as the Board's representative to the HRPDC which was adopted as presented. Supervisor Spady stated there were several items in the agenda which he did not agree with and, at this time, he had nothing specific to recommend, or not recommend, to the Board. Mr. Robertson stated the County is subject to over 300 State and federal mandates and included in the agenda is a resolution for the Board's consideration in an effort by NACO, VACO, VML, School Boards and other national and State organizations to address legislators. Chairman Edwards moved the Board adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE OCTOBER 27, 1993 AS UNFUNDED MANDATES DAY IN ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY WHEREAS, according to the Joink Legislative Audit and Review Committee, Virginia's local governments are subject to 391 Federal and State mandates which require cities, counties and towns to perform duties without consideration of local circumstances or capacity; and, 1 1 WHEREAS, in some cases mandates require local governments to redirect their priorities to meet Federal and State objectives rather than community .•. BOnK ~S:R~{50`) ~• objectives, often requiring increases in local taxes and fees, and/or reduced local services for residents; and, , 1 WHEREAS,. Federal and State mandates too often are inflexible, one-size- fits-all requirements that impose unrealistic time frames and specify procedures or facilities where less costly alternatives might be just as effective; and, WHEREAS, cumulative impact of these legislative and regulatory actions directly affect the citizens of our cities, counties and towns; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties, and the Virginia School Boards Association are working with localities, school boards and organizations across the nation to begin a public education campaign to help citizens understand and then reduce the burden and inflexibility of ,unfunded mandates, beginning with a National Unfunded Mandates Day on October 27, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight endorses the efforts of the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia School Boards Association and their national counterparts, and supports working with the national groups to fully inform citizens about the impact of Federal and State mandates. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors designates October 27, 1993 as "Unfunded Mandates Day in the County of Isle of Wight", in observance of National Unfunded Mandates Day, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each member of the County's State and national legislative delegation.. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Mr. Robertson stated there is a brief summation. of the Community Diversion Incentive Program included in the Board's agenda. Mike Andrews, resident of Smithfield and Chief Probation Officer for this region, stated a program of this nature would be to the County's advantage and he is in favor of it. Anne Lambert appeared to seek the Board's endorsement and support to extend the diversion project into the County. Supervisor Spady stated Chief Judge Bagnell requested that this jurisdiction be considered by the Board. 1 Mrs. Lambert elaborated further stating the program is an extension to the court which provides diversionary services to offenders who require more than probation supervision but less than incarceration in a local jail or prison facility. These persons are screened carefully and reviewed by a community member board who formulates a report to be sent to the sentencing judge who makes a decision as to divert or not to divert. Mrs. Lambert stated this is at no expense to the locality and is funded 100% by the Department of Corrections. Mrs. Lambert stated approximately 85% of eaoN , 15 .~~f506 ~ those incarcerated in local facilities are non-violent offenders and are the people who continue to go back through the jail system because of some disfunction, employment or social problem. Mrs. Lambert stated there is an eight-member -board in Chesapeake which is appointed by the Circuit Court Judges, the City Council and. by the Department of Corrections. The County would be appointing one member to a board to the court advisory council which would. become asub-board from the regular Chesapeake division board.. Mrs. Lambert stated- one appointment will be from the f court, one appointment from the Department of Corrections and .one appointment .from the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Bradshaw asked who would pay if the offender was placed in a drug treatment .facility. Mrs. Lambert replied the Department of Corrections. Mrs. Lambert stated the costs for one year's stay is $17,900 in a State penitentiary and this is a cheaper alternative. - Supervisor Spady moved the Board apply for inclusion in the program. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted, County Administrator Standish stated included in the agenda for the Board's consideration is a cost efficient three-option proposal from SPSA for solid waste services in the County. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board authorize the County Administrator and County Attorney to meet with SPSA staff to prepare a contractual agreement for implementation of services specified in SPSA's September 27, 1993 proposal. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted, Chairman Edwards moved the. Board adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROPRIATE EXEMPTION FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS AND RESCUE SQUAD PERSONNEL FROM THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WHEREAS, volunteer fire fighters and rescue squad personnel dedicate countless hours of personal time to the protection of the citizens of their communities; and, WHEREAS, such volunteers: provide virtually all of the emergency services in the County of Isle of Wight, and .almost all of such services throughout the Commonwealth; and, .WHEREAS, many such volunteers are also career fire fighters and rescue personnel in other adjacent communities; and, WHEREAS, the Department of Labor has interpreted the Fair Labor Standards Act to .restrict such career employees from off-duty volunteer efforts; and, WHEREAS, such an interpretation by the Department of Labor may adversely impact the provision of emergency services in this and other communities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1 r BoeN 15.~G~507 M NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia that it supports the request for legislative relief from such an interpretation of the. Fair Labor Standards Act by the U.S. Department of Labor that could restrict the activities of career fire fighters and rescue personnel from volunteering their off-duty time in local emergency services activities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the County's State and national delegation. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. County Administrator Standish stated included in the agenda is' a Spirit of Christmas Program which has been underway for the past four years. Smithfield proposes to have aweek-long celebration with a fireworks program on New ,Year's Eve and is requesting a $2,000 contribution from the County to be matched with their own funds, stated Mr. Standish. i~~ Supervisor Spady stated he would prefer that the Board table action on the request until Supervisor Cofer returns. Brad Face of Smithfield stated although the County's support has been solicited and appreciated, they have committed to a fireworks event with or without the. County's support and a delay in action by the Board would not affect the Town's plans for the celebration. Supervisor Spady moved the Board table the matter until the Board's November 18, 1993 meeting. The motion. was unanimously (4-0) adopted. County Administrator Standish stated at the Board's request the Parks & Recreational Facilities Authority is planning a 1993 Veterans Day Program and included in the agenda is a proposed budget not to exceed $1,000. Supervisor Spady stated that while this is a worthwhile event there were only about thirty individuals who attended last year and Mr. Nogiec has requested several items which he believes are not necessary fora the celebration. Supervisor Spady moved the Board authorize a transfer from the contingency line item of the FY1993-94 budget in an amount not to exceed $1,000 and that Mr. Nogiec be instructed to spend the funds in a conservative manner. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Chairman Edwards moved the Board adopt the following resolution: lJ RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE VETERANS OF .ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY WHEREAS, hundreds of citizens of Isle of Wight County have served in the United States Armed Forces; and, WHEREAS, those individuals have sacrificed their own personal ~. ao~~ 15.~,;~508 ,.~ comfort and professional opportunity to support. their Country in a time of need; and, WHEREAS, many citizens of Isle of Wight were wounded, held as prisoners of war, and/or lost their lives in an effort to preserve liberty and justice for others; and, WHEREAS, these brave men and women have honorably represented Isle of Wight County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America; and,. WHEREAS, nationally, November 11,1993 has been established as the day to honor all veterans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight that all persons are requested to observe and acknowledge the sacrifice and contribution of all citizens of Isle of Wight County who have honorably served this nation in the United States Armed Forces and to express to them the most sincere appreciation for their dedicated service. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE .EIGHTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE DOLLARS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND FOR HELEN KING'S. HISTORY BOOK .WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia has approved expenditures. for Helen King's History Book; and, WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of eighteen thousand two hundred eighty-nine dollars ($18,289) need to be appropriated from the unappropriated fund balance to the Helen. King`s History Book line item in the .1993-94 budget of the County of Isle of Wight. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Boar~a of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that eighteen thousand .two hundred eighty-nine dollars ($18,289) from the unappropriated fund balance be appropriated to the Helen King`s History Book line item in the 1993-94 budget of the County of Isle of Wight. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the: County Administrator of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate accounting adjustments in the budget and. to do all the things necessary to give this resolution effect. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. County Administrator Standish distributed aone-sheet summary of recommended communication system. .improvements which outline Motorola's recommendations on what the County needs to do to put its I t .r aooK 15~~~500 1 1 ,.•• existing communication system in first-class shape. Mr. Standish stated the . priorities are 1) enclose the County's expensive communications equipment in a masonry building at a cost of approximately $15,000, 2) replace the fire frequency transmitter, which would have to be put to bid, 3) replace the Sheriff's transmitter and retain the old one as a backup at an estimated cost of $10,000, which would require being put to bid, 4) upgrade the existing rescue frequency transmitter with paging capability, and 5) reprogram all equipment, contingent upon approval by the FCC of one more frequencies. for the County, at an estimated cost of $15,000. Mr. Standish noted the total cost has decreased by approximately $20,000 from the original outline previously presented to the Board. Mr. Standish stated he would like to proceed with_priorities 1, 2 and 3 and handle priority 4 by purchase order. Charles W. Phelps, Sheriff, stated the Carrsville and Rushmere volunteer fire departments have been experiencing transmission problems causing poor reception which needs to be addressed by the. County. County Administrator Standish stated this is being addressed in the three .top priorities and the fire frequency would increase from 125 watts to 300 watts with its own antenna and cable. Supervisor Spady moved the Board approve priorities 1, 2, 3 and 4 and authorize.. the County Administrator to put them out for bids. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Chairman Edwards asked Sheriff Phelps if all the deputies had bulletproof vests. Sheriff Phelps stated there are seventeen auxiliary officers for the County who do not have bulletproof vests which cost approximately $450 each. Sheriff Phelps stated if the County would consider funding 50% of the cost with the officers paying the other 50%, he would .recommend this to the auxiliary officers. Supervisor Bradshaw asked if the vests could be utilized by other officers. Sheriff Phelps explained because of sanitary conditions, it is not recommended that these vests be shared among individuals although they can be cleaned via instructions on the vests. Chairman Edwards and Supervisor. Spady requested the Sheriff to speak with the auxiliary officers concerning the purchase of vests. Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution: 1 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX. DOLLARS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR CARRYOVER GRANT PROGRAMS WHEREAS, the. School Board of the County of Isle of Wight,. Virginia has received grants for various programs; and, eoeK 15 -ecf510 ~ WHEREAS, ~ the funds in the amount of eighty five thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars ($85,666) need to be carried over to the following School grant programs in the 1993-94 budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia: Drug Free Schools - 91 $ 97 746 Chapter II Carryover - 92 Drug Free Schools - 92 12,492 938 6 Chapter II Carryover - 93 , Title II -Eisenhower 11,617 887 24 Title VIB Preschool Handicapped ' 11,679 Project Yes 17,210 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that eighty five thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars ($85,666) be appropriated to the programs listed above in the 1993-94 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 adjustments in the budget and to do all the things necessary to give this resolution effect. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following amended resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE TWO MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE 1993 SCHOOL BOND ISSUE PROCEEDS TO THE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUND WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia has .approved the school construction program; and, WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of two million dollars. ($2,000,000) need to be appropriated from the 1993 school bond issue proceeds to the school .construction fund in the 1993-94 budget of the County of Isle of Wight. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that two million dollars ($2,000,000) from the 1993 school bond issue proceeds be appropriated to the school construction fund in the 1993-94 budget of the County of Isle of Wight. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the County of Isle of Wight, .Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate. accounting adjustments in the budget and to do all the things necessary to give this resolution effect. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. 1 1 .: ao~K 15 ~~;:511 ~.~. Chairman Edwards moved the Board adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY TWO DOLL FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERN1vIENT FOR THE CHAPTER I PROGRAM 1 1 WHEREAS, the. School Board of the County of Isle of Wight has received a carryover grant for the Chapter I Program; and, WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of one hundred five thousand nine hundred sixty-two dollars ($105,962) need to be appropriated to the School grant fund in the 1993-94 budget of the .County of Isle of Wight, Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that one hundred five thousand nine hundred sixty-two dollars ($105,962) be appropriated to line item Chapter I Program in the 1993-94 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 adjustments in the budget and to do all the things necessary to give this. resolution effect. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE BOARD WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia has received a grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Chesapeake ,Bay Local Assistance Board for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Program; and, WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board needs to be appropriated to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Program line item in the 1993-94 budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to be received from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board be appropriated in the 1993-94 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 eoe~, . 15 -~,-51?. ~. accounting adjustments in the budget for this grant and to do all the things. necessary to give this resolution. effect. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted, Supervisor Bradby moved the Board adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE BOARD WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of isle of Wight, Virginia has received a .grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia,. Department of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board for the septic system records database; and, WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of two thousand six hundred dollars ($2,600) from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board needs to be appropriated to the septic system records line item in the 1993-94 budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors. of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that two thousand six hundred dollars ($2,600) to be received from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board be appropriated in the 1993-94 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 adjustments in the budget for this grant and to do all the things necessary to give this resolution effect. The vote on the motion was a tie (~2) with Supervisor Bradby and Chairman Edwards voting in favor of the motion and Supervisors Spady and Bradshaw voting against the motion. County Attorney Crook stated the motion could be voted on by Supervisor Cofer at the next Board meeting and should be included on the agenda for that meeting. Supervisor Spady moved-the Board adopt the following resolution to be framed and presented to Mrs. King when appropriate: RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND APPRECIATE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF MRS. HELEN HAVERTY KING. WHEREAS, Mrs. Helen Haverty King is a native and lifelong resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, in 1983, Mrs. King published Historic Isle of Wight, which consisted of several pictures and brief histories of the pre-Civil War buildings still standing in the County; and, 1 r . ~~ ' eoeK 15:x;:{51.`3 1 ~.~. WHEREAS, ten years later, in 1993, Mrs. King's research and hard work resulted in the publishing of Historical Notes on Isle of Wight County, which is a historical perspective of Isle of Wight County from 1607-1993; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the countless numbers of hours sacrificed by Mrs. Helen Haverty King in assembling the research gathered from thousands of pages of historical documents and hundreds of interviews for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors formally acknowledges and appreciates the dedication and hard work of Mrs. Helen Haverty King, author of Historical Notes on Isle of Wi,~ht County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors wishes to thank Mrs. King for the wealth of knowledge that she has provided the citizens of Isle of Wight County in the form of a literary history of the County. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. County Administrator Standish stated included in the agenda for the Board's information is a status report from HRSD which notes that the Smithfield force main is anticipated to be completed in January of 1996 and the Windsor force main in March of 1995. 1 County Administrator Standish stated included in the agenda for the Board's information is a status report on delinquent tax collection efforts. Mr. Standish noted $13,800.68 has been collected at a cost of $2,705.70 which represents 19% of the amount collected.. County Administrator Standish stated under separate cover the Board received a letter from him transmitting a warning from the Virginia Association of Counties relative to cable. television regulations. Mr. Standish stated Form 328 was submitted to the FCC on October 15, 1993 and the County should hear back from the FCC within the next thirty days; if not, the County can assume that it is certified to regulate cable television rates. Mr. Standish stated during this process the County .Attorney should have the opportunity to review the new FCC regulations and anticipate what he will recommend to the Board for action. Supervisor Spady moved the Board direct the County Administrator to stay updated on keeping the. County informed on FCC regulations, with the, option of regulating cable: television rates. The motion was unanimously. (4-0) adopted. 1 Supervisor Bradby stated until the cable company installs cablevision lines to individuals that- are requesting it and improves their reception he would not be willing to raise the rates. County Administrator Standish noted in front of the Board is a summation of which volunteer fire departments and rescue squads submitted their quarterly financial operating reports. Mr. Standish stated r BOQN lc~ rA~tJl~ the Board had originally mentioned holding quarterly contributions subject to submission of these reports and he would suggest that because this is the first quarterly report the Board authorize him to .release the first quarterly. payment and that those who did not submit the appropriate form be advised they must submit their report on time. // Chairman Edwards called for Old Business. Supervisor Bradby inquired about the status of street light requests. County Attorney Crook stated consideration of the matter was delayed while an amendment to the .Subdivision Ordinance for new subdivisions was considered by the Planning Commission and the Board will consider both the amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance and the Board policy at their November meeting. Chairman Edwards distributed a brochure that he received illustrating a machine that replaces 911 signs and suggested the County Administrator and Public Works Director review it for possible consideration of producing these: signs in-house. Chairman Edwards requested the County Administrator to provide Joni. Griffin with one set of building plans for the Windsor library facility. // Chairman Edwards called for New Business. There was no new business offered for discussion by the Board. // Chairman Edwards called for Appointments. Chairman Edwards moved the Board reappoint Virtley Porter for an additional three-year term representing the Windsor Dis#rict on the Commission on Aging Board. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. Supervisor Spady moved the Board reappoint Herb DeGroft for an additional two-year term on the Private Industry Council. The motion was unanimously (4-0) adopted. // County Attorney Crook stated as a result of Supervisor Cofer's absence, he would defer his request for an executive session to the Board's November 18, 1993 meeting. // 1 I 1 15 ~~ ~ eo~a 15 ~~~:f515 ,-» At 9:30 p.m., Supervisor Bradby moved the Board adjourn. The motion was unanimously (40) adopted. ~~14.u~o I ~.~o-~ Steve W. Edwards, Chairman h Myles .Stan ish, Clerk ~.. w s