Loading...
01-17-2008 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT: Stan D. Clark, Chairman James B. Brown, Jr., Vice-Chairman 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 Kendall Effler, Smithfield Middle School student, called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. at the Smithfield High School Auditorium. // Supervisor Brown delivered the invocation. // The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. // Chairman Clark commented that recent articles in the newspapers concerning events that have occurred in other counties has caused him to reflect on this County and the way that this Board conducts its business. He noted that he had an opportunity following a recent joint meeting of the Intergovernmental Relations Committees to have a conversation with Supervisor Casteen and that they had both agreed that the start they got off to was the result of misunderstandings on both their parts. He stated that the business of the people requires that the Board cooperate, communicate and work together and that he and Supervisor Casteen have pledged to do better at that. Supervisor Casteen concurred with Chairman Clark?s comments and noted that he, too, looked forward to working with Chairman Clark and the other Board members in 2008. // Chairman Clark called for Approval of the Agenda. 1 Interim County Attorney Burton offered the following amendments to the agenda: Under Transportation Matters, add an Item (D), Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County Requesting the Restriction of Through-Trucks on Route 620 Until Completion of Roadway Improvement Project; under the County Attorney?s report, add a Closed Meeting matter pertaining to appointments to the Community Development Authority Board; under the Appointments section, add an appointment to the Planning Commission, as requested by Chairman Clark; under the Appointments section, add the appointment of Janet Robertson to serve on the Commission on Aging, replacing Herb DeGroft; under the Transportation Report, add two (2) matters, as requested by Supervisor Wright; under the Appointments section, add an appointment, as requested by Supervisor Wright. Supervisor Casteen moved that Item (C), An Ordinance Creating the Benns Grant Community Development Authority, under Public Hearings be moved to Item (E) on the agenda. 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 Casteen requested that Item (2), Rules and Procedures, be removed from the County Attorney?s report. Following an inquiry from Supervisor Brown to Interim County Attorney Burton if removing Item (2) would present a problem, Interim County Attorney Burton replied that it is the Board?s prerogative whether or not to act on the matter. He advised that he is recommending two (2) changes, the first regarding the order of public hearings in terms of having a register for citizens to sign up and the Board hearing their comments in the order in which they sign up and the second change regarding whenever there is a large group of citizens that the Board restrict the time limit to speak from five (5) minutes to three (3) minutes. Supervisor Brown commented that the Board needs to adhere to its Rules and Procedures and he is not in favor of removing them from the agenda. Chairman Clark and Supervisor Wright agreed that it is important that the Board adopt its Rules and Procedures tonight, particularly with respect to the large number of citizens in attendance and desiring to speak on the Benn?s Grant, Wal-Mart and Community Development Authority public hearings. Interim County Attorney Burton advised the Board that if it did not adopt its Rules and Procedures at tonight?s meeting, then he would recommend a motion would be in order to make those changes that would work for the purposes of this meeting. 2 Chairman Clark suggested that rather than amending the agenda and removing the Rules and Procedures at this time that the Board discuss them as listed under the County Attorney?s report and separate the items for discussion at that time. Supervisor Casteen moved that Item (2), Rules and Procedures, be removed from the County Attorney?s report. The motion was defeated (4-1) with Chairman Clark and Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown and Wright voting against the motion and Supervisor Casteen voting in favor of the motion. Chairman Clark moved that the Board act only on Article (4), Rules and Procedures, with respect to the changes in public hearing and take no action at this time on the remainder of the items contained in the Rules of . ProcedureThe 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 Brown 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. Peter M. Stephenson, Smithfield Town Manager, briefed the Board on the disposition of the property at James and Washington Streets. Chairman Clark moved that the matter be moved to Old Business for further discussion. 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 Regional reports. Supervisor Casteen reported that a meeting of the Resource Conservation Development was conducted on January 19, 2008, which consisted of all new members. Hampton Roads Transportation Authority: Chairman Clark reported that the General Assembly will review the changes proposed by the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority and a subcommittee will be traveling to Richmond to lobby for these changes. 3 Supervisor Casteen reported on the joint meeting between the Smithfield and Windsor Intergovernmental Relations Committees which involved discussions on computer problems and water rates. He noted that he had agreed to become a member of the subcommittee dealing with the issue of tax billing. Supervisor Wright reported that three (3) candidates had been interviewed for the position of Jail Superintendent of the Western Tidewater Regional Jail. Supervisor Bradshaw reported that he was unable to attend the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance?s annual luncheon meeting which was focused on younger workers and what can be expected in the workforce. Supervisor Bradshaw reported that Linda Bean had been hired as the Interim Social Services Director. He further reported that the Social Services Board is continuing to work with the State in an effort to hire a new Director for that department. He advised that Ms. Bean has already begun to set goals for that Department. He publicly thanked Donald Robertson for his assistance during the transition period. Supervisor Bradshaw reported that the VACo/VML Board and staff will meet with members of the General Assembly. He invited the Town Managers and Mayors of the Towns of Smithfield and Windsor to join the Board when it meets with the members of the General Assembly for dinner to discuss legislation impacting the County. He advised that there is proposed legislation relative to a change in the Machinery & Tools Tax which will greatly impact the County. Supervisor Bradshaw reported that Messrs. Anderson and Rountree have been requested to develop a report on the recycling program and convenience centers that were recently visited in North Carolina. Supervisor Brown reported that the next meeting of the Southeastern Public Service Authority is scheduled for January 23, 2008. Supervisor Wright requested Supervisor Brown to ask Mr. Hadfield and the SPSA Board to discuss methods by which there can be better control over plastic bags coming out of the trash trucks and provide the Board with a report. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that the SPSA Board also be asked to review the feasibility of recycling glass. // Chairman Clark called for Transportation Matters. 4 Kristen M. Mazur, County Planner, stated that staff will be requesting a traffic impact analysis on Muddy Cross Road showing the traffic count at that intersection. She advised that there are VDOT unpaved road and revenue sharing funds allocated for this project; however, there is a shortfall of approximately $200,000 to complete the 1.8 miles. She stated if the road is paved to Route 10, it will be more heavily used, but it will also create additional access for emergencies and provide connectivity between neighborhoods. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that Ms. Mazur report back to the Board at its work session on January 29, 2008 regarding whether all of a roadway, or just a portion of it, can be paved according to VDOT standards. Responsive to Supervisor Wright?s inquiry about when the emergency lights at the Windsor Volunteer Fire Department will become operational, Ms. Mazur offered to investigate the status and report back to the Board. Supervisor Wright requested the installation of a metal guardrail in front of the fence at the intersection of Turner Drive and Bowling Green Road. Chairman Clark called for the Board?s consideration of the Restriction of Through-Trucks on Foursquare Road/Broadwater Road (Route 620) resolution contained in the agenda. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the matter be withdrawn from the Transportation List. 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. Ms. Mazur noted that a Transportation Report was included in the agenda for the Board?s reference. Responsive to Supervisor Wright, Ms. Mazur advised that the property Mr. Walker is concerned about is located outside the right-of-way for the County and VDOT. Supervisor Wright requested that staff continue working with Mr. Walker in that regard. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired about the status of Route 460 in Zuni. Ms. Mazur reported that surveying efforts are currently underway. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired about the status of the tunnel in Zuni. 5 Ms. Mazur reported that additional signage, speed bars and pavement markers have been installed to assist with the reduction of accidents. She further reported that VDOT also intends to lay tubes to conduct speed tests. In response to Supervisor Bradshaw?s inquiry about the status of the tunnel off Thomas Woods Trail from Southampton County, Ms. Mazur reported that pavement markings have been installed in front of the poles. In response to Supervisor Bradshaw?s inquiry about the status of drainage improvements in Walters, Ms. Mazur reported that staff recommends cutting additional ditches. In response to Supervisor Brown?s inquiry about the status of obtaining an easement at the curve before the bridge, Ms. Mazur reported that funding is limited at this time and she offered to advise the Board about the project timeline at its next meeting. In response to Supervisor Brown?s inquiry about the status of reducing the speed at the sharp curve on Courthouse Road, Ms. Mazur reported that VDOT is currently working with the property owner who has agreed to give both VDOT and Verizon some easements. She noted that staff is investigating which is the lower cost, to move the guardrail or the utilities. In response to Supervisor Casteen?s request for the status of the drainage concern on Waterpoint Lane in Gatling Pointe which had a completion date of December 2007, Ms. Mazur offered to obtain and report back to the Board on a revised timetable for completion of this project. Supervisor Bradshaw notified Ms. Mazur that there was standing water on the roadway in Walters. He offered to provide her with the exact location if she would email him in the morning. In response to Chairman Clark?s inquiry for the status of the previous request for increased penalties for speeding signage, Ms. Mazur offered to investigate and report back to the Board with an update. Chairman Clark requested that he be provided with the test results. In response to Chairman Clark?s inquiry about the status of the previous request for a flashing light/warning sign at the intersection at Smiths Neck Road and Reynolds Drive, Ms. Mazur offered to investigate and report back to the Board at its February 2008 meeting. // Chairman Clark called for Citizens Comments. 6 Tom Ippolito spoke in opposition to the proposed relocation project of Pinewood Heights to Washington and James Streets. He stated that there is a vital need in the Town and County for workforce development and affordable housing; however, the Washington and James Streets are is not the place for this development because of its detrimental affect on civic, public and institutional amenities in the surrounding area. He stated that this area provides a gathering place for functions that occur throughout the year, such as parades and races, which have an economic impact on the merchants downtown. He stated that there has not yet been an opportunity to receive input from residents about this site and there should be some form of due diligence before any decision is made. He stated the property consists of 2.5 acres and is used mainly for parking for Paul C. Camp Community College and the ballfield. He stated that there are other opportunities for the relocation of the Pinewood Heights residents as the Board has spent millions of dollars on the Booker T. Washington Estates project so that individuals could be relocated to that site. He stated that the current property at James and Washington Streets is zoned for single-family dwellings, not for multiple family or duplexes. He stated that the property is valuable to the residents and the Town of Smithfield, as well as to the County and it needs to be maintained as open space, which is something you can not get back once it is gone. He requested that no action be taken until due diligence has been done by both the Town and the County. Herb DeGroft, on behalf of the Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia, updated the Board on its annual report and thanked the Board for its past support of the program. John Fitzgerald spoke in opposition to the proposed relocation project of Pinewood Heights to Washington and James Streets noting insufficient citizen input and lack of a study on the impact of parking and increased traffic and speeding. He stated that the Smithfield Town Council held a meeting on October 1, 2007 and the citizens were advised that that site was just an example and that there would be plenty of time for citizen discussion before the Town of Smithfield requested it from the County. He stated that the Town of Smithfield sent a letter to the County dated November 7, 2008 requesting the property without any further citizen discussion. He inquired about the legality of the housing only being made available to Pinewood Heights? residents. He specifically inquired if the housing is not limited to such residents, will this affect the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding. He voiced opposition to the building of new complexes next to older historic homes and he inquired if there have been any studies conducted on the impact to the surrounding area. He inquired how construction runoff would be addressed. He requested that the Board not take action and return the matter to the Town of Smithfield for further studies to be conducted. Gay Riley, a resident of James Street, suggested that a study be conducted on the surrounding area with respect to increased pedestrians and 7 vehicles before moving forward with the development. She advised that the parking areas are currently overflowing onto James and Washington Streets on any given evening. She stated that the area is currently an epicenter of academic, athletic, community and spiritual pursuits with Paul D. Camp Community College, the library, the YMCA and the ball fields and on any evening, the parking areas are full and overflowing onto James and Washington Streets. She stated removal of this land for public use affects adjoining neighborhoods and anyone else who uses these areas. // Chairman Clark called for Board Comments. No comments were offered. // Chairman Clark called for the County Attorney?s report. Interim County Attorney Burton noted included in the agenda are copies of the Elected Officials and Virginia Conflict of Interest Act and the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, both are which are required to be provided to newly elected members of the Board. Interim County Attorney Burton presented the Rules of Procedure for the Board?s consideration. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adopt Article (4) with regard to the procedures for the public hearings. 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 stated the pleasure of the Board was to take no action on the other matters contained in the Rules of Procedure, which will be tabled for a future meeting. Interim County Attorney Burton stated included in the agenda are standard policies adopted by other communities with regard to Community Development Authorities, which are recommended by the County?s financial advisor, Davenport & Company. He stated that these policies are policies that the Board will use now and in the future for any and all Community Development Authorities that might be requested for adoption. He stated that they contain the principle standards, such as there be a description of the district in the petition; they must be consistent with the County?s planning document; they can not affect the County?s credit worthiness; that the petitioner in each case is required to pay the various legal, financial and engineering costs and submit a petition for the 8 Community Development Authority they wish to create; and, they are required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the County, which stipulates the various items they are required to do, including the provision that the County will not in any way pledge its full faith in credit or have a moral obligation of any bonds that the Community Development Authority may issue. He stated that he has reviewed them and recommend their adoption to the Board. Chairman Clark commented that Supervisor Casteen was not privy to information previously received by the other four (4) Board members with regard to Community Development Authorities. He suggested in order for all the Board members to have the same information, the Board may wish to invite its legal experts to the Board?s work session on January 29, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. He added that he, too, was in need of a refresher course on Community Development Authorities. Supervisor Brown moved that the Board table consideration until the Board?s work session on January 29, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. 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. Interim County Attorney noted for the Board?s information, the following items have been scheduled for public hearing later in the meeting: ? An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 2. Administration. Article I. In General. Section 2-5.1. Disclosure of Personal Interests; ? An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 15. Taxation. Article IV. Electric and Natural Gas Consumers Tax. Section 15- 11. Electric Utility Consumer Tax and Section 15-12. Local Natural Gas Utility Consumer Tax; ? An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Amending Section 11-3.1 Pertaining to Vehicles Exempted from the County?s Motor Vehicle License Fees; and, ? An Ordinance Creating the Benns Grant Community Development Authority. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that he had one item for discussion during the Closed Meeting. // Chairman Clark called for the General Services report. 9 E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Director of General Services, stated pursuant to direction at the Board?s December 13, 2007 meeting, included in the agenda is a revised proposal for a water/sewer rate study for the Board?s consideration. Supervisor Casteen recommending removing the County ordinance review, which would save $14,900. Mr. Rountree advised that the County?s Water and Sewer Ordinances were redrafted in 1996 and since that time the Board has made several amendments to both of the Ordinance, particularly as it relates to the rate structure. He noted that there are several new provisions, i.e., a water conservation plan that is in need of modification and aspects of both Ordinances that are in need of being updated and staff felt it would be appropriate to add that to this study. Supervisor Casteen stated if the Ordinances are in place and working and the County is operating in a legal fashion, then spending funds to update them now as a separate part exercise is not prudent when later the Board might review the County?s existing ordinances and address that aspect of it at that time. Supervisor Bradshaw asked Interim County Attorney Burton to enlighten the Board on what is entailed as proposed by Mr. Rountree. Interim County Attorney Burton responded that the ordinances have not been updated in a number of years and there has been a number of changes in the law dealing with delinquency notices and turning water on and off, as well as the new rate structures and their approaches to things that the engineers are familiar with. Supervisor Bradshaw clarified that since 1976, the General Assembly and/or the State Water Control Board has made changes to the laws as to how jurisdictions should govern water and sewer, but the County?s ordinances have not been changed and the Board needs an expert on the laws to bring the County in compliance with the changes from the General Assembly and the State Water Control Board. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board approve the Water/Sewer Rate Study with Red Oak Consulting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-1) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and Supervisor Casteen voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for the Economic Development report. 10 Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator, presented a design and engineering contract between the County and Moffet & Nichol, an engineering firm, for their assistance in the development of the intermodal park. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Board. 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 Consent Agenda. A. Donation Received from the Camp Foundation ? Resolution to Accept and Appropriate $2,000 from the Camp Foundation B. Donation of Emergency Equipment to Fire Department ? Resolution to Gift to Rushmere Volunteer Fire Department C. Monthly Financial Reports for County and Schools D. Sungard HTE Alpha-Numeric Paging Module Change Order E. Service Lines Installation Bids ? Booker T. Estates Comprehensive Community Development Project F. Booker T. Estates Comprehensive Community Development Project ? M & W Construction Corporation, Change Order 2 G. Board of Zoning Appeals 2007 Annual Report H. Planning Commission Action List of December 18, 2007 I. Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collection Monthly Report Supervisor Wright moved that the Board adopt the Consent Agenda, 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 Appointments. 11 Supervisor Wright moved that the Board accept the resignation of W. Ray Holland on the Planning Commission. 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 Wright moved that a resolution be prepared recognizing Mr. Holland?s outstanding years of service on the Planning Commission. 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 Wright moved that the Board appoint Bryan Babb to serve on the Planning Commission representing the Windsor District, replacing W. Ray Holland. 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 accept the resignation of Peter Munsell on the Planning Commission. 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 a resolution be prepared recognizing Mr. Munsell?s outstanding years of service on the Planning Commission. 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 appoint Barbara Easter to serve on the Planning Commission representing the Newport District, replacing Peter Munsell. 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 Casteen moved that the Board reappoint Lars S. Gordon to serve on the Planning Commission representing the Smithfield District. 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 Brown moved that the Board appoint Janet Robertson to serve on the Commission on Aging representing the Hardy District, replacing Herb DeGroft. 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. // 12 Chairman Clark called for Old Business. Chairman Clark called for the Board?s continued discussion of the disposition of property at James and Washington Streets. Chairman Clark requested Interim County Attorney Burton to research and determine the value of the property and research and advise if the County?s dollar value commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding will be jeopardized if Pinewood Heights residents do not occupy the property. Mr. Stephenson advised that no matter who ends up residing on the property, the County?s requirements under the Memorandum of Understanding are met. Supervisor Casteen noted that there were citizens from the Town of Smithfield who spoke tonight that would like to give additional input to the Town of Smithfield before the Board takes action. He inquired if the Town of Smithfield would like to discuss the matter further before the Board takes official action. Supervisor Brown noted that any concerns of Town residents should be addressed by the Smithfield Town Council. He stated the County has accomplished its part by making the land available to them. He stated that he would rather see the land as a site for relocation of some of the residents of Pinewood Heights. Supervisor Bradshaw stated that the Town of Smithfield wanted the County to convey that property to the Town and it was the consensus of the Board was that the land was located in the Town; that the County should convey the property over to the Town; and, the Board should not be telling the Town of Smithfield how to develop property within the Town limits. Mr. Stephenson advised that the Town does intend to afford public input at the Town level and any development of the property would have to meet all Town approval; processes; Planning Commission; Board of Architectural Review and Smithfield Town Council. He stated that there will be ample opportunities to receive input from citizens at the Council level. He stated that the Mayor has requested that the property be deeded to the Town and that request stands. Supervisor Wright offered a motion to transfer the entire property to the Town of Smithfield, but Chairman Clark recommended that the property be split up. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that Supervisor Wright proceed with a motion to transfer the 2.5 acres from the County to the Town of 13 Smithfield and send the Riverview Park to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee to discuss. Supervisor Casteen commented that if the Board considers the other property, that might readjust the Town?s thinking about the whole solution in that area. Supervisor Brown insisted that the Memorandum of Understanding exercised by the County with the Town be thoroughly investigated and if the Board desires to deed less of the property, it should be done separately. Supervisor Wright moved that the County transfer the 2.5 acres to the Town of Smithfield to satisfy the conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding, exclusive of the existing building. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-1) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and Supervisor Casteen voting against the motion. Supervisor Wright moved that staff review the feasibility of transferring the remainder of the County-owned property to the Town of Smithfield and report back to the Board at its first meeting in March 2008. 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 Clark requested that the matter be addressed at the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that staff be directed to review the feasibility of the following and report back to the Board at its first meeting in April 2008: . establishing a daily count at the convenience centers . having the lights at the convenience centers turned off at night . revising the schedule of the convenience centers . establishing an attendant at the site or combined sites and to provide them additional pay. 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 allow him to work with County Administrator Caskey with respect to specific issues that were raised regarding senior citizen issues. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) 14 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 New Business. Chairman Clark moved that the Board amend the regular order of the agenda and move the Closed Meeting to this point on the agenda, following 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. Interim County Attorney Burton requested a Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711.A.1 to discuss personnel matters related to the appointment of specific public appointees and pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711.A.7 concerning consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel related to appointments related to the proposed Community Development Authority. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board enter the Closed Meeting for the reasons stated by the County Attorney. 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 return to open session. 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 following Resolution be adopted by the Board: CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712.D of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; 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 15 in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. VOTE AYES: Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING : 0 The Board took no action following the Closed Meeting. // Chairman Clark formerly introduced Barbara Easter, his appointment to the Planning Commission, representing the Newport District and replacing Peter Munsell. // Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: A. The application of Elliot Cohen, owner, and Commonwealth Engineering Group, Ltd., applicant, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a retail pet center and boarding kennel. The application site is located at 15038 Carrollton Boulevard (Carrollton Cove Shoppes) in the Newport Election District. Amy Ring, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, stated that the proposed application is for a 4,000 square foot pet-care retail center and boarding kennel that is to go into a previously approved shopping center which was approved in May of 2006. Chairman Clark called for comments in favor or in opposition to the proposed application. Elliott Cohen was recognized in the audience, but he did not address the Board. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Brown moved that the Board approve the application of Elliott Cohen. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors 16 Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, 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. The application of Isle of Wight Properties, Ltd., owner, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (t/a AT&T), applicant, for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 165 foot monopole communications tower with related antennas and a 4 foot lightning rod, with an equipment shelter and related communications equipment on approximately five (5) acres of land located at 23195 Vellines Lane, in the Newport Election District. Ms. Ring introduced the application and noted she would respond to any questions following the public hearing. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. Lisa Murphy, Attorney on behalf of the applicant, AT&T, advised that the need for wireless antennas is driven by the number of users and AT&T has a need to cover a gap in coverage along both sides of Route 17, near the James River Bridge. She further advised that their network was originally designed using VEPCO poles; however, VEPCO advised that the foundations in its transmission towers are not suitable for co-location purposes due to structural reasons. She advised that the tower proposed by C. E. Forehand will not provide the needed coverage and the applicant is seeking a wavier to the 400? setback so that the tower can be located at the rear of the property instead of the front. She stated that the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the application to the Board by a unanimous vote and the applicant is respectfully requesting that the Board approve the application. Phil Swartz, RF Engineer with AT&T, stated that the location being requested is the optimal location to improve AT&T?s coverage in that area. He stated if approved, all subdivisions, the Route 17 corridor and the James River Bridge will be covered and he did not see a need for any further sites in that area. Rency Yates of 2204 Water?s Edge Lane in Suffolk, AT&T?s Property Zoning Specialist, appeared ready to respond to any questions. Richard Cassell of 23261 Vellines Lane, property owner bordering the proposed tower, advised that the woods have been cut, leaving an opening that allows the tower to be visibly seen from Vellines Lane. He inquired if staff had verified the information provided by the applicant?s attorney with VEPCO. He stated that he had inquired and was advised it was a single 17 tower. He distributed photos of a tower that had been bolted to the structure and stated that he is unclear if VEPCO has advised that that portion of it could not be done. He noted that there is an existing tower located nearby that AT&T is going to sell part of their service to another company and he is curious if all of them could use the one (1) tower and still receive the same coverage. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Chairman Clark commented that he shared the same questions as Mr. Cassell and that he would like staff to address these at the Board?s next meeting. Supervisor Brown stated that he is concerned about the site being adjacent to an RPA and that there was been no delineation confirming this. Ms. Ring advised that staff had conducted a computer search and had visually surveyed the site, which showed no evidence of an RPA, but as part of the site plan process, staff will be making a definitive determination as required by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired how many towers currently exist within a five-minute radius of that area. Ms. Ring offered to find out the number of towers and report back to Supervisor Bradshaw. Chairman Clark inquired if it would be possible for AT&T to co- locate. Ms. Ring advised that a new 199 foot tower and antenna had recently been approved on Macklesfield, which is approximately 1.1 miles from this site. She advised that the applicant had advised staff that that tower was not practical for their use in order to provide service closer to the James River Bridge and into the Carisbrooke and Eagle Harbor areas. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired why the Planning Commission created Condition #3, which stipulates that the tower owner shall notify the County within 30 days of abandonment when the facility fully ceases operation. He stated that the County?s ordinance already requires that an applicant must notify the County if a tower is abandoned and that the entire tower, base and concrete must be removed and the site returned to its original condition within a certain period of time. He inquired if the applicant agreed to bond the project. Ms. Ring replied ?yes?. 18 Attorney Murphy made reference to the before and after prorogation maps. She advised that VEPCO has declined use of their transmission towers because the towers are predominately wet underneath. She advised that the existing tower to the north can not be used because the applicant is desirous of covering the area along Route 17 at the subdivisions on either side. She advised that she had met with the Isle of Wight Civic Association and except for Mr. Cassell?s comments, the public showed interest in having the coverage by AT&T. She advised that the applicant has a Letter of Intent from Verizon, the second co-locator on the tower and space has been reserved on the tower for the County?s equipment free of charge. She clarified that just because the exiting tower is not utilized at this time does not mean that it will not be used in the future because there will still be a gap in coverage due to the way that developments are occurring in that area. She advised that AT&T does not see the existing towers as mutually exclusive sites. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if the applicant agrees with the Commissioner of Revenue?s property tax assessment. Attorney Murphy replied depending on what the assessment amount is as towers are considered personal property and typically the taxes are paid to the State Corporation Commission. She advised that she understands certain municipalities have increased land assessments based on the location of the towers. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that he is aware that AT&T has lobbied against the General Assembly to pay the localities and he is recommending that AT&T volunteer to pay that amount, regardless of what the State says. Attorney Murphy replied that decision would be up to AT&T representatives; however, if this is something that is applied universally to all wireless sites in the County, she did not know that AT&T would be against it. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired what the impact of this tower would be on drainage issues in that area. Ms. Ring confirmed that the tower is located in a flood zone and that the applicant is aware that it will be required to meet the building code requirements for locating structures in a flood zone. She advised that the applicant is currently proposing to elevate any structures within the maintenance yard area by six (6) feet up from the ground. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that he thought the flood zone required an elevation of 15-25 feet and he requested that staff obtain additional information in that regard. He requested if the applicant is agreeable to being responsible for any drainage that may be created. He 19 inquired if the Corps of Engineers has been requested to comment on the application and has staff requested the Chesapeake Bay Advisory Group?s review of the application. Ms. Ring advised that there were not any identified wetlands on the site and the County?s Chesapeake Bay Planner has been requested to review the application. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that staff address his concern with taxation by the Commissioner of Revenue. Chairman Clark moved that the Board table action until the Board?s February 2008 meeting. In the meantime, staff is directed to meet with Mr. Cassell and be prepared to address his concerns, as well as solicit comments from the Chesapeake Bay Advisory Group. 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 a public hearing on the following: C. The application of Isle of Wight Materials Company, Inc., Henry W. Morgan, Richard L. Turner, Benns Church Properties, Arthur R. Kirk, Kirk Timber & Farming Company, Kirk Lumber Company, Bruce R. Kirk, Lynn K. Rose, Russell B. Rose, John R. Rose, J. Stokes Kirk, Sr., Family Trust, and Eagle Harbor, LLC, owners, and Benns Grant Commercial Development, Inc., Benns Grant Residential Development, Inc., and AH Benns Grant, LLC, applicants, for a change in zoning classification from Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) and General Commercial (GC) to Conditional Planned Development ? Mixed Use (C-PD-MX) of approximately 618.6 acres of land located on the west side of Benns Church Boulevard (Rt. 10) near its intersection with Brewers Neck Boulevard (Route 10/32/258), in the Windsor Election District. The purpose of the application is to allow for construction of a mixed use development, including residential, commercial, civic, and office development. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if the application this is contained in the Board?s agenda is the applicant?s final application. Interim County Attorney Burton confirmed that the application is the most complete and up-to-date application from the applicant. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if staff is in receipt of signed proffers by the applicant. 20 Interim County Attorney Burton confirmed that staff has received signed proffers from the applicant which were delivered to his office late last evening. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that it is his understanding that if any changes are made to the proffers, another public hearing will be required. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that once the Board has held a public hearing, there could be some minor change to the proffers without the Board having to hold another public hearing on the application. He stated that the Board could, however, hold another public hearing if it so chooses, but that would be the Board?s choice. Supervisor Bradshaw stated that it was his understanding that any application that requires proffers must be legally signed by the applicant prior to the public hearing taking place. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that was not his understanding. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Interim County Attorney Burton to confer with the Attorney General?s office on what is required under the Code of Virginia relative to public hearings and proffers prior to the Board?s work session that will be set later in the meeting. Chairman Clark notified those present that the Board anticipates continuing the meeting tonight in order to discuss the comments offered by citizens on the proposed applications. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the application had been properly advertised. Chairman Clark called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. Brian Lucas, representing Armada Hoffler, stated that the application is a cumulation of a long process that originated over six (6) years ago. He stated numerous community meetings have been held; there have been twenty (20) outside consultants; there have been over twenty-five (25) different iterations of the Master Land Use Plan; five (5) full submissions of the rezoning applications; five (5) work sessions with the Planning Commission; and, five (5) public hearings held by the Planning Commission. He advised that planning began in June of 2001 when the County?s Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the concept of a Development Service District (DSD) was created. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan directs all of the County?s growth into three (3) DSD?s in order to protect the rural nature of the remainder of the County. He stated 21 that this project is located entirely within the Newport DSD. He stated subsequent to that, the County had adopted the Benn?s Church Activity Center Roadmap for Growth, which created an opportunity for the community to provide their input to refine the vision for what the future of this property would look like. He stated that the project provides for a significant residential portion and contains a wide variety of housing and pricing. He stated that the homes are laid out in traditional neighborhood design concepts and their quality will be assured through architectural standards that the applicant has proffered to bring before the Historic Architectural Review Board. He stated that the residential density of this project is 3.7 units per acre, which equates to 136 units below the allowable density of 4.1 units per acre. He stated that the project contains 223 acres of open space, which equals 36% of the total project area being reserved for open space. He stated that the project is phased over a ten (10) year period and designed to provide the County an opportunity for its services to grow in conjunction or ahead of the development of the project. He stated 17% or 185 of the residential units in this community will be set aside for workforce housing, which is in compliance with the Taskforce report on workforce housing. He stated if approved, Benn?s Grant could become the cornerstone of the County?s workforce housing program to ensure that those who devote their lives to the service of the County as firemen, policemen, teachers, nurses and others will also be able to afford to live alongside those that they serve. He stated that the County will experience an extremely positive fiscal impact in one-time contributions as it will receive over $31,000,000 in investments. He stated escalating cash proffers included in the project total approximately $12 million and infrastructure and land and other amenities total $19 million. He stated that the net fiscal impact from the project at full build-out will range from $1.5 million to $3.1 million annually, which are revenues available to the County after paying all the expenses that are generated by the development. He stated that the project has significant positive revenue in every year and the 20-year net present value of this development is between $16.3 million and $31 million, excluding the one- time contributions. He stated this is accomplished because much of the sales tax dollars that the County?s residents currently spend in other localities will now be spent in the County. He stated that the project will also serve to diversify the tax base and because of the 20-year build-out, this project will become one (1) of the top three (3) taxpayers in the County and generate over 4,500 new jobs. He stated that the immediate transportation problem at the intersection of Benn?s Church and Brewer?s Neck Boulevard must be addressed because although it is currently functioning inadequately at a level of service ?D,? it will soon slip into a level of service ?F?. He stated that if the Benn?s Grant development is not built, in twenty (20) years, the average delay at this intersection will be ninety-seven (97) seconds, whereas if Benn?s Grant is built, the average delay will only be thirty-four (34) seconds. He stated the project will further contribute recreation land to the County as the applicant has offered all or any portion of a ninety-four (94) acre parcel to the County free of charge to be used for any active or passive recreational use by the County. He stated at the 22 County?s request, the applicant has offered to sell any portion of, none of, or all of a sixty-six (66) acre parcel that can be used for office or civic use at the County?s discretion. He stated that the applicant has also tried to be attentive to the historic resources and has offered to give the Jordan house to the County, or its designee, at no cost and will contribute $200,000 towards the renovation of this historic home. He stated that the applicant also plans to construct approximately 1,000 linear feet of brick wall along the corridor in front of the development that will compliment the brick walls in front of St. Lukes Cemetery. He advised that a contract is also in place with Riverside Health Systems, which has a Certificate of Need for diagnostic services approved for this location, for thirty (30) acres, as well as future plans for a helipad, operating rooms, emergency services and medical offices. He stated if approved, the applicants are confident that Benn?s Grant will become a model of what good planning and attentiveness can accomplish. He stated well-planned projects such as Benn?s Grant give the community control over the future. He requested that the Board give consideration to the overwhelming positive benefits that this project will bring to this community. Delores Darden, 16249 Bowling Green Road, provided a Power Point presentation illustrating the two (2) basic concerns associated with the Benn?s Grant project, which are traffic and money. She stated that the consultant has advised that if Benn?s Grant is built out the way it is configured, the County will consume all of the available traffic in the Benn?s Church area. She made reference to a graph illustrating traffic from Benn?s Church to Smithfield which reflected unstable conditions within a ten (10) year period, illustrating that 2,275 vehicles per hour will be traveling through that intersection and that by year twenty (20), the County will be in a failure mode. She stated with respect to Bartlett to Benn?s Church, the County will be unstable within six (6) years and extremely unstable within ten (10) years. She noted this chart does not address the back roads around Carrollton and Rescue, the Bartlett intersection and all the roads that lead from Turner Drive to the Smithfield High School, which will also need to be addressed. She stated that Mr. Lucas had painted a positive picture regarding the cash flow of $620,000 annually; however, the alternate scenario was what was presented by the County?s consultants, which assumed that there would be no office park because the County does not have the demographics to support it. She stated that the applicants also assumed full build-out of the retail, which is the key to the project being successful from the tax revenue perspective from personal property and sales taxes. She stated the County?s consultant?s best scenario is that over a twenty (20) year period, approximately $390,000 annually will be projected after all the expenses are paid. She noted missing from the scenario are new people who will bring new children who will need new schools; that new teachers will be needed at the Smithfield High School and Smithfield Elementary School; that there will be more crime and more density requiring additional deputies; and, that new building inspectors and personnel will be needed to handle the Community Development Authority and new tax 23 functions. She stated a new middle school will be necessary at a cost of $33 million to build and maintain. She stated that net proffer amount proposed by the developer of $9 million is not sufficient to build a new middle school. She stated that the County presently relies on local volunteers to handle fire and rescue services and $7 million will be needed to build and equip a new fire station and hire the necessary personnel. She stated that the gift of the Jordan house will require between $2 million and $3 million to restore and maintain. She noted that additional funds to repave Muddy Cross Road will be needed. She noted if the development is approved and all the retail people are brought in, it will be necessary for the County to pave from Turner Drive to the James River Bridge at an estimated cost of $1 million per mile, for a total of $14 million of tax payer money, as VDOT has none. She advised that the proffer schedule is out of date and the County is losing approximately $5 million. She stated that 2,000 of the 4,500 new jobs will come from the office park which the consultants have advised will never be successful. She stated the Walmart will only bring approximately 500 part- time low-paying jobs. She stated proffers are not adequate as they will not pay for public buildings and the proffer study is out of date, as the County st will not receive any money from the proffers until the 351 house is sold. She stated that the County should require that the money is paid upfront on the proffers. She stated that the County will be getting a free recreation area, which will cost the County over $3 million without a soil mitigation study. She stated that the income from the new office park will bring $16,200 annually to the County. She recommended that the Board deny the Benn?s Grant rezoning application as configured; request that the retail be reduced; that a new cash proffer study be conducted; and, that money and relief be requested from the builder. Malcolm R. Clark of Twin Hill Lane in Carrollton spoke in support of the Benn?s Grant application. He stated that the County?s Comprehensive Plan is a State requirement and that in 2001 when the latest Plan was revised, all citizens had an opportunity to provide their input into the Plan. He stated at that time, the Newport District was changed from 17,200 acres to 6,700 acres, thereby controlling growth. He stated citizens had input into establishing the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. He stated if a rezoning request and proffers are in accordance with the Plan and Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and public safety and environmental requirements are met, then the developer has met the requirements under the law. He stated that the Benn?s Grant development is not the largest development presented to the Board as in the 1980?s, King?s Colony was approved for 1,700 homes. He noted that the Board downzoned the development as a result of public pressure and that Mr. Keusal, the developer, had met the requirements for approval before it was downzoned and had sued the County and won, the cost to the County of which is still unknown, but was substantial. He stated that Benn?s Grant, compared to Eagle Harbor, has many advantages. He stated Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia conducted a survey in 2005 which showed that by 2020, there will be 15,720 residents over the age of sixty (60); 5,500 of those will have medical problems; and, the need for 24 greater access to local medical facilities will be greater. He stated that the presence of Walmart will assist with helping seniors to shop locally. He stated that seniors need to feel that they can provide for their individual needs without being a burden on their children, neighbors or churches. He stated the endeavors associated with Benn?s Grant will help seniors in the County to access products which are not presently available, especially the $4 prescription fee. He recommended approval of the application if there are no problems associated with safety that will threaten the welfare of the citizens. Regina Haggerty of 20716 Creekside Drive in Smithfield advised that strategic plans, Road Maps for Growth and Development Service Districts (DSD?s) are just plans, which can be changed, amended or completely reworked. She stated the time to change these plans is now. She stated to undertake a project of this size, realizing that the financial benefits are far less than anyone expected, would be detrimental to all but the developers. She stated the northern portion of the County is already overwhelmed with new homes and the intermodal complex for the southern end of the County appears to be far more deserving of the Board?s attention, as the expected financial impact far exceeds what Benn?s Grant projects. She requested the Board to have the courage and foresight to vote against the Benn?s Grant project. Win Winslow of 103 Red Point Drive in Smithfield urged the Board to think about those residents who need services closer to where they reside. He further urged the Board to look at the Comprehensive Plan and the process that brought that Plan to the Board. He stated if the Plan is in conformance with the process, then he urged the Board to vote in favor of the Benn?s grant application. Lindsey Poteat of 15079 Turner Drive in Smithfield stated that the Board has heard many reasons tonight to reject the applicant?s request for a rezoning such as traffic congestion, urban blight, poor corporate partners and risky bond issuance. He stated there are also unanswered questions about soil studies and suitability of proffered land for proposed uses and well-founded fear of harm to existing businesses should Walmart come into the community. There are aesthetic concerns, such as the displacement of trees and surface soil, parking lot lights and asphalt. He stated that elected government leaders have a responsibility that overrides all other factors that might affect how they vote on an issue, that is, what do the people who voted for them want. He noted that the vast majority of the letters to the Editor of the Smithfield Times and Daily Press have spoken against the rezoning and that at the Planning Commission?s several public hearings, there were always overwhelmingly larger numbers of individuals who spoke against Benn?s Grant than for it. He stated that it is no secret that the recent election of Supervisor Casteen to the Board was an indication of the peoples? opposition to Benn?s Grant and that the signatures of 2,200 individuals on petitions opposing Benn?s Grant speak loudly for what the 25 people want. He requested that the Board fulfill its primary responsibility of office and give the people of the County what they want, a continuation of the way of life being currently enjoyed without the intrusion of Benn?s Grant into their lives. Sharon Hart of 15219 Newbill Lane in Carrollton responded to Mr. Lucas?s comment that the intersection of Benn?s Grant and Brewer?s Neck is a level of service ?D? at this time. She stated that she suspects it is at that level only at peak hours during the mornings and afternoons. She stated that the St. Luke?s analysis revealed that it could be fixed at a reasonable cost. She stated while there are good things associated with the project phased over a twenty (20) year period, she agrees with certain Smithfield Town Council members that the project, as proposed, is premature and will place a chokehold on traffic in the County and in the Town of Smithfield. She stated that new legislation has been passed to have Development Service Districts (DSD?s) accommodate at least ten (10) to twenty (20) years of growth. She stated that a group of Planning Commission members had stated at a work session that when the DSD?s were adopted, they never anticipated a project of this scope all in one (1) place to be built in such a short period of time. She stated if you talk to officials of once rural Chesapeake, they will tell you that they should have never approved so much, so fast. She warned to not let smart growth become dumb growth. She stated that the Board could approve the rezoning for 50% of the project, phase the rest over a twenty (20) year period and let the developer come back at each phase for a rezoning so that the County would have a recourse if it can not keep up with the traffic impact, funding of paid rescue and deputies, and building of school facilities. She stated that UDA?s analysis states that the project is more along the lines of a conventional pod development rather than a traditional neighborhood design, as required by mixed-use neighborhoods in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the amount of public congestion will put citizens? lives in danger by keeping fire, rescue and ambulances from being able to get through for long periods of time. She stated that disaster evacuation would also not be possible. She stated that Ted McCormick of VACo was quoted as saying that if a development is too large, localities do not have to approve it. She stated that the traffic analysis for St. Luke?s village and the URS analysis states that the intersection of Bartlett and Route 258/17 will fail and Brewer?s Neck will require widening to three (3) lanes in each direction. She noted that there were flaws pointed out in the developer?s traffic analysis, as well as it being based on a twenty (20) year built out. She stated that Mr. Cashman of URS advised her personally that if this project was going to be built out in ten (10) years, as the proffers allow, even when you subtract a 1% background growth over ten (10) years, the road capacity for Brewer?s Neck Road can fail much sooner than predicted. She stated that while St. Luke?s Village proffered improvements to the Bartlett intersection, Armada Hoffler has not, nor have they proffered to help widen Brewer?s Neck to six (6) lanes, even though they are creating the large volume of traffic that would exceed capacity for Brewer?s Neck. She stated that she concurs with the report 26 which states that the study area should be expanded to include the intersection of Route 10 to the east to Route 10 business and bypass in Smithfield to the north. She stated that the Board needs to consider the cost of highway widening on arterial roads and additional County expense for capital improvements, additional staff, etc., and there would be no net profit. She stated there is no funding in the foreseeable future to widen any of the existing bridges. She stated that it would take fifteen (15) to twenty (20) years to widen the main arteries leading to Smithfield and Benn?s Grant, which would mean dealing with construction for that period of time and motorists would always reach a bottleneck at each and every bridge, which destroys the qualify of life in the County and is in direct opposition to the State Code. She added that some seniors may want $4 prescriptions at Walmart and medical services, but they are not going to want to drive in such horrific traffic situations. She stated that Riverside has stated that it is coming into the County with or without the approval of Benn?s Grant. George Hart of 15219 Newbill Lane in Carrollton stated that URS believes that it is imperative that the County understand that the approval of Benn?s Grant, as proposed, will provide the developer the right to pursue development that will generate sufficient traffic volumes to consume virtually all available capacity of Brewer?s Neck Boulevard corridor through the year 2027. He stated that it is Mr. Morgan?s view that other developers would pay their share and widen these roads, but what is Armada Hoffler?s contribution for widening them when they cause it to go beyond capacity before others even submit their proposals. He stated it is not right to allow one (1) project to take all the capacity. He stated VDOT?s representative stated at a work session of the Planning Commission that there were still questions that needed to be answered about the canal streets. He stated it is unclear at this time if the project would require that a dam be built. He stated that the street at the two (2) lakes in the back portion of the property would act as a dam and he does not believe that a topography study has been accomplished. He stated that the house population in the Newport District has increased 70% since the last census. He stated that the proffers state that the Community Development Authority is going to pay for the intersection realignment, the collector road improvements, water and sewer lines, recreation and ballfield improvements, not the developer as some believe. Rick Bodson of 115 Commodore Lane in Smithfield addressed his concern with the fiscal impact of the proposed project. He stated that the County treasury may realize an annual net benefit of $500,000 to $1 million, but he believes that there is an even probability that there will be a net zero impact financially on the County treasury. He stated when considered against the other projects already approved, but not yet started, common sense would dictate that approving this project carries no compelling taxpayer benefit. He encouraged the Board to table the application until the fiscal impact of the build-out of already approved projects can be tangibly, not speculatively, evaluated. 27 Pinky Hipp of 17271 Morgarts Beach Road stated she is not against development, but she is against this application. She recommended letting the developments that are already approved be built before approving another to provide the County an opportunity to keep up with the needs of the new residents, learn from the experience and develop a better plan for the County?s growth. She stated that there will be no going back once the Board approves this project and the citizens will have to live with the mistake made. She noted there are many unanswered questions about Benn?s Grant, to include the reclamation of the property that was suppose to have been done before. She asked why the person who was suppose to do the reclamation is not being held accountable and why is this being passed on to the developer. She advised that her parents built their dream house in Virginia Beach in 1959 and were taxed out of their home by 1990 because every development that occurred was supposed to have increased the City?s tax base, but only increased their taxes. She stated that she does not want to be taxed out of the home that she has recently built. She stated that she is not against development on this property, but there are 600 acres and over 1,000 homes proposed on thirty (30) acres and she thinks the County can do much better. Andrew Gregory of 43 Watson Drive in Smithfield spoke in support of the application because of the affordable housing aspect. He stated as a former teacher, he is familiar with the struggle of finding a place to live in the community in which he worked. He stated it is unfair for the County to expect to have the best teachers without some assistance in helping them become a true part of the community. He stated that he understands that the affordable units can remain affordable at the discretion of the County, no matter how many times they are sold and he agrees that that is a net benefit for the County. He stated many of the people who oppose the project complain about high real estate taxes; want spending by the local government to be reduced; want lower taxes; want the best police and fire and rescue; and, want the best schools and roads. He stated by adding significant retail in any area that was designated for it by the Comprehensive Plan, the County will have a chance to create a separate revenue stream. He spoke in favor of the significant recreational upgrades noting that sports had played a major role in his life and taught him character and teamwork. He stated that the County has spent more money on a park that hosts a three (3) day event which continues to struggle than it has spent on any facilities for the youth and adults to use year round. He stated that the Plan designates this area for this type of development and keeps commercial and residential growth contained to specific areas so that acres of previous farmland will not be used and create a sprawl problem for emergency services. He stated that traffic is going to be a major concern with or without this project and that this project solves more problems than it creates. He stated that it is the Board members? jobs to make decisions that will provide a net benefit for the County. 28 Renee Rountree of 405 Royal Dornoch in Smithfield spoke in support of the Benn?s Grant development. She stated that the County can have smart, planned and controlled growth within borders so that agricultural land remains undisturbed. She stated that new tax revenue to the County will directly benefit services she consumes and will keep her taxes lower. She stated having retail establishments closer to her home will greatly reduce the amount of time she spends driving to purchase the things she needs for her family and that will enhance the quality of her life. She stated having access to choice and competition in medical facilities and care that is higher in quality and lower in cost is better for everyone. She stated as a Vice President of Riverside, she can confirm that Riverside is planning on bringing diagnostic services, to include MRI and CT, urgent/emergency care, to include a helipad and many physicians, specialists and their offices to the County at the Benn?s Grant development. She stated that she fully supports the application as presented because it is a responsible plan for growth and development that is inevitable. John Graham of 113 Jericho Road in Smithfield spoke against the application being approved at this time. He advised that both the Planning Commission and the developer requested his input regarding the workforce housing component of this project. He stated that the developer has proffered that 17% of the dwelling units will be affordable by purchasers earning between 80% to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI) and that no proffers or tap fees will be paid on the affordable units and the County is to prequalify all the buyers. He stated these proffers will require that the County have a Housing Officer, which has not been approved or budgeted for at this time. He inquired how many of the homes will be affordable for people for 80% of AMI and how many of the homes will be affordable for people making 120% of AMI. He noted that the Board needs to know the formula for calculating how much a family at 80% of AMI can afford in a home. He questioned what size these homes will be and when the affordable dwelling units can be built in relation to the remainder of the project. He stated that they should be built along with the rest of the homes, not at the front or all at the end. He questioned where these units will be located. He stated it is in everyone?s best interest that they be dispersed throughout the project. He stated that the Board unanimously endorsed the recommendations of the Workforce Housing Task Force and that the Board should not approve any project that does not have meaningful proffers for 17% affordable units. Sandra Goodwin of 14326 Benn?s Church Boulevard in Smithfield expressed concern with increased traffic at an already busy intersection. She inquired if the Board would be willing to discuss the possibility of having some type of buffer placed in front of her property. She noted that wetlands are located in the rear of her home, which is located in the Windsor District. She requested that the County work with the developer to ensure that nothing detrimental happens to the wetlands. She stated if imminent domain is being discussed, she would like to know about it in advance. 29 Herbert Armstrong of 310 Buckingham Way in Smithfield stated he has been in business at Benn?s Church for the past thirty-two (32) years and he does not approve of the development for the same reasons stated by Delores Darden earlier in the meeting. He presented a petition to Interim County Attorney Burton containing 2,304 signatures of citizens who are also in opposition to the project. Randy Royal, Kimley Horne & Associates, stated that while some of the less valuable non-tidal wetlands are being disturbed, environmentally sensitive areas are being protected, such as the pond in the northern area of the project. He stated impacts are being minimized on any and all wetlands on the site as required by the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Quality. He stated this is a reclamation project, whereas most of the land has been disturbed already. He advised that the applicant is not requesting to amend the County?s ordinance, but rather proposing changes for this project only. He stated with respect to historic lighting along Route 10, the applicant is limited to what VDOT will accept; however, there are colonial type fixtures that can be used. He stated 1,000 feet of brick wall along Route 10 is proposed. He stated that the 100-year storm benchmark is the norm for runoff calculations and if more was designed on site, the infrastructure off-site could not handle it. He stated the Water Quality Impact Assessment does not capture the entire area. He stated low impact development features are not proposed with the development, but they are being proposed with the retail area if the conditions will allow it. He stated Walmart is proposing three (3) rain gardens in its parking lot at this time. He stated with respect to Public Works not supporting the issue of building permits before infrastructure Certificates of Occupancy, he understands this was created to protect the developer from subcontractors harming the improvements that have been installed. He advised that the sewer and water mains are funded by the Community Development Authority and the water tower is located in the northern portion of the project. He stated that he feels that all concerns have been resolved with the project and they have worked with staff in order to make this the best project possible. Brenda Stallings of 15020 Four Square Road stated that the development will be just like building another town in the County. She stated that it is ten (10) times too large and will overburden the infrastructure in the northern portion of the County for years to come. She stated that she is not in favor of a Walmart as they do not pay their employees well. She stated residents live in the County for its rural nature. She stated she knows that development is coming and change will happen along with it. She stated the Board members were elected to represent the voters from their district and they should not vote in favor of a project that the majority is not in favor of, or at least downsize the project. She stated the Board should represent the citizens of their district without fear of reprimand from fellow Board members or the developers. She stated that 30 this vote is one (1) of the most significant votes in the past century and the vote on this project will be remembered for decades to come. She stated that Supervisor Brown is her Supervisor and since he currently has a development plan in the approval process, she would request that he abstain from voting on the project due to a possible conflict of interest as his vote could be questioned by many. Steve Waddell of 106 Royal Aberdeen stated he is in favor of the Walmart and Benn?s Grant project as it can be a thriving community in the future due to its well thought-out plan. He stated that the County could not ask for a better well-backed company than Armada Hoffler and the Board should take advantage of what it is offering the County. Sue Morgan of 22048 Ballard Creek Drive, wife of Henry Morgan, a property owner at Benn?s Church, stated after attending more meetings than she can count, she has learned a great deal about the grueling steps involved with a project. She stated that Henry Morgan, Richard Turner and Armada Hoffler have been cooperative and forthright with all information regarding the proposed project. She stated that public forums have been hosted to allow citizens to be a part of making this project something that all could be proud of. She stated that the County stands to have a failing major intersection fixed for at least the next twenty (20) years; that the project will have a positive economic impact on the County; that it will preserve a valuable historic resource, the Jordan house; and, that it will bring much needed medical facilities and lower the cost of living for citizens. She stated that Benn?s Grant will provide ninety (90) acres of land that can be used by all citizens of the County for recreational purposes, along with a proposed Walmart, a home improvement store and specialty shops. She noted that there are many residents in the County who would like to see shopping more convenient and affordable. She stated that the specialty shops are unique and will not affect the businesses in Smithfield. She stated the proposed development will improve the overall appearance of the area and County staff will see to it that the project is aesthetically appealing. She stated that while that area will not be rural in nature, it will still be an improvement over what is there today. Albert Burckard of Titus Point stated that approval of the Benn?s Grant project will cause tremendous traffic problems. He distributed information concerning light rail service and a proposed route connecting the Amtrak station in Newport News to a proposed station in the City of Suffolk. He stated such a system would connect all of the cities in Hampton Roads to the Amtrak system. He stated even if the Board did not approve the Benn?s Grant project, the light rail could be a solution to today?s existing traffic problems in the Benn?s Church area. He recommended that local investors fund the light rail and that no tax dollars be used. Mark Calhoun of 314 Ridgeland Drive in Smithfield stated that the developers have created a wonderful plan, but in the wrong place. He stated 31 his expertise is in law enforcement and to put one (1) deputy around the clock in one (1) place takes five (5) individuals. He stated even if there are five (5) new deputies each year, there will not be a deputy stationed inside the confines of Benn?s Grant because this person will be needed all over the community. He stated that there are not sufficient pros for this development at this time. He stated that he likes to shop locally. He stated this project is too much growth at one (1) time and he recommended, if approved, that it be phased in over a longer period of time than twenty (20) years. He stated that he hopes the Board has the political will to say no at this point in time to this size development. Thomas Klein, Attorney with Troutman Sanders and counsel to Walmart stores, reminded the Board that the application comes with an overwhelming recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission, and included extensive meetings and hearings. He stated that architectural features and compatibility issues relative to the Historic Architectural Overlay District have been addressed, as recommended by the Historical Architectural Review Committee. He stated that the County?s Director of Economic Development commented two (2) years ago that Walmart has made every effort to meet the concerns of that department and has proven cooperative and consistently exhibited partnership. He stated since that time, Walmart has continued to modify its application according to staff and other interested parties. He stated this has very much been a cooperative process over the course of the last three (3) years. He noted that the Civil Engineer, the architect and a Walmart representative are present to answer any questions. Marty Womack of 204 Edgewood Drive in Smithfield stated, if approved, the project will only magnify the existing traffic problem. He stated that there is already a shopping center at Eagle Harbor which has yet to be fully occupied and a strip mall at Bojangles which has not yet been fully occupied, as well as many homes in Eagle Harbor that are currently for sale. He stated that wildlife has virtually been eliminated in that area and that the development is too much, too big, too fast. Glenn Hoy, a resident of Pleasant Lane in Smithfield, stated that the specialty shops in Benn?s Grant will not compete with the stores in the Town of Smithfield and with modifications, the Benn?s Church intersection will carry the traffic sufficiently. He stated that the tax base is needed to pay for additional fire and rescue services. He noted that the 2,300 signatures on the petition against the project equates to only 7% of the residents. Karen McPherson, Kimley Horne & Associates, stated over the last several years a main concern expressed was how to fix the intersection at Benn?s Church. She noted that her firm worked side by side with County staff, the consultants and VDOT personnel on how to improve the intersection, which resulted in a creative solution that allows for three (3) 32 smaller intersections to distribute the traffic; provides an acceptable level of service; and, does not impact any adjacent historical property. Jennifer Detweiler, Armada Hoffler, stated that the cash proffers have been escalated, as well as the residential build out to ten (10) years in order to reduce the impact on emergency services and schools. She noted that Armada Hoffler?s analysis showed that only four (4) deputies would be needed to maintain the current level of service in the County today. She stated that the cash proffers with the houses would be paid upon the sale of the first house. She stated it is the County?s choice for the purchase of the County land to put those towards the cash proffers and if the office park were to never come into existence, the cash proffers would be paid with the first house. Ellen Brady, Archeologist and Vice-President of Cultural Resources, Inc., stated archeological and architectural investigations have been conducted under the County?s rezoning process. She stated at some point in this process, there will be a Corps of Engineers permit required for the project and, at such time, all cultural resources identified in the project will be addressed. She stated that preservation in place for historic resources is always the preferred alternative and in such cases where preservation in place is not an alternative, there are processes designed to address and mitigate adverse effects on historic resources. She advised that the Jordan house and the W. P. Jordan house, as well as any archeological resources, would be addressed under that process. Lou Haddad, Armada Hoffler, stated when Armada Hoffler took over the development two and one-half (2.5) years ago, it inherited a plan from the original developer that contained 9% affordable housing. He advised that Armada Hoffler has complied with the Planning Commission?s request that the percentage be increased to 17% and that the affordable housing component be spread throughout the project. He advised that as each section of the project occurs, each section of the affordable housing will occur. He stated that the County was asked about the guidelines for affordable housing and that it was going to move forward with the creation of an office to handle affordable housing. He stated that Armada Hoffler noted that it would comply with the guidelines of that office when they were installed, but until then, it would follow the VHDA, which calls for 80% to 120%. He noted that the affordable housing component is a centerpiece of the plan, which took many months working with staff and the Planning Commission. He stated regarding the comments expressed earlier on the comments offered by UDA on Armada Hoffler?s plan, those comments were taken from the original plan before Armada Hoffler collaborated with UDA and staff to create the plan that is before the Board at this time. He stated with respect to the size of the project, Armada Hoffler was told by a previous Director of Planning and Zoning that the Board was tired of approving piece-meal developments. He stated that he was told that the County wanted an office park, large recreational park and a new intersection 33 and, in order to accomplish that, a plan was necessary that was large enough to afford being able to proffer those sorts of things. He stated that he was also told that the Board did not want to have the impact of that large of a project in a short period of time, so he was asked to phase the project out over a ten (10) year period, rather than the six (6) years that was originally proffered. He stated that the plan is as good as it could possibly be and he thanked staff for their efforts in this project. Tony Nero, Armada Hoffler, stated with respect to earlier comments expressed that the project is premature, will the commercial materialize, there is no demand for the commercial, or questioning the quality of the development, the County?s consultant has advised that this jurisdiction is substantially under-retailed relative to meeting the demands of the current population. He stated that Walmart stores and the proposed home improvement stores are the only retailers that do significant research on the location of its stores and they do not locate them where there is not sufficient population to use them. He stated that Armada Hoffler has built developments in most of the jurisdictions in this area and, if asked, would receive high marks for the projects it has been involved with. He stated that the County has raised the bar on what Walmart has done in this area in terms of the architecture and the quality of what is going to be in the County. He stated a third-party firm has prepared the fiscal impact study and he believes that Davenport & Company, the firm that the County hired to review Armada Hoffler?s impact study, would agree that they were comfortable with the results in the study. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that the developer had already had an opportunity at the beginning of the public hearing to deliver his presentation and that he did not agree with representatives of the developer making their own individual presentations during the public hearing. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the developer has been allowed to have a ten (10) minute time period in which to speak collectively about the proposed project; however, a public hearing is a hearing in which any member of the public has a constitutional right to speak to the Board, whether he is the developer or anybody else. He advised that he believes the Board must listen to anybody who signs up to speak. Tom Martens, Economics Research Associates, stated that annually this project will generate a net impact of over $1 million in each of the years going forward. He noted that increased personnel had been included in the cost allocation and that the impact on downtown Smithfield would be very minimal as it is an entirely different type of market. Kelly Hobbs, Walmart representative, stated that Walmart does extensive research on customers and where they are shopping in other areas. She noted there are many shoppers leaving the County to shop and Walmart is confident that it will have a good customer base. She noted that Walmart 34 wants to be a good steward of the community and it wants to work with the County?s local farmers. She advised that grocery prices at Walmart are 17% lower than most other grocery retail chains and that the average American family saves $2,500 annually by shopping there. She stated that Walmart provides healthcare to both full-time and part-time employees for as little as $8 a month, which is also eligible to employees? children and spouses. She stated that the average hourly wage for full-time employees in Virginia is $10.68 and 70% of Walmart?s employees are full-time employees. She advised that three (3) quarters of Walmart?s management team began employment as hourly employees. Van Rose, a partner with Armada Hoffler, stated that he is proud to be a partner with Armada Hoffler. He stated that he has twenty-five (25) years of experience and developed over 300 communities and over 100,000 households in Hampton Roads. Samuel Cratch of 15355 Carrollton Boulevard spoke in favor of the project. He stated that all the new subdivisions in the County have increased the amount of traffic and they have not offered to fix any of the roads, unlike this developer. He stated if nothing is done, existing traffic problems will only increase and the County will have to pay to fix them. He stated that Walmart does extensive studies to determine which areas will support one (1) of its stores. He advised that Walmart, when it built its north Suffolk store, sent $5,000 to the Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department as a donation. Bruce Powell of 317 Smithfield Boulevard stated that high traffic and taxes do not contribute to the quality of life, but the rural atmosphere of Smithfield does. He stated that developments being built in the County one (1) at a time have all contributed to the existing traffic problem and caused a degradation in the qualify of life in the County and the citizens want it to stop. He stated while the proposed development has many advantages for the community, it will change the existing quality of life. He noted that he is most concerned with the accelerated schedule and what will happen while Brewer?s Neck Road is being widened. He stated before a road can be widened, it must be narrowed and for a number of years Brewer?s Neck Boulevard is going to be narrower. He stated if people begin moving into the Benn?s Grant development at the same time, then there will be a severe traffic problem. He stated motorists do not like sitting in traffic and will begin looking for alternative routes, which will reduce the quality of life for residents who live on those routes. He stated that he is questioning whether the Benn?s Grant community is going to preserve the rural heritage of the County for future generations. Lynn Moseley of 16042 Carroll Bridge Road spoke in opposition to the proposed development stating that she chose to live in this community because of its rural and peaceful surroundings and because she likes to know her neighbors. She stated she is opposed to increased traffic and 35 overcrowding in the schools. She stated that her taxes are manageable and she is not in favor of paying additional taxes for roads, schools and police and fire stations, all to support one (1) new neighborhood. She recommended that rather than building a massive neighborhood and specialty shops, that the County build something that the community can use, such as a movie theatre. Clair Kimmel of Windsor stated she would be cooperative too if she had as much to gain as the developer. She stated all the citizens have gained from Eagle Harbor is two (2) additional traffic lights to stop at on her commute to the shipyard every day. She stated that she use to live in Newport News and had her doctor, dentist and other services within walking distance and she did not move to the County to have those services close to her, instead she moved to the County to get away from the very services the developer is wanting to provide in the County. She stated she does not want the traffic congestion and increased stop lights that accompany every Walmart she has ever visited. She stated that residents of the County moved to the County knowing that these services were not present. Dan Smith, Smithfield Town Council, relayed that concerns of the Council this past week are being summarized and will be forwarded to the Board at a later date. He stated it is important that the County not vote on this application until all required comments and approvals have been received from other County, State and Federal boards and agencies pending issues that have been raised in regard to the historic house relocation and the wetlands, reclamation plan and proposed Community Development Authority. He asked if an analysis had been performed to project the impact on existing County and Town businesses and what are the positive effects for this development for the Town of Smithfield. He asked what are the projected wages and benefits; what will be the job net creation given the potential detrimental impact on Town businesses; and, have all anticipated expenses to the County been qualified in terms of impact on schools, emergency services, utilities and overall County staffing. He stated this project will use up all the reserve capacity on the existing State road network in the northern end of the County with no new State funds anticipated for the next twenty (20) years. He questioned what the developer?s contribution will be towards road capacity and future improvement costs. He advised that the developer of Mallory Point proffered $2,200 per lot based on a VDOT current count of traffic, which netted the Town of Smithfield $660,000 and the developer agreed to pay for all intersection improvements. He stated that he feels strongly that this is not the best possible project design. He stated the original traditional neighborhood design presented was more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and the original selling points, such as a significant County recreational facility, have been removed. He stated that the present design is a cookie cutter big-box commercial project with out parcels and residential located behind. He stated if the big- box development is desired by the County, it belongs on Route 17 and not in close proximity to historic St. Luke?s. He stated that he is a proponent of 36 property rights, but he does not believe that this is the best project at this time. Henry Morgan of Carrollton stated that he has been in business with Richard Turner and the County since 1983 and he attended the Board of Supervisors? meeting in 1991 when the Development Service Districts (DSD?s) were established as a tool for guidance of future growth. He stated that there was no public outcry at that meeting or since until this application. He stated subsequent Boards have continued that smart growth policy as the Comprehensive Plan has been updated every five (5) years. He stated this land and project, as clearly identified in the Plan, specifically referred to as an Activity Center within the Newport Development Service District. He stated when the property was placed up for sale in 2002, the County contacted him to suggest that he partner with it in providing an office park and mixed use development, which he did. He stated that the former Director of Planning and Zoning encouraged him to change the land use designation to PDMX, which they did, and in 2004, the Board approved that request with no public outcry. He stated the County then asked them to participate in the Benn?s Church Corridor Study, which they did. He stated that traffic was a concern then and the solution at that time was the Brewer?s Neck Boulevard extension or realignment. He stated that the County suggested that they obtain the right-of-ways, which they did. He stated the study was summarized in a document entitled ?Roadmap for Growth,? which was adopted by the Board in 2004. He stated the County won a national planning award for that document. He stated there was no public outcry at that time and their land was clearly identified in the ?Roadmap for Growth.? He stated in 2005, the County report on housing stated ?this analysis and report has been conducted and prepared as part of our ongoing efforts to encourage Henry Morgan and Richard Turner to proceed with submitting an application for rezoning on their property.? He stated they were then asked to wait until the County?s Zoning Ordinance was rewritten, which they agreed and since that time over $2,000,000 has been spent on studies and plans to further comply with the detail of the County?s ordinances. He encouraged the Board to approve the project. Richard Turner acknowledged the members of the Planning Commission who worked diligently over the last several years on the project. William Ray of 10489 Stallings Creek Drive stated that he moved to the County after retiring from the Navy. He spoke in opposition because of schools, traffic, jobs and public safety. He stated current estimates reflect an increase of 700 students, but the 2000 U.S. Census predicts that the 1,087 homes will add over 1,900 students. He stated that 53,000 vehicles are predicted to utilize the intersection at Benn?s Grant. He stated that while that intersection will be improved, what about the rest of the roads. He stated that VDOT has no plans to address the traffic in the County until 2030 and the County will have to suffer until then. He stated estimates of 37 4,500 jobs sound good, but at what rate of pay as Walmart averages nationwide $8.50 per hour or $17,000 annually for a full-time employee. He stated three (3) additional deputies will be required, which probably means three (3) per shift and there is no mention about the volunteer fire and rescue services in the County. He asked how many new residents will participate in the volunteer rescue and who will answer to the families of someone who dies because the rescue squad can not get to Riverside Hospital due to traffic jams. He stated that he does not see the upside to the project until all the infrastructure is in place first. The developer should be expected to pay for most of it. He asked how long Armada Hoffler will be involved with the project when the Town of Smithfield annexes this district. Cecil S. Rhodes of 19583 Quaker Road in Windsor called attention to the positive points of Benn?s Grant. He stated facts have been lost in an onslaught of negative publicity. He stated that Armada Hoffler has done all it can to meet the County?s zoning regulations. He stated many public meetings have been held with little attention, attendance or comments received. He stated the Benn?s Grant project offers medical facilities, road improvements, ball fields, office space, business opportunities and having a planned development within a Development Service District with minor effects on agricultural and forestal areas. He stated that Walmart will not be a distraction from local businesses and he plans to continue doing what business he does locally now in the future. He stated new business will be brought into the County and keep County businesses from going to another location. He stated that he thought for the most part there are more positive effects associated with the application than negative ones. Dwight Darden of 1138 Cherry Grove Road in Suffolk expressed his approval of the Benn?s Grant project. He stated he makes his living in the building industry and he has found that the building industry leads the economy into economic slowdowns and also leads it out. He stated the Benn?s Grant project is a prudent and timely endeavor in the economic recovery process. He stated that the Planning Commission has approved the project and the Board is charged with making decisions based on what is most beneficial for the community and its citizens. He asked those in opposition if they would replace the thousands of tax revenue dollars and the charity that will be given to the County or will they fix the intersection at Benn?s Church which will continue to worsen even without the added population of the new project and can they direct and plan where new citizens will build and live and supply all the services that Benn?s Grant can provide. He stated he wonders how many people against Walmart have money in investment plans which, in turn, own mutual funds or shares that are invested in Walmart, the world?s largest cash contributor to charity in the world. He stated more residents living in the downtown historic Smithfield District would have more visitors and business will only increase. Dwight Doggett, Jr., 12452 Red House Road in Windsor, stated those in favor of the project are individuals who stand to gain financially from it 38 and those opposed to it are concerned taxpayers of the County. He stated the fact that the meeting has been moved to this location tonight is acknowledgement that the opposition is overwhelming. He asked how the Board weighs the opposition of so many against the payment to so few. Leslie Doggett of 4125 Imperhill Lane in Chesapeake and property owner in Carrollton stated he would live on Doggett Lane in Carrollton if there were permanent medical facilities with emergency treatment in the County. He noted that his wife, who suffered a heart attack, will not move to the County because of her concern about a lack of needed medical care. He stated this project offers him the opportunity to return home to Carrollton. He stated that Chairman Clark is a member of the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority and he will be one (1) of the members who will determine how the funds are spent and where they will come from. He stated that County residents are going to pay their fair share and it is the Board?s responsibility for getting these residents the services they deserve. Ernie Gillespie of Carrollton stated that he is very much in favor of the Benn?s Grant proposal. He stated with respect to Ms. Hart?s earlier comment about senior citizens and their reluctance to drive in traffic, he welcomes the opportunity to drive in traffic to get to Benn?s Grant for the medical facilities as opposed to driving to surrounding cities. Jeffrey Scott of Rescue spoke in favor of Benn?s Grant so that those that are growing up and starting families can have better options to live within the County due to increased tax revenue from new businesses and proffers. He stated as teenagers begin to drive and socialize with friends, there is not much to do within the County. He stated the Benn?s Grant development will give all people the opportunity to spend their tax dollars in the County. He stated that city centers that are sprouting around surrounding cities are pleasant looking, safe, fun and provide a source of local entertainment for those areas around them. He stated groceries can be purchased cheaper at Walmart and the local established businesses within the County and new businesses within Benn?s Grant will be able to coexist. He stated this community will provide more choices for affordable housing, more choices for entertainment for the younger generation and more revenue for the County. Lisa Monyaa of 20679 Creekside Drive in Smithfield stated she chose to live in the County following her retirement from the Navy because of its peace and quiet. She asked the Board to remember what it is about the County that attracts people like herself. Jennifer VanHoorebeck, a resident on Virginia Avenue in Smithfield, asked if more new homes are really needed in the County when there are currently forty-five (45) homes for sale in Eagle Harbor and sixty-five (65) homes for sale in Wellington Estates, not to mention the approved developments that have yet to break ground. She stated there are already 39 three (3) grocery stores, two (2) hardware stores, a paint store and restaurants and every citizen knew what was available when they moved here and were fine with the shopping and dining selections. She stated if big box stores move into the County, some of the current stores will close and the County will be littered with empty store fronts and neighbors put out of business. She stated this development will provide the County with additional people, clogged roads, overcrowded schools and higher taxes to support the infrastructure. She stated that citizens like the County?s rural atmosphere, which is why many of them moved here. She requested the Board to vote the way the people are asking them to vote. Mary Batton of 10332 Ponotha Drive in Smithfield stated she has lived in the County as well as New York and Los Angeles and she has first- hand experiences with the advantages and disadvantages of living in a rural community and busy cities. She stated the question is how big does the Board want the County to grow. She stated that small communities such as Smithfield and the County are as endangered as rain forests species and as vulnerable to development as an acre of the Amazon. She stated the difference is a rain forest can be replanted, but Smithfield and the County can not. She stated that once housing developments are built, there is no turning back. She stated that if Benn?s Grant is allowed, within a couple decades or less, the James River Bridge will be the only separation between Smithfield and Newport News. She stated that humans do not behave well in overcrowded conditions, conflict sets in and the kind of caring and compassion that now exists in the County will be gone. She stated there is time to make an informed choice and she requested that the Board listen to the people it represents and represent the people and not the developer. Bishop Johnson stated that he is in favor of the Benn?s Grant development. He asked where all the people in opposition were when the Comprehensive Plan was created. He reminded the Board that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project to the Board. He stated at some point we are going to have to come to the realization that change is coming and it is important that everyone work together in a positive fashion. Donald Gwaltney of 1 Jay View Circle in Smithfield stated he has worked at Benn?s Church for fifty (50) years. He stated that he believes in property rights and is in favor of the Benn?s Grant development. He stated that only Armada Hoffler has offered to address the traffic problem at the Benn?s Church intersection. Thomas Finderson of Sugar Hill Road presented a graph of the traffic from Benn?s Church to Smithfield illustrating 1,329 vehicles at peak hour. He stated in five (5) year from now there will be 2,016 vehicles at peak hour if approved. He stated a road will be needed around the sixth year as there will be unstable conditions between the sixth and tenth year. He stated that the project has benefits, but the Board needs to be aware that the need to 40 build a road is in the short-term, not the long-term. He stated it would be tragic if the Board that cast the key vote for the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority would turn around and mess up the traffic for the County. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments by the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board table action until after the public hearings when the Board makes a decision on when it will hold its continued meeting for the purpose of conducting a work session on this item. 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 a public hearing on the following: D. The application of Benns Church Properties, owner, and AH Benns Grant LLC, applicant, for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed Wal-Mart to allow construction of a commercial retail facility with a building footprint greater than 80,000 square feet, which will include the following uses: drive-through pharmacy; garden center; and motor vehicle repair service/minor on approximately 21.2 acres of land on the west side of Benns Church Boulevard (Route 10/32) north of Muddy Cross Drive (Route 620) in the Windsor Election District. Supervisor Bradshaw publicly disclosed that he has a family member associated with Walmart in a management position. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the application had been properly advertised. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. Tom Kline, Attorney for Walmart stores, stated that he has worked with staff over the course of three (3) plus years on this project. He stated that in addition to the rezoning, a Conditional Use Permit is necessary because of the big-box ordinance that was adopted when the Board approved its Zoning Ordinance. He stated this application comes to the Board from the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval following extensive hours of staff and consultant time. Kelly Hobbs, Senior Public Affairs Manager for Walmart, stated that the reason Walmart has chosen to locate in the Benn?s Grant development is because of the small businesses in the community, which keeps traffic going to Walmart, as well as the other small businesses in the area. She stated she 41 is not aware of any Walmart that has caused downtown businesses to go vacant. She stated for the most part, businesses actually thrive and grow. She stated that Walmart is committed to ensuring that its stores are safe by utilizing both interior and exterior cameras and works with local law enforcement. She stated that Walmart has a no tolerance policy when it comes to prosecuting crimes. Delores Darden of 16249 Bowling Green Road stated that the public has been told that Walmart is going to bring revenue, jobs and $4 prescriptions for citizens of the County. She noted that early assessments reported that Walmart would bring 550 jobs, but she is confused as the Walmart representative reported that the number of jobs would be around 300. She read a statement from a report that was presented to the U.S. House of Representatives which stated that because of Walmart?s ruthless business practices, it will be hiring individuals who lose their jobs with local businesses for low wages and minimum benefits and that Walmart stores have a history of costing the municipality up to $420,000 per 200 employee store to provide public assistance such as free school lunches, housing assistance, tax credits and health care. She stated the Institute for Local Self Alliance also issued a report that Walmart charitable contributions and contributions to the local economy will be less than those of the local businesses and that for every $100 spent at a big box store only $14 stays local and for every $100 spent at a local store $45 stays local. She stated that Benn?s Grant is actually a suburban strip mall with Walmart as its focus and what is proposed is not really what was shown in earlier charettes and it is not the traditional neighborhood design that was promised. She stated that the developer has not shown the County what the houses and retail stores will look like. She stated it is difficult for new or existing business to compete with Walmart and the County?s consultant recently advised that it is likely that the amount of retail space proposed for Benn?s Grant exceeds market demand and the consumer market can not absorb all planned shopping centers? square footage and this analysis also raises the possibility that either the Crossings and/or Benn?s Grant retail center may not be fully developed and the latter circumstance could impact the revenue stream to cover infrastructure costs associated with the proposed Community Development Authority. She stated Walmart represents 40% of the retail that is expected to be at the shopping center and the money generated at the shopping center will come from sales and property taxes. She recommended that the Board deny the rezoning of Walmart as this is not a true town center, but a strip mall with Walmart as its center. Lindsey Poteat of 15079 Turner Drive stated that if the Walmart consists of 176,000 square feet, that is 220% of the present allowable square footage for one (1) retailer under one (1) roof. He stated that if Walmart finds out what the local businesses sell as products and offers its services to avoid those items as indicated by the representative earlier, the County does not need them anyway. He stated that Riverside Hospital has indicated that 42 it is coming to the County whether the Benn?s Grant project is approved or not. Pinky Hipp of 17271 Morgarts Beach Road expressed concern with residential housing units in close proximity to the proposed Walmart. She noted that other Walmarts are located strictly in commercial districts only. She stated her biggest concern is the relocation of the Jordan house, which will no longer be historical when moved. She stated once moved, it will be extremely difficult to obtain grants to restore the home and if the Board gives the home to the Historical Society, it should ensure that it has a trust fund to take care of it. John Graham of 113 Jericho Road in Smithfield stated it has been proven that when a Walmart comes into a close community, increased tax revenues come from existing businesses and is transferred to Walmart and other existing businesses receive no concessions when they came to this area. He stated that Walmart has a reputation for being an aggressive and demanding company and he thinks the County can do better in that community than having Walmart be the cornerstone of the most significant project in this decade. Sandra Goodwin of 14326 Benn?s Church Boulevard spoke against the size and location of the proposed Walmart. She stated that she did not believe any company should try to move into the County and tell the locality how big it wants to be. She stated that Walmarts have language contained in its contracts that do not allow for fair competition from other businesses and it will not allow certain businesses to be within a certain distance of it. Dr. Van Orman, dentist on Courthouse Highway, inquired if now is the right time for a Walmart and Home Depot at that area. He stated that he lives near these stores in Chesapeake and they generate a great deal of traffic. He stated to believe they will not affect local businesses is diluted thinking. He stated these businesses would be much better suited on the Route 17 Corridor. He stated that in Chesapeake, his taxes have gone up 100% in a five (5) period timeframe and there is more traffic, more congestion and no improvement in services. He stated that development is inevitable and he believes that all land owners have a right to sell or develop their property in an appropriate manner. He noted that there is a time and season for everything, but building a Walmart or Home Depot at that location would be a mistake because of the increase in traffic; the adverse impact on existing local businesses and that it would degrade the special quality of life that he has come to appreciate in this area over the last several years. William Bell of Windsor stated that Walmarts are a product of public policy, not consumer choice. He stated that Walmart has captured over a billion dollars in subsidies from the State and Federal governments. He stated that the State of North Carolina is currently suing Walmart for 43 evading taxes in that state. He stated that Walmart forced all Black & Decker manufacturing in the United States off shore in the last ten (10) years and they have already forced them out of China and they are on their way to India. He stated that prices vary between local stores based on local competition. He stated the County will be shopping itself out of decent jobs with good wages when individuals patronize Walmart and it has been shown that independent Pharmacists provide a far superior level of healthcare and personal attention than those in the big boxes. He stated that independent pharmacies also have lower prices on average. At 11:00 p.m. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board extend its 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. Henry Morgan of Carrollton stated that Walmart will considerably increase retail sales dollars in the County that can, in turn, be used for schools. He stated it does not make sense to drive thirty (30) minutes to give our tax dollars to others communities to educate their children. He asked if we were that certain of the County?s tax and employment base in light of what is happening in the country that we want to give tax dollars to other localities. He stated that the Harvard Business school says that the real conflict is not between capital and labor, but it is the battle involving consumers and cost efficient producers against traditional retailers, organized labor. He stated when the fires got out of control in California, Walmart emptied their shelves of blankets, food and medical supplies for the victims and that Walmart had done the same thing in Washington State when that area flooded shortly thereafter. He stated if the County experiences another hurricane such as Isabel, is that the type of corporate citizen that is wanted in our community. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that a condition be placed on the application that if the building becomes vacant, that after one (1) year the applicant will be required to return the site to its original condition and remove the building. He stated that he could not consider the application without that condition. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board table action until after the public hearings when the Board makes a decision on when it will hold its continued meeting for the purpose of conducting a work session on this item. 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 a public hearing on the following: 44 E. An Ordinance Creating the Benns Grant Community Development Authority. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the proposed Ordinance has an exhibit that includes five (5) persons who would constitute the Board of the Community Development Authority, as required by the statutes. He stated the individuals who would be the initial Board members would be W. Douglas Caskey, Liesl R. DeVary, Lee Winslow, Robert C. Claud, Sr. and Donald T. Robertson, all of which would serve a two (2) year term. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. Delores Darden of 16249 Bowling Green Road stated that she understands a Community Development Authority (CDA) is used to pay for roads, curbs, gutters, traffic signals, storm water management, parks and recreation, landscaping and fire prevention in schools. She stated that a CDA has been used successfully in some other commercial ventures, but there is limited data for residential communities of this magnitude. She asked if commercial endeavors carry their portion of the burden of the CDA; what part will Walmart pay; what part will the future residents pay; and, what part will the new businesses pay. She stated that since Riverside Hospital has stated it will not be part of the CDA, are there any other future businesses that have said that they would not be part of the CDA. She inquired if this would place an undue burden on the residents of affordable housing. She inquired if there would be new County personnel; there would need to be a CDA Administrator, all of which are not included in the CDA. She stated that while there is no legal obligation to intervene, do rating agencies have any expectation that the County pay the CDA in the event of a repayment trouble. She inquired if this would create credit concerns for rating agencies and private lenders. She stated approving a CDA sets a precedent for all future developments in the County and the County would become full of special tax zones. She asked if other developers would request the County to finance their projects with CDA?s. She stated approval of the CDA is unfair to existing developments and exposes the County to potential lawsuits and credit concerns. She recommended that the Board deny the CDA. She stated Armada Hoffler should be like all other developers and they should put their money into the project and not let the project be a burden on future taxpayers. Herb DeGroft of 15411 Mill Swamp Road stated that he has provided the Clerk a copy of information pertaining to K-12 student population for Carrollton Elementary and Smithfield Middle and High Schools. He stated that the Board has been provided information that is not exactly forthcoming. He stated that 375 students in ninth grade are in the ninth grade wing at Smithfield Middle School and they are counted at Smithfield High School for academic block scheduling only, but they are not physically 45 located in the high school. He stated that the Board has been given the impression that the Smithfield High School is maxed out, but that is not true. He stated between 2001 and 2007, the County increased by 475 students and in 2001 the Board provided $17.9 million in local funds and in 2007, the Board provided $27.5 million. He stated the problem is with cost control management in the school system. He stated that he anticipates the number of children associated with the proposed development to be more like the numbers experienced with Eagle Harbor and Founders Point and it will not be as much as is being stated at this time. Lindsey Poteat of 15079 Turner Drive noted that if the County is not going to be considered legally or morally responsible for these bonds in the event of some sort of failure of this project, no one is going to want to purchase them. He recommended that if Armada Hoffler is in need of funding, that it find a lender to indemnify it and not the citizens of the County. Henry Morgan of Carrollton noted that the CDA is a financing tool and that he expects the County Attorney, McGuire and Woods and the Community Development Authority Board to ensure that the County is not at risk and not responsible for repayment. He stated that he has heard Supervisor Bradshaw in the past say that he does not want just development, but development that pays for itself and he believes that this ensures that. John Graham of 113 Jericho Road in Smithfield stated that he understands that the cash proffers are proposed to be paid at the time of sale and he further understands that all other developers in the County have been required to pay their cash proffers upon approval of the site plan. He stated if that is the case, this will set a new precedent and be unfair to previous developers that could subject the County to litigation. He stated that proffers should be tied not to the CPI, but to the cost of construction. He stated that the Community Development Authority should not be used for this project. He stated if the developer is not willing to risk or can not obtain the financing for the capital to build this project, then the County should not provide this vehicle. He stated that all future developers will want and should be entitled to their own CDA, causing the County to have different tax districts throughout the County. He encouraged the Board not to endorse the CDA. Henry Bell of Windsor recommended that the Board look into what the State of New York has faced with respect to Community Development Authorities because he understands it masks the true tax rate and businesses were not coming in as a result. Dan Smith of 117 Goose hill Lane in Smithfield stated that the Smithfield Town Councils wants to know what the advantages are with respect to Community Development Authorities, specifically is it a potential liability to the County and what risks do all taxpayers face in the event of a 46 possible default. He stated that CDAs only offer advantages to the developer which will set a precedent for future development in the County. He stated it will allow this developer an unfair competitive edge by allowing deferred payments for infrastructure costs. He stated to this point, every previous developer has been required to collect his infrastructure costs at the sale of the product. He asked what will the developer do with the benefits arrived from the CDA, reduce the product cost to the consumer or take the windfall and additional profits. He inquired what impact a CDA would have on workforce housing in the County. Cindy Taylor of 103 Watch Harbor Circle in Smithfield stated CDAs are still fairly new mechanisms for funding in the State of Virginia and she would recommend that staff check with other local jurisdictions to see what their experience has been. She stated that Henrico County limits CDA uses strictly to non-residential uses and New Kent County collects a special assessment with the initial sale of the lot or house. She asked if the County will be forced to foreclose on properties to ensure that the assessment gets paid. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments by the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board table action until after the public hearings when the Board makes a decision on when it will hold its continued meeting for the purpose of conducting a work session on this item. 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 a public hearing on the following: F. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 2. Administration. Article I. In General. Section 2-5.1. Disclosure of Personal Interests Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the Ordinance had been properly advertised. He stated in addition to the State law provisions, real estate assessors, the Board of Equalization, Board of Assessors, the Sheriff , Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer, Clerk of Court, Commonwealth Attorney, County Attorney and the County Administrator would now be required to make disclosure statements each year has been added. 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. 47 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adopt the following Ordinance authorize the Chairman to execute it on behalf of the Board: ANORDINANCETOAMEND CHAPTER2.ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLEI.INGENERAL. SECTION2-5.1.DISCLOSUREOFPERSONALINTERESTS. WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors recognizes that our system of representative government is dependent in part upon (i) citizen legislative members representing fully the public in the legislative process and (ii) Isle of Wight County citizens maintaining the highest trust in their public officers and employees; and WHEREAS, Isle of Wight County citizens are entitled to be assured that the judgment of their public officers and employees will be guided by the law and prohibited from inappropriate conflicts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors, Virginia, that Chapter 2. Administration. Article I. In General. Section 2-5.1. Disclosure of personal interests of the Isle Wight County Code be amended by adding the following: Sec. 2-5.1. Disclosure of personal interests. (a) In addition to those government officers and employees required to file annual disclosure statements of their personal interests and interests in real estate as specified in Section 2.2-3115 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), that the following persons occupying positions of trust appointed by the Board of Supervisors of said county are hereby required as a condition to assuming office or employment to file a disclosure statement of their personal interests and other information as is specified on the form set forth in Section 2.2-3117 of the Code of Virginia and thereafter shall file such a statement annually on or before January 15. (b) In addition to any disclosure required by Section 2.2-3115 of the Code of Virginia, said persons as hereinafter designated, shall file annual disclosures of all of their interests in real estate located in the county of Isle of Wight. Such disclosure shall include any business in which such persons own an interest or from which income is received, if the primary purpose of the business is to own, develop or derive compensation through the sale, exchange or development of real estate in the county or town thereof. Such disclosure shall be filed as a condition to assuming office or employment and thereafter shall be filed annually with the Clerk of the governing body of the county of Isle of Wight on or before January 15. Such disclosure shall be filed and maintained as public records for five years. Forms for the filing 48 of such reports shall be distributed by the County Administrator to each of the persons so designated to declare his interests. (c) Additionally, an officer or employee of local government who is required by this section to declare his interests shall declare his interests by stating (1) the transaction involved, (2) the nature of the office or employee?s personal interest affected by the transaction, (3) that he is a member of the business, profession, occupation or group the members of which are affected by the transaction, and (4) that he is able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. The officer or employee shall make his declaration orally to be recorded in the written minutes of his agency or file a signed written declaration with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors who shall, in either case, retain and make available for public inspection such declaration for a period of five years from the date of recording or receipt. If reasonable time is not available to comply with the provisions of this subsection prior to participation in the transaction, the officer or employee shall prepare and file the required declaration by the end of the next business day. (d) The persons holding positions of trust appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight who are required to file the statements of personal interests and interests in real estate and other information by this Section are the members of the Board of supervisors, the School Board, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Industrial Development Authority, real estate assessors, Board of Equalization, Board of Assessors, Sheriff, Commissioner of the Revenue, Treasurer, Circuit Court Clerk, Commonwealth?s Attorney, County Administrator and County Attorney. (e) The ordinance codified in this section shall take effect January 1, 2001, provided, that it will not be effective for planning commission members, board of zoning appeals members, and industrial development authority members, presently serving in those positions until the end of their current terms (10-19-00.) For state law as to authority of the County to require such disclosure, see Code of Va., §§ 2.2-3115 and 2.2-3116. 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 a public hearing on the following: G. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 15. Taxation. Article IV. Electric and Natural Gas Consumers Tax. Section 15-11. Electric utility Consumer Tax, and Section 15-12. Local Natural Gas Utility Consumer Tax. 49 Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the Ordinance had been properly advertised. He stated that this change adds that any property owned and exclusively occupied and used by a charitable organization will be excluded from the tax for the electric consumer bill and the natural gas utility consumer tax. 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 Bradshaw moved that the Board adopt the following Ordinance and authorize the Chairman to execute it behalf of the Board: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15. TAXATION. ARTICLE IV. ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS CONSUMERS TAX. SECTION 15-11. ELECTRIC UTILITY CONSUMER TAX. AND SECTION 15-12. LOCAL NATURAL GAS UTILITY CONSUMER TAX. BE IT, AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article IV, Electric and Natural Gas Consumers Tax, Section 15-11, be amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-11. Electric Utility Consumer Tax. (a) In accordance with Virginia Code Section 58.1-3814 it is hereby imposed and levied a monthly tax on each purchase of electricity delivered to consumers by a service provider, classified as determined by such provider, as follows: (1) Residential consumers: Such tax shall be twenty percent (20%) times the minimum monthly charge imposed by the service provider plus the rate of $.007813 on each kWh delivered monthly to residential consumers by the service provider, not to exceed $3.00 monthly. (2) Non-residential consumers: Such tax on non-residential consumers shall be at the rates per month for the classes of non-residential consumers as set forth below: (i) Commercial/Industrial consumers: Such tax shall be twenty percent (20%) times the minimum monthly charge imposed by the 50 service provider plus the rate of $.007383 on each kWh delivered monthly, not to exceed $200.00 per month. (3) The conversion of tax, pursuant to this ordinance, to monthly kWh delivered shall not be effective before the first meter reading after December 31, 2000; prior to which time the tax previously imposed by this jurisdiction shall be in effect. (b) Exemptions: The following consumers of electricity are exempt from the tax imposed by this Section. (1) Any public safety agency as defined in Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1. (2) The United States of America, the Commonwealth and the political subdivisions thereof, including this jurisdiction. (3) Any property owned and exclusively occupied or used by churches or religious bodies for religious worship or for the residences of their ministers, as permitted by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3816.2. (c) Billing, collection and remittance of tax: The service provider shall bill the electricity consumer tax to all users who are subject to the tax and to whom it delivers electricity and shall remit the same to this jurisdiction on a monthly basis. Such taxes shall be paid by the service provider on a monthly basis. Such taxes shall be paid by the service provider to this jurisdiction in accordance with Virginia Code Section 58.1- 3814, paragraphs (F) and (G), and Virginia Code Section 58.1-2901. If any consumer receives and pays for electricity but refuses to pay the tax imposed by this section, the service provider shall notify this jurisdiction of the name and address of such consumer. If any consumer fails to pay a bill issued by a service provider, including the tax imposed by this section, the service provider must follow its normal collection procedures and, upon collection of the bill or any part thereof, must apportion the net amount collected between the charge for electric service and the tax and remit the tax portion to this jurisdiction. Any tax paid by the consumer to the service provider shall be deemed to be held in trust by such provider until remitted to this jurisdiction. (d) Computation of bills not on monthly basis: Bills shall be considered as monthly bills, for the purposes of this ordinance, if submitted 12 times per year at approximately one month each. Accordingly, the tax for a bi-monthly bill (approximately 60 days) shall be determined as follows: (i) the kWh will be divided by two (2); (ii) a monthly tax will be calculated using the rates set forth above; (iii) the tax determined by (ii) shall be multiplied by two (2); (iv) the tax in (iii) may not exceed twice the monthly ?maximum tax?. 51 AND BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT Chapter 15, Taxation, Article IV, Electric and Natural Gas Consumers Tax, Section 15-12, be amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-12. Local Natural Gas Utility Consumer Tax. (a) In accordance with Virginia Code Section 58.1-3814, there is hereby imposed and levied a monthly tax on each purchase of natural gas delivered to consumers by pipeline distribution companies and gas utilities classified by ?class of consumers? as such term is defined in Virginia Code Section 58.1-3814 (J), as follows: (1) Residential consumers: Such tax on residential consumers of natural gas shall be twenty percent (20%) times the minimum monthly charge imposed by the service provider plus the rate of $0.09335 per CCF delivered monthly to residential consumers, not to exceed $3.00 per month. (2) Non-residential consumers: Such tax on non-residential consumers shall be at the rates per month shown on each CCF delivered by a pipeline distribution company or a gas utility for the classes as set forth below: (i) Commercial/Industrial consumers: Such tax shall be twenty percent (20%) times the minimum monthly charge imposed by the service provider plus the rate of $0.07858 on each CCF delivered monthly to commercial/industrial consumers, not to exceed $200.00 per month. (3) The conversion of tax, pursuant to this ordinance, to monthly CCF delivered shall not be effective before the first meter reading after December 31, 2000; prior to which time the tax previously imposed by this jurisdiction shall be in effect. (b) Exemptions. The following consumers of natural gas shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this Section. (i) Any public safety agency as defined in Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1. (ii) The United States of America, the Commonwealth and the political subdivisions thereof, including this jurisdiction. (iii) Any property owned and exclusively occupied or used by churches or religious bodies for religious worship or for the residences of their ministers as permitted by Virginia Code Section 58.1- 3816.2. 52 (c) Billing, collection and remittance of tax: The service provider shall bill the natural gas consumer tax to all users who are subject to the tax and to whom it delivers natural gas and shall remit the same to this jurisdiction on a monthly basis. Such taxes shall be paid by the service provider on a monthly basis. Such taxes shall be paid by the service provider to this jurisdiction in accordance with Virginia Code Section 58.1- 3814, paragraphs (H) and (I), and Virginia Code Section 58.1-2901. If any consumer receives and pays for natural gas billed but refuses to pay the tax imposed by this section, the service provider shall notify this jurisdiction of the name and address of such consumer. If any consumer fails to pay a bill issued by a service provider, including the tax imposed by this section, the service provider must follow its normal collection procedures and, upon collection of the bill or any part thereof, must apportion the net amount collected between the charge for natural gas and the tax and remit the tax portion to this jurisdiction. Any tax paid by the consumer to the service provider shall be deemed to be held in trust by such provider until remitted to this jurisdiction. (d) Computation of bills not on monthly basis: Bills shall be considered as monthly bills, for the purposes of this ordinance, if submitted 12 times per year at approximately one month each. Accordingly, the tax for a bi-monthly bill (approximately 60 days) shall be determined as follows: (i) the CCF will be divided by two (2); (ii) a monthly tax will be calculated using the rates set forth above; (iii) the tax determined by (ii) shall be multiplied by two (2); (iv) the tax in (iii) may not exceed twice the monthly ?maximum tax?. This ordinance is to take effect on all electric and gas utility bills on or st after the 1 day of July 2007. 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 a public hearing on the following: H. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Amending Section 11-3.1 Pertaining to Vehicles Exempted from the County?s Motor Vehicle License Fees. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the Ordinance had been properly advertised. He stated that the proposed change adds to the list of exempted vehicles that would not be required to have a motor vehicle license or to any vehicle not operated on public rights-of-way. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 53 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 and authorize the Chairman to execute it on behalf of the Board: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 11-3.1 PERTAINING TO VEHICLES EXEMPTED FROM THE COUNTY?S MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Section 11-3.1 of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended as follows: Sec. 11-3.1 Exception. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article II, a resident of the County who owns a motor vehicle shall not be required to pay a license tax if such motor vehicle is stored on private property for a period not in excess of sixty days, for the purpose of removing parts for the repair of another vehicle. In addition, nothing in this Article II shall apply to any vehicle being held or stored by or at the direction of any governmental authority, to any vehicle owned by a member of the armed forces on active duty, or to any vehicle regularly stored within a structure, or to any vehicle not operated on public right of ways. For purposes of this Section 11-3.1, the term ?structure? shall have the same meaning as that ascribed to it in accordance with the Isle of Wight County Zoning Ordinance, as it may be amended from time to time. This Ordinance shall be in effect on and after the 2008 calendar tax year. 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. The Board directed staff to be prepared to address the following at the Board?s work session: . printed copy of all citizens? comments in the first public hearing. . Department heads present at the work session with their staff reports so that the Board can discuss their individual concerns, 54 to include having the agency reports on-hand (whether or not the agency heads attend is to be left up to the Planning staff). . attendance of both the County?s consultants dealing with transportation and fiscal analysis. . Planning staff is to look at the reclamation of the current property, i.e., what is the status of that and what is required under the Conditional Use Permit on all of the property under consideration, specifically did the property owners adhere to the CUPs. . additional information available on the 100-year runoff dealing with the flood zone and stormwater. . discuss workforce housing and the developer?s position to ensure that it is conducive with what was already adopted as the County. Review Mr. Graham?s comments. . information available relative to one (1) of the developer?s representatives? comments that it would put them in the top three (3) tax payers in the County, specifically clarification on whether this is local funds or coming directly. . statement made by one (1) of the engineers regarding how proffers will be paid. It is the County?s option whether the County takes the proffers the first year or not. When we go through the fiscal analysis, we need to understand those statements that were made. . statement made by developer?s representatives that we would net $1,000,000 annually. Need justification on those comments and the proffer statements. Computer simulation relative to projected traffic flow. Need thorough review of Cashman?s analysis, i.e., is his study comparable to the developer?s build- out plan or is there a contradiction between them. . determine the status of all existing and potential permits that will be required with respect to this property. . requested Mr. Cashman?s conclusion relative to traffic and its impact on Route 17/10/258 corridors (Route 10 going towards Smithfield bypass). . more detailed presentation/simulation on traffic at the intersection. . clarification on CDA 55 . clarification on the true jobs impact on the development. . revisit the cost of relocating the Jordan house and whether or not relocation will affect its historical significance. . what is the total cost the developer is paying to construct the intersection. . the case law that says you can not use as grounds to deny development traffic impacts that are non-contiguous to the development. . how far away from the development can the County go with regard to traffic and adequate public facilities. . revisit the economic impact. . are the infrastructure claims accurate with regard to what it will force the County to do (Eagle Harbor can be used as a good test for this). . no brick homes with vinyl siding on the back. . questions with regard to affordable housing and clarification on the 80% AMI that was discussed. . need to address the plans which show encroachment on the setbacks. . requested County Administrator Caskey to get with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Treasurer regarding what it would take to set up some sort of structure to address the County?s responsibility for assessing, sending tax notices and collecting the money, i.e., what is the recommendation to the Board. How will this be implemented, if administered, to include the additional cost. . CDA may finance the services and improvements it provides to abutting property within the district by special assessment (adjoining property owners can be assessed in part of this district). Need explanation and follow-up. Need clarification regarding if the adjoining property owner has property that extends hundreds of acres, all of his property is taxed. . need understanding of the authority of the CDA to purchase development rights and also with abutting property owners. 56 . understanding of the CDA?s authority to grant economic incentives to incoming businesses without the approval of the County or without following the economic policies of the County. . need understanding that even though the CDA can not tax, it has to be approved by the local Board to tax, they can tax up to $.25 per $100; however, the CDA can charge fees and services which does not require Board approval. . if there is a property owner within the CDA district, a business goes under and he owes taxes to the County and the CDA, who has the authority to collect their taxes first, the County or the CDA. . clarification if CDA?s are exempt from following the Procurement Act. . develop a ?go dark? provision with respect to Wal-Mart. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Supervisor Casteen to invite a representative of the Smithfield Town Council to the work session to present their comments. // At 12:45 a.m., Chairman Clark moved that the Board continue its meeting until Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. at the Courthouse for the purpose of conducting a work session. 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. __________________________ Stan D. Clark, Chairman _______________________________ Carey Mills Storm, Clerk 57 U13llil!Bl{:) '}[l~:) '0 U13lS >b-7 'UOnOlli al{llSU!13~B ~U!lOA SJos!AJadns OU PU13 UO!lOlli aqlJO JOA13J U! Z1U!lOA ll{8!JA'\ PU13 }[J13I:) 'uaalSB:) 'UM01H 'M13qSP13J8 SJos!AJadns 4l!M (O-~) JO alOA 13 Aq paldop13 S13M UOpOlli a4l 'uo!ssas }[lOM 13 Z1u!pnpuo:) JO asodlnd a4l T A _ )(l;}J;) 'UIlOlS ~le;) 'lAnO'-\q 4f{17Ji. U