Loading...
01-03-2008 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT: Thomas R. Ivy, Chairman Stan D. Clark, Vice-Chairman James B. Brown, Jr. (Arrived at 3:05 p.m.) Phillip A. Bradshaw Al Casteen Thomas J. Wright, III Also Attending: A. Paul Burton, Interim County Attorney W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator Carey Mills Storm, Clerk Chairman Ivy called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. // Supervisor Wright delivered the invocation. // The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. // Chairman Ivy called for nomination for the Election of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the year 2008. Supervisor Bradshaw nominated Supervisor Clark as Chairman of the Board for the year 2008; Supervisor Brown as Vice-Chairman of the Board for the year 2008; and, that Carey Mills Storm be appointed as Clerk to the Board for the year 2008. Supervisor Clark was elected as Chairman of the Board for the year 2008; Supervisor Brown was elected as Vice-Chairman of the Board for the year 2008; and, Carey Mills Storm was appointed as Clark to the Board for the year 2008 by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown absent for the vote. Supervisor Brown arrived at the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Chairman Clark advised that it is seldom that the County has a sitting Chairman who has not been re-elected, as happened in this case and the 1 Interim County Attorney advised the Board that the sitting Chairman has to preside over the meeting until a new Chairman is elected. Chairman Clark welcomed Al Casteen, the new Board of Supervisors? member for the Smithfield District. Chairman Clark called for consideration of the Board of Supervisors? meeting schedule. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board adopt the following regular meeting dates and times for calendar year 2008: Thursday, rdth January 3 at 3:00 p.m.; Thursday, January 17 at 4:00 p.m.; Thursday, stth February 21 at 4:00 p.m.; Thursday, March 20 at 4:00 p.m.; rdth Thursday, April 3 at 4:00 p.m.; Thursday, April 17 at 6:00 p.m. *; stth Thursday, May 1 at 4:00 p.m.; Thursday, May 15 at 6:00 p.m. *; thst Tuesday, June 10 at 4:00 p.m. *; Tuesday, July 1 at 4:00 p.m.; thth Thursday, July 17 at 6:00 p.m. *; Thursday, August 7 at 4:00 p.m.; stth Thursday, August 21 at 6:00 p.m. *; Thursday, September 4 at 4:00 thnd p.m.; Thursday, September 18 at 6:00 p.m. *; Thursday, October 2 at th 4:00 p.m.; Thursday, October 16 at 6:00 p.m. *; Thursday, November thth 6 at 4:00 p.m.; Thursday, November 20 at 6:00 p.m. *; Thursday, thth December 4 at 4:00 p.m.; Thursday, December 18 at 6:00 p.m. *; and, Thursday, January 8, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. with advertised public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on these regular meeting dates. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark called for consideration of the Rules of Procedure of the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Approval of the Agenda. Interim County Attorney Burton offered the following amendments to the agenda: Under Special Presentations, add the introduction of Lisa Perry, the County?s new Economic Development Director and under Special Presentations, add a presentation by Supervisor Bradshaw relative to information pertaining to the Early Childhood Commission. 2 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the agenda, as amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Special Presentations/Appearances. Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator, formally introduced Lisa Perry, the County?s new Director of Economic Development. Supervisor Bradshaw recognized Joshua A. Holland, Cody B. Holland and William Bryce Lawrence for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE JOSHUA A. HOLLAND FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Joshua A. Holland is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #37 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Holland has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Holland 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 Joshua A. Holland is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE CODY B. HOLLAND FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Cody B. Holland is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #37 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, 3 WHEREAS, Mr. Holland has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Holland 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 Cody B. Holland is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE WILLIAM BRYCE LAWRENCE FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, William Bryce Lawrence is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #37 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Lawrence has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Lawrence 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 William Bryce Lawrence is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Dr. Michael W. McPherson, School Superintendent, introduced Elizabeth W. Delk, Consultant for College Counseling, Isle of Wight County Schools. Ms. Delk advised that college acceptances and applications are increasing. She noted that profiles of Smithfield High School are sent out with every college application explaining that school?s strengths and its place in the community. She stated that she spent a great deal of time last year visiting colleges on behalf of the school system and that she had served as a liaison with the colleges and universities and set up meetings in the high schools where admission representatives would make on-the-spot 4 decisions when they met with students and read over their credentials. She stated that evening presentations and workshops at the high schools were held for grades 8-12 and included parents. She stated the average attendance at these workshops was 250 individuals. She stated workshops th were held to assist parents with college planning; steps for 9 grade academic preparation for college; transition issues for college students; financial aid and scholarship planning; and, tips and strategies for filling out applications. She stated that in-school workshops were also held, to include th essay writing in English classes and workshops for 8 graders to advise them what they should be doing with respect to extra curriculum and volunteer work in the community. She advised that over $650,000 in scholarships for ROTC were awarded last year, as well as full scholarships to the University of Virginia and William & Mary for two (2) previously unrepresented students. She advised that colleges are very interested in first generation students whose parents were not college graduates. She advised that a workshop was also held in a local church so that families could attend that could not come to the school workshop. She advised that she began a management software tool for high school counselors and has been working with the new test coordinator on SAT development and prep work. She stated that individual college conferences have been held with over 158 juniors, seniors and their parents. Chairman Clark called for a presentation by representatives of Moseley Architects. E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Director of General Services, advised that representatives of Moseley Architects could not be present today. He stated that the Board, at its December 13, 2007 meeting had received a presentation from Moseley Architects regarding the three (3) options available for the new court?s building, as well as renovation of the old courts building and the matter was referred to the Board?s Building and Grounds Committee who recommended that the Board proceed with Option #2, which increases the building size from 44,000 square feet to 47,000 square feet; reduces some of the work in the old clerk?s building and does, at this point, exceed the Board?s budget by approximately $500,000. He noted that representatives from Powell Management are present tonight should the Board have any questions. Supervisor Brown inquired if any consideration was given to multi- purpose rooms to hold seminars and workshops. Mr. Rountree replied that the only way that could be accomplished was to put it over the old courts building, which would have meant an addition to that building. He advised that the Building and Grounds Committee also recommended secured parking for the Judges within Option #2. 5 Supervisor Casteen advised that he would be abstaining from voting since this is his first meeting and he had not been present during earlier discussions on this matter. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board approve the Building and Grounds Committee recommendation of Option #2 for the proposed new Courts Building. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Casteen abstaining from voting on the matter. Supervisor Bradshaw, on behalf of Franklin and Southampton representatives, presented an invitation for the County to participate in the Early Childhood Commission with respect to early childhood intervention. He stated that the Commission has applied for and received numerous grants, as well as $500,000 from the Early Childhood Council and $125,000 from Southampton charities and will possibly receive $250,000 to $500,000 from the Early Childhood Education after the program runs for the next two (2) years. He stated that the intent is for the Board to appoint two (2) members from this Board to serve as equal representation on the Commission. He stated it would be appropriate for Barbara Mease, Chairman of the Commission, to make a presentation to the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board direct staff to invite Barbara Mease, Chairman of the Early Childhood Commission, to make a presentation to the Board at its February 21, 2008 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Beverly H. Walkup, Director of Planning and Zoning, provided an overview of the Benn?s Grant project. She stated that the location includes 6,000 feet of road frontage located at the intersection of Routes 10 and 258 and is in the Newport Service Overlay District and a portion of the property is also within the St. Lukes Historic District. She advised that the applicant has proffered that the entire development will be subject to Historic Architectural Review Committee approval. She stated the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Mixed Use Activity Center and appropriate land uses include a wide variety of residential types, including single-family detached on smaller lots; single-family attached and town homes to apartments with densities up to ten (10) to twelve (12) units per acre; existing or proposed shopping centers; related retail sales establishments; and, existing or proposed cultural, religious and educational facilities. She stated the requested rezoning is from Rural Agricultural Conservation and General Commercial to Planned Development Mixed Use. She stated there is a concurrent Conditional Use application filed for the Wal-Mart because 6 that facility is in excess of 80,000 square feet and has a proposed drive through, garden center and a motor vehicle repair service. She stated that the request for rezoning is a total of 618 acres and includes commercial; a hotel site; medical office; office civic; residential; recreation, open space; ponds; and, right-of-way. She stated that the total impervious for the entire project is 49%. She stated that the proposed commercial area is along the frontage and includes a maximum of 725,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, hotel and other commercial uses. She stated that the traffic study only currently supports 603,040 square feet of commercial and a new traffic study will be required for the remaining acreage in the amount of 121,960 square feet of commercial to be developed. She stated that the applicant has proffered that a new traffic study will be done prior to development of the remaining area, which would need to demonstrate that the then existing area roadways will support the additional commercial or that additional improvements will be made to support the additional commercial. She stated that the proposed commercial area includes two (2) big-box anchors totaling 327,550 square feet; junior anchors totaling 218,990 square feet; and, ten (10) out parcels totaling 56,500 square feet. She stated that the junior anchors may include banks, restaurants, retail, antique shops and exclude the uses that have been restricted by the application, such as motor vehicle parts; driving schools; health/fitness centers; gyms; salons; dance studios; craft and hobby instruction facilities; beauty and barber shops; pet grooming; seamstress, tailors; shoe repair; florist; laundry mat; dry cleaners; fine arts studio; and, veterinary hospital. She stated that the proposed medical office consists of 28 acres and proposes a total of 162,000 square feet and the medical office space would consist of 87,000 square feet and have an additional diagnostic and imaging service for which a Certificate of Public Need has already been approved, contingent upon substantial construction by November of 2008. She stated that it also includes 75,000 square feet for a hospital and ambulatory care facility and the current Certificate of Public Need has been withdrawn for the proposed outpatient surgery center. She stated that the proposed office/civic areas consist of 62.2 acres, excluding the landfill and the wetlands mitigation area. She stated that the applicant has offered to proffer that area to the County at no cost within 30 days following the rezoning approval for dollar-for dollar credit against the total amount of the residential cash proffer. She stated that the initial offer will be valid for 180 days or as agreed upon between the County and the applicant and it will include public utilities stub out to the property line. She stated that the use of the property will be subject to the restrictions of Wal-Mart, Riverside Hospital and the home improvement store, which will restrict a hospital or other healthcare or medical service facility; a big box; department store; discount store greater than 35,000 square feet; membership warehouse club; pharmacy, excluding Riverside; Dollar Store greater than 10,000 square feet; grocery store or supermarket greater than 10,000 square feet; and, a home improvement store. She stated the allowable uses will be a general office; public library; police station; fire station; community college; and, uses similar to a community college. She stated that the residential component consists of not to exceed 1,087 units 7 and the total density would be an overall of 3.7 units per acre and include a mix of residential use types, including condominiums between $150,000 to $220,000 and townhouses for sale between $175,000 and $260,000 and single-family residential at prices between $300,000 and $700,000. She stated that the applicant has proffered 17% of the housing will consist of workforce dwelling units, which equal approximately 185 units, which will be offered to persons with incomes that are 80% to 1205 of the area median income, which is currently projected to be $64,072. She stated that the applicant is not offering a residential cash proffer, but is requesting a waiver of water and sewer tap fees and building and zoning permits for the workforce housing. She stated that at closing a Deed of Trust will be recorded in favor of the County for the residential cash proffer, other fees and the amount of the additional financial assistance, which could be up to $40,000. She stated at that point, the County would receive the cash proffer if it was sold to anyone other than a prequalified purchaser, as well as any other fees that have been waived so it is not a complete waiver and it does not have any lifetime on it. She stated that the proposed recreation area consists of 93.94 acres, includes lakes six (6) and seven (7). She stated that the applicant proffers to offer at no cost to the County within 30 days following rezoning approval that property and the use is restricted to public recreational purposes. She stated that lake number seven (7) is proposed to treat the office, civic and recreational areas and may be acquired by the County for this purpose and for recreational use at the County?s discretion. She stated that lake number six (6) can also be purchased by the County; however, it is the final receiving lake for the overall stormwater function. She stated the proposed pedestrian route consists of primarily pedestrian bike routes, pedestrian trails and walkways and will be consistent with the County?s Bike and Pedestrian Plan. She stated that the projected population to be generated from this development is 2,653 and the Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department will be the first responder, as well as the Isle of Wight Rescue Squad, which are within three (3) miles of the project. She stated that the projected law enforcement impact will require three (3) additional deputies to maintain the current level of service. She stated the projected school impact is 696 children, of which 326 are elementary students; 174 middle school students; and, 196 high school students. She stated that Westside Middle School and Smithfield High School are over capacity and the schools have proposed capital improvements with consideration for converting the existing middle school to a high school and building a new middle school. She stated that some of the area is currently in use as cultivated crop fields; 253 acres have either been currently or previously mined and the total impervious acreage would be 315 acres. She stated that there is a 100 foot football field proposed along Cypress Creek, which is not proposed to be disturbed except for some recreational use, such as trails. She stated that the wetlands mitigation site on the property also requires a buffer and protection in accordance with DEQ. She stated the traffic impact study projects 3,000 new vehicle trips at build out. She stated that the positive projected fiscal impact is estimated to be between $9.9 million and $26.8 million over the 20-year build out and projected employment is 4,545 8 individuals. She stated that the timeframe for the total build out is 20 years and the commercial phasing plan is six (6) years. She stated that all commercial development is proposed in the first phase, but it will ultimately depend on market and traffic study conditions. She stated that the applicant has proffered that 250,000 square feet of commercial shall be constructed in year one (1), which will more than likely include the Wal-Mart and other retail uses. She stated that years two (2) through (6), junior anchors and the out parcels will be completely built out; year five (5), the hotel; and, year six (6) the total commercial build out is projected to be 663,040 square feet, which is slightly over what the current traffic study supports. She stated that the residential phasing plan is ten (10) years and 350 units are proposed for the first year, which will carry over to subsequent years until the first 350 units are built out. She stated years 2-9, 82 units annually are proposed to be constructed and in year ten (10), 81 units will be constructed. She stated that the physical year impact analysis projects that by year four (4), 100% of the townhouses will be constructed; by year nine (9), 100% of the condominiums will be constructed; and, year ten (10), 100% of the single- family dwellings will be constructed. She stated that the medical office phase is ten (10) years, with year one (1) having full build-out of the office space and year ten (10), the hospital and the ambulatory care. She stated that the office civic phasing plan is 20 years with the total build out expected with five (5) and 20 years. She stated that proffers include volunteer cash proffers; a commercial cash proffer of $632 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which equals approximately $500,000; and, a residential proffer is being offered at 11,189 per unit, plus CPI or 2.25% increase, whichever is less, for a 12-month period. She stated it only commences after the first year so for the first 350 units the County will receive a proffer of $11,189 and when the 351st unit is recorded, staff will look at the annual indexing for an increase considering the cost of living and overall cost increases. She stated that credits will also be accommodated through the cash proffer system for the new roadway, which is slated to connect Route 10 to the existing Route 32; credits have been proposed against the commercial cash proffers because most of the traffic is being generated by the commercial use and any shortfall will be applied to the residential cash proffers and the proffers will be decreased by the office and civic acquisition of property. She stated that it is estimated that after the office and civic property is acquired, the proffers will be $9,249. She stated that the workforce dwelling units will be secured by an initial Deed of Trust, which will be replaced once a qualified applicant has been identified and goes to closing and then a replacement Deed of Trust for the proffer and the fees. She stated that the right-of-way improvements will include four (4) full movement signalized intersections along Route 10, beginning at the office park entrance, the existing intersection of Benn?s Church, the new proposed arterial location and at the main entrance into the commercial facility. She stated that the existing Benn?s Church will be approximately seven (7) lanes and have limited turning movements. She stated that also included is a new seven (7) lane intersection, which will be a credit against the cash proffer. She stated that there will be four (4) right-in/right-outs and 9 70-foot buffers proposed along all of the arterials. She stated that the utility improvements that are proffered are for the construction of a public water and sewer system, which will connect to HRSD and a 1.3 million gallon elevated storage tank is proposed, as required by the County?s utility policy. She stated that the Jordan house is an historic architectural feature located in the proposed development and the applicant has currently proposed to subdivide a .76 acre parcel or any other location that may be agreed upon by the County and the applicant at no cost to the County for the relocation of that home. She stated that the applicant has also proffered to donate $200,000 towards its relocation and restoration. She stated if the relocation and restoration is not completed within two (2) years, or a mutually agreed upon time by the County and the applicant, the applicant reserves the right to relocate and restore the exterior. She stated that the applicant has proffered that if the governmental approvals that are required for this project are not granted, the applicant shall be relieved of the proffer and will retain ownership of the Jordan house and the parcel, basically leaving the Jordan house at its current location. She stated that once the Jordan house is conveyed, the County will become responsible for its upkeep and maintenance. She stated that the proffer also includes a five (5) foot no- ingress easement along Muddy Cross Drive, which will restrict any additional access except for one (1). She stated that the applicant has also proffered that the water and sewer lines will not be constructed in such a manner that they will allow for future extension. She stated a Cultural Resources Study has identified certain areas for further study and the applicant has proffered a Phase III, which will allow for further investigation of those areas if they are proposed to be disturbed. She stated that any artifacts discovered will become the property of the Isle of Wight County Museum. She stated that the applicant has also proffered a Homeowners? Association and an overall Master Association, which will include the commercial and other properties for maintenance of common areas, including storm water management facilities. She stated that the applicant has proffered a neighborhood plan, which contains most of the design features for any of the landscaping and lot layout and design and all of those design elements are included in the Neighborhood Plan. She stated because this is in an historic district, there are architectural controls that any commercial office, civic or medical site plan will require approval by the Historic Architectural Review Committee, as well as the Planning Commission. She stated an architectural and landscaping guidelines document will be developed for the residential component that will be approved by the Historic Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission. She stated following approval of that document, a residential Homeowners? Association will be established for review and approval of each new residential unit that is built and the Planning and Zoning Department will also carry out the function of that document and ensure compliance before any zoning permit is issued. She stated that the applicant has proffered several use restrictions, most of which are not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, but if the Zoning Ordinance is amended, these uses will still be restricted. She stated the final proffer states that if the development 10 work has not commenced within a five (5) year period after the date of the rezoning, the applicant shall not oppose any action taken by the Board to change the zoning classification back to its original zoning. She stated that the applicant has requested waivers to the utility requirement that construction of all water and sewer facilities prior to the issuance of a building permit and that it be subject to a Certificate of Occupancy as opposed to a Building Permit and requested several waivers to other zoning requirements which would allow flexibility in the site design and includes such things as signage and landscaping. She stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval and included recommendations on each of the waivers. She stated some of the outstanding issues that staff sees is that Muddy Cross Drive is partly a dirt road and the Engineering Department has proposed that there is a $230,000 shortfall to bring the roadway up to VDOT standards; that the acceptance of the office park property is still being discussed by staff; that the County not accept lake six (6), which is the last receiving lake to all of the development, excluding the office park and the recreation; that there may be additional pedestrian routes that staff would like to see incorporated around the lake for the overall enjoyment of the residential occupants of the development; and, that it be at the discretion of the County whether or not it accepts the office park property and lake seven (7), which serves to function as the County?s stormwater lake. Supervisor Wright inquired if the build out of the residential and commercial had a negative impact on the Benn?s Grant intersection; if Smithfield has contributed to correcting any of the problems at the Benn?s Grant interchange; how much the workforce housing will cost the County and how long; and, how the school?s demographic study is proceeding. Ms. Walkup replied that the school?s demographic study is underway and staff has supplied the consultant with pertinent information. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that all staff persons who submitted reports, to include all agencies who submitted a report, to be present at the Board?s work session when it is scheduled. He stated that he wants to ensure that all staff concerns are addressed. // Chairman Clark noted the appearance of the Windsor High School Cheerleading Squad and requested that discussion on the Benn?s Grant proposal be postponed until later in the meeting. Chairman Clark moved that the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE WINDSOR HIGH SCHOOL CHEERLEADING SQUAD FOR OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT 11 WHEREAS, the Windsor Dukes Cheerleading Squad placed second in the Virginia High School League Division A State Cheerleading Competition at VCU?s Siegel Center in Richmond; and, WHEREAS, the Cheerleading Squad won second place in the Region A Cheerleading Competition held in Fredericksburg, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, the Cheerleading Squad also won first place in the Tri- Rivers District competition and has won the District title 10 out of the last 11 years; and, WHEREAS, the Cheerleading Squad has advanced to the state level of competition for the past 7 consecutive years; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight 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 Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark moved that the Board take a recess. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark moved that the Board return to open session and the continuation of discussion on the Benn?s Grant proposal. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Jamie Oliver, Long-Range Planner, presented an overview to the Board illustrating the existing lanes at the Route 10/32 intersection. She advised that St. Lukes Village had a traffic impact study conducted in May of 2004 and updated in August of 2006 and again in May of 2007. She stated in order to serve that development, certain minor reconfigurations of the intersection could be accomplished that would create capacity to serve 12 that development. She stated that St. Lukes proffered to carry out these improvements related to their project or they would proffer $330,000 in cash or 11%, their pro-rata contribution of traffic to the intersection at Benn?s Grant. She stated that St. Lukes Village found that the improvements that were proposed by the Crossings would fulfill the capacity needs before St. Lukes Village at the Bartlett intersection. Bill Cashman, URS Corporation, briefed the Board on the results of the traffic impact analysis. He stated that there are no funds or improvements planned for the Brewer?s Neck Boulevard corridor through the year 2030; however, the County can increase its capacity by pursuing a collector system; implementing roadway impact fees; or, establishing and improving alternative routes. He stated that it is important for the County to know that the Benn?s Grant project, if approved, would generate traffic that would take up all the available capacity on Brewer?s Neck Boulevard. He stated that it is important for the County to realize that unless additional capacity were to become available, that any other rezonings in that corridor would not be able to demonstrate that they could provide adequate traffic service, unless one (1) of the above efforts were instituted to increase the capacity. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Mr. Cashman to provide the Board with copies of his presentation. Chairman Clark inquired if Muddy Cross Road would definitely be tied in to the project or is staff reserving that roadway for a tie-in. Ms. Walkup replied that there is a definite tie-in proposed for the final phase of development in year 2010. She noted that there are still several property owners holding out on the right-of-way, but VDOT is continuing to pursue the acquisition of right-of-way so that this can be a construction project. She stated that the phasing plan has been proposed and outlined for ten (10) years; however, the applicant is recommending that other phases develop before some of the others that are slated. She stated that the developer has offered some assurance that VDOT be comfortable and that no connection be granted until VDOT approves it. Kristen M. Mazur, County Engineer, advised that funds to complete the project are short by $230,000. She advised that this project could be a pave-in-place project, but it currently is a regular construction project, which requires right-of-way. She advised that right-of-way can not be purchased for Pave-in-Place projects. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if an environmental impact has been conducted on Muddy Cross Road. He stated that the intent of Pave-in-Place is to ensure that it would not be a super highway. 13 Ms. Mazur advised that nothing has been done to date. She stated that the recommendation is to upgrade the access from Benn?s Grant to Route 10 to a 50-foot right-of-way road due to the amount of anticipated traffic and for safety reasons. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that staff provide a report to the Board to include an evaluation on Muddy Cross Road?s current condition; how that roadway is set up in VDOT?s plan, i.e., whether or not it will be a Pave-in- Place or 50-foot roadway; the current traffic count; environmental analysis, if possible; and, the impact that Benn?s Grant and associated vehicular traffic will have on Muddy Cross Road. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw requested an explanation of the credits associated with the new arterial improvements. Ms. Walkup explained that St. Luke?s and O?Neal considered improvements to the Benn?s Church intersection in their development and proffered 10.8% of their traffic would impact that intersection with the rest of the traffic being attributed to the Benn?s Grant project, which amounts to approximately $400,000. She stated that those credits will be that portion up to $400,000, which will be applied first to the commercial proffers. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that staff be directed to prepare an analysis of the credits associated with the Route 32/258 transportation. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // David Rose, Davenport and Associates, briefed the Board on the fiscal impacts associated with the proposed project. He recommended that the Board approve the Community Development Authority policy included in the agenda to ensure that the County has final control ultimately so that if some of the things that are promised never come into fruition, the County will not be held responsible. He stated the first role of his firm is to represent the County with respect to the cost benefit to the County from the Benn?s Grant development and to provide the Board with an assessment of Community Development Authorities. Supervisor Wright commented that while bonding supposedly does not adversely affect the financial standing of the County, it is considered as a debt service and the County will not be looked upon as favorable as if it did not have the bonding. 14 Mr. Rose stated the rating agencies view this indebtedness that would be issued as a Community Development Authority as overlapping debt of the locality. He stated that while that is not necessarily a bad thing, it is something that the Board needs to be cognizant of. He advised that a Memorandum of Understanding in the Community Development Authority policy which will be prepared by the developer will include assurance that the County understands what the developer will deliver, when it will be delivered and include a safeguard in the event the developer does not deliver when they are suppose to deliver. He stated that when the County is in the position to begin its borrowings, it can argue that safeguards have been put in place on that overlapping debt. He stated that the policy also states that the County will have the final say in terms of the issuance of those and subsequent bonds so that the Board can ensure that they are done in conformity with the best practices, as well as in conformity that the County has other needs that are a direct obligation of the County so that the bond rating is not affected. He stated there will be times when a bond is issued that the Board will have a moral obligation, which may come in the form of coming through the Industrial Development Authority and it is a lease arrangement and the Board is not legally obligated to make payment if whatever source is not there, but it does have a moral obligation. He stated if things do not work out as planned, the answer is not known if the values around the Community Development Authority or outside the boarders of the Community Development Authority will be depressed. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if any of the Community Development Authorities associated with other localities have experienced problems in meeting their financial obligations. Mr. Rose replied that all the localities he has worked with who have issued debt have done so without any problems. He stated that the only place he is aware of that has had some problems is the City of Richmond, which had no policies in place. He stated that the City of Richmond was required to provide financial support when things did not go well. He stated some localities may have the mindset that there is some financial support that the locality is providing upfront knowingly, which is not a negative, as they made a conscious decision to help financially upfront. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that it does not matter what kind of financial contract the County has, if the Community Development Authority gets in trouble, the holder of the bonds can hold the County responsible for payment. He noted that the memorandum in the handout distributed by Mr. Rose contains a statement that the County is going to retain control of any debt issued and that statement alarms him. Mr. Rose advised that retaining control simply means that the Community Development Authority can not go out and issue additional debt without the County?s approval. 15 Interim County Attorney Burton stated that the Board?s proposed policy clearly states that the County shall not pledge either its full faith and credit or any moral obligation toward the repayment of principal and interest on any debt issued by the District. Jimmy Sanderson, Davenport and Company, advised that this is a valid concern of this Board and any other entity that has issued this type of debt in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He advised that when the bonds are sold to the public, there is language contained in the offering document that states clearly in multiple places that the County is not liable in any way. He stated that these are not bonds that are typically sold as normal municipal bonds to the general public. He stated a requirement is that they are sold to supplicated investors, such as institutions, in multi-million dollar blocks. He stated the buyer is very sophisticated and understands the concepts, as well as who has and who does not have liability. Mr. Rose stated that with the exception of year one (1), where there is a cash flow hit to the County of approximately $239,000 thousand dollars, it is predicted that in the second year, the net revenues will go from a negative $250,000 to a positive $1.1. He stated on top of that amount, the proffer will amount to $1.375 million. Jimmy Sanderson, Davenport and Company, stated that the policy recommended to the Board has been utilized in some fashion by a lot of other jurisdictions. He stated that Community Development Authorities were created in the late 1990?s and they are becoming more and more prevalent today. He stated that rating agencies preferred to see policies in place because they know then that the Counsel, Board and staff understand the process that needs to take place before a Community Development Authority is formed prematurely. He stated that there needs to be a certain amount of documentation presented to staff and the policy clearly states that any Community Development Authority will not have a negative impact on the County?s credit rating. He stated that there is a requirement that there be an executed Memorandum of Understanding and the petition that will be submitted by the developer to the County will state that the developer is willing to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and that they understand that approval of the petition for the formation of a Community Development Authority does not amount to approval of a bond issue by a Community Development Authority. He stated that he would still need to come back to the Board for approval once the Memorandum of Understanding is negotiated and then the developer has actually gone through and met the restrictions that were placed in the Memorandum of Understanding prior to issuance of bonds. He noted that the Board has been provided a proposed policy for consideration prior to a public hearing being held on the formation of a Community Development Authority on January 17, 2008. He stated that prior to the issuance of any debt, what the Community Development Authority wishes to accomplish must be consistent with zoning. He stated the timing does not have to be that the 16 rezoning take place prior to the actual formation of a Community Development Authority because it is clear in the legal documents that the debt can not be issued without first coming back to the Board and receiving approval by the County?s legal counsel. // Chairman Clark called for the Consent Agenda. A. Resolution to Recognize the Contributions of Thomas R. Ivy B. Jefferson Cup Nomination C. Revised Strategic Plan 2007-2009 Supervisor Wright moved that the Consent Agenda be approved as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Old Business. Chairman Clark publicly thanked Ben Rideout for Supervisor Casteen?s marble nameplate. // Chairman Clark called for New Business. Supervisor Bradshaw called the Board?s attention to a request by Alan Monette that the Board oppose the rate changes proposed by Verizon. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board direct the County Administrator to draft a letter under the Chairman?s signature to Verizon showing the County?s opposition to the rate changes as specified by Alan Monette. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that staff meet with Mr. Martin Jones and any others to address the concerns relative to the Museum that were expressed in his letter. Supervisor Clark requested that the Board members allow him, in his capacity as Chairman, to recognize them before they speak so that no one is talking over the other. 17 Chairman Clark advised the individual Board members of their appointment to the following Regional Committees: ? Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance: Chairman Clark ? Hampton Roads Partnership: Chairman Clark ? Mayors and Chairs Caucus: Chairman Clark ? Southside Mayors and Chairs: Chairman Clark ? Western Tidewater Water Authority: Supervisors Bradshaw and Wright ? Coalition of High Growth Communities: Chairman Clark and Supervisor Casteen ? Hampton Roads Planning District Commission: Chairman Clark ? Hampton Roads Transportation Authority: Chairman Clark ? Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority: Chairman Clark and Supervisor Wright ? Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance: Supervisor Bradshaw ? Social Services Board: Supervisor Bradshaw ? VACo/Board of Directors: Supervisor Bradshaw ? Southeastern Public Service Authority: Supervisor Brown ? Resource Conservation and Development Council: Supervisor Casteen Chairman Clark Chairman Clark advised the individual Board members of their appointment to the following Board Appointed Committees: ? Budget & Finance/CIP: Supervisors Bradshaw and Wright ? Building & Grounds: Chairman Clark and Supervisor Casteen 18 ? Franklin Intergovernmental Relations Committee: Supervisors Bradshaw and Wright ? Smithfield Intergovernmental Relations Committee: Chairman Clark and Supervisor Brown ? Windsor Intergovernmental Relations Committee: Supervisors Wright and Bradshaw ? Law Enforcement: Chairman Clark and Supervisor Wright ? Schools: Supervisors Brown and Wright ? Parks and Recreation: Chairman Clark and Supervisor Casteen ? Personnel: Supervisors Bradshaw and Brown ? Fire & Rescue Association: Thomas R. Ivy/Appointee Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if a date for the Joint Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting has been set to discuss the issue of taxes. County Administrator Caskey advised that he was waiting to hear back from the two (2) towns as to whether or not January 14, 2008 is a suitable date. // At 6:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adjourn its meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Brown, Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. __________________________ Stan D. Clark, Chairman ______________________ Carey Mills Storm, Clerk 19 II UBWl~l'll.[J ')jl13[) '0 Ul'llS ~ 'UOnOW ::ll.[ll~m!l~'llE'llunOA SlOS!A1::ldns OU pm:l 'UonOW ;;)llljo 10Al'l] U! 'llunOA ll.['ll!lM. pUB AAI ')jlBIJ 'MBl.[Sp13lg 'UM01g SlOS!Al::ldns l.[l~M (O-~) JO ~lOA B Aq P:;)ldop13 S13M UonOW :;)lLl ''llU!l:;l:;lW Sl! umofptl plEOg ;;ll.[l 1Bl.[1 P;;lAOW MBl.[SpIUg 10S!Al;;Jdns "w'd 00:9 l\f 'gl13P g(qBl~ns 13 s~ 800l 'vI All'lnuBf lOU 10 ]:;ll.[lgl{M 01 S13 SUMOl (l) OM1 ;;)l{1 W01J )j~13q 113;;)l.[ Ol'llU!l!BM SBM ;;)l.[ lB"l{l pgS!APB A;;))jSBJ JOlBllS!U!WPV AlUnO;) 'SgXBl JO ;;)nSS! ;;)lll ssn::>s!p OllgS U<::l;}q Sl'lt.[ 1lU!l;};;JW ;}:::lll!WWO;) SUO!lBl:;l~ [13lU<::lWU1;;)AO'll1<::llUI lU!Of ;;)llllOj :::llBP 13 j~ p<::lJ!nbu! MBllSPBJg 10S!Al;;Jdns :::lglU!oddV/AAI '11 SBWOll.l :UO!lB!~OSSV gmS;;J1I ':& <::lJ!d UM01g pUB MBllSpBJg SJOS!Al;;Jdns :IgUUOS1;;)d UgglSB;) 10S!AJ<::ldnS pUB )jll'll;) UBWl!Bl.[J :U09B:::lJ;);;)~ pUB S)jJ13d ll.['ll~lM. pUB UMOlg SlOS~AJgdns :SlOOl.[~S f:R lft: