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