Loading...
02-22-2000 Continued Meeting90~K 1e7 r„~:~' 74 CONTINUED MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF .SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND PRESENT: Phillip A. Bradshaw, Chairman Henry H. Bradby, Vice Chairman Robert C. Claud, Sr: Stan D. Clark Richard K. MacManus Also Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the County Administrator/Director of Human Resources Carey H. Mills,. Recording Secretary Chairman .Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a work session on the Comprehensive Plan. and related issues. of growth management. /I Chairman Bradshaw deviated from the regular agenda and addressed a recent incident that had occurred with the Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue Squad in which there was a non-response. He recommended that Supervisors Claud and MacManus meet .with the two (2) .respective committees. of the Towns of Windsor and Smithfield to discuss how the respective Towns would propose to proceed on this. issue and then meet with the two (2) rescue squads.. Supervisor MacManus concurred with Chairman Bradshaw's comments and invited Richard O. Childress, the County's Director of Emergency Management to participate in the meetings. Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the County Administrator/Director of Human Resources, stated personnel .has been- hired for the Smithfield Volunteer Fire Department, the Isle of Wight Rescue Volunteer Squad and the Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department. He pointed out that daytime coverage will not be a cure for all of the .issues. affecting fire and rescue personnel. He stated the Board has appropriated funding to provide staffing and such staffing is currently in place .for daytime calls. which are being responded to. Chairman Bradshaw moved that. the Board appoint a committee of Supervisors Claud and MacManus, County Administrator .Caskey and Richard O. Childress to meet with the Smithfield and Windsor Town Council's respective emergency committees and that such meeting take 1 1 1 1 a~~~r 1~ -, .: 75 place as quickly as possible. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // [] Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning and Zoning, updated the Board on the status of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's objectives for growth management. Chairman Bradshaw requested that the development service districts be broken down and that existing zonings be shown on an additional set of maps. He further requested that areas which have already been rezoned. and are not yet developed also be laid out in map form. He stated he would like to be able to see the existing infrastructure already in place, specifically highly developed communities, to show the type of transportation system, i.e., existing. roads, and whether utilities are in place. He stated he would like information to be forwarded to the libraries and the public schools as the Board moves down the path to adopting its planning policies. 1 Supervisor Clark stated the Board's purpose should be to gain a handle on large residential developments that have the: potential to overload and stress the County's facilities, i.e., schools, police, fire and rescue. He requested that staff advise the Board of any forms of development that are planned over the next five (5) to ten (10) years, as well as staff's recommendation on what can be done to eliminate any additional damage from occurring. Supervisor Bradby requested staff' discuss the area of prof~'ers and the Board's legal ability when rezoning. Mr. Hartley stated the Comprehensive Plan is a process by which the community arrives at a consensus about its future. He stated citizen involvement is an important component of putting together a successful Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Comprehensive Plan is a guide for staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors by which decisions are made. He stated the County is located within the Chesapeake Bay area and is governed by requirements within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act as to what the Comprehensive Plan is required to contain. He stated the Comprehensive Plan is the legal foundation for growth management. 1 Responding to Chairman. Bradshaw's inquiry if the Board downzones a block of land in a particular district,. but approves it in another district, are there legal implications, County Attorney Crook advised that if the Board downzones property in a service district which is zoned for development, the Board must have a good reason as that area is earmarked .for water and sewer services and development. 2 g'J^R ~:.7 ~"'.~ 76 Mr. Hartley stated downzoning in areas outside of the County's new proposed development service districts is defensible if the right foundation is laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. Supervisor Clark inquired at what stage in the process is the Norsworthy tract. Mr. Hartley stated there is no development at this point and at this time, the .tract of land is located in .the County's development service district. Responding to Chairman Bradshaw's .inquiry, Mr. Hartley discussed the process by which an applicant might rezone a particular property. He encouraged the Board to revisit the fees for rezonings. Supervisor Claud requested staff prepare a proposal for the Board's consideration for raising the fees for rezonings. Mr. Hartley noted there are some instances where.the Board may not want to charge the full. fee such as when an applicant has a hardship or other justification. Ms. Seward noted that each year the County's. consultant prepares an indirect cost allocation for the County which takes into consideration the Planning Zoning .Department. She noted that for a nominal fee she could request a user fee study be accomplished. Ms. Seward noted she would obtain the necessary information and come back to the Board. Chairman Bradshaw voiced .his concern with the situation of a property owner .whose home was completely destroyed by Hurricane Floyd: and who did not understand that the County would not approve .his zoning boundary plat because when the. land was .surveyed the amount of land. was larger than advertised irr the newspapers for public hearing. He stated that because the survey came back at 1.4 acres, but only one (l) acre was advertised during the rezoning, the owners must now go back through the. entire rezoning process. Supervisor Clark stated it appears applicants do not want to pay to have surveys completed until they know the zoning will be approved. In this regard, he stated. if applicants estimate high in acreage, rather than low, this problem will be eliminated. He suggested staff in the Department of .Planning. and Zoning could discuss this aspect with citizens applying for rezonings. Regarding the situation discussed by Chairman Bradshaw, Mr. Hartley advised the Board that the applicants originally intended to rezone one (l) acre, however, when they got ready to survey the lot, they realized they 3 needed more, to get a suitable septic perk site and the lot size, in this case, was expanded in order to get the perk site, which was not included in the rezoning request. County Attorney Crook explained. that something else to consider in situations such as these is that when the property owner goes to get the necessary financing to build. their home and a title. examination is done and the title examiner finds one (l) acre zoned residential, but it is really 1.5 acres, the title examiner will note an objection to the zoning, which will have to cleared up before financing can be obtained. Chairman Bradshaw questioned whether the County is .catering to developers or trying to work with the general public. He expressed his frustration stating he had met with two (2) residents that were left with nothing after Hurricane Floyd and he is concerned about their welfare as the response he received is that they have had no support or help from the County. He requested that a survey requirement be performed first. Mr. Hartley stated staff is in the process of developing an informational booklet to guide the general public through the process. He noted he would speak further with Chairman Bradshaw regarding his concern. County Attorney Crook noted the previous Director of Planning and Zoning felt it was unnecessary to make a citizen incur the expense of a survey before the applicant's rezoning was considered by the Board, as the rezoning could be turned down by the Board. Supervisor MacManus recommended that .the Department of Planning and Zoning issue a guidance document to help residents through the. rezoning process and that the Board. review the. draft first to ensure it is simple. enough for the general public to follow. /I Mr. Hartley briefed the Board on the-five (5) basic objectives which staff follows relative to the updated Comprehensive Plan. He noted the Plan Advisory .Committee consists of five (5) members from the Planning Commission, one (1) from each election district, and two (2) citizens from each election district. Supervisor MacManus noted the slow pace of the Comprehensive Development Plan process to date and recommended that staff speed up the process for this critical. document. Mr. Hartley briefed the Board on the regionally .based projections by the .Hampton Roads Planning District Commission for population in .the County which is projected to be 35,000 by 2020. lfe stated he believes 4 8~~ti ~.~ ~r~s ~~ these projections to be low. He stated Tony Redman of Redman/JolYnston Associates is projecting over 40,000 by 2020 which is based upon. -the County's .current and historical rate of growth and how this rate has increased over the last twenty (20) years. Mr. Redman advised the Board that if he used the population projections of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission he would - be -very concerned that. the County would not be adequately planning for anticipated growth. He stated he would rather prepare the Board for more than what will actually materialize so that the County can consider its ..infrastructure. // Mr. Hartley discussed the aspects. of the draft revision of goals and objectives, as edited by the Advisory Committee, for. the Board's information. // Regarding the progress of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Hartley noted three (3) community meetings were held with the intent . to receive comments from the public. He noted he feels strongly that the new Plan needs to be more detailed in terms of general classifications of land use.. Mr. Hartley briefed the Board on the proposal by the Citizens Advisory. Committee on the various development service districts. // On motion of Chairman Bradshaw, which carried unanimously (5-0), the Board took aten-minute recess. Upon returning to open session, Mr. Redman recommended staff utilize the County's web site to place information about the Plan as it is being processed. Mr. Redman addressed the Board. concerning the concept of developing town. centers with higher density of development and utilizing many of the concepts of traditional neighborhood development. Supervisor Clark stated Mr. Redman's concept of town centers appears to be inviting growth in high-density communities in the Newport District. He stated he has a problem with the designation of a large portion of the Newport District as a service district because of this concept. Supervisor Claud stated the alternative, if there is too much area in any of these districts designated for residential development, is to reduce the size of the district or change the land use within those districts. Chairman Bradshaw noted that the County can not afford to have too many residents move into it because the County can not keep up with the S 90~~ 1'~ . ~ 7~ services and the Board would have to increase the tax rates that will discourage moving into the County, which will cause residents to begin leaving the County. 1 Mr. Hartley stated there is a trade-off with density in that the higher the density, the more cost-effective it is. He explained that five (5) acre lots substantially increase the cost of services to that household, i.e., fire, school. bus transportation, to serve that single-family residence. He stated the larger the lots, the more expensive the services. Chairman Bradshaw stated the Board is talking quality of life verses the size of residential development. Mr. Redman stated another issue is the efficiency with which the land base of the County is used. Mr. Redman stated he believes some of the ideas need to be reconsidered based on the Board's discussion today, but if the Board decreases the size of the service districts too much, the growth will come out somewhere else. Mr. Hartley stated he would provide the Board with additional information on the cost of sprawl development. 1 Chairman Bradshaw stated. he is interested only in incremental cost, which is the additional cost above and beyond what the County has at this time. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Hartley advised that in the Commonwealth of Virginia there is not a consistency rule in that when the Board zones a parcel of property it does not have to be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. County Attorney Crook stated the Comprehensive Plan is a guideline for the Board to utilize in directing growth, that is, where high density commercial, industrial and residential growth will be located. He stated the Board is not bound to this Plan, but when.. the Board makes its zoning. decisions, they are much more defensible if the decisions are in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. 1 Responding to Supervisor Bradby's comment that the individual seller is -not selling lots for individual gain, unlike a developer, Mr. Hartley explained the concept of the cash proffer study. He stated each lot bears the same capital cost to serve it. He stated .that if the Board updates the cash proffer study, staff will need to look at the difference between the developer versus individual or single lot development versus subdivision development. Mr. Hartley noted the information relayed by the Board today is a major shift in direction from previous Boards. He advised that he does not have sufficient staffto do long-range planning. 6 8^^f J.'J .' J~ Supervisor. Claud stated he would rather Mr. Hartley notify the Board that he can not. meet a particular deadline than. know from the beginning that a deadline will not be met. He requested Mr. Hartley be realistic to the Board on .what can be accomplished, but. know that the .Board wants the items expedited Chairman Bradshaw stated the Board. is simply setting deadlines and goals today.. He requested Mr. Hartley not advise .the Board he needs additional staffing at this point until he has had an opportunity to review the items and determine what they will require in the form of staffing. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board direct staff to report back to the Board in March on how to achieve the following items, to include a total cost impact: 1. Comprehensive Plan: Accelerate timetable. to July, 2000 with a draft by May, 2000. Downsize the service districts, particularly the northern district. Provide land use details within the service districts. Define the basis .premises again with growth. and density. 2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to provide the land use controls needed to reflect the Comprehensive Development Plan by December, 2001. 3. Revise the Subdivision regulations by December, 2001. 4. Comprehensive Street and Road Master Plan by December, 2002. 5. Sewer and Water Master Plan: The Director of Public Utilities to bring back by June, 200.1. 6. Open Space and Greenway Plan by December, 2002. 7. Creation of Community Land Trust by December, 2002. 8. Capital Improvement Program by June, 2000 9. Individual Lot and Multiple Lot Cash.. Proffer Impact Fee .Study by December, 2000. 10. Water Sewer Connection Fee Study to be presented by December, 2000 with the: Director of Public Utilities budgeting accordingly. 11. User Fee Study by DMG to be presented by June, 2000. 1 1 7 ~~:~f 1~ -,:, 81 12. Guidance document for citizens to follow zoning process to be placed on the web site and achieved by December, 2000. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus recommended the Board meet with the Planning Commission in March, 2000 after the Board adopts some measures. and communicate the Board's thoughts on growth management, as well as the Board's expectation on what the .Board would like to see the Planning Commission doing. // Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board direct the County Attorney to advertise the Carrsville District School Board member appointment simultaneously with the two (2) at large members at the same Board meeting in March. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // 1 Supervisor MacManus moved the Board continue its meeting until Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. at .the Hardy Elementary School for the purpose of conducting a Town Meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Ph' ip A. Bradshaw, Chairman . d W. Doug key, Clerk 1 8