Loading...
12-16-2004 Regular Meeting.. i~ 1 90Qx 2~ »~~A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVIS"ORS HELD THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT: Stan D. Clark, Chairman Phillip A. Bradshaw, Vice-Chairman Henry H. Bradby Thomas J. Wright, III Richard K. MacManus Also Attending: Jacob P. Stroman, IV, County. Attorney W. Douglas Casket', County Administrator_ Donald T. Robertson, Assistant County Administrator/Operations E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Assistant County Administrator/Development Anne F. Seward, Assistant County Administrator/ Administration Carey Mills Storm, Recording Secretary Chairman Clark called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.rn. // Chairman Clark delivered the invocation. /~ The Pledge of Allegiancewas conducted. // Chairman Clark called for approval of the agenda. County Attorney Stroman requested that the. following amendments be .made to the agenda: Under Item (2), Special Presentations, remove Item (D), Prime Media Presentation; Under Item (9), New Business, add a request from The Genieve Shelter with respect to a letter of support acknowledging the general need for additional transitional housing for victims of domestic violence in Western Tidewater; and, under Item (11), in addition to the.. one (1) legal matter specified, add a second legal matter. pertaining to actual litigation with respect to water and sewer connection fees, and three (3) . personnel items relating to the performance of County employees. " Supervisor Bradby moved that the Board approve the. agenda, as amended. The motion was adopted by a. vote of (S-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor. of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 1 ~i 2? .~.;: 74 Chairman Clark called for Special Presentations. Supervisor Bradshaw recognized the members of the Windsor High School Cheerleading Squad for their recent accomplishments. , Supervisor MacManus moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE WINDSOR HIGH SCHOOL CHEERLEADING SQUAD FOR OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT WHEREAS, for the ..Windsor Dukes Cheerleading Squad won first place in the Virginia High School League State Cheerleading Competition at VCU's Siegel Center in Richmond, garnering the title of Single A State Cheer Champion; and, WHEREAS, the Cheerleading Squad won second place in the Region A Cheerleading Competition held in Fredericksburg, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, the Cheerleading Squad also placed second in the Tri- Rivers District competition; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors. of the County of Isle of Wight County wishes to recognize. these significant achievements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia recognizes and congratulates .the Windsor High School Cheerleading Squad for outstanding achievement. The motion was. adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting- in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw recognized Stephen Adams and Justin Thompson for their recent accomplishments of attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board adopt the following Resolution:. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE STEPHEN ADAMS FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT 2 ., _. s;~.. .,~.,~,~..._z.,~.... _.~ .._.. _ .. ._ _ _ _ . - - _..~ n ._~._ .,. , WHEREAS, Stephen Adams is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop. #4.1 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and,. WHEREAS, Mr. Adams has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, 1 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes. to recognize and congratulate Mr. Adams for his achievement. NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle. of .Wight, Virginia that Stephen Adams is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was adopted by a .vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE JUSTIN THOMPSON FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Justin Thompson is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #41 and a resident of Isle of Wight. County; and; WHEREAS, Mr. Thompson has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, i WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Thompson for his achievement.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Justin .Thompson is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, .Clark and Wright .voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Anne F. Seward, .Assistant County Administrator/Administration, advised that Fred Westfail;.Goodman and Company, has been delayed and would be presenting the Financial Audit Report for the_Year Ended_June 30, 2004 upon his arrival 3 9oRn 2? ~;-7~~ Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board proceed with. the. regular order of the agenda, and hear the audit report upon Mr. Westfall's arrival. The motion was adopted by unanimous (5-0} vote. // Chairman Clark indicated the Consent Agenda included the following items: A. Rescue Squad Response Zones B. Resolution to Submit. Application for a Locality Interoperability Grant C, Request to Authorize the Solicitation of Proposals for Non- Professional Services for Group Health and Dental Insurance for ; Isle of Wight County D. Request for .Extension of Services by Powell Management Associates E. Tyler's Beach Harbor =Update F. DEQ/Public Notice for November 29,.2004 G, Planning Commission Action List of November 23, 2004 H. Delinquent Real Estate Tax. Collection Monthly Report L November 16, 2004 Regular Meeting Minutes Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the Consent Agenda, as presented. The .motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor: of the motion,.. and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Transportation Matters. Sandon Rogers, Transportation Planner, noted contained in the agenda is VDOT's response to cost overrun information on the Route 620 project. Mr. Joe Lomax, Assistant Resident Engineer, VDOT, briefed the Board on the cost, by .line item, associated. with the. overrun on the Route 620 project. He advised that the Route 620 project was developed under the minimum plan concept, which is appropriate for projects that require a limited amount of survey data, engineering, or hydraulic analysis. He stated 4 1 minimum plan projects. allow VDOT to keep preliminary engineering costs to a minimum by reducing the amount. of survey, materials testing, and design work needed to develop the plans; however, with respect to the Route 620 project, the. reduced preliminary engineering work failed to identify unsuitable. subgrade material on the site that would cause the cost of construction to overrun significantly. He noted the following contract items- . were a result: of ..the unsuitable sub-grade material encountered: extra excavation; borrow excavation; Work Order No. 1 ~- NS rock fill; asphalt concrete base;. and, aggregate No. 25 or No.'26. He advised that the extended length of time that the project was under construction also led to several other. cost overruns.. He noted the project was awarded as a 210 calendar day project, but due to weather and cash flow problems within the State that led to a voluntary. shut down, the project. finished in 848 calendar days. He noted that although the delays did not count against the contractor, as they were deemed to be out of his control, the project still. had to be maintained for public safety and to protect the environment. He noted the associated items resulted from the delays: Group II Channelizing Device and flagger service;.. Field Office II; seed and lime; Work Order No. 1 -Erosion Control Mulch;. Erosion control stone; Work Order No. 1 -Protective Covering; silt fence; and, three (3) additional check dams. He noted with respect to positive drainage, adjustments were made that led to increased costs, such as Work Order No. 2, the outfall ditch excavation and cleanout extension.. He advised that additional cost on this .project that contributed to the overrun include construction engineering costs, additional survey and hydraulics reviews to assist with redesign elevations and grades for the final project. Mr. Lomax stated that VDOT is now under mandate to minimize plan errors and mitigate additional expenses on current and future projects. He noted that the County, in the future, will be informed of any significant project changes and asked. for input to assist. in future solutions. He advised that there is one potential claim outstanding from the contractor for changed conditions relative to the borrow excavation overrun and disposal of the unsuitable material, and that there are several right-of--way parcels still under negotiation. Supervisor MacManus inquired if VDOT has a policy for penalizing. contractors who bid on more projects than they are capable of handling. Mr. Lomax nofied there are safeguards in place,. and he offered to provide the Board with a copy. He stated that when the contractor bid on the other jobs, he had no way of knowing that VDOT would ask him to stop. on the Route 620 project, and he was not penalized .because VDOT's voluntary request to .cease work compromised the contractor's"ability to finish thefirst job and also affected the other jobs. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that VDOT staff continue to communicate with he Board, as necessary, concerning County road projects. as they have a significant impact on he finances that the Board is responsible for overseeing. 5 soon ~~ ;r--'~,d8 // Fred Westfall, Goodman and Company, presented the County's Financial Audit Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2004 to the. Board. He ..stated the County's General Fund balance is now in excess of $14,000,000, and the. Public Utilities fund.. showed a profit as a result of increased connection fees. Supervisor MacManus inquired if there were any recommendations for improvement made in the report. Mr. Westfall: replied that recommendations were made on minor issues, and no major weaknesses were noted. He stated there were no reportable conditions, .and staff has already begun to address the recommendations on the minor issues.. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board .accept the Financial Audit Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2004, as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) .with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, .and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Citizen's Comments. Miles Blount, Jr. of 14040 Ponderosa Lane in Carrollton expressed his opposition to the approval of the Conditional Use. Permit for the Elk's Lodge on Blount's Corner Road. He stated the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial to the Board, and the. School Board, as well as the Sheriff's Office have expressed opposition to the application. He stated the community has also expressed their opposition through letters, .cards and petitions in excess of 400 names. He stated that he in concerned that the Elks will not be able to build. an adequate building that will fit into the .community and still be profitable. He stated the Elks members have failed to convince the community that the Elks Lodge can coexist in the same community. Richard Gromlich of 9111 Blount's Corner .Road expressed opposition to the proposed location of an Elk's Lodge on Blount's. Corner Road. He presented a list of suggested changes to the conditions for consideration by the Board, as follows: change the hours of operation to 10:00. p.m.; change the wording "serving of alcohol" to "consume or consumption"; events sponsored by the Elks .must also have security; include a .condition that there be no loitering in the parking lot; include a condition that any event involving over 50 cars must have on-street traffic controls; change the statement "at .maturity" to allow for plantings that will provide acoustic benefit and appeal for the building; require an acoustic evaluation of the plan, and approval of the building should be contingent upon an acoustic certification of those 6 i ~~:~ ~~ 749 plans so that all the noise is contained to the inside. of the building; and, that there. also be acoustic inspections during the course of construction of the lodge. Charles W. Phelps of 271 Eagles Nest Lane expressed opposition to the proposed location of an Elk's Lodge on Blount's Corner Road. Speaking in his capacity as Sheriff of Isle of-Wight County, he .noted concerns with the close proximity of the building to existing homes.. He stated. that he anticipates the Sheriff's Office receiving numerous calls concerning noise, which increases .the demand on the Sheriff's Office. He expressed concern with traffic congestion that will occur during heavily attended events, causing backups on Old Stage Highway and making traveling in either direction. impossible for lengthy periods. of time, as well as the possibility of a serious . accident occurring because the roadway is a 55 mph speed zone. He stated that locating asocial club adjacent to a school does not send a message to students .that. consumption of alcohol is not. aproper- thing to do. He expressed concern with the proposed security plan for functions, and stated he does not allow .his deputies to .work. dances where alcohol is consumed because it may require them to appear in court, and it is a cost to the citizens of the County, not the Lodge. He stated. should a deputy have to use force to effect the arrest, the County and the state assume the liability. He requested the Board not approve the permit for the location, of the Elk's Lodge on Blount's Corner Road. n 1 Gary K. Kirts of 400 Kings Point Avenue in the Wrenns Mill Estates notified the Board that there is also a residence in Wrenns Mill Estates with the. address of 400 Kings Point Lane. He requested that appropriate action be .taken so that the mix-up in mail. services between these residences can be alleviated. Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board add Mr. Kirts' concern for discussion under New Business. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Perry Moss, Jr. of 204 Bishop Circle and Pastor of Soteria. Christian Center located at 936 South Church Street in .Ivor requested that the Board approve tax exempt status for Soteria Christian Center International. Chairman Clark .advised Pastor .Moss that his request is listed in the agenda as Item (C) under Old Business later in the meeting. Jan Baker of 171.11 Days Point Road expressed opposition to the proposed location of an Elk's Lodge.. on Blount's Corner Road. She requested that the Board consider the hours of operation of the Lodge in conjunction with school activities, and the possibility of building a road that goes out onto Route 10. // 7 _ g~oK 22 ~.- f 5Q At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor MacManus moved thatthe Board amend the agenda in .order to conduct .the. public hearings. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). _N Chairman Clark called for. a public hearing on thefollowing: < A. Meals Tax Ordinance County Attorney Stroman advised that pursuant to the results of the voter referendum on November 2, 2004, the County is now authorized to enact a tax on food and beverages. He further advised that the public hearing has been duly advertised. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed Ordinance. No one appeared. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor .Wright moved .the Board adopt the. following Ordinance, effective February 1, 2005, as presented: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15. TAXATION TO ADD ARTICLE VI: TAX ON PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGES WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors seeks to diversity the tax base in order to reduce reliance on real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the voters of Isle of Wight County authorized a tax on prepared food and beverages in a referendum held on November 2, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Board of .Supervisors. deems it appropriate to enact such a tax. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 15. Taxation, Article VI. TAX ON PREPARED FOOD. AND BEVERAGES be amended as follows: ARTICLE VI. TAX ON PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGES Sec. 15-22. Definitions. i~ L! 1 The following words. and phrases, when used in this article, shall have, for the purposes of this article, the following respective meanings. except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Beverage. Any alcoholic beverages as defined in section 4.1-100 of the - Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, ,and. nonalcoholic beverages, any of which are served as part of a meal, excluding alcoholic beverages sold in. factory containers and purchased for off-premises consumption. Caterer. A person who furnishes food on the premises of another for compensation. Commissioner of the Revenue. The commissioner of the revenue of the county. and any of his duly. authorized deputies, assistants, employees or agents. Food. Any and all edible refreshments or nourishment, liquid or otherwise, including alcoholic beverages and nonalcoholic beverages served with. a meal, purchased in or from a restaurant or from a caterer, except snack foods. Meal. Any food as herein defined, .other than a beverage, sold for consumption on the premises or elsewhere, whether designated as .breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner, supper, or by some other name, and without regard to the manner, time,' or place of service. Person. Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership. or any group of individuals acting as a unit. Purchaser. Any person who purchases food in or from a restaurant or from a caterer. Restaurant. (1) Any place where. food is prepared for service to the public whether on or off the premises including a delicatessen counter at a grocery store or convenience store selling prepared foods ready for human consumption; (2) Any place where food is served to the public; or (3) Anyplace or operation which prepares or stores food for distribution to persons of -the same business operations or of a related business operation for service to the public. Examples include a dining room; grill; coffee shop; cafeteria; cafe;.snack bar; lunch counter; lunchroom; short-order place; tavern; delicatessen; confectionery; bakery; eatery; drugstore.; catering service; lunch wagon or truck; pushcart or other mobile facility that sells food; dining facility in a 9 ..~,,,._~r,~~~ ....._ro .:.~._.~... _ . ._ . . , ._ , , . _ _.. _ . ,, ... ...~._ .~, n ,~ n.~ ,~A.~.. ~:~ti..r 9o~a 2? :.~:-752.. public or private club, resort, bar, or lounge; kitchen facility of a hospital or nursing home; and dining facility of a public ar private school or college. .Seller. Any person who sells food in or from a restaurant or as a caterer. Snack food. Chewing gum, candy, popcorn, peanuts and other nuts, and unopened prepackaged cookies, donuts, crackers, potato chips and other items of essentially the same nature. and consumed for essentially the same. purpose.. Treasurer. The treasurer of the county and any of his duly authorized deputies, assistants, employees or agents. (12-16-04) Sec. 15-23. Levy of tax; amount. In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now or hereafter imposed by law, a tax is hereby levied and imposed on the purchaser of all food served, sold or delivered for human consumption in the county in or from a restaurant, whether prepared in such restaurant or not, or prepared by a caterer. The rate of this tax-shall be four percent of the amount paid for such food. In the computation of this tax, any fraction of $0.005 or more shall be treated as $0.01. (12-16-04) Sec. 15-24. Payment and collection of tax. Every .seller of food with respect to which a tax is levied under this article - shallcollect the amount of tax imposed under this article from the purchaser on whom the same is levied at the .time payment for such food becomes due and payable, whether payment is to be made in cash or on credit by means of a credit card or otherwise. The amount of tax owed by the purchaser shall be added to the cost of the food by the sealerwho shall pay the taxes collected to the county as provided in this article. Taxes collected by the seller shall be held in trust by the seller until remitted to the county. (12-16- 04) Sec. 15-25. Reports and remittances generally. Every seller. of food with respect to which a tax is levied under this article shall make out a report, upon such forms and setting forth such information as the commissioner of the revenue may prescribe and require, showing the amount of food .charges collected and the tax required to~ be collected, and shall sign and deliver such report to .the treasurer with a remittance of such tax. It shall be presumed that all food. served, sold or delivered in the county (outside of incorporated towns) in or from a restaurant which provides seating facilities for its customers are consumed on premises and the burden shall be upon the seller of food to establish by records what food is sold for off-premises consumption. Such reports and remittance shall be made on or before the first business day ..following each calendar quarter, covering the amount of tax collected during the preceding quarter. (12-16-04) 10 900 ~~., <~'~51, 1 Sec. 15-26. Preservation of records. It shall be the duty of any seller of food .liable for collection .and remittance of the taxes imposed by this article to keep and preserve for a period of three years records, showing. gross sales of all food and beverages, the amount charged the purchaser of each such purchase, the date thereof, the taxes collected thereon and the amount of tax required to be collected by this article. The commissioner of the revenue shall have the :power to examine .such records at reasonable. times and without unreasonable interference with the business of the seller, for the purpose of administering. and enforcing the provisions of this article and to make copies of all or any parts thereon. {12- 16-04) Sec. 15-27. Advertising payment or absorption of tax prohibited. No seller shall. advertise or hold out to the public in .any manner, directly or indirectly, that all or any part of the tax imposed under. this article will be .paid or absorbed by the seller or anyone else, or that the seller or anyone else will relieve the purchaser of the payment of all. or any part of the tax. (12-16- 04) Sec. 15-28. Tips and service charges. (a) Where a purchaser provides a tip for an employee. or employees of a - seller, and the amount of the p is wholly in the discretion of the purchaser, the tip is not subject to the tax imposed by this article, whether paid in cash to the employee or added to the bill and charged to the purchaser's account, provided, in the latter case, the full amount of the tip. is turned over to the employee by the seller. (b) An .amount or percent, whether designated as a tip or a service charge, , that is added to the price. of the meal by the. seller,. and required to be paid by the purchaser, is a part of the selling price of the meal and is subject to the tax imposed by this article. (12-16-04) Sec. 15-29. Duty of seller when going out of business. Whenever any seller required to collect or pay to the county a tax under this article shall cease to operate or otherwise dispose of his business, any tax payable under this article shall became immediately- ,due and .payable and. such person shall immediately make a report and pay the tax due. (12-16-04) 1 Sec. 15-30. Enforcement; duty of commissioner of the revenue. 11 The commissioner of the revenue. shall promulgate rules and .regulations for the interpretation,. administration and enforcement of this article: It shall also be the duty. of the commissioner of the revenue to ascertain the name of every poor ~~ ~~~:r7,J~4 seller liable for the collection of the tax imposed by this article who fails, refuses or neglects to collect such tax or to make the reports and remittances .required by this article. The commissioner of the revenue shall have all of the enforcement powers as authorized by article 1, chapter 31 of title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, for purposes of this article. (12-16- 04) Sec. 15-31. Procedure upon failure to collect, report, etc. If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make, within .thee: time provided in this article, the reports and remittances.. .mentioned in this article, .the commissioner of the revenue shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the commissioner of the revenue shall procure. such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax payable by any seller. who has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make such report and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against such seller the tax and penalties provided for by this article and shall notify such seller, by registered mail sent to his last known place of address, of the total amount of such tax and penalties and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten days :from the date such notice is sent. (12-16-04) ~. Sec. 15-32. Duty of treasurer. The treasurer shall have the power. and the duty of collecting the taxes imposed and levied hereunder and shall cause the same. to be paid into the general treasury for the county. Sec.. 15-33. Penalty of late remittance or false return. If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to file any report required by this article or to remit to the treasurer the tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the. time and in the amount .specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax. by the treasurer a penalty in the amount often percent thereof and interest thereon at the rate of eight percent per annum, which shall be computed upon .the taxes and penalty from the date such taxes are due and payable. (T2-16-04) - Sec. 15-34. Violations of article. Any person violating, failing, refusing or neglecting to comply with. any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Conviction of such violation shall not relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of the taxes provided for inthis article. Any agreement by any person to pay the taxes .provided for in this article by a series.. of installment payments shall not relieve any person of criminal liabi ity for violation of this article. until the full .amount of taxes agreed to be paid by such person is 12 '1 ~~~~ i~ i~ I~ ~on~ 2? ti`755 received by the treasurer. Each failure, refusal, neglect or violation, and each day's continuance thereof, shall constitute a separate offense. (12-16-04) Sec. 15-35. Exemptions. The following purchases of food shall not be subject to the tax under this article: (a) Food furnished by restaurants to .employees as part of their compensation when no charge is made to the employee. (b) Food sold by nonprofit day care centers, public or private elementary or secondary schools or food sold. by any college or university to its students or employees. (c) .Food. for use or .consumption by the commonwealth, any political subdivision of the commonwealth or the United States. (d) Food furnished by a hospital, medical. clinic, convalescent home, nursing home, home for the aged, infirm or handicapped or other extended care facility to patients or residents thereof. (e) Food furnished by a nonprofit charitable organization to elderly, infirm, handicapped or needy persons in their homes or at central locations. (f) Food sold by a nonprofit educational, charitable or benevolent organization on an occasional basis as afund-raising activity or food sold by a church or religious body on an occasional basis. (g) Food furnished by boardinghouses that do nat accommodate transients. (h) Food sold by cafeterias operated by industrial plants for employees only. (i) Food sold by nonprofit cafeterias in public schools, nursing homes and hospitals, (j) Food sold'by churches, fraternal and social organizations and volunteer fire departments and reserve squads which hold occasional dinners and bazaars of one- or two-day duration, at which food prepared in the homes of members or in the kitchen of the organization is offered for sale to the public... (k) Food furnished by churches which serve meals for their members as a regular part of their religious observance. (1) Food sold through vending machines. 13 .r~. A(~f~! ~ (m) Any food or food product purchased for `home consumption as defined in the federal Food .Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. section 2012, or amended, except .for salad bar items .sold from a salad bar, prepackaged single-serving salads .consisting primarily of an assortment of vegetables, and .non-factory sealed beverages. This exemption does not. include hot food or hot food products ready for immediate consumption. (n) Any other. sale of food .which is exempt from taxation under the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act, oradministrative rules and regulation issued pursuant thereto. (12-16-04) State law reference-Code of Va., Section 58.:1-3833. Sec. 15-36. Severability. If any provision of this article, or any application of such p.~rovision to any person or under any circumstances, shall be invalid, the remainder. of this article, or the application of such .provisions to persons or under circumstances other than those to which it shall have. been held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. (12-16-04) This Ordinance shall be effective on February 1, 2005. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) .with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: B. Inspections Fees Ordinance County Attorney Stroman stated .responsive to the discussion held at a prior meeting .between the Board and the County's Superintendent of Inspections relative to fee increases; he has prepared a proposed Ordinance for the Board's consideration which has been properly advertised. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in apposition to, the proposed Ordinance. ' No one appeared. Chairman Clark closed the public. hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that the building population receive a 60-day notice. 14 ~~^K 22 ~h::=757 1 1 Chairman Clark moved the .Board adopt the following Ordinance, effective March 1, 2005: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 4. BUILDINGS, ARTICLE III. INSPECTIONS, DIVISION 2. FEES WHEN BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED WHEREAS, the .Isle of Wight. County, Board of Supervisors recognizes that the. fees. associated with various inspections and permits are no longer comparable to neighboring jurisdictions; and ..WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors further recognizes that in .many instances the cost of providing the inspection or permit is less than the cost of providing these services;.and WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors deems it appropriate to increase the inspection and permit fees. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter. 4. Buildings, Article III. Inspections, Division 2. Fees When Building Permit Required, be amended as follows: ARTICLE III. INSPECTIONS Division 2. Fees When Building Permit Re wired Sec. 4-8. Construction, repair or alteration of buildings or structures (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum building permit fee shall be $30.00 (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall be $100.40 (c) .Basic permit fee. 1. Usable area under roof,. per building or structure (includes all. new construction, ..finished or unfinished): For the construction of any building or addition thereto where .floor. area is increased, the fee shall be based on the floor area to be constructed, as computed from exterior building dimensions at each floor. a. All buildings of minimum construction types, for the first forty thousand square feet and .under, $012 per square foot. b. All: buildings. over forty thousand square .feet, $.08 per square foot. 15 2. All other structures not under roof, minimum permit fee of $30.00 + $.10 per square foot. (including patios, decks, ramps and loading docks). (d) .Demolition permit fee.. The demolition permit fee. shall be as follows: (1) Accessory buildings and structures, $35.00 each. (2) All other buildings and structures, $45.00 each. (e) Movingstructures permit fee. The permit .fee for moving .structures shall be as follows: (1) .Accessory buildings or structures, $45.00.. (2) All. other buildings and. structures, $55.00. (f) Industrialized building permit fee. The industrialized building permit fee shall be the same as the basic permit fee in paragraph (c) (1) (excluding mobile homes). (g) .Modular construction permit fee. The modular ,construction permit fee shall be the same as the basic fee in paragraph. (c) (1) of this section. (h) Mobile home permit fees. The mobile home permit fee shall. be as follows: (1) Mobile home and other mobile units permit fee, $35.00 each. (i) Sign permit fees. Sign permit fees shall be $65.00 per sign. (j) Tents and other temporary structures permit fee. The permit fee for tents and other temporary structures shall. be $45.00 each. (k) Chimneys=fireplaces, etc. The .permit fee for chimneys, fireplaces, wood and coal stoves and other. solid fuel burning heaters shall be $35.00. (Note: Fireplaces, heaters and chimneys shall be included in new " construction permit fees only if so noted at the time of issuing the permit.) (1) Alterations to create finished space. The fee for alterations. to shell buildings, unfinished tenant spaces, garages and attics to create finished space shall be $0.06 per square foot. (m) Other structures. The fee for all other structures as defined in the Basic Building Code not included in the above fee schedule are as follows: 16 1 I~ (1) Piers - $35,00 (2) Pools- (a) Ingrnund - $65.00 (b) Above ground - $45:00. (3) Retaining wall as defined in the Building Code - $30.00 (4) Towers - $30.00 ° (n) Permit reissuance fee. Permits becoming invalid as specified by the code may be reissued up to a period of .five years and charged a fee of $30.00 for each six .months period thereof.. A request for such re-issuance shall be in writing and submitted prior to the permit becoming. invalid.. (o) Plans examination. (1) The fee for plans examination, other than residential and accessory: structures, shall be $250.00. (2) A fee of $55.00 shall be charged for the reviewing of residential plans prior to making application for a permit. This fee will be credited to the permit fee if the permit is applied for within six months (p) Appeals. For each appeal to the Building Code board of appeals, the fee shall be $450.00. (1-10-74, A; 5-3-79; 6-16-88, 12-16-04.) For state law. as to authority of county to levy permit fees, see Code of Va., 36-105. Sec. 4-9. Installation of plumbing; fixtures etc (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum permit-plumbing fee shall be_$30.00. (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee .shall be $100.00 (see section 4-8 (b)). Corrections. shall be made. and the reinspection fee paid before the reinspection is conducted. (c) Basic permit fee. The basic plumbing .permit .fee `shall be as follows: (1) Residential, $25A0 per bathroom to include.l/2 baths.. (2) Commercial, $30.00 plus $8.00 per fixture. 17 ., ,~~,~.~y...~.M~~v ~w...~~.,... ._: ,., _ _ . ,~,~~ _ v~~,~,~: ~:,. y.,~Y 22 r~so (d) Sewers, manholes, etc.' The permit _fee for sewers, storm and sanitary manholes, area drains or devices shall be $10.00 each. Sec. 4-10. Electrical services. (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum electrical service permit fee shall be $30.00. E (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall .be $100.00. (see section 4-8 (b)). (c) New service equipment ermit fee. New service .equipment permit fees shall be as follows (new construction fees based on total ampacity of service equipment of service equipment and subpanels feeder overcurrent protection): 0-200 amps .........................:.........$45A0 201-400 amps ................................$55.00 40:1-600 amps ... ......... ...........$75.00 601+ amps.' ........ .. ................... $75.00 + $20 per 50 amps above 600 (d) Relocations and service increases permit fee. The permit fee for relocations and service increases shall be as follows. (additional work charged according to subsection (i) of this section ): (1) Existing service panels only, $30.00 each. (2) .Meter only, $30.00 each. (3) Service increases, $30.00 (e) Temporary service.. The fee for temporary: service (includes thirty-day power release. prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy) shall be $40.00. (f) Reconnection fee. The reconnection fee shall be $30.00 each (this does not include any electrical work within any structure). (g) Mobile home hookup. The fee for a mobile home hookup (excluding electrical service) shall be $30.00. For a mobile home hookup plus electrical service, the fee shall be based on the size of service. (h) Connections and outlets_ The fee for .fixed appliances and equipment connections and outlets to existingservice (ranges, water heaters, 18 1 1 9o~K 2~ :.-7~1 dishwashers, .disposals,. furnaces .dryers, baseboard units, exhaust fans, motors, air conditioning units, etc.) shall be $30.00. (i) Permit,reissuance fee. .The permit reissuance fee shall be the same as stated in 4-8 (n). (1-10-74, C; 5-3-79; 6-16-88, 12-16-04.). Sec. 4-10.1. Mechanical and gas fees (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum mechanical and gas permit fee shall be $30.00. (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall be $100.00. (see section 4-8 (b)). (c) _Basic permit fee. The basic mechanical .and gas permit fee shall be as follows: (1) New construction: a. Up to $1,000.00 contract value, $30.00. b. Over $1,000.00 contract value, $30.00 plus $6.00 per $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. (2) EgUlpment replacement repair etc The :permit fee for the replacement, repair or alteration of mechanical systems, or equipment in existing. buildings, structures or additions thereof shall be as follows: a. Up to $1,000.00 contract value, $30..00. b. Over. $1,000.00 contract value, $30.00 plus $6.00 per $1,000.00 or .fraction thereof. Exceptions: Domestic cooking equipment and space heaters in dwelling units are exempt from mechanical permit fees..: Inspections. of this equipment are required. (d) Fuel piping. The fuel piping permit fee shall be as follows: (1) Minimum .permit fee, $30.00. (2) Each outlet, $7.00. NOTE: This fee applies when a permit is issued for fuel piping work only. (e) L.P.G. tanks and piping. The .permit fee .for L.P.G. (i.e., butane, propane, etc,) tanks and associated piping shall be .$30.00 per tank. 19 ~o~h 2~ .,~76~ ~. (f) .Tanks and- piping for flammable liquids. Tanks and. associated piping for flammable liquids shall be $30.00 per tank.. (g) Removal of fuel storage tanks. Removal of fuel storage tanks shall be theminimum fee; i.e., $30.00 for each tank. (h) Fire suppression systems. The fire suppression system permit fee shall be as follows: (1 } New construction, same as basic fee (paragraph (c} (1) of this section).. (2) All others, same as basic fee (paragraph (c) (2) of this section}. (i} Elevators dumbwaiter etc. .The permit fee. for elevators, dumbwaiters, moving stairways, moving walks, construction personnel hoists and conveying equipment shall be $30.00 per unit. (j) Permit reissuance fee. The permit reissuance fee shall be the same as stated in section 4-8 (n). (k) Amusement rides and devices.. :The permit fees for .amusement rides and devices shall be as follows: (1) Kiddie rides, $15..00. (2) .Major rides, $20.00. (3) Spectacular rides, $45.00. (6-16-88, 12-16-04) The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, .Bradshaw, Clark and .Wright voting in favor of he motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark called .for a public hearing on the following: C. .Johnson Farm .Lease Renewal County Attorney Stroman advised that the proposed renewal of the Johnson Farm Lease to Matthew J. Johnson has been properly advertised for public hearing. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed lease renewal. No one appeared. 20 i~ 1 1 ~o~~ ~ 2:~ 76~ Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments of the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board .approve the lease renewal for a five (S) year. period. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and. no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark. called for a public hearing on the following: D. The application of Darrell Daniels for an .exception to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance.. Specifically, Section 4002 (B}(2)(a) to allow encroachment of 87 feet into the 100 foot Resource Protection Area Buffer for the construction of asingle-family residence. The property, containing ..438.1 acre of land is known as Lot 16 James Landing Neighborhood,. in the Gatling Pointe Subdivision, Smithfield, in .the Smithfield Election District. Chairman Clark called for. persons. to speak in favor. of, or in opposition to, the proposed application. William Riddick, attorney representing the applicant, Dr. Daniels, stated the lot under discussion was purchased in 1998_ and was created .prior to the adoption of the Chesapeake Bay Act. He stated Dr. Daniel submitted an application in 2002 for. an exception and was denied by the Planning Commission and the Board, and since that time Dr. Daniels has met with appropriate. County staff in an effort. to meet the requirements of the Act to the fullest extent. He stated a site plan .has been .developed in close cooperation with County staff, and Dr. Daniels has obtained a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals that would permit him to bring the house five (5) feet closer to the street. He stated Dr. Daniels has. also obtained tie services of a skilled builder familiar with the challenges this type of lot might present.. Dr. Daniels advised when he originally purchased the lot from East West Properties he was told -this was a .building.. lot that predated the Chesapeake Bay Preservation. Area Ordinance. He stated he is aware of what needs to be done to protect the banks and the environment, and he requested that the Board approve the application. Russ Holloman of Gatling Point. North, General Contractor for Dr. Daniels, noted that he has worked with Dr. Daniels and County staff for over two (2) years trying to establish. a footprint so that building can ..commence. He stated that a reduction of the print foot to a minimum footage allowed in the community has been developed. 21 J M_..., ~ _v...:, , ~..:., r .. _ ..._ , . _ _. , .. .. _ ... .-.,.....,..--. n.~.,~.._.. ..vw9..wrw. r. ,~rv ...taear~.issg 4 ~~~~ a~~r 2`? -.::--764. Mark Edwards of 105 Mariners Court spoke in favor of the- application. He stated Dr. Daniels has compromised greatly in his house plan,, and Dr. Daniels is being accessed a full market value on his lot. He noted that the individuals who have expressed opposition in the past have done so because having a home built at the proposed site would affect their: view of the James River. Pat Clark of Twin Hill Lane stated the members of the Carrollton Civic League and Isle of Wight Citizens Association worked diligently in the past to protect the compliance with the Chesapeake Bay .Preservation Area. ..Ordinance. He cautioned the Board not to set a precedent by approving this application. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. County Attorney .Stroman stated the lot under discussion is within the category of those lots that were recorded prior to October 1, 1989, and the. adoption of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. He stated that the central issue is whether it is the Board's opinion that what has been .proposed is the minimum necessary to afford. the applicant relief. Supervisor .MacManus inquired if the proposed home is one (1) story or two (2). Attorney Riddick replied the proposed home is two (2) story, and the. subdivision restrictions of Gatling Pointe require a minimum of 2,000 square feet. Supervisor Bradshaw made reference to he Chesapeake Bay. Local Assistance Department report noting that six (6) requirements must be met. He inquired if the .Board in the past has not denied other property owners from building on their lots. County Attorney Stroman advised that the Board has approved and denied various applications for exemptions in the. past." He stated that requirement number two (2) addresses. not conferring a special privilege which is denied .other property owners who are subject to those provisions and who .are similarly situated. He advised that the Board must take precedents into account, but each application. has to be reviewed to determine whether or not it meets the criteria. Supervisor MacManus inquired if the applicant maximized all the land available to him within the 50-foot RPA, up to the 30-foot line and the side setbacks. Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning .and Zoning, noted there are some spaces that are not utilized to their fullest potential near the garage, as 22 gD~K ~? -755 I~ 1 1 well as the setback on the front corner and at the driveway. He noted there are approximately 12 lots, of which six (6) remain, in the Gatling Pointe Subdivision that contain a portion of thelot in the RPA. Supervisor Bradbystated it puzzles him that a developer is allowed to sell a piece of property to an individual with the. understanding. that the individual will be allowed to build upon the lot, only to learn that the lot can not be built upon. Mr. Hartley pointed out that from the time that the lot was created and built upon, the laws have changed, and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. has established standards that must be met to build upon certain lots. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that the.. County must comply with :the. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance and adhere to state law or be in jeopardy of losing state funding. Chairman Clark noted he was concerned with the County's legal liability if the Board denies this application and the applicant's right. to build on the lot. Supervisor Bradshaw noted that it was Dr. Daniels' responsibility when he purchased the lot in 1998 to be familiar with the federal, state and County laws with respect to building on the proposed. lot. He stated that the. person who sold him the lot should have also advised Dr. Daniels about any changes in law. County Attorney Stroman advised Supervisor Bradby,. in response to his earlier statement, that the issue before-the Board tonight is not whether Dr. Daniels' lot may be built upon or not, but whether or not the applicant has. met the criteria of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance to allow him to build on a lot. platted before October 1, 1989. He stated the key issue is the minimum necessary to afford relief, and-..there. is always a potential taking issue when issues related to the, Chesapeake Bay are " .addressed. He stated the legal issue, in the event the Board denies. this application, pertains to whether there is anything about this application that could have been changed so as to minimize the adverse effect. on the Chesapeake Bay. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board deny the application.. The motion .was adopted by a vote of (3-2) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw and Wright voting in favor of the. motion, and Supervisors Clark and Bradby voting against the motion. Chairman Clark called fora public hearing on the following: 23 „~,.~, . ~ .. r _ _ gong 2? ;.:.;.766 E. The application of Robert J. Frank for a change in zoning classification from Rural Agricultural. Conservation (RAC) to Conditional General Commercial. (C-GC), 6.4 acres of land .located on the south side of Brewer's Neck Boulevard (Route 258) east of the Benns Church: Boulevard (Route 10) intersection,. Carrollton, in the Newport Election District. The purpose of the application is for a future retail out parcel and mini-warehouse complex phase IL Mr. Hartley recalled that the Board tabled consideration of this application at its September 16, 2004 meeting. He'advised that the applicant is requesting that this „application continue to be tabled, and he would recommend it be tabled an additional six (6) months until June, 2005 in order to allow the .applicant additional time to address a master plan for .that property. He stated he would not again advertise the matter for public hearing until he receives the Board's authorization. Chairman Clark opened. the public hearing. and called. for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed application. No one appeared. Chairman Clark closed the public. hearing. and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw. stated because it is the applicant that is requesting that the. matter be deferred, he would recommend that the Board move. the application to June, 2005 and readvertise the matter for public hearing at the applicant's expense. .Supervisor Wright moved the Board table the application .until -the Board's June 16, 2005 meeting, and that it be readvertised for public hearing at the applicant's expense. The motion .was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting. against the motion. Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: F. Minor Revisions to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance, Appendix B-l, of the Isle of Wight County Code. Mr. Hartley .advised .the Board that .the proposed revisions to the Ordinance include issues dealing with redevelopment. He noted that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Ordinance to the Board. Chairman Clark. called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed Ordinance. ' 24 i~ II '' 1 No one appeared. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for .comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that .the Board adopt the following Ordinance: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA ORDINANCE The amendments proposed .are indicated below, with additional .language. shown with a double underline and deletions with the °*r~'~°*"~^••~" --- Section 4001. Development Criteria for Resource Protection Areas. A. 2. Redevelopment on isolated "redevelopment sites shall be permitted. only if there. is no( an increase in the amount of impervious cover and no further encroachment occurs within the. RPA and it shall cGnform to applicable erosion and sediment control requirements outlined under 4000.B.5 and the stormwater management requirements outlined under Section 4000.B(9) of this Ordinance. For purposes of this section. in redeveloping a site. the encroachment of a~r_opased building or structure shall be based Dilly on .the location of existing builder s or structures. or the locations of_1e_7all~established historical buildings or structures and shall not be based on other impervious cover (i e drivewa~s~sidewalks uatios decks etc l located on the site Section 4003. Water Quality Impact Assessment C. Contents of the Impact Assessment The information required below shall be considered a minimum, unless the Zoning Administrator determines that some of the elements are ..unnecessary .due the .scope and nature- of the proposed .use and development of land. I. A site plan, which shall, at a minimum, contain the following: a. Location. of the components of the Resource Protection Area, including the .100-foot buffer area. delineated in accordance with Section 3001; Section 5001..... Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming. Structures. 25 90~~ 2~ _,:_~sg A. The' lawful use of a building or structure .which existed on October 1, 1989 or which lawfully. exists at the time of any amendment to the performance standards and criteria of this ordinance.. and which became not in compliance, may continue subject to the, provisions of the County Zoning Ordinance and the provisions below: No change or expansion of use. shall. be allowed with the exception that: 1. The Zoning Administrator may grant a nonconforming use and/or waiver for structures on legal nonconforming lots or parcels to provide for remodeling and alterations ~aa;+~^"" to such .nonconforming structures provided that: The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright .voting in favor of the , motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: G. Final Draft of the Isle of Wight County Zoning Ordinance Mr. Hartley noted staff and the Planning Commission have .been working on this document since January, 2002, and there. are a broad range of proposed revisions, as enumerated in the staff report. He stated the Planning Commission met throughout November and heard concerns from 21 citizens, most of those concerns related to rural issues and the change in the zoning designations in the rural areas. He noted contained in the agenda is an errata sheet dated November 23, 2004 which lists all of the .revisions that the Planning Commission recommended to the August 30, 2004 draft of the. ordinance. He noted that the Board was provided at a previous meeting a revised set of zoning maps .based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation. He advised staff has received. correspondence from W. B. Owens since the Planning Commission's action, and .written comments from Wendy Dean regarding property at the intersection of Battery Park Road and Nike Park Road.- He stated staff also received a request in writing from O. A. Spady regarding property in the Battery Park area, and a request from Bobby Edwards about a parcel that is currently zoned industrial on Route 10. He stated that staff had developed a paper explaining ..the change in zoning, which was also placed on the County's website, and which has generated much- concern. He noted a letter was also sent to the speakers who attended the Planning Commission public hearing explaining in detail that the uses on certain properties will not changed, and. that there is actually a slight expansion in some of the uses permitted. He noted that in 1997, staff created an RR district, and staff is now attempting to combine the RA and NCRA Districts with identical uses and standards. He noted .that staff has communicated to those who spoke at the public hearing that any existing -,Q,.,, ~~~h 2~ -769 parcel is grandfathered and can continue to operate and function as it has in .the past, provided the parcel was;,.. legally established, and the use .was not discontinued for two (2) .years. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed Ordinance. 1 1 Randy Royer, Kimley Horne. & Associates. of Chesapeake, representing the development community .and a consultant for the Benns Grant .project, stated he .has reviewed the proposed ordinance and finds many things that would cause problems with specifically the Benns Grant project and other developments in general. He noted that the preliminary package already submitted to staff will not work under the ..current ordinance, and there are some things that damage the functionality of the project, both on the commercial -and residential sides. He recommended that the Board table.. consideration and allow further work to be done on the proposed ordinance. He offered to work with staff should .the. Board choose to appoint a ,committee. He stated there are-.ways to avoid. sending development away, while still having quality development. He stated the legality of Section 4- 14006 is being questioned, and his attorney. has the appropriate language to ensure that he has the flexibility to come in with other options and build. what is envisioned with the Benns Grant project, while still achieving what the Board desires. He suggested that 4-14006(D) include language pertaining to development standards and architectural guidelines included in a master development plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall be effective with respect to the related. planned development, development standards and architectural. guidelines imposed pursuant to overlay districts that would otherwise be applicable pursuant to .Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance shall. not be in effect. for the planned development.. He also recommended that at the end of Section b-1000 the statement be included "However, development pursuant to a master development plan for a planned development zoning district approved by the Board of Supervisors as provided in Article 4 of the .Zoning Ordinance shall not be subject to the provisions. of Article 6." Erin Miligan of 20591 Creek Side Drive recommended additional time be provided for public debate and .input from experts in the. field. He also recommended that the Board allow for an independent study to investigate and research. any issues brought up tonight and. weigh any negative impacts the proposed ordinance .may. have. He voiced concern with general commercial development in the County, in particular the Newport Development Service Overlay District, in which the standards have been. elevated. over the other districts in the County. He stated the. extensive and unprecedented buffers, additional setbacks, .and side or rear parking are uninviting to prospective retailers, .and retail opportunities will bypass the County in favor of other localities. He stated the Route 17 corridor, which has the highest potential for commercial development, will be impacted by devaluation of existing non-residential property which will result. in lower commercial real estate taxes and sales tax income, and .will also increase the 27 9oR« 2~ -;.-:770 pressure to tax the citizens of the County .due to a lack of economic development. He recommended that the Board defer action and involve experts. in the field and other consultants, as necessary, in the evaluation of this document. Jerry Tenney of 1104. Wilson Road addressed the proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance to not. allow buildings of more. 100,000 square feet, and what this will mean to the County. He stated economic development is needed, but not in a way that it is intrusive. He stated many citizens are against having a Walmart locate in the County. He stated while economic development helps keep down the residential tax rate, the quality of life in the County can be maintained with slow, cautious development. John Nay of 20567 Creek Side Drive spoke in opposition to the Board approving the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance as written. He stated that when the parking lot is hidden, the visibility of the other retail space is also blocked. He stated retailers need to be seen from high traffic counts and the proposed ordinance will deter quality retailers from considering the County. He stated the new approval process is also cumbersome, and takes approximately 290 days in the County. He stated he believes that retailers will seek the path of less resistance and take their potential tax revenue elsewhere. He presented a letter from his neighbor, Wes _Dollins, who is considering building a daycare center on tract 12 in the Eagle Harbor Subdivision. He stated Mr. Dollins is opposed to the proposed changes. in the Zoning Ordinance with. respect. to the Location of the parking lots at the rear of the structures because of safety. and security issues, because the business will not be inviting to those seeking services, and because vehicle exposure will be lost. He further expressed Mr. Dollins' concern with the use of specific building materials as stipulated. He noted the` architectural guidelines should be considered with the design and curb ;appeal of the building, not the material Alan Gregory of 43 Watson Drive noted a concern with the portion of the ordinance that addresses large box development. He stated that he believes a facility similar to a Walmart would. be a good step in the .right direction to diversify the County's tax base. He noted .that .he is also in favor of the County increasing the amount of proffers so that schools can. be built, police hired, and fire and rescue organizations can grow. He stated that while he values the County's small business, and believes that good sound. small businesses will not only survive, but will thrive, no one can expect the small businesses to sustain the projected growth. He stated focus .should be .more on architecture and style and nat size and scope. Teresa Johnson of 15275 Candy Island Lane expressed concern about the proposed provision to not. allow buildings of more 100,000 square feet. She noted. that Walmart would not agree to this provision when there are other opportunities to build a 200,000 square foot store. She noted that many senior residents avoid Coliseum Mall in favor of Patrick Henry. Mall which is 28 ~o~~ 22. ^771::.. 1 all on one floor. She called attention to those citizens who rely on :scooters while .they "shop, and the. difficulty .they encounter when trying to use an elevator. She noted. that escalators can be .dangerous,. and there will be a hardship placed on the fire department in the event a fire occurs. in a two- story building. She noted many citizens are hoping for a super Walmart to materialize, and the income received by the County will keep the real estate assessments and tax rates from increasing. She encouraged the Board to allow 200,000 square feet buildings, and she does not .want the County to be known as the county with the lack of foresight to encourage property growth and development. Robert Duggett, Director of Public Affairs for the. Peninsula Housing and Building Association, noted that there has not been a sufficient amount of public input .with the proposed changes to the .Zoning Ordinance. He noted there has also been a lack of input from housing industry representatives. He noted specific concerns about the requirements for rezoning applications, azid the new applications and associated requirements will increase property owner's cost, as the cost of the new requirements will be pushed onto new homeowners, in turn pushing the housing cost higher in the County. He noted with respect. to the new requirement for preliminary site plans,. time equals money, and the more time an approval process takes, the more this cost .ends. up being placed. on the homeowner. He stated the Comprehensive Plan .indicates that the County expects to see most of the County's .growth in the northern area, yet in the proposed Zoning Ordinance, this is also where same of the most stringent requirements have been placed on development. He encouraged the Board to postpone adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance in order to receive input from all interested stakeholders, including representatives of the housing industry .and. the commercial real estate industry. 29 . Ivy Street. of James River Drive. stated. she is opposed to allowing large corporations to move into the County.. She noted small business will be forced to shut .down because they are. unable to .compete, in turn destroying the local economy. She stated studies indicate for every two (2} jobs created by a Walmart, a community will lose three (3). Mark Edwards, 105 Mariners .Court, on behalf of the Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce, submitted a letter from the Chairman and President of the Chamber of Commerce, Wayne Farmer and Connie Rhodes, who were unable to attend. He expressed concerns. with the .proposed architectural requirements within the Newport Development Service Overlay District which seem excessive and are not practical. He stated the side. and. rear parking requirement for. retail and commercial. shops, and the more excessive landscaping buffer requirement will restrict the .ability of the County to attract quality commercial businesses in the Newport District. He stated the table with respect. to builder perimeter landscaping requirement that contains a certain percentage of foundation plantings in .front of storefronts is difficult to compute. He stated it is almost impossible to have a continuous plant bed. ..~rv ._ ,.,...,_, F ~ .~,.r~ soar: 2,~ .::-:~7`7~ around the building front with the requirement for continuous awning at shopping centers and have a loading access in the rear of the store. He stated planters in the front are a proven means of foundation landscaping, yet there is no provision for. it in the: proposed ordinance. He stated retailers will demand a certain amount of branding, .and they will require the ability to .use. their logo and font in the signage. He :noted it will be difficult to attract quality retailers who want to have their brand known, and the excessive restrictions will send .retailers to other municipalities. He stated :the roof options are restricting the. buildings to be of a Georgian or Cape Cod architectural style, and are too restrictive. He stated with respect to fencing, there is no provision for vinyl fencing. He requested that input be sought from qualified experts. in the business community before proceeding. He stated that the Board expects property owners and applicants to pay for the review costs and services of outside .consultants when reviewing development and architectural plans; however, the Board apparently did not do the same in preparation of this proposed Zoning Ordinance. He inquired why the Board did not implement the.Newport Development.Service Overlay District throughout the entire County as there are. more historical structures to protect along Route 10, Route 258 and Route 460, .and the Newport District has been. unfairly signaled out in those restrictions. He further inquired why these architectural standards have not been applied to the County's industrial parcels. He requested the Board take whatever time is necessary to discuss how the proposed ordinance will affect economic development opportunities in the Newport District. Joshua Pretlow of 200.North Main,Street in Suffolk warned the Board to be cautious about approving the proposed Ordinance tonight because once the Ordinance is approved, it will be more difficult and time. consuming to change .things. He requested that the .Board. reread the letter submitted by Wendy Dean. He notified the Board about property owned by Mr. Brugh that is being rezoned from commercial to residential, and it should not be converted back to residential when the land is located in a high traffic area. He noted the County would be lowering the value of Mr. Brugh's land from. a tax standpoint, but the traffic will remain, and the location. is a logical place to ultimately locate a .business. He referred to correspondence that shows that the County backed out of its agreement on several occasions to hook that property into the Smithfield sewer system, which he would. request be treated separately from the general rezoning. of the new maps. He made reference to correspondence from A. C. Pulliam, Jr. of Newport News .who has been attempting to get the six-(6) lots redesigned into three (3) lots so that they are more functional. He stated that Mr. Pulliam .would. like for that property to be pulled out and left alone as it is currently rezoned. He stated the proposed ordinance is an example of how. fast a municipality can take land rights from. individuals, and he encouraged. the Board to proceed carefully .because ordinances, once they are in place, are difficult to undo. Calvin .Davis of Williamsburg noted that the proposed Ordinance would not allow the same type of development to take place using the 30 ~~ i ~~ ~~ ?~~~ 2,? .773 standards in place over the last 24 months. He stated he would like to have addressed how the proposed Ordinance would affect his ongoing development, and he would ike to discuss the practicality of the .actual administration of a shopping center in regard to rear parking. He stated he would like to have the capability of having a zero property. line to attach to common walls, and not have -the setbacks that are involved that only create alleyways that harbor waste and provide the potential for vandalism and safety issues to exist. He recommended .that a knowledgeable shopping center person be invited to attend any future meetings to discuss unusual issues that staff may not be aware of. . Franklin Tubbs of Mill Creek Drive stated he believes it is the Ordinance's intent to separate smaller parcels of land that are not involved in agriculture set up as residential areas to help with the cost of building .schools, sewer lines and other services that are needed in the County. Dean Vincent of Gatling Pointe Parkway noted concerns with buffer and parking .orientation issues. He stated those two (2) issues alone .have the most .troubling .impact and the greatest likelihood. of chasing retail opportunities to other jurisdictions. He stated the setbacks, which were extensive before, are now being extended further, which is a waste of prime property. He stated a maximum impervious percentage of 60% is low. He stated the confusing provision about front yardsand through lots needs to be revised as the front yard setback on the through lots has the ability to increase the radius from 30 feet with landscaping to 70 feet. He questioned with respect to the front yard setback, if a new public right of way is being added for frontage in a mixed use development, and it becomes a corner lot, why. does. that become as vital as a visual buffer and setback as is the arterial. He stated because the minimal square footage is 20,000 square feet in a GC zoned property, he could not build anything on a property consisting. of 200 feet of frontage on an arterial roadway .and 100. feet of depth, applying the setbacks of 70 feet and 30 feet in the rear. He stated after applying the setbacks contained in the proposed Ordinance to a corner lot he currently owns would leave him with a buildable footprint, including the parking lot, often (10) by 100 feet. He stated applying the proposed setbacks to a classic two. (2) acre parcel .with a width of 290 feet on an arterial roadway with 300 feet of depth leaves less than 3/25 of an acre. to build upon. He stated on a 20-acre parcel, he can only build on 10.7 acres, including parking, using the setbacks proposed in the Ordinance. He stated with respect to parking orientation, the proposed Ordinance forces the building to front on the .right of way with parking located at the side and rear of the structure,. and under this scenario the front entrance .will. be oriented .now towards the arterial .roadway with parking in the back which causes safety. concerns. He stated this has .not been done successfully, and the. County wants viable retail that can sustain itself for many years while adding to the. tax base and providing a viable place for citizens to shop... He stated retail businesses will not locate where they can not be seen. He stated he is a resident of the County, and he 31 ..e4A~Yd...ena.e.avg.,...,x.~.~+tl~.-,e,xr+.~.E-:.a,.,.-..>,__ .._.. .:.:_.___--~ ~. .,... _._,:.~.. ... ... ,..,:t _ ,.._.--. .. _ _ _•~ ..._,.r ~.~,•~.x.~ ,.»+w,_~.,..7»r; ~.-.. .."^'Y~U'9+`:,,w~d wants retail development so that there is a source of other forms of revenue in the County than residential real estate. Chairman Clark moved the Board take afive-(5) minute recess. The motion was adopted unanimously. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board return to open session. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Branch Lawson of 106 Waterpoint Lane. noted issues with. Section 6- 2000, Newport Development Service Overlay District. He requested that the Board consider the comments made tonight and further scrutinize the document. He stated the proposed Ordinance does not promote public safety with respect to the regulation of parking along the sides and backs of commercial buildings. He stated that the provisions consume vast amounts of commercial land unnecessarily, and the setbacks. and .impervious coverage requirements wily leave landowners with only small pieces of land for constructing improvements. He ~ stated the requirements will reduce the values of commercial properties, and will also reduce the tax revenues to the County. He stated the proposed Ordinance, as written, will not draw quality retailers to the County. He stated the proposed setback and parking requirements cause grocery stores, hospitals, department stores and big box stores to locate in other areas.. He presented sample. photos of buildings that could not be built in the Newport District under the proposed .Ordinance, to include Obici Hospital and the courthouse. He .read into the record a letter from Mr. G. Robert Aston, Jr.,.President of Towne Pointe Bank, noting that expansion into the County is being considered; however, based on his review of the proposed zoning plan for the Newport District it would be impossible to develop an adequate site plan for the Bank's use, and: that he would encourage the Board to consider the impact of the .County's .economic development effort as the proposed plan is evaluated. Pat Clark'of Twin Hill Lane thanked the Planning Commission for its efforts in developing the document.. He stated public input was. encouraged at the many meetings that were held, and experts in the .field were invited to speak about the subject. He stated the fastest growing district is the Newport District, and the County wants to keep this district pleasing to the eyes for those who live here, as well as for those who are visiting. He encouraged the Board to consider the statements made tonight and make appropriate changes to the ordinance as necessary, while keepitrg in mind that the ordinance ..should be stringent as long as it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Thomas Finderson of Sugar Hill Road noted that while there are many. prejudices against a Walmart locating in the County, residents would have access to a large variety of items. He stated the Board should not allow these prejudices to .keep a Walmart store from coming into the County. He stated he believes citizens are falsely .concerned about .issues such as a :Walmart closing down, as Gloucester County has a Walmart, .and it is a rural county 32 804 ~T,, - .'~7eJ 1 such as Isle. of Wight County. He stated if the proposed square footage is not increased and the Walmart built in the County has. to have two (2) floors, there is a concern that fire department ladders will not be able to access the roof, and there is a concern with handicapped citizens having to use elevators. He stated there is also a concern that if the. County does not allow the 205,000 square foot Walmart, would. this not also affect ballparks which exceed that square footage. He stated the Benns Church project needs to consist of a Walmart; otherwise it will just be another shopping center, and it will not draw individuals to shop there. Chairman Clark. closed the public hearing and .called for comments from the Board. Chairman. Clark noted a concern with .the late date at which some of the people who spoke tonight addressed this issue. He stated this is not a legitimate concern. to him. He .noted the issue has been advertised and public comment has been invited. He noted experts have been consulted on different aspects of the ordinance, the County's staff and the Planning Commission members have spent. numerous hours, and the Planning Commission's subcommittee has met numerous times. .Supervisor MacManus stated staff and the Planning Commission has been working on this issue for three (3) years._ He noted he would support a delay, and he would .welcome comments from the development community for the Board's consideration. He stated the draft ordinance was released in September, 2004, and while feedback was received from Dean Vincent, staff has not received any comments from the remaining development community. He stated that he believes that the Board needs to conduct work sessions so that all the comments brought forth tonight can be considered, as well as the Board's thoughts on the issue. He stated that the Board needs to ensure that the County grows, but that that growth can be .managed. He stated he supports the concept of heavy landscaping. He stated that the County's Planning Commission and the Planning .Commissions for the Towns of Smithfield and Windsor have heard from national experts such as Ed McMan and Randal Arendt. He stated the Board has sought. input- from other communities. such as Loudon County to speak. about their experience. with. bad growth so that the County can learn from their mistakes. He encouraged the development community members that have addressed the Board tonight to provide their specific input by section number and wording for the Board's consideration. He noted. the end result. will be a tool that can be utilized by staff to ensure the future growth of this County is positive. He recommended .that the Board delay any action tonight, and set up a work session for the end of January, 2005 to give the development: community .time to provide. the Board with their specific concerns by section number. Supervisor Bradshaw acknowledged. the many hours the .Planning Commission and staff members had dedicated to developing a draft ordinance. He agreed that this wily be a valuable tool to manage growth in 33 ~o~~ 2? :~ ~-77~ the County, and staff had attended conferences. and seminars, in addition to meeting with the members of the General Assembly, as well as members of the Governor's staff. He stated the. General Assembly has repeatedly told the County. that it must begin to utilize the tools given by the General Assembly- to the County to manage its growth. He stated the Board has. taken the position that it will utilize the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as tools for managing growth. He stated the County has been recognized nationally for the plans that have been developed by staff, and he expects that ..the County's Zoning Ordinance will also be recognized as a model for use by other localities. He stated the Board must also use caution, and he does recommend .work sessions be held to ensure that the product the County has is the best product that can. be developed, and that the County is not being detrimental to the personal property rights of individuals. He stated he is a strong supporter of software that creates visual .graphs, and he advocates moving forward with the purchase of necessary software and equipment to reach this goal. He stated that he believes additional work needs to be done with respect to buffering so that the County does .not place financial burdens on the property owners. He stated with respect to buffers on the primary corridors and highways, which corridors are being addressed should be defined. He stated the County is being irresponsible to the citizens when the County tells a property owner .who has standing timber. located along a primary corridor that they can not cut their timber. He stated these trees are going to die at .some time, and then the County is going to make the property _ owner responsible for taking the dead trees down and that they be replanted. He stated the County is taking an investment away from these property owners, and at the same time making the property owner responsible for maintaining the trees. He stated the sliding scale needs. further review because his understanding of it is not the same as that of staff, and_he wants a clear understanding of the sliding scale. He stated more input is needed with respect to economic development. Supervisor Wright thanked the Planning Commission .for its many hours of work •on: thin document. He stated he is disappointed that the development community showing up at this late hour. He stated he is in support of conducting work sessions on the ordinance. Supervisor Bradby stated encouraged all those with comments to come forward so that a document can be produced that will benefit the County. Supervisor Bradshaw noted that he wanted .the comments of the Economic Development staff included. Chairman Clark moved the Board table consideration of the Ordinance until the Board's Retreat on Friday, January 7, 2005. The motion was adopted. by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of .the motion, and no Supervisors .voting against the motion. 34 11 11 1 _.. ._ __,. _ .~ a_~...~, ~._. ; _ _. ~ ~ ~ _ r . .:. ~,~~..~N..... ,,, .. w. _.... ~ .. . II Supervisor MacManus noted that he wanted written comments by January 20, X2005 by the development community. He noted that the need for. a work session would be discussed as part of the Retreat. Supervisor MacManus moved that the. Board direct staff to .come back at the Board's Retreat- with a planned work session agenda,. to be scheduled for. the last part of January, 2005 with staff members to be available. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in ,favor of the motion,. and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board return to its regular session and amend the agenda in order. to consider at this time Item (B) under Old Business, the application of the Trustees. of Smithfield Elk Lodge No. 65 for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the use of the property. as an Elk Lodge for a meeting place to hold Elk's. functions and-community activities on four ` (4) acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural. Conservation (RAC) located on the west side. of Blount's Corner Road (Rt. 674} east of Old. Stage Highway (Rt. 10) in the Hardy Election District, and that the matter expressed by Gary K. Kirks under Citizens Comments concerning a change of address follow. . The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). With respect to the. Elk's. Lodge application, Mr. Hartley advised that pursuant to the Board's direction at its December 2, 2004 meeting, staff has revised the conditions. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board approve the application to include the revised conditions recommended by staff (12/16/04) and further amended. as follows: Under Condition 3, revise the language to reflect. "activities shall be prohibited after .11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and after 12:00 midnight on Fridays' and Saturdays." 1 Under Condition 4 shall read all operations, including special .events, shall comply with the requirements of the Virginia Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. No alcohol shall be served or consumed between the .hours of 8:00- a.m. until 5:00 p.m. during the operation of Hardy Elementary School. Under Condition 9, .include the language "as approved by the Planning Director." The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark ,and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 35 -.r e~?*ex++a~„-^r,, .:,-m....~~..~...,,..+ ~.-n,__.: =,. .,v ...--., _ ,.. k... ~, _.... __.~_._. ., :...e:. ..~.... v_.. ._.._ . _. ,u, . ~~~ x .,rw,.~ts;e.m .~... ~xav-sisr.uV~~4- eo~R 2? ;;:::-~78 With respect to the request of Gary K. Kirts under Citizens Comments, Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board direct .the matter to County staff for consideration and a recommendation back to the Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no .Supervisors voting. against the motion. // Supervisor Bradshaw moved that, the Board continue with the. regular. order of the agenda. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). /I Chairman Clark called for the County Attorney's report. .County Attorney. Stroman presented a proposed Ordinance Restricting Truck Access to Yellow Rock Road pursuant to the Board's request. ..Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board direct the County Attorney to advertise the matter forpublic hearing at the Board's January 20, 2005 meeting, as revised by the County Attorney. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor MacManus absent for the vote.. County Attorney Stroman presented a proposed Right-of--Way Agreement with Dominion Power in the Isle of Wight County _Commerce Park which he recommends the Boardapprove. Supervisor MacManus advised that he would be abstaining from discussing and voting on the matter. Chairman Clark advised that he received a call today advising that there was an error in the easement. County Attorney Stroman stated he would make contact before forwarding the. document, but he is not: aware of any errors. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the right-of--way agreement on behalf of the Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with .Supervisors Bradby, :Bradshaw, :Clark and _ Wright voting in favor of -the motion; no .Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor MacManus abstaining from voting onthe matter. // 3b 90~~ 22 779 II Chairman Clark called for the County Administrator's report. Alan S. Nogiec, Director of Parks and Recreation, noted that .pursuant to a .letter from Larry Askew to him. requesting that the lease agreement for the Isle of Wight/Franklin Skating :Rink be continued, he is requesting that the Board authorize a public hearing be set for January 20, 2005. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board authorize staff to schedule a publ is hearing for the Board's January 20, .2005 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors .MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Donald M. Long, Director of Public Works, presented a request for an .allocation from the Capital Contingency Fund for the purchase of a tractor and attachments so that the Public Works Department can be more responsive.. to the growing needs of grass cutting in the County. He stated that the CIP Committee recommended that the funds be taken .from the Capital Contingency Fund versus CIP funds. Supervisor MacManus moved -that. the Board approve the request and appropriate $48,000 .for the purchase of a tractor and attachments for the Public Works Department. The funds should be taken from. the Capital Contingency .Account appropriated in the FY 04-OS Operating and Capital Budget, The motion was. adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the " motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Sheriff C. W. Phelps-presented a request for investigators within the Sheriff's Office to utilize the trailer currently being used by IT staff upon their relocation. Supervisor MacManus. moved .that the Board approve the Sheriff's request to use the trailer. currently being occupied by the IT Department upon their departure with the understanding that the :mobile unit is currently. permitted through December 31, 2005. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, .Bradshaw, Clark and .Wright voting in favor. of the motion, and no Supervisors. voting against the motion. Emily G. Haywood, Director of .Human Resources, presented.. a proposed amendment to County Pay and Classification Plan to effectuate. the changes the Board directed be carried out with the reorganization within his senior management. She recommended an additional pay grade of 51 be added to the Pay and Classification Plan 1 Supervisor MacManus moved the Board adopt. the amended Pay and Classification Salary Ranges. to .incorporate the additional pay grade of 51. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, ~_ . __ ~.~ .... ~_ ~. ,~ ~. ,~.~.: ..._~:, r,,_,: ,.~. ~ ~ . ,..~~,,.~~.~ ~.~~., .~ `o*.ui~>4>. 9ooK 2? ,~~7~a Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Noting that the Board's first meeting in February conflicted with the VACo conference, County Administrator Casket' requested that the Board .begin to consider a substitute date for its 4:00 p.m. meeting in February. He advised that senior management and the County Attorney would be addressing the -Board at its Retreat on Friday evening, January 7, 2005, and that the remainder of staff would be addressing the Board on Saturday, .January 8, 2005. Supervisor. MacManus requested. that under Issues for .Discussion, Board of Supervisors' Retreat, Strategic Plan of Action, Item (2) include open space .acquisition. Supervisor MacManus requested that under Item (4), staff should be prepared to address aten-(10) year. plan for parks and recreational .projects... Supervisor MacManus requested that under Item. (5), staff should be prepared to discuss historical resources and tourism. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that under Item (5), staff should be prepared to address the Jamestown 2007 event in coordination with the VACo Conference and how tourism will be involved. Supervisor MacManus requested that an Item (11) be added to discuss the formation of a task force for Paul D. Camp Community College. Supervisor MacManus requested that an Item (12) be added to discuss a work session for the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Clark requested that an Item (13) be added to include a closed meeting with respect to anticipated litigation for Friday night, January 7, 2005. Supervisor Bradshaw requested staff to add an item relative to the need for joint meetings with the County's legislative delegation, Commonwealth Transportation Board members and the School Board. County Administrator: Casket' advised appropriate changes would be made to the draft agenda based on the. Board's comments and that they would be mailed to the Board members in advance of the meeting. Supervisor. Bradshaw moved the Board hold its organizational meeting and retreat simultaneously at the Windsor Elementary School at 5:30 p.m. on January 7, 2005 and January 8, 2005.. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion., and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 38 J 800k ~r °' (~~ Noting a conflict with his schedule, Supervisor Bradby advised that he would -not be present on Friday, January 7, 2005; .however, he would be present on Saturday, January S, 2005. Mr. Hartley presented the following: for the.Board's consideration: The request of W. C. Sawyer for an exemption to certain provisions of the Highway Corridor Overlay .District fora car wash. and the Carrollton. Shopper expansion.. Tax Parcel. Numbers 34-17-003 and portions of 34-17-002 and 34-17-004. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board approve the request. The: motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Mr. Hartley presented the following for the Board's consideration: W. C. Sawyer Car Wash and Carrollton Shoppes Expansion Highway Corridor Overlay District site plan review.. Tax parcel numbers 34-17- 003 and portions of 34-17-002 and 34-17-004. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board approve the .site plan. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Mr. Hartley presented the following for the Board's consideration: Jeb's Corner Market Highway Corridor Overlay District Revised Architecture Review.. Tax Parcel Number. 34-01-124. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board approve the revised plan to include berms with landscaping on the side and front of Route 17 to provide screening to the parking area. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Mr. Hartley presented the following for the Board's consideration: Design Engineering Services Highway Corridor Overlay District. Site Plan Review. Tax Parcel Number 34A-02-001. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board table the matter to allow certain issues to be addressed by the Planning Commission. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and - 39 E ~~~~ 2? ~.::-782 Wright voting in favor of the motion, .and no Supervisors voting ,against the motion. .Supervisor MacManus requested that staff. remind the applicant that berms and landscaping are desired. Sandon Rogers, Transportation Planner, presented the following for the Board's consideration. Plat showing survey of property shown as parcel (C} for Isle of Wight County Industrial Fark Land Trust, IWIP Road, Newport Magisterial District,. tax parcel number 42-01-007D. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board approve the. plat. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark .and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no ,- Supervisors voting against the motion.. .Supervisor MacManus recommended that landscaping be provided in .accordance with the Highway Corridor Overlay District. Mr. Rogers presented the following for the Board's consideration: Plat showing survey of property shown as parcel (D) for :Isle of Wight County Industrial Park Land .Trust, IWIP Road, Newport Magisterial District, tax parcel number 42-01-007D. Supervisor. MacManus moved. the Board approve the plat. The motion .was adopted by a .vote of (5-0) .with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Old Business. A. The application of Robert J. Frank to amend she proffered Master Plan of the Benns Church Development, thirty-three (33) acres of land zoned Conditional General Commercial (C-GC), to allow a self storage facility and retail/office uses. The property is located on the south side of Brewer's Neck Boulevard (Route 258} east. of the Benns Church Boulevard (Route 10) intersection, Carrollton, in the Newport Election District. Mr. Hartley recommended that the Board table the application until the Board's June 16, 2005 meeting. 40 1 B~nB Fri.+ rn:f~VV Chairman Clark moved the Board table consideration of the application ' until the Board's June 16, 2005 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0),with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, .Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark recalled that with respect to the public hearing on Item (B), Smithfield Elk Lodge, :the Board took action earlier in the meeting. Chairman Clark called for consideration of the following: C. Soteria Christian Center International - Request for Tax Exemption. Andrea Clontz, Accounting Manager, noted that currently the Soteria owns the welcome alley property in Smithfield, and they lease a considerable amount of that office to various tenants. She stated the Commissioner of Revenue actions is consistent with other organizations -that fall under the religious tax exemption. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board accept the recommendations of .the Commissioner of Revenue. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-O) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion... // Chairman Clark called for New Business. County Administrator Casket' presented a request from Genieve Shelter for a letter of support acknowledging the general need for additional transitional housing for victims of domestic violence in Western Tidewater. He noted that the County has allocated $10,000 in the current ,budget in support of the Genieve Shelter. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board authorize the submission of a letter in support of the. need: for additional transitional housing for victims of domestic violence in Western Tidewater, as presented by the .County Administrator, .and that the County. Administrator. be authorized to sign .the letter. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting. in favor of the motion, .and no Supervisors voting against the motion: Responsive to an inquiry .from Chairman Clark, Mr. Hartley advised that he would be notifying Jeb's Market that the exterior emblems must be removed on the building. ~~ 41 gu~K 22 ;~f.-784 County Attorney Stroman requested a closed meeting under the .Freedom. of Information Act pursuant to Section 2.2-3711-A.7 concerning two (2) legal matters pertaining to actual litigation with respect to water and sewer connection fees, and under Section 2.2-3711.A.1. concerning three (3) personnel items relating to the performance of County employees. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board return to open session. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING WHEREAS, the. Board of Supervisors has. convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712.D of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was • conducted inconformity with Virginia law; .NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters .lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion .convening the closed .meeting were heard, .discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. VOTE AYES:. MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Wright NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0 // At 12:00 midnight, Supervisor: Bradby moved the Board adjourn its meeting, The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). ~7,.------: Stan D. Clark, Chairman ! Y) W. Dougl ey, Clerk 42 --~~~