Loading...
04-17-2008 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL 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 Chairman Clark called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. // Supervisor Bradshaw delivered the invocation. // The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. // Chairman Clark called for Approval of the Agenda. Interim County Attorney Burton requested that three (3) matters be added under Closed Meeting and three (3) matters be added under Old Business. Supervisor Wright 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. Supervisor Bradshaw formally introduced Ms. Pamela Barton, the new Director of Social Services. Mr. Bill Parker, a representative of Farm Fresh Foods & Pharmacy, accepted A Resolution to Recognize Farm Fresh Foods & Pharmacy, which was adopted by the Board at its April 3, 2008 meeting. 1 // Chairman Clark called for Regional reports. Chairman Clark reported that the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission is working jointly with the Federal Highway Administration to ensure that the MPO and the Commission have proper by-laws to ensure its eligibility for Federal Highway Transportation Funds. Supervisor Wright reported that three (3) applicants have been selected for a second interview for the position of Jail Superintendent. Supervisor Wright reported that the Windsor Intergovernmental Relations Committee discussed the community center and plans for water and sewage. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that he and Supervisor Wright are moving forward in an effort to develop agreements that will be beneficial to both jurisdictions, particularly with respect to the community center. Supervisor Brown reported that at the March 26, 2008 Southeastern Public Service Authority, the proposed FY2008-09 budget in the amount of $100,518,702 was discussed which represented an overall increase of 1%. He advised that the budget will be finalized on May 8, 2008. He advised that flow control will be effective February 1, 2009 and that the municipal tipping fee is $104 per ton. He advised that if all eight (8) communities participate with flow control, the tipping fee will be reduced to $60 per ton, but if only six (6) communities participate, it will be reduced to $80 per ton for February 2009 through June 2009. He advised that the overall projected tons of garbage disposed is down 214,646 tons; out-of-area processable tonnage is down 80,000 tons; construction debris disposal tonnage is down 20,000 tons; and, municipality collected waste is down 12,300 tons. He advised that the capital portion of the budget increased from $16 million to $22.9 million with the largest increase being associated with equipment replacement for the regional landfill and $3 million to procure land for the northern Suffolk transfer station to build Cell #7. He advised that the Authority will be dissolved in 2018 unless it is reorganized and renewed. He advised that the Authority had adopted a resolution to hold a public hearing on May 28, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. on the amended rate schedule, fees and charges to be levied for the disposal of solid waste. He advised that the Authority has received unsolicited proposals for the sale of its waste-to- energy plants. He advised that the Authority is planning to spend $22 million to expand the regional landfill in Suffolk in order to make room for future garbage. He advised in order to receive approval for an expanded landfill, the Authority has pledged that it will build two (2) new transfer stations in Suffolk at a cost of more than $20 million dollars. He advised that the financial policy of the Authority is to set aside $2 million in the 2 Reserve and Contingency line item; $2 million in the Landfill Closure Fund; and, $293,056 in the Equipment Replacement line item. Supervisor Casteen reported that Suffolk is providing added support to the South Hampton Roads Resource Conservation and Development Council?s budget. He advised that the Weekend Incentive Sanction Program (WISP) with the Norfolk Juvenile Detention Center is operational; that the farm has been tilled; that the seed for the sweet corn has been purchased; and, the participants will begin planting the corn in the garden this weekend. He advised that the next meeting is scheduled for May 14, 2008. // Chairman Clark called for Transportation Matters. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that the Transportation Report be updated to reflect the current status of projects. Supervisor Wright inquired about the status of the Barlow Brother?s fence. Kristen M. Mazur, County Engineer, reported that staff had met with the Barlow brothers on-site and are awaiting a response from VDOT. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if the Route 460 culvert replacement in Zuni is still on schedule. Mr. Neblett advised that VDOT will be installing a drainage pipe underneath Route 460 in Zuni this summer. Copies of the Six-Year Secondary Improvements Plan were distributed in anticipation of the Board discussing any additions/deletions at the Board?s May 1, 2008 meeting and the public hearing being held on May 15, 2008. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board authorize staff to advertise the matter for public hearing at the Board?s May 15, 2008 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that Mr. Neblett provide him and Supervisor Wright a map depicting the piped-unpaved ditches in the Town of Windsor, particularly the outfall ditches that are addressed in VDOT?s program with the Town of Windsor. He further requested that Mr. Neblett provide him with the total dollar amount that comes out of the County?s budget that has been spent in the Town of Windsor with respect to maintenance for discussion at the next Windsor Intergovernmental meeting. 3 Mr. Neblett advised that VDOT will be making improvements to Campbell?s Chapel Road next month where the erosion has occurred around the vault at the cemetery, to include the establishment of grass to hold the embankment. Mr. Neblett advised that variable message signs will be installed on Route 258 from Benn?s Church to the Bartlett intersection and the northbound lane on Route 17. He further advised that flashing light signs will be installed at the intersections of Smith?s Neck Road, Eagle Harbor Parkway and Whippingham Parkway to advise that the bridge is closed. He advised that the gates will be lowered on the bridge for hurricanes, terrorist threats or accidents involving a fatality or major injuries and the variable message and flashing signal signs will be activated for minor accidents that occur on the bridge. He advised that the plans for the gates and signals are 70% complete and that he would be returning to the Board with a schedule for installation. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that Mrs. Keen and the Isle of Wight Citizens Association be formally recognized for their efforts with respect to safety and the James River Bridge. Supervisor Brown notified Mr. Neblett that the ditches need to be cleaned at the intersection of Route 258 and Route 610, where the power lines cross. Supervisor Wright publicly thanked Mr. Neblett for getting the flashing lights installed and operational on Route 460 at the rescue squad and fire department. Mr. Neblett noted that flashing lights have also been installed and are operational in Carrollton. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired about the status of the work to be performed on the Blackwater Bridge. Mr. Neblett confirmed that the project is still on schedule. Supervisor Casteen requested that Mr. Neblett keep a periodic check on the road revisions that are being done on Church Street. Mr. Neblett advised that the Town of Smithfield is desirous of detouring traffic when the next section of road is built, but that he wants to discuss the matter further before committing to allow that to be done. He commented that there will be less room to store equipment when the project reaches the older section. 4 Teresa Johnson of Carrollton requested the status of cautionary signage at the intersection of Smith?s Neck Road and Reynolds Drive and improvements to the road?s line of sight. Mr. Neblett advised that his first visual inspection had been interrupted and will need to be rescheduled. He advised that he would also investigate the sight line to determine what can be done to the brush and trees that are hiding the intersection. Richard Cassell of 23261 Vellines Lanes in Carrollton notified the Board that the drainage problem, which is causing flooding at King?s Cove Way, has not been addressed. Supervisor Casteen commented that the completion date for Water Point Lane needs to be updated. // Chairman Clark called for Citizens Comments. Michael Uzzell of Central Hill Road acknowledged the much-needed services provided by the Western Tidewater Free Clinic. Pinky Hipp, on behalf of the Boykin?s Tavern Museum Advisory Committee, notified the Board that the Committee is running low on the Historical Notes of Isle of Wight County book. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that County Administrator Caskey verify whether or not the book is being updated. Nancy Mayo, Farm Fresh, thanked the Board for its recognition of Farm Fresh?s efforts to discourage the use of plastic bags. // Chairman Clark called for the County Attorney?s report. Interim County Attorney Burton presented a request for renewal of a Real Property License Agreement with the Windsor Hunt Club for the Board?s consideration. Supervisor Wright 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. 5 Interim County Attorney Burton advised that pursuant to Section 24.2- 112 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), that the County is required to have at least one (1) assistant registrar, but additional assistant registrars can be deemed necessary by the Electoral Board. He further advised that while the Board may not have a choice as to how many assistant registrars the County has, the Board can determine at what level such assistant registrars are to be compensated. Interim County Attorney Burton requested authorization to readvertise a public hearing on Chapter 15. Taxation. Article V. Correction of Assessments and Refunds. Section 15.20. Same Refund to be Without Interest due to an administrative error with the first advertisement. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board authorize the County Attorney?s office to readvertise the matter for public hearing at the Board?s May 15, 2008 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that his office has scheduled An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code, 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 for public hearing tonight. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that he had five (5) matters to discuss with the Board during Closed Meeting. // At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board amend the regular order of the agenda in order to conduct 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 called for a public hearing on the following: Proposed FY 2008-09 General Operating and Capital Budget. Liesl R. DeVary, Director of Budget and Finance, certified that the Budget had been properly advertised. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Budget. 6 Becky Farmer, 13160 of Mill Swamp Road, on behalf of the Christian Outreach members, spoke in favor of the Board appropriating $3,000 for that organization. She advised that a letter from County Administrator Caskey was received advising that the request for funding would not be included in the Budget because the Board was expecting a flat budget. She referenced a letter that she sent to the Board dated April 9, 2008 and noted that Christian Outreach is an organization that assists residents in the County and in the Towns of Smithfield and Windsor. She stated that in the month of March, 2008, Christian Outreach delivered 250 food deliveries and that due to the economy, that number is increasing. She advised that Christian Outreach has a general dentistry program for seniors who do not have dental insurance; that there are teams which help to repair homes; that assistance is provided for field trips and other needs that some can not afford are provided to all nine (9) County public schools and one (1) school in the City of Suffolk with special education students that come from the County. She stated that Christian Outreach has an emergency mobile home that is available for disaster victims who can move into the trailer for six (6) weeks with all utilities paid, completely furnished and food supplied. She advised that a mobile home in a mobile home park has been acquired and given to a homeless couple. She advised that donated furniture is picked up and delivered, to include household items and appliances. She advised that used cars needing a minimal amount of work are repaired and given to citizens who have no transportation. She advised that $12,000 was donated this year from Souper Saturday for Social Services to use for the fuel assistance program for those in need, especially those persons who fall between the cracks. She stated that an angel tree provides gifts for needy seniors and disabled citizens of the County. She stated that this year a transportation program was developed which involves volunteer drivers to help senior citizens get to their medical appointments and assistance is provided with needed prescription medicines. She stated a screening process assures those that receive help are truly in need. She stated that many of the clients make too much to receive assistance from Social Services, but not enough to make ends meet. She stated that many of the clients are living on the edge and if not helped now will soon be in need of monetary help from the County and the State. Herb DeGroft of 15411 Mill Swamp Road acknowledged that the School Board budget had been reduced by $13,650 for a total budget increase of $3.5 million or a 5.8% increase, which is double the inflation rate of 2.3%. He advised that the County, over the last seven (7) years, has allocated $162.2 million to the County?s public school division for a total of over 1/3 of a billion dollars for that timeframe for the Operating Budget alone. He advised that also over that seven (7) year period, the County?s portion has increased 54.6% while the total school budget has increased by 56.7% for an average of eight (8) percent annually. He advised that teachers? salaries in the County will now average $52,400 and are competitive with surrounding jurisdictions. He advised that the per pupil cost of administration is next to the highest in the five (5) school division; 7 that the per pupil expenditure is $12,012, which is 10.3% higher than the City of Suffolk and six (6) percent higher than the City of Chesapeake. He stated executive-level pay for the school administration exceeds the County?s executive salaries for four (4) selected positions of comparable responsibility, yet enrollment has only increased by 6.6% in the same timeframe, but per pupil cost escalating by 46% over this period commencing with 2003. He requested that the Board consider reducing the County?s contribution by $835,000 due to grossly inflated expenditures. He advised that the State of Virginia had reduced its $30.5 million contribution by $259,000, but then restoring funds to bring the State?s contribution back to $30.4 million. He stated that reducing the County?s contribution to $28,604,000 in FY2009 still results in a $1.1 million increase for a 4% increase over the prior year and still 74% greater than the inflation rate. He suggested that the Board suggest to the School Board that the $835,000 reduction come from other expenditures. Sharon Hart of the Newport District stated that the School Board has requested a 7% increase for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. She recommended that the County provide no more than a 2.5% inflation rate. She noted that there is no reason why the County should duplicate the $107,000 returned to the School Board by the State. She advised that the members of the Isle of Wight Citizens Association have reviewed the information provided by Mr. Herb DeGroft and would like to see all possible reductions. She requested that the Board recommend to the School Board that any reductions made be taken from the Other Expenditures Category rather than Teacher?s salaries. She stated that there have been excesses in the School budget the last five (5) years. She stated real estate assessments have increased drastically over the last several years, which primarily affects those on fixed incomes. She advised that the proposed 2009 city and school budget for Virginia Beach only increased 2.1% over the current year budget. Catherine Rector, Advocacy Coordinator, Endependence Center, Inc. requested that the Board provide that organization funding to expand services to the disability community in the jurisdiction. She advised that the Endependence Center?s goal is to set up an outreach office in Suffolk to help eliminate transportation barriers to residents in the Western Tidewater area, as well as increase outreach efforts and community education within this area. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Ms. DeVary advised that the State?s budget bill is requiring a $50 million dollar reduction of local aid in each of the biennial years to the local jurisdictions. She stated that staff has received an estimate from the State that the amount to be cut would be approximately $116,000 in FY09 and FY10. She cautioned that this is only an estimate at this time and the 8 Virginia State Department of Planning and Budget is not required to send a final amount until August 1, 2008. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that because the State has not yet advised what the final cuts will be, it is the Finance Committee?s recommendation that no changes be made at this time; that the Board discuss it again at its May 1, 2008 meeting; that changes be made when the final numbers are received by Ms. DeVary from the State, at which time the Board will consider some of the other proposals submitted to the Board that were not approved, such as Christian Outreach and the Free Health Clinic. He advised that the Board is required to wait seven (7) days following the budget public hearing before acting on the budget. Supervisor Casteen noted that only three (3) organizations were not approved for funding by the Budget and Finance Committee initially. He noted that he is confident that funding for these organizations will be found. Chairman Clark commented that additional funds for Sheriff?s Deputies and dispatchers is also on hold until staff is advised of the amount being cut by the State to the County. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board bring the matter back up under Old Business at the Board?s May 1, 2008 meeting for discussion and consideration. 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: Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia to Recommend Approval of the Comprehensive Plan as Amended. Amy Ring, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, noted that included in the Board?s agenda is the most current draft of the Comprehensive Plan, which is dated March 25, 2008. She advised that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of the draft Plan to the Board at its March 25, 2008 meeting. She stated included in the agenda is a draft resolution for consideration by the Board. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the Resolution. Pat Clark of Twin Hill Lane in Carrollton voiced concern with the chapter of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with growth management and land use. He noted that there has been very little change to the two (2) areas of development in the RAC, which include the sliding scale and clustering. He stated that the original intent of the clustering aspect of RAC 9 development was not for non-farmers to come in, buy acreage and immediately apply for a rezoning. He suggested language be included to clarify that approach to development in the clustering area. He recommended there be information contained in the Plan indicating the recent action taken by the GeneralAssembly.He recommended that the Board be firm regarding changing the size of Development Service Districts (DSD) in order to accommodate those interested in developing. Thomas Finderson of the Newport District requested that the Board downsize the Newport Development Service District. He noted that he had been informed that the changes to the Plan were minor; however, Carrsville has undergone a major change and Windsor?s new intermodal park coming on-line also constitutes a major change. He recommended that either the Turner/Morgan Farm or the Yeoman Farm be removed. Sharon Hart advised that at the beginning of the review of the Comprehensive Plan, it was requested that the Newport Development Service District be downsized and the Yeoman Farm removed from the District. She further advised that the traffic study done for the proposed Benn?s Grant development did reflect an over abundance of development already approved in that area. John Springfield, Ashby Subdivision, requested that the Brown farm located on Route 17 remain zoned as Suburban Estates as reflected in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan and the 2006 draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he is not sure how the land became designated as Mixed Use, except that it was done during the development of the Route 17 Master Plan. He inquired if the Comprehensive Plan was ever amended to include the Route 17 Master Study. Beverly H. Walkup, Director of Planning and Zoning, advised that public hearings on the Route 17 Master Plan were held by both the Planning Commission and the Board and the Plan was adopted as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan. She advised that citizens provided their input on appropriate land use designations for certain properties at several different meetings, as well as input regarding transportation. She advised that the Brown farm was one (1) of the properties that was changed through that process and no one spoke in opposition during the public hearing. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Chairman Clark inquired if staff had considered removing the Yeoman farm. Ms. Walkup recalled that Mr. Finderson had suggested that change at the public hearing. She advised that the Planning Commission had not specifically considered the removal of the Yeoman farm, but staff has 10 considered changing the designation. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan amendment has been ongoing for several years and was intended to be a minor update. She advised that staff did address some of the concerns in the Camptown Development Service District because most of the land was zoned for industrial use. She recalled that the Board had created a Revitalization Committee in order to bring life back to the corridor and staff began the process of working with those citizens in an attempt to change some of those designations and expand the District. Supervisor Wright noted a concern with the Windsor intermodal park. Supervisor Bradshaw noted that the Windsor Development Service District is proposed to be expanded down Route 258 and he inquired if the rest of the Comprehensive Plan has been changed with respect to economic development, transportation and all the other plans that tie into the Comprehensive Plan and to the Development Service Districts. He stated the Board has not yet had a thorough discussion of the expansion of the Windsor Development Service District, noting that there will be a major change in that District and what the County will look like in that area. He noted that formal discussions with the Town of Windsor through the Windsor Intergovernmental Relations Committee have now begun. Supervisor Casteen recommended that the Board further discuss the Development Service District in the northern end of the County. Chairman Clark moved that the Board table the matter until the Board?s August 7, 2008 meeting to allow the Board an opportunity to conduct 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. Chairman Clark moved that the Board direct staff to provide a detailed report, to include recommendations, on how the following services will be impacted at a work session to be conducted at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 prior to the Board?s regular meeting: . copies of the map of all three (3) Development Service Districts (DSD) with respect to what is being proposed in this public hearing . what other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan have been changed in order to incorporate the expansion of the Windsor DSD, i.e., with respect to transportation, economic development, parks and recreation and cultural activities and how we are going to set up and meet with the Town of Windsor regarding the Windsor DSD and the Town of Smithfield regarding the Newport DSD 11 . other information regarding the changing of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the different activities that will be impacted by the DSD . utilities and how infrastructure will be handled, as well as how they will be financed . public works and how trash will be handled. 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 the Board taken a recess. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark moved that the Board return to open session. 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: The application of James B. Brown, Jr. and Judith B. Roberts, et al, owners, and Brown, Jolley, Brown, LLC, applicant, for a change in zoning classification of approximately 42.65 acres of land from Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) to approximately 9.2 acres of Conditional-General Commercial (C-GC) and approximately 33.3 acres of Conditional-Urban Residential (C-UR). The property is located at the intersection of Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17) and Deep Bottom Drive (Route 662) in the Newport Election District. The purpose of the application is to develop a mixed-use community with commercial parcels on the Route 17 frontage and multi-family rental units in the rear. Ms. Walkup advised that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the application to the Board. She stated this project involves 100% workforce housing and that the Planning Commission had made a policy decision that the County needs all types of housing and, in particular, rental housing. She noted that one (1) of the Planning Commission members presented a proposal to make this project more feasible because there was a request for relief of cash proffers; otherwise, the project would 12 not work. She stated that if the Board approves this project, the County will be holding a Deed of Trust on the land for twenty (20) years in the amount of $3.5 million and the project will proffer $5,790 per workforce unit. She stated for the 116 age-restricted units, the proffer will be $1,470 as there are no school-age children, but they will pay all water and sewer tap fees. She stated that this project is proposing to have relief on the proffer and the water and sewer tap fees for the workforce housing units, which will result in a proffer of $5,790; a proffer for the age-restricted units of $1,470 with all water and sewer tap fees being paid; and, it offers a fee for a cash proffer in the amount of $632 for commercial square footage. She stated that the Planning Commission?s motion was to direct staff to work with the applicant to tweak the proffers to ensure that all is captured. She stated that the Planning Commission had held three (3) meetings on this project and, because it is a different type of project, the housing consultant for workforce housing and the developers were present at the last meeting. She stated that the Planning Commission recognized that there is a need for rental housing in the County and that there will not be rental housing unless there is some relaxation on the proffers. She advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to the Board and directed staff to work with the developer to ensure that all of the proffers were changed to reflect the minutes of its meeting. She stated several iterations were done with the proffers to ensure that those changes were made. She noted that there is a copy of the proffers in the Board?s agenda and she distributed a copy of the most recent proffers with the changes that were recommended by one (1) of the Planning Commission members that was instrumentally involved with the concept of the Deed of Trust. She advised that the proffers dated April 7, 2008 are the most recent proffers and the proffers dated March 24, 2008 are what the Planning Commission received when they recommended approval of this project to the Board. She advised that the memorandum from Innovative Housing Institute that was included in the agenda was incomplete and that before the Board is a complete copy which references the maximum rents that can be charged for this project. Supervisor Brown excused himself from discussing and voting on the application noting that he had a conflict of interest. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. James Brown, III, son of the applicant, stated the family?s support in this endeavor. He noted that this land has been in his family for three (3) generations and they did not wish to sell it without it having a positive effect on the surrounding community. Herb Myers, a resident of Ashby Subdivision, expressed a concern that the 350 rental apartments will have a negative impact on surrounding property values. He noted that the proposed development will have a significant effect on the quality of life in his neighborhood. He stated that 13 the reduced proffers are expected to assist with the cost of schools, public safety and additional infrastructure and will require the County to pick up the cost of all future upgrades. He stated with the amount of vehicular traffic generated by this development and no plans to install a stop light at Route 17 and Deep Bottom Drive, the majority of traffic will be funneled through Ashby Subdivision for access to the only stop light in the area located at Route 17 and Ashby Way. He stated that the owners and builders have indicated to the Planning Commission that they will waive building a road connecting both neighborhoods and he would like an assurance that the connecting road will not be built should this neighborhood be approved by the Board. He stated that 350 workforce housing units will also significantly impact local schools, where space is already limited. He stated that rental apartments bring an increase in crime rates and fire and EMS responses and the Sheriff, the fire department and emergency medical services will need additional personnel. He stated that he supports controlled and managed growth in the County and he is not opposed to the property owner selling his property; however, he is opposed to the proposed project because it is inappropriate development next to an already established and thriving neighborhood. He stated in the initial Route 17 Comprehensive Plan only a percentage of new construction was to be dedicated to workforce housing, but the proposed development is 100% workforce housing. He noted that there is little incentive for renters to take pride in maintaining their property and that there are many other areas in the County where a development such as this could be built without negatively impacting existing neighborhoods. He asked what assurance there is that once the development is built and the property is sold in the future that the new owner will be bound to the original concept. He noted that the County will hold a Deed of Trust on the property for twenty (20) years, but what happens after that. John Springfield, Ashby Subdivision resident, inquired if the Comprehensive Plan had been amended because in 2001, it reflected the property as being zoned Suburban Estates. He stated it was also reflected as Suburban Estates in the 2006 draft Comprehensive Plan, but that the Route 17 Master Plan showed the property being zoned as Mixed Use. He inquired why the Route 17 Master Plan was approved in 2007 when the Comprehensive Plan was being updated at the same time. He stated that the proposed development is not suited for this location and he recommended that Ashby Subdivision be protected within a Neighborhood Conservation District. Pinky Hipp, Hardy District, stated that County taxpayers should not be financing this development. David Turnpin, Ashby Subdivision, stated that rent-restricted housing should not be located next to an already established neighborhood because of vandalism and crime overflows. He stated the proposed project will create additional people, cars and renters who are transients and do not treat their property the same as homeowners. He stated that he is not against 14 development, but it must be done in an orderly fashion and existing residents should be protected. Sharon Hart, Newport District, stated that this could be a good project with some changes. She recommended that no Section 8 housing be proffered and work should continue on the proffer statement; that language in the proffers should be changed from ?it is the developer?s intent?? to ?the developer shall?; that internal roads be developed to VDOT?s standards as required in other developments in the County; that bankruptcy of the Homeowners? Association be addressed; and, that a limit be established for the number of units that can be households earning at or above average income. She noted that proposed rents will not be affordable for people who live and work in the County. She stated that the proffers are too low and she inquired how much workforce housing can the County subsidize. She stated that the workforce housing study recommended only 17% of a development be workforce housing and are the taxpayers being asked to subsidize those living in this community who earn up to 120% of median income. She stated that Eagle Harbor is planning to build 150-180 additional apartments and the Planning Commission was not advised of that. She stated that the Planning Commission received the latest proffer changes only shortly before the meeting and that they had not had time to fully absorb them. She stated that the developer should be required to pay all water and sewer fees. She requested that the old proffer #19 be added back in which states that should these proffer values be changed by the County through appropriate study, prior to any such payment, the amount of contribution shall be based on the proffer value at the time of purchase of the building permit. She inquired if the addition to the turn lane really does fully mitigate the development?s traffic impact at the intersection over time. She inquired if there is any contribution of the impact of this development to Brewer?s Neck Road overloading. Thomas Finderson, Newport District, stated that a survey of cars at the Eagle Harbor development showed 81 cars from all over the United States and that 1/3 of the apartments are transient populations. He stated that the school system reflects that 19 children from the Eagle Harbor apartments attend County schools and the Manager at Eagle Harbor apartments advised that there were 44 school-age children, which illustrates that more than half attend schools on the Peninsula. He noted that the URS letter dated March 18, 2008 voices concern over internal streets being built to VDOT standards. He reminded the Board that school buses will not go down private roads. He stated that the financial analysis for Red Point Commons appears to be overstated as it reflects $21 million and Eagle Harbor is assessed at $18.8 million. He stated that the applicant needs to proffer a traffic light and that only 17% of the units should be workforce development. He stated that the proffer relative to LIDs should be more specific and there should be a Water Quality Impact Analysis performed. He stated that this could be a good project and he would recommend that the developer buffer Ashby Subdivision with the senior homes, which could run from the creek to Route 15 17. He stated he did not like the idea of interconnectivity between the proposed development and Ashby Subdivision. He advised that the proffers contain many errors and misspellings and that ?it is the intent? should be replaced with ?the developer shall.? Frank Taylor, Ashby Subdivision, stated that he has had the opportunity to see many low-income apartments in his job as a street sweeper for the City of Hampton, which has torn down certain low-income apartments surrounding nice developments and built HUD homes and condominiums. He noted that the crime rate has dropped significantly as a result. Alan Ray, Ashby Subdivision, stated that he did not want anything built that would negatively affect where he lived and that he did not feel it was in the County?s best interest to subsidize housing. He recalled that he had attended a Planning Commission meeting three (3) years ago for an applicant who wished to rezone his property for apartments on an adjacent project and the Planning Commission had voted unanimously to recommend that the Board not approve that project. Elliott Cohen stated that the Board needs to discuss at what point the County will cease accepting relaxed proffers for low-income projects. He stated that while there is a need for workforce housing at this time, he does question whether it is needed on Route 17 as there is other land that can be purchased cheaper, thereby reducing the cost of building. He stated that he does not consider $1,700 per unit for a three (3) bedroom workforce housing affordable and he recommended that it be further addressed. He stated that connectivity will not work next to the Ashby Subdivision and subdivisions of like kind should be located next to each other. He stated that if the roads are not built to VDOT standards, it will become the County?s responsibility to upgrade them. He recommended that any proffers that have been changed and offered to the Board, but not reviewed by the Planning Commission, be sent to the Planning Commission so that individuals will have a chance to address the new proffers. He stated that all applicants should be treated equally, but that he has witnessed projects receiving approval within three (3) months at the last two meetings when his projects take two years to get approved. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Gary Haste, Associated Contracting Services, briefed the Board on the proposed project, which is a mixed-use development consisting of forty- three (43) acres and includes both residential and commercial. He stated that this property was chosen due to the frontage along the Route 17 Corridor and to address the County?s need for quality workforce and rental housing. He stated that shops, services and neighborhood commercial facilities are also needed along the Route 17 corridor. He stated that the 16 mixed-use concept does allow the development to pay its way. He stated that the numbers presented were accurate, as verified by staff. He stated that off-site traffic improvements will be constructed to meet the need as identified by the County and VDOT. He stated that the proposed workforce housing is not for low-income individuals. Chairman Clark inquired why the workforce component is necessary if Eagle Harbor is so close in dollar value to the proposed apartments. Mr. Haste replied that Eagle Harbor is workforce housing. Chairman Clark commented that Eagle Harbor is workforce housing with the requested credit. He stated that Eagle Harbor was approved thirty- five (35) years ago and no proffers were paid to the County; however, Eagle Harbor did not get credit for the workforce and the rents are equivalent to the proposed apartments. Mr. Haste replied that the apartments at Eagle Harbor were created before the term ?workforce housing? was created. He stated that when Eagle Harbor came back for reconsideration of their plan, proffers were included. Supervisor Bradshaw advised that Eagle Harbor sued the County for connection fees for water and sewer; however, the County won the suit and no other proffers were paid because they followed the 80% commercial and 20% residential. Ms. Walkup clarified that the County was able to negotiate a proffer of $500-$2,000 and it depended on the amount of commercial uses that were built. Supervisor Casteen referred to the sixteen (16) apartments located on Route 17 on the Sawyer property which have two (2) bedrooms and rent for $700 a month. He inquired when they were approved, noting the close proximity to the proposed project. Chairman Clark replied twenty (20) or more years ago. He commented that those apartments do not have the amenities that the proposed apartments will have. Mr. Haste stated that the workforce housing definition is the same as what is being proposed and is consistent with what the County has done with for-sale housing. He stated that the identified need is for the rental component, which does not exist in the County other than at Eagle Harbor. Chairman Clark stated that he is still not clear why this project needs the workforce subsidy with the rents being so close to that being charged at Eagle Harbor. 17 Mr. Haste responded that the reason Eagle Harbor is able to charge the same rates as he is proposing is because they paid no proffers. Supervisor Bradshaw stated that the rent for a two (2) bedroom is proposed at $12,000 annually, but the average beginning salary for teachers in the County is $36,000, which is 1/3 of their salary in rent. Chairman Clark commented that he did not see the workforce component benefiting anyone in the proposed development. Mr. Haste advised that the criteria for the amount that the average family should pay for housing is 1/3 of their salary. He stated that his firm is well under the upper limit rent maximums because they are from the low end at 55% of median income. He advised that the Deed of Trust is the control that this project will remain workforce housing. Supervisor Casteen inquired if there were no workforce considerations involved, what would be the number of units where it would work. Mr. Haste replied it does not work at any number of units without a workforce component. He stated that all the amenities and the quality of what is being proposed could not be included and needs to be offset. Mr. Haste advised that there would be phasing over a three (3) to five (5) year period for the residential area and the applicant has proffered an age-restricted component, which will be located on the Ashby side of the property to act as a buffer. He stated the amenities include a club house with meeting rooms; indoor exercise facility; outdoor recreation spaces; pool; various walking trails; children play areas; and, landscaped buffers. He stated that the commercial area will be developed in a village concept as outlined in the design criteria in the Newport Development Service District guidelines. He stated that parking will be located at the rear of the buildings, which will be located towards the 70-foot buffer. He stated that a maintenance contract will be included on all of the landscaped area. He stated that the existing median will be relocated. He showed a concept plan of the proposed development illustrating a proposed layout; how it would fit in with the existing area; and, connectivity. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if the site design and concept shown to the Board has been proffered. Mr. Haste replied that the applicant has not yet submitted a site plan. Chairman Clark advised that he would not support building the road and connection to Ashby Subdivision. He stated that individuals have a right to rely on platted cul-de-sacs even though there may be some notations regarding right-of-way. He stated when individuals bought in Ashby 18 Subdivision, they saw a cul-de-sac and he believes they have the right to rely on it continuing to be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Haste advised that traffic studies done have assumed from the beginning that there would be no connection through there to show that the proposed development would work under the worst conditions. Supervisor Casteen inquired how many people would the proposed meeting rooms accommodate. Mr. Haste replied approximately 50-60 individuals. Supervisor Casteen commented that a community meeting consisting of representatives from the proposed 350 apartments could not be held in the meeting room. Chairman Clark commented that many questions remain unanswered. He noted that a landowner has a right to develop his property, but that it must be done in a manner that is consistent with the land uses surrounding it. He stated that he does not believe that the applicant has made an effort to meet the concerns of the Ashby Subdivision residents and that he recommended that the applicant meet with those residents and develop a plan suitable to everyone. Mr. Haste advised that the applicant met three (3) times with the various civic leagues and received good reception. He agreed to meet with the residents of Ashby Subdivision. Chairman Clark advised that all apartment complexes are not trouble. He noted that the apartments at Eagle Harbor are well-maintained and have quality residents. He advised that Sheriff Phelps has advised that there is no new crime associated with those apartments. He encouraged the applicant and the residents of Ashby Subdivision to develop a plan that is satisfactory to all. Supervisor Bradshaw stated that he believes that this could be a workable project. He recommended that the developer meet with the Ashby Subdivision residents to address their concerns. He suggested that staff review the proffers with respects to the maintenance and upkeep of the property and advise how this will be accomplished, as well as what happens if the Citizens Association never evolves. He recommended that the issue of Section 8 housing be addressed by staff, specifically why Section 8 housing can not happen. He stated that staff needs to be directed to review workforce housing, to include what is the County?s vision; what is the County going to do from this point forward; and, what are the County?s expectations. He stated that the County needs to have a thorough understanding of the roads and private roads and what will be taken into the State system and what will not be taken into the State system; who will 19 handle it; and, how it will be handled. He stated that the County?s position with workforce housing needs to be defined. Chairman Clark moved that the Board table the application until the June 10, 2008 meeting under Old Business and then withdrew his motion to allow comments from Supervisor Casteen. Supervisor Casteen mentioned that condominiums may be more consistent with the goal of having vested landowners. Chairman Clark moved that the Board table the application until the June 10, 2008 meeting under Old Business and then withdrew his motion to allow a question from Supervisor Wright if the matter would need to be returned to the Planning Commission if a change in the plans occurs following the developer and residents of Ashby Subdivision discussing the matter. Chairman Clark recommended allowing the applicant and residents to first work together to see what can be accomplished. Interim County Attorney Burton advised the Board that it would be required to hold another public hearing if substantial changes are submitted, but that it does not necessarily have to be returned to the Planning Commission. Chairman Clark moved that the Board table the application until the Board?s June 10, 2008 meeting under Old Business. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Brown abstaining from voting. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board direct staff to review the concept presented to the Board in regards to workforce housing and provide a report on what the plans are of the County with respect to workforce housing as far as staff foresees it moving forward; direct staff (Caskey and Walkup) to review the proffers and ensure that the language is corrected; direct staff to address Section 8 housing as to how that relates to this rezoning request, particularly a proffer that precludes Section 8 housing; address transportation and roads and the issues as far as linking it to the Ashby Subdivision and private roads and how it will be maintained in the future; address the maintenance and upkeep of the property as rental property as presented in the proffers as far as how that will be addressed long term and ensure that the County has a surety bond to ensure that the maintenance and upkeep of this property will be maintained in accordance to what is expected by the County; review by the Emergency Services Coordinator regarding access into that area by the County?s fire and rescue vehicles and school buses. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with 20 Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw recognized the developer for submitting a thorough application to the Board. Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code, 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. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the Ordinance had been properly advertised. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. No one appeared to speak. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board adopt the following Ordinance: 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. WHEREAS, in January 2008, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors amended and reenacted Sections 15-11 and 15-12 of the Isle of Wight County Code to incorporate an exemption from consumer utility taxes for charitable organizations; and WHEREAS, in so doing, correct monthly rate charges were inadvertently revised and are therefore not now in compliance with the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors wishes to correct this mistake; BE IT, AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, 21 Article IV, Electric and Natural Gas Consumers Tax, Section 15-11, be amended and reenacted 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 $.015626 on each kWh delivered monthly to residential consumers by the service provider, not to exceed three dollars ($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) Consumer/Industrial consumers: Such tax shall be twenty percent (20%) times the minimum monthly charge imposed by the service provider plus the rate of $.014766 on each kWh delivered monthly, not to exceed two hundred dollars ($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. (4) Any property owned and exclusively occupied or used by charitable organizations, as permitted by Virginia Code Section 58.1- 3816.2. For purposes of this subsection, a ?charitable organization? means any person which is or holds itself out to be organized or operated for any charitable, benevolent, humane, philanthropic, patriotic, or eleemosynary 22 purposes, or any person which solicits or obtains contributions solicited from the public. (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?. AND BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT Chapter 15, Taxation, Article IV, Electric and Natural Gas Consumers Tax, Section 15-12, be amended and reenacted 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 $0.1867 per CCF delivered monthly to residential consumers, not to exceed three dollars ($3.00) per month. 23 (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 $0.15716 on each CCF delivered monthly to commercial/industrial consumers, not to exceed two hundred dollars ($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. (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. (4) Any property owned and exclusively occupied or used by charitable organizations, as permitted by Virginia Code Section 58.1- 3816.2. For purposes of this subsection, a ?charitable organization? means any person which is or holds itself out to be organized or operated for any charitable, benevolent, humane, philanthropic, patriotic, or eleemosynary purposes, or any person which solicits or obtains contributions solicited from the public. (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 24 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?. 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 take a recess. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board return to open session and the regular order of 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. // Chairman Clark called for the General Services report. E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Director of General Services, recalled that the Board, at its February 21, 2008 meeting, had received a petition from the residents of Thomas Park requesting sewer extension in their neighborhood. He stated included in the agenda is a report from staff estimating a cost of $3.5 million to install a gravity system with a force main from the Thomas Park neighborhood to parallel Route 10 to the intersection of Berry Hill Road to serve the 100 lots located in Thomas Park. Supervisor Bradshaw voiced a concern that if sewer lines are located along Route 10 it will open up property that is not located in the 25 Development Service District. He suggested instead of running the line down Route 17 that it be run from Berry Hill Road back to Smithfield Foods and straight up the back of the subdivision before crossing over Route 17 and picking up Hardy Elementary School. Mr. Rountree advised that the $3.5 million is not a detailed engineering cost, but a best guess on current construction costs. He advised that the Health Department has not reported any claims or problems from those property owners and if the homeowners are having problems, their first approach should be to contact the local Health Department to determine if they can obtain assistance with repairing their septic tanks. He further advised that the Board?s current policy is that the County does not extend utilities outside of the Development Service Districts (DSD?s) and this project is outside of the DSD. He stated that more of these requests will be coming in and the County needs to develop a policy with respect to neighborhood sewer extensions. He advised that such task has been assigned to the Water and Sewer Rate consultant who will be providing recommendations in the summer. He advised that if the Board decides to extend sewer to this neighborhood, there is a possibility that it may be eligible for a Community Development Block grant. He advised that the maximum grant received in the past was for $1.4 million and housing rehabilitation is associated with those grants. He recommended that the Board take no action on this request until it has had an opportunity to review the proposed utility extension policy from the consultant. He offered to meet with the involved residents and help them seek assistance from the local Health Department. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that the Board continue to pursue efforts to assist the Thomas Park community and provide hook-up to the Hardy Elementary School. Supervisor Brown confirmed that the residents of Thomas Park have incurred problems with their septic tanks, but did not know where to go to get assistance. Chairman Clark expressed a concern with the cost and the impact of extending sewer lines outside the Development Service District. Supervisor Casteen stated the County can not make sewer available to one (1) group of property owners and deny others. He recommended that staff work within the existing tools to solve the issues associated with the Thomas Park neighborhood and the Hardy Elementary School. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that Public Utilities and Planning and Zoning staff be directed to look at developing a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Development Service Districts to be able to extend sewer; review and develop a policy to determine the petition process, mandatory connection, connection fees and assessments; review the 26 possibility of a Community Development Block Grant for this project; and, address how this can be funded with the Director of Budget and Finance if and when the County moves forward with the project based on the estimates provided by Mr. Rountree. 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 Emergency Services report. Steven A Aigner, Emergency Services Coordinator, stated pursuant to the Board?s direction at its February 21, 2008 meeting, staff was directed to determine what repairs are necessary to the parking lot at the Windsor Volunteer Fire Department. He advised that a seal coat will not be sufficient and that the parking lot will need to be repaved at an estimated cost of $30,000. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board authorize staff to finalize quotes for the paving of the parking lot; proceed with the work; and, authorize the transfer of up to $30,000 from the Capital Contingency line 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 the County Administrator?s report. Liesl R. DeVary, Director of Budget and Finance, advised that staff has prepared an application for the Department of Homeland Security for 125 self-contained breathing apparatus. She presented a Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funds for Self Contained Breathing Apparatus and Associated Training for Firefighters for the Board?s consideration. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FOR SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS AND ASSOCIATED TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS WHEREAS, the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia has approved the development and submission of an application for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant; and, 27 WHEREAS, grant funds in the amount of eight hundred ninety-five thousand five hundred dollars ($895,500), or so much as shall be received, needs to be accepted and appropriated to the FY 2007-08 Operating and Capital Budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, such grant requires a ten percent (10%) match in the amount of ninety-nine thousand five hundred dollars ($99,500) of which needs to be appropriated from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight that grant funds in the amount of eight hundred ninety-five thousand five hundred dollars ($895,500), or so much as shall be received from the Department of Homeland Security, and ninety-nine thousand five hundred dollars ($99,500) from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund be appropriated to the appropriate line item in the FY 2007-08 Operating and Capital Budget of the County of Isle of Wight. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the County of Isle of Wight is authorized to make the appropriate accounting adjustments and to do all things necessary to give this resolution effect. 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. County Administrator Caskey reminded the Board that the Town Meeting is scheduled for Saturday, April 26, 2008 from 10:00 until 12:00 noon at Westside Elementary School. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the meeting has been properly advertised as called by the Board. // Chairman Clark called for consideration of the Consent Agenda. A. Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles ? Grant Funding for the Click-It or Ticket/Highway Safety Program . Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funds from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles for the Click-It or Ticket/Highway Safety Program B. Monthly Financial Reports for County and Schools C. Resolution of Appreciation for W. Ray Holland 28 D. Wetlands Board 2007 Annual Report E. Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collection Monthly Report F. February 21, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Consent Agenda be approved as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Appointments. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board reappoint Dorothy G. Gwaltney representing the Windsor District on the Blackwater Regional Library 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 requested that staff make contact with the Blackwater Regional Library Board to determine if the Newport and Smithfield representatives are interested in continuing to serve on that Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board reappoint Paul E. Hall, Sr. as the Isle of Wight representative on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that County Administrator Caskey provide a recommendation to serve on the Southeastern Public Service Authority. Supervisor Brown moved that the Board reappoint Gloria Wilson representing the Hardy District on the Social Services 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 Old Business. An Ordinance to amend Section 7-28-1 (Family Member Subdivision) of Appendix A, Subdivisions. The amendment will add criteria 29 requiring property owners requesting to create a family member subdivision to have held fee simple title to the property for at least five (5) years prior to filing for a family member subdivision, and the receiving family member shall not transfer, subdivide or otherwise convey such property in less than five (5) years. The amendment also includes provisions for shared driveways, a maximum of four (4) lots to be accessed from a single easement, and that no resulting lot be comprised of more than thirty percent (30%) of environmentally sensitive features and shall not extend over a political boundary. Ms. Walkup stated that staff?s recommendation is to table consideration of the Ordinance until the Board?s May 15, 2008 meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board table until the Board?s May 15, 2008 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 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. Walkup stated that staff?s recommendation is to table consideration of the Ordinance until the Board?s May 15, 2008 meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board table the matter until the Board?s May 15, 2008 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Regarding the information contained in the agenda regarding the Outlying Landing Field, County Administrator Caskey requested that the Board formally give him direction with respect to its position on OLF. Supervisor Wright requested that staff find out the Navy?s position. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board direct County Administrator Caskey to contact the Southampton County Administrator and inquire what he looks for as Isle of Wight?s participation in support of their endeavor. 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. 30 Supervisor Wright notified Mr. Rountree that he had received a letter from the Windsor Town Manager regarding the proposed Sewer and Water Master Plan. Mr. Rountree advised that consideration of the Sewer and Water Master Plan was tabled by the Board at its March 2008 meeting to the Board?s first meeting in May 2008 pending receipt of any comments from the Town of Windsor. He advised that staff did correspond with the Town of Windsor with the request that the Town respond in writing by April 15, 2008. He advised that the Town responded in a letter dated April 11, 2008 and cited four (4) areas of concern. He stated staff has reviewed those areas of concern and drafted comments. He stated of the four (4) concerns expressed, staff believes it is not inappropriate to address two (2) of them. He advised that staff will return to the Board at its May 1, 2008 meeting with a recommendation that the Board adopt the Sewer and Water Master Plan, the errata sheet and the four (4) comments contained in the Board Report. He requested that the Board advise him if there is a problem with any of the comments. With respect to the abandonment of the old Carrsville water system, Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board direct staff to get in contact with adjacent property owners of the old abandoned pump houses and determine if they are interested in taking over the ownership of the pump house and the property. 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 inquired if the Board intended to convey any wanted property free of charge to them. Supervisor Bradshaw replied ?yes.? Supervisor Casteen distributed a Scope of Work relative to the completion of the Museum basement that he requested the Board approve. Supervisor Casteen moved that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement on behalf of the Board after review by the Museum Board and the County Attorney and that $12,000 be appropriated from the Unappropriated Fund Balance. 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 Supervisor Casteen?s previous motion be corrected to reflect that instead of directing the funds to come from the Unappropriated Fund Balance that the funds will come at the recommendation of the Budget and Finance Director in coordination with the Assistant County Administrator. The motion was adopted by a vote of 31 (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 New Business. There was no new business offered for discussion. // Interim County Attorney Burton requested a Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711A.7 concerning consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to actual litigation; pursuant to Section 2.2-3711.A.7 concerning consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to a personnel matter of a specific public official; pursuant to Section 2.2-3711.A.7 concerning consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to Heritage Park; and, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711.A.7 concerning consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to two (2) personnel matters of specific public officials. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board enter the Closed 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. 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: 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 32 resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. VOTE AYES: 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. // At 11:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board adjourn its meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Brown, Bradshaw, Clark, Ivy and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. __________________________ Stan D. Clark, Chairman ______________________ Carey Mills Storm, Clerk 33 ~i~aT~ ` o~S Sii ~faxe~ a uLUT.T?i?ii~ `~i~i~ 'Q u~~ 'LIOT~OUT aLi~ ~SLIil?~L' `c~LIi~OA S303TA3adCis OTT pug `uoi~ouT aTT~ ~o .TOn~~ u- ~u-~on ~T;~rarn pug ~Cni `~,TeT~ `nnT3TTspt;.zg `unno.Tg s.TOSTn.Tadns T{jinn (0-s) ~o aeon ~ ~q pa~dope s~rA uoT~ouz aTT,~ •~uiaaaTu s~i u.znofpT~ p.~eog aT~~ ~T:Li~ panouz nn~Tisp~xg xosrAxadns `•ux•d 00: i i Xd /0 ~uT~aay~ pasol~ aTT~ ~uTnnoiio~ uoT~OE ou boo; p.TEOg aT{s• 0 ~9NI.Lg~i'~NRI11Q .LI`I~SgH 4 ~g,.LOA JNRif1Q .LNgSgb' 0 ~SAdN