Loading...
01-22-2009 Regular MeetingREGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTY - SECOND DAY OF JANUARY IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: James B. Brown, Jr., Chairman Phillip A. Bradshaw, Vice - Chairman Al Casteen Stan D. Clark 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 Brown called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and introduced Gerald Ford, a senior at Smithfield High School, who delivered the invocation. /1 The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. Chairman Brown called for Approval of the Agenda. Interim County Attorney Burton offered the following amendments to the agenda: Under the County Administrator's report, add a legislative update from Donald T. Robertson, Director of Information Resources and Legislative Affairs; under Transportation Matters, add an update from staff on the flooding on Route 460 in Zuni; under Old Business, add one (1) matter concerning convenience centers; and, under the closed meeting, delete one (1) matter. Supervisor Clark 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 Brown called for Special Presentations /Appearances. Chairman Brown presented formal resolutions to William Thomas Ellebracht and Brendan Hunter Cleary for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout: Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the following Resolution be adopted: 1 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE WILLIAM THOMAS ELLEBRACHT FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, William Thomas Ellebracht is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #3 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Ellebracht has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Ellebracht for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that William Thomas Ellebracht is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the following Resolution be adopted: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE BRENDAN HUNTER CLEARY FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Brendan Hunter Cleary is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #3 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Cleary for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Brendan Hunter Cleary is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 1/ WHEREAS, Mr. Cleary has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, Chairman Brown called for Regional Reports. 2 Supervisor Bradshaw advised that the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance had recently held its annual luncheon. He noted that while he was unable to attend, several other Board members had attended. Supervisor Casteen reported that the Joint Tourism Committee had discussed the budget at its most recent meeting. He noted that staff is very enthusiastic about moving to its new location. Regarding the most recent meeting of the Southside Mayors and Chairs, Chairman Brown reported that Linda Johnson, Mayor of Suffolk, had replaced the Mayor of Franklin as Chairperson. He continued that a new way of doing business was approved in that each of the localities would be voicing their individual concerns. Interim County Attorney Burton reported that routine matters were discussed at the most recent meeting of the Social Services Board, in addition to personnel changes; the upcoming budget; and, anticipated changes that may be occurring at the State level. Supervisor Bradshaw suggested that he and Chairman Brown meet with County Administrator Caskey and staff relative to the consolidation of services between the County and the Social Services Department. Chairman Brown reported at the most recent meeting of the Southeastern Public Service Authority, a vote was taken with respect to the proposed new tipping fee and whether or not it would be presented for a final vote on January 28, 2009. He advised that only two (2) municipalities, the Cities of Chesapeake and Portsmouth, had voted against doing so. Supervisor Casteen reported at the most recent meeting of the Southampton Roads Resource Conservation and Development Council a vote was taken to take a role in coordination with the Department of Environmental Quality to study and help improve the quality of the waterways involving the Elizabeth River. Supervisor Bradshaw reminded the Board that VACoNML Legislative Day is scheduled for February 5, 2009. He noted that it is anticipated that the Governor will be attending the luncheon to discuss the budget and the intentions of the General Assembly. Supervisor Wright reported that the topic of discussion at the most recent meeting of the Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority involved State budget shortfalls and the unfair practice of the County being taxed by the State with respect to Federal inmates. He advised that he has provided a list of the County's concerns to Senator Quayle. He further advised that the Board members will be setting a meeting, which includes the Senators and 3 Delegates, at which time the County's concerns with shortfalls and mandates will be voiced. Supervisor Bradshaw noted in response to the economic downturn of the economy, the Commissioner of the Revenue has been requested to monitor foreclosures occurring in the County and he requested the Board members to advise him if they are interested in receiving a copy of the Commissioner's report on this matter. He advised that the Board should anticipate receiving a report from the Director of Budget and Finance at its meeting in February 2009 with respect the upcoming reassessment and how the Board wishes to proceed. He further advised that County Administrator Caskey will be providing copies of financial information with respect to the impact of Franklin Equipment Company going out of business and the shut down of the International Paper #3 paper machine. 11 Responsive to a request for an update on the Route 460 project, Kristin M. Mazur, County Engineer, reported that a letter will be forthcoming to County Administrator Caskey posing certain solutions pursuant to a meeting held earlier today with VDOT officials. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that Ms. Mazur keep him apprised as the project moves forward. Responsive to a request for an update on the relocation of a power line on Yellow Rock Road, Ms. Mazur advised that staff will be meeting with VDOT, Dominion Virginia Power and citizens next week. /1 // // Chairman Brown called for Transportation Matters. Chairman Brown called for Citizens Comments. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Brown called for Board comments. There were no comments offered. Chairman Brown called for the County Attorney's report. 4 Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the following matters have been scheduled for public hearing later during the meeting: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact chapter 5, Elections, Article III, Section 5- 11, Enumerated and An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 15, Taxation, Article II, Real Estate taxes, Section 15 -7, Exemption or Deferral for the Elderly and Handicapped Interim County Attorney Burton presented a request from the United States Coast Guard for the County to participate in the cost of the installation of a fence around their property which is adjacent to the County's property. He advised that payment to install the fence is the Coast Guard's responsibility and not the County's. Mark W. Furlo, Parks Administrator, advised that currently the tower and guide wires are fenced in, but the Coast Guard believes that there are underground wires which may pose the risk of exposure to microwaves. He further advised that the lease does contain language holding the Coast Guard liable for any risk. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board authorize the County Attorney to correspond with the United States Coast Guard and advise that the Board has denied their request. 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 he had one (1) matter to discuss with the Board later during the closed meeting. // Chairman Brown called for the Community Development report. Beverly H. Walkup, Director of Planning and Zoning, presented a request from John McRae and McRae Builders for exceptions to the Highway Corridor Overlay District. Supervisor Clark remarked that while it is this Board's objective to solicit, not deter, businesses from coming into the County, if the Board approves this request, it will be setting a precedent for the future. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that a number of businesses have been located on this small strip of land between Route 460 and the railroad for a number of years. He noted that the current owner has been cooperative and agreed to address his violations. He advised that this property is not located in a Development Service District (DSD), but is located in an area that is not targeted for development as the Highway Corridor Overlay 5 District, when originally designed, did not take into consideration this type of business. Supervisor Clark recommended that the request be limited to the maximum designed on the plan for sites 2, 3 and 5. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the request for exceptions to the Highway Corridor Overlay District Sections 6- 1008.A and Section 6- 1010.B.7 to allow the display of sheds and other goods in the minimum visual buffer as shown on the proposed conceptual plan contingent upon correction of code violations and that the maximum that sites 2, 3 and 5 can show is as designed on the plan. 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. Walkup advised that a condition of the Conditional Use Permit for Lawnes Point required that at the time that the sewer collection and treatment facility was proposed that the Board approve the amount for reconstruction in the event of failure. She advised that at this time, the bond requirements need to be satisfied. Supervisor Wright moved that a bond in the amount of $2,123,352 be approved as recommended by Royer Malcolm Pirnie. 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. /1 Chairman Brown called for the Parks and Recreation report. Mr. Furlo advised that the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Tourism will be hosting a public meeting with respect to the potential future use(s) of the Stoup property on February 25, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Nike Park Recreational Hall, which will be preceded by an open house at the property on Saturday, February 21, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. Chairman Brown called for the General Services report. Ms. Mazur recalled that the Board had held a joint public hearing with Southampton County on November 20, 2007 regarding the designation of the Blackwater River as a scenic river. She advised that such designation encourages preservation of the Blackwater River and also requires that the General Assembly approve any construction of the dam that impedes the water flow and gives local citizens and landowners a stronger voice in 6 government actions and decisions that could impact the Blackwater River. She requested authorization for County Administrator Caskey to officially request the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to evaluate the Blackwater River in the County for designation as a State scenic river. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the County Administrator be authorized to officially request the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to evaluate the Blackwater River in the County for designation as a State scenic river. 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. /1 Chairman Brown called for the Emergency Services report. Steven A. Aigner, Fire and EMS Coordinator, advised that responsive to the Fire and Rescue Association's unanimous approval in early 2007 for new software to bring the County into Federal reporting compliance, funding was subsequently approved by this Board and purchased by staff. He presented a request for funding to purchase laptops for the various fire and rescue stations so that information can be viewed when responding to calls for assistance. He advised that the Fire and Rescue Association voted on two (2) options, the first of which is a request for 32 laptops and associated equipment at a cost of $224,700 and a second option which requests 22 laptops and associated equipment. Noting the need for additional time to consider the request, Supervisor Clark moved that the matter be postponed until the Board's February 19, 2009 meeting and that it be listed under the Old Business section 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 Brown called for the County Administrator's report. Sheriff C. W. Phelps reported on a recent animal control matter in Zuni in which the removal of certain animals from property was involved. He advised that certain expenses related to the relocation of some of the animals, vet and farrier charges and overtime were incurred and will be forwarded to the Board at a later date. He advised that the matter will be discussed in detail with the Commonwealth's Attorney next week and that his staff will continue to monitor the animals that remain on the property. 7 Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that Sheriff Phelps review the State law with Interim County Attorney Burton to determine if it allows the cost to be charged to the owner. 1/ At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board amend the 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 Brown called for a public hearing on the following: A. The application of H. Clay and Dare T. Hudson, owners, and American K -9 Interdiction, LLC, applicant, for a Special Use Permit for a dog kennel to accommodate the boarding and training of 200 dogs on approximately 32 acres of land. The request includes the storage of high explosives to be used in dog training activities, a 6,000 square foot administration building, a 10,000 square foot warehouse, a 24 -room bunkhouse with dining facility, a training parking lot capable of holding 30 vehicles, and a training obstacle course. The property is located at 5405 Hudson Lane in the Carrsville Election District. Matthew Smolnik, Planning and Zoning, advised that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the application by a vote of (9 -1) at its December 23, 2008 meeting. He stated should the Board choose to approve the application, the Planning Commission has recommended that the conditions listed in the staff report contained in the agenda be placed on the Conditional Use Permit in order to mitigate the impacts of the surrounding residential dwellings. He stated the Planning Commission is recommending the following modifications and additions to the conditions, a copy of which was placed at the Board's seats prior to the meeting: Condition #12 should read "the Special Use Permit is issued to the operator, American K -9 Interdiction, LLC, and a change in individual ownership or resell of all or 51% of its assets shall require a new Special Use Permit; Condition #15, which is a new condition, states that outdoor training activities on the property shall only occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; and, Condition #17, which is also a new condition, states that violations of any of these conditions shall be grounds for the Board of Supervisors to revoke the Special Use Permit after providing notice to the owner and conducting a public hearing. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the application had been property advertised. 8 Chairman Brown called for those to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. William Riddick, attorney representing the applicant, advised that the applicant has been occupying and operating a five (5) acre site in Carrollton for the last three and a half (3.5) years without incident. He advised that a complaint about noise, precipitated by the removal of certain trees nearby, had been expressed in October of 2008 and that the problem had been corrected. He stated this business involves the training of dogs to detect explosives in combat situations, in addition to the training of several patrol dogs. He advised that this is the only company in the world that provides this type of service. He stated that the applicant currently has a contract with the Marine Corps and, effective January 2009, has been awarded another contract involving an additional 100 dogs. He advised that currently the kennel in Carrollton houses eighty (80) dogs and they have been extremely successful in training the dogs to detect explosives. He advised that currently thirty- seven (37) individuals are employed, which is likely to increase to sixty (60) to eighty (80) in the future. He stated these individuals will be spending their money in the County and that the company, itself, currently spends a great deal of money with local businesses for veterinary services and other things that are necessary to conduct their operations. He advised that the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission are agreeable to his client with the exception of #15, which limits the operations on Saturdays and Sundays. He advised that his client is mandated by the Marine Corps to be available on Saturdays and Sundays and that it is possible that his client may be forced into a situation where he has to engage in training activities on those days. He advised that his client would propose that Condition #15 be amended to state that they would not engage in any gunfire or patrol dog activities on Sundays. He stated with respect to the argument that perhaps this operation could be done at another location, this operation needs to be in a somewhat rural atmosphere, but not too remote and they have chosen the County for its unique proximity to the Tidewater area and the military. He stated with respect to the bomb dogs, they are completely obedient and never off leash except when in the care of an experienced trainer. He stated with respect to the patrol /attack dogs, his client agrees with the condition that the patrol /attack dogs would never be off leash except in an enclosed training area. He advised that the Facilities Manager at the Zuni Training Center has no concerns or reservations about the proposed operation. He stated with respect to the issue of explosives, his client has ATF permits that are very strict and that the explosives are stored in secured boxes with a strict protocol as to who has access. He stated that his client is not permitted to have any detonators and the explosives are only used by the applicants to teach the dogs to recognize the odor so that they can detect the odor in a combat situation. He advised with respect to the issue of odor, there is no detectable odor outside the building. He stated with respect to the issue of noise, the applicants are proposing to build a new insulated kennel so that no noise will be heard. He advised that the concern with lighting and lighting pollution 9 was addressed by the conditions recommended by staff. He stated that he believes that this proposal for the location of this kennel is going to be a far less disruptive activity in this neighborhood than many that could be there. He stated that his clients have a proven track record and have been an asset to the County, as well as providing a service that is critically important to the nation's security. Charles R. Green, Mill Creek Drive, stated that it is not gunfire that concerns him and this is not a question of patriotism, it is about dollars and cents. He advised that he visited the neighborhood behind the existing facility off Route 17 and was advised by 14 individuals that the dogs had been an annoyance, particularly in the summer. He advised that he had been invited by Attorney Riddick to take a tour of the facility; however, he never heard back from him. He inquired what specific explosives will be kept there and in what quantities; how will human and animal waste be disposed of; will there be any monitoring of the wetlands or the surrounding area; what sort of remedy will residents have if the facility becomes a nuisance; and, does the applicant intend to train foreign nationals at this facility and, if so, he would request that the Board exclude the training or housing of foreign nationals on the property. Herb DeGroft, 15411 Mill Swamp Road, stated on behalf of those in military uniform serving around the world to ensure that the existing American way of life continues, he would request that the Board approve the application. He stated that this company is a viable entity and has met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinances and it adds to the County's tax base and local businesses benefit. He stated that it is important to show that we are a business friendly County, especially when the product is invaluable to the nation's security. He stated that the applicant has been operating in Carrollton for over three years and that 99% of the County does not even know they existed. He stated that these ordinary animals exhibit unique intelligence and skills, all which are under the control of humans. He stated that the Zuni Training Center personnel have no conflict with the facility and he requested that the application be approved to ensure uninterrupted support of the soldier in harm's way. Charlie Aranettle, Korean War Veterans Association for the Commonwealth of Virginia and a resident of Smithfield, recommended that the Board approve the application. He stated that these dogs are vital for the protection of our country and the men in service, which have every right to be protected. Travis Luter, 22132 Thomas Woods Trail, stated that foreign nationals, militants and possibly radicals will be allowed across the street from his home, if this application is approved. He stated this is a business venture and it should be treated as such. He stated that the application is for a 200 -dog kennel, which houses explosives, has a restaurant and hotel accommodations on Thomas Woods Trail, which is in the middle of a small rural community. 10 He stated the fact that there are seventeen (17) conditions being recommended tells you that this is not the right location for this facility. He asked who will regulate it and who will ensure that the conditions are met on a daily basis. He stated that the Planning Commission has voted (9 -1) against the facility because this is not the right location. He requested that the Board deny the application, but should it choose to approve it, the Planning Commission should be disbanded because if a (9 -1) vote against the application means a vote to approve for the Board, then the Planning Commission serves no purpose. He stated that there are many other properties in the County that would be better suited for this facility, such as the land being sold by International Paper; the facility at Camp Washington; or, in the County's Industrial Park. Sharon Hart, Newbill Lane, stated there were no complaints of noise and smells until the buffer of trees was cut down, which was done by the owner of the property and not the applicant. She advised that a noise buffer was built and the complaints ceased. She advised that the new kennels will be built with noise abatement buffers and they will be equipped with a septic tank disposal system, overseen by the Health Department. She advised that there will be nine (9) technicians responsible for cleanup of animal waste and the kennel will be cleaned daily. She stated that there should be no wash off from the kennels into the creek because the water goes into the septic system. She added that she would like for the Department of Conservation to review the application and make comment because of the creek nearby. She stated that the farmer who is currently cultivating the land advises that he does nothing with respect to the prevention of run off into the creek. She stated that those concerned about dogs barking and smelling had visited the Carrolton facility and had their concerns addressed. She stated with respect to nearby schools and homes, she would suggest fencing of the property, which would be an enormous expense, but if the Board approves the bunk house and galley, the owner could recoup that cost and any animal that got loose would be contained on that property. She stated that these are life- saving dogs which are a very valuable commodity. Marian Neighbors, 73 Windsor Boulevard, stated that he would not be able to live with himself if it were he that had voted to deny the application and someone that had been fighting to protect him became injured or killed. He stated that he would feel that he had a certain amount of responsibility because he had not given them the proper tools to remain alive. Charlie Phelps, Sheriff, advised that when the applicants originally located in the County over three years ago, they came to him and discussed their plans. He stated that when a complaint was received in reference to barking dogs, it was a deputy, not he, who responded and the complaint was addressed by the applicants. He stated when discussions began with respect to a new animal shelter, the applicant brought his knowledge to the table. He stated the applicant has been working with a number of farmers in the County in an effort to train the dogs and that he does not see the applicant's trucks 11 speeding or driving recklessly down County roads. He stated these types of dogs are very important in his line of work and he relayed an experience when an American K -9 dog responded to a live bond call in Carrollton because the State Police dog was two (2) hours away. He stated that there is a search and rescue unit that volunteers with his office, which was successful in finding an individual alive. He stated that he also has a grandson fighting in Iraq which causes him concern for the obvious reasons. Raymond DePlatchett of Smithfield spoke in support of the application. He stated that he attended the first Planning Commission meeting in which there were a number of individuals present in opposition to the application. He stated that those in opposition had been invited to tour the present operation and, of those that did attend, had now changed their minds. He stated those still in opposition had not taken the time to see what was actually going on at that facility. He stated this is a tough economic time and the County needs to be welcoming businesses into the County. He advised that he did some consulting work for the applicant and found that many local landowners are in support of the application, as the applicant has been very respectful when utilizing someone's property. He advised that he has had the opportunity several times to watch the dogs while they were being trained and had even taken small neighborhood children with him and there has never been an issue with the dogs. He stated that the applicants have received raving reviews from the Marine Corps on the first two (2) sets of dogs that had been trained for their use. Ted Harlow of Morgarts Beach spoke in support of the application. He stated that he has been unable to locate any negative statistics on the internet with respect to working dogs; however, he has found sites showing working dogs being awarded for their efforts. He noted that the church has expressed concern, but they stand a greater chance statistically to be killed driving to the church than anyone living or working near these dogs being hurt. He stated that several businesses have closed in the County due to the economic downturn, but the applicant's business is growing and that can only benefit the County in a financial way. Doug Rose, 6690 Mill Creek Drive, noted that the proposed facility will be located in his back yard. He stated that he moved to this area because he enjoys the peace and quiet and he is concerned that this business will affect his current quality of life because of the noise associated with ATVs and the barking at feeding times. He stated that there is a six (6) dog kennel nearby his home which he hears every night and this facility will be located right next to him. He stated that he commends the applicant's line of work, but feels like there are many other sites that would be more isolated. James Stiltner, property owner south of the proposed facility, stated that it is recommended that dog kennels be located in remote areas away from homes and, when a community builds up around it, a waiver must be signed of any action being taken against it because of barking dogs. He stated that 12 most of the residents moved there because they love the peace and quiet of the area. He stated at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants told him that they would provide him with their phone number and should the application be approved, he is going to hold the applicants to this. He stated he was against the application when he attended the Planning Commission meeting and he did take a tour of the facility, but he also went over several other times and stood behind the fire department and he could still hear the dogs over the top of the road traffic noise. He stated noise will travel much further in a rural setting. He stated a number of promises were made at the Planning Commission meeting and he would like those included as restrictions on the Conditional Use Permit should the Board elect to approve the application. He stated that while the dog feces will be placed in underground tanks and while the tanks will be pumped annually, there will still be groundwater runoff. He advised that medications for the dogs and disinfectants will go into the ground, which slopes downhill towards the wetlands. He stated that the stream that runs through there is fed entirely from water leaching through the ground and runs through the wetlands and the swamp. He stated that the number one contaminant in the Chown River Basin is feces, of which much of that is from farming operations where livestock is kept close to swamps and streams. He stated that he would lift his opposition to the project if the Department of Environmental Quality and the Army Corps of Engineers certify that this operation will not contaminate the wetlands in that area, in addition to the promises being carried forth by the applicant. Heather Stiltner Midgett, homeowner southwest to the proposed site of the kennel, stated that she attended the tour of the kennel and does not have a problem with the organization as a whole. She expressed opposition to a business being allowed in the middle of an existing rural community. She advised that Olive Branch Baptist Church owns the land in front of the kennels and she will also be at that public hearing stating her opposition to increased traffic and noise and light pollution. She stated that approving the application under consideration tonight will be setting a precedent. She stated that she enjoys the peace and tranquility and the fact that her family is safe where she currently lives. Ethel Paller, member and Trustee of Olive Branch Baptist Church, advised that she attended the tour and that when she drove on the property she could already hear the dogs barking. She advised that the church has plans to build a daycare, which may be interrupted by the noise from the practice shooting and barking dogs. She stated that the church also plans to build a family life center and the church is opposed to the facility being built adjacent to their church. Mike Luter, adjacent farm owner, stated that there is no doubt that the facility will be an economic benefit to the County, however, the concern seems to be that this location does not seem to be the ideal location. He stated there are many citizens who are very concerned about the proposed 13 location of the kennels and a solution would be to find a more suitable location for it. He commented that there are many other locations that would be ideal, one (1) of which already has water and sewer in place which would reduce the applicant's start-up cost. Attorney Riddick advised that the waste from the animals would be treated in a system that also treats human waste and is governed and regulated by the Virginia Department of Health. He stated with respect to enforcement, Condition #17 on the revised proffer list, which the applicant is willing to agree to, states that if the applicant does not abide by the conditions imposed, then there is a mechanism to revoke their permits. He stated that the items of concern of Mr. Stiltner are all items that can be addressed by the proposed conditions. He stated that the project has to stand on its own merits and his client has been very responsive to the issues that have been raised. He stated that a comprehensive list of conditions has been developed that if attached to a Conditional Use Permit and approved, his clients would be able to operate the facility they need efficiently and safely without disruption to the community. Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Casteen inquired how Condition #15 could be reworded in order to address the mandate by the Marine Corps that training activities may need to occur on a Saturday or Sunday. Attorney Riddick advised that he had previously suggested that there be no gunfire or patrol dog training on Sundays. He explained that there may be times that the applicant may be required to train on site on Saturdays because of field trials with the military. He advised that most of the training will not occur at the facility and will take place at other sites in the County. He advised that it is necessary, however, for the applicant to have the ability to conduct some training operations on the proposed property. Chairman Brown noted that the dogs are currently being trained at sites consisting of hundreds of acres. He inquired if the dogs will be training on the entire 70+ acres associated with the application. Attorney Riddick advised that the benefit of the proposed site is an enclosed training area. He advised that dogs come to the facility at different stages, the first stage which involves obedience training. He advised that in the early stages, the dogs could be in the confined areas or they could be taken off -site. He advised that the patrol and attack dogs will never be off- leash, except in a confined area. Supervisor Clark inquired if the labs would be off -leash on the site. 14 Attorney Riddick advised that the lab dogs could be off -leash on the site, but only one (1) at a time with trainers. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that Attorney's Riddick's above comment is not listed as a condition in the Special Use Permit. He stated that this is a kennel and the applicant can have as many dogs as he wants operating at any one time. Supervisor Clark comments that labs are very tame dogs. He inquired if the patrol /attack dogs would ever be off -leash outside the fenced -in perimeter. Attorney Riddick advised that the patrol/attack dogs would never be off -lease except when they are in the fenced -in perimeter. He stated the concern with patrol /attack dogs is that they are trained to be aggressive and these dogs will never be off -leash except in a confined training area. Supervisor Clark inquired the number of lab dogs that may be running free at one time. Paul Roushia, President and Master Trainer of American K -9 Interdiction, LLC, advised that the dogs are not allowed to run free; however, possibly as many as thirteen (13) can be under the control of a handler in a pack formation. He advised that most of the time this will not occur on site, but could on occasion, if the weather was inclement. Supervisor Clark suggested a condition stipulating that there will be no more than thirteen (13) to fifteen (15) lab dogs off -leash at one (1) time at the facility. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired from the applicant if he had looked at any other parcels and had he investigated the property owned by International Paper, which is for sale. Mr. Roushia advised that he had looked at the property owned by International Paper, but that it did not meet his needs. He stated now that the application has received so much publicity, the price of other land has increased. He stated that the price for the proposed property is reasonable, but it has increased three (3) times since the matter has been heard by the Planning Commission. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that the applicant had not contacted the County's Department of Economic Development to inquire about property for sale in the County. He inquired if the applicant had ever tried to contact the church. Attorney Riddick advised that he had made an effort to contact the church. 15 Chairman Brown commented that the noise from the ATVs that are used in the training of these dogs can be a nuisance to some people. Attorney Riddick advised that the applicant is willing to agree that the number of dogs that would be off -leash on this property be limited to no more than thirteen (13) at any one time. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired why the applicant would want to continue with the application knowing that 90% of the property owners in that area are in opposition. Attorney Riddick commented that no matter where the applicant goes, there will always be someone that is opposed. He stated that the oldest argument in the world is "not in my backyard ". He stated that this business has been operating in the County for the past three and a half (3.5) years and they have not caused a single complaint. He stated that the building in Carrollton is not sound- proofed. He advised that bunking is a requirement of the military contract and it is not often used. He advised that the Marine Corps brings their trainers in who stay at motels and that there are currently forty three (43) marines staying in the County today. Mr. Roushia advised that in order to compete for the contract, he had to include a bunkhouse, but that he has no intention of any marines staying in it. He stated on occasion, military veterans and law enforcement agencies across the State go to kennels where they can find assistance with their lodging and per -diem costs, as they have very limited budgets. He advised that the bunkhouse will sleep 24 individuals, but that he does not anticipate more than twelve (12) individuals utilizing it at a single time. Supervisor Wright inquired if meals would be prepared. Attorney Riddick advised that the galley is for the persons staying there to have the ability to prepare food. Supervisor Wright inquired if there would be alcohol on the property. Attorney Riddick advised that the military has a strict no- alcohol policy. Supervisor Clark moved and then withdrew his motion that the application be approved, following discussion of certain conditions. Ms. Walkup clarified that the changes in the recommended conditions include: Condition #15 is that outdoor training activities on the property shall only occur Monday through Sunday between the hours of 16 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The applicant shall not engage in any gunfire or patrol /attack dog training on Sundays. Add a Condition #18 to state that no more than 13 dogs shall be off leash at any one (1) time outside of the fenced area. No patrol /attack dogs shall be off leash outside of the fenced area at any time. Chairman Brown inquired if the Department of Conservation and Recreation will make an assessment of all runoff. Mr. Smolnik advised that the application had been sent to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR )for its review and to minimize adverse impacts on the aquatic eco system and that DCR had recommended the implementation of strict inherence to applicable State and local erosion and sediment control stormwater management laws and regulations. Supervisor Clark requested a condition be .placed on the Special Use Permit that allows for those areas that have been cut over to naturally grow on its own again. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that this is a commercial kennel and there are no limitations on who the applicants can bring on site. Supervisor Clark stated that this is the same as any business in the County and he believes it has the same right to do anything that any other business does. He stated that this company has been operating for over three (3) years and the County has not had a problem with them. He stated that the applicant has demonstrated that the business can be done in a very populated area without any problems. Supervisor Bradshaw commented that the applicant should have sought land that is in a remote area, such as that around the fairgrounds, which is for sale. Chairman Brown remarked that two (2) of the largest fanners in the County sit on the Planning Commission and they have mentioned that there are plenty of other locations that would be more suited for this application. Supervisor Clark commented that the applicant has negotiated with a private property owner for land that they believe is suitable and it is the Board's job to consider the rezoning, not tell someone to go somewhere else. He remarked that if someone wants to secure the property around them, then they should purchase it. Chairman Brown commented that it is the Board's job to determine the suitability of the land use for its intended purpose. 17 Supervisor Bradshaw commented that the Board is here to address consideration of a commercial kennel being placed in a rural agricultural area which is completely contradictory to the County's Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Board, in the past, has been adamant about adhering to the Comprehensive Plan. He commented that this is not the best location for this kennel as there are thousands of other acres for sale in the County. Supervisor Clark moved that the application be approved with the following conditions being added to the Special Use Permit in order to mitigate the impacts to the surrounding residential dwellings: 1.) All future site plans of development for the property shall be reviewed and approved through the legislative site plan review process as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance at the time of site plan submission. 2.) Development of the site shall be generally consistent with the Overall Site Layout dated September 8, 2008, as determined during preliminary and final site plan approval. 3.) No existing trees on the property shall be removed, except as approved on the preliminary and final site plan. All timbered or cut over area shall be allowed to naturally revegetate and shall not be cut. 4.) The owner shall install a multi- tiered evergreen landscape buffer along the western and eastern property lines to effectively screen the development from the existing residential dwellings. This buffer shall be planted prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy on this property. The location and quantity of landscaping materials for the buffer shall be included on the preliminary and final site plan of development. 5.) All dog kennels on the property shall be fully enclosed and sound proofed as not to present a nuisance to surrounding properties. 6.) A biological assessment of the entire property shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The preliminary and final site plans shall adhere to the recommendations set forth by the Department of Conservation and Recreation for this property. 7.) There shall be no burial of dogs on the property. 8.) All building and parking lot lighting shall be shown on the preliminary and final site plans. Lighting beyond what is required to illuminate entrances to buildings shall be prohibited 18 II as determined by the legislative reviewing body as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance at the time of site plan submission. 9.) There shall be sally ports on all kennel buildings to assist in containing the dogs as they are transported between the kennel and vehicles. 10.) Human waste and canine waste shall be treated by the same waste treatment system on the property, to be pumped not less than annually. 11.) The applicant shall fence all aggression training areas and the obstacle course. 12.) This Special Use Permit is issued to the operator, American K -9 Interdiction, LLC and a change in individual owners or a sale of all or 51% of the assets shall require a new Use Permit. 13.) The mock parking lot shall be screened and fenced as determined by the legislative reviewing body during preliminary and final site plan review. 14.) The owner shall establish a policy with regards to alcoholic consumption. 15.) Outdoor training activities on the property shall only occur Monday through Sunday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The applicant shall not engage in any gunfire or patrol /attack dog training on Sundays. 16.) All the terms of the condition of the application are hereby incorporated as a condition of the Special Use permit. 17.) Violations of any of these conditions shall be grounds for the Board of Supervisors to revoke the Special Use Permit after providing notice to the owner and conducting a public hearing. 18.) No more than 13 dogs shall be off leash at any one (1) time outside of the fenced area. No patrol /attack dogs shall be off leash outside of the fenced area at any time. The motion was adopted by a vote of (3 -2) with Supervisors Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and Supervisors Bradshaw and Brown voting against the motion. 19 Interim County Attorney Burton requested that the Board enter a closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711.A.7 of the Code of Virginia for consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to the Southeastern Public Service Authority. Supervisor Casteen moved that the Board enter the closed meeting for the reason stated by the Interim County Attorney. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Bradshaw absent for the vote. 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 Board adopt the following Resolution: CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS, Section 2.2- 3712.D of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted 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 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. 20 /1 Chairman Brown called for the continuation of the public hearings. B. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Amending and Reenacting Appendix B, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions Section 1 -1011, Powers and Duties of the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Walkup advised that the proposed amendment would provide legislative authority to make refunds in cases where refunds are found to be necessary. Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the matter had been properly advertised. Chairman Brown called for those to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Wright moved that the following Ordinance be adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING AND REENACTING APPENDIX B, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1 -1011, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, has the legislative authority to make reasonable changes to the ordinances that govern the orderly growth and development of Isle of Wight County; and WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors is also concerned with the ability to allow for necessary refunds for fees paid in accordance with the requirements of the current Isle of Wight County Zoning Ordinance provided there is sufficient administrative oversight. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Appendix B, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Section 1 - 1011, Powers and Duties of the Zoning Administrator of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: 21 Sec. 1 -1011. Powers and duties of the zoning administrator. (a) The office of zoning administrator is hereby established. The primary responsibility for administering and enforcing this ordinance shall be assigned to the zoning administrator. (b) The zoning administrator shall be vested and charged with the following powers and duties: (1) Receive, process, and review complete applications under the provisions of this ordinance for transmittal and recommendation to the planning commission, board of zoning appeals, and board of supervisors; (2) Issue zoning permits pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance and suspend or revoke any zoning permit upon violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance or any approvals granted hereunder subject to the requirements of this ordinance; (3) The zoning administrator shall keep records of all zoning permits issued under this ordinance, maintain permanent and current records related to the ordinance, including the official zoning map, amendments, conditional use and special use permits, variances, appeals, and development site plans; and make annual reports and recommendations to the planning commission and board of supervisors on matters pertaining to this ordinance; If this ordinance requires approval by another agency of certain site plan features, such approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of a zoning permit, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator due to the scope and nature of the proposed project or development; (4) Conduct inspections and surveys to determine whether a violation of this ordinance exists; (5) Seek criminal or civil enforcement for any provision of this ordinance and take any action on behalf of the county, either at law or in equity, to prevent or abate any violation or potential violation of this ordinance; (6) Render interpretations, upon written request of an interested person whose property may be affected, as to the applicability of this ordinance to particular uses and its application to the factual circumstances presented; (7) Design and distribute applications and forms required by this ordinance and request information which is pertinent to the requested approval; 22 (8) Perform such duties as are necessary for the proper enforcement and administration of this ordinance; (9) In appropriate cases, allow for the refund of fees paid pursuant to this Zoning Ordinance upon certification by the Zoning Administrator of the need for such refund and approval by the County Administrator. (7 -7 -05; 1- 22 -09.) 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 Brown called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 5, Elections, Article III, Section 5 -11, Enumerated Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the matter had been properly advertised. Assistant County Attorney Popovich advised that the ordinance has been revised to specifically designate the polling place for the Pons Precinct as the Mount Taber Church of God and Christ. Chairman Brown called for those to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Clark moved that the following Ordinance be adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 5. ELECTIONS. ARTICLE III. SECTION 5 -11. ENUMERATED. WHEREAS, on December 5, 2008, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors revised Chapter 5. Elections. Article III. Section 5 -11. Enumerated in order to designate a new polling place for the newly created Bartlett Election District; and WHEREAS, following the enactment of said revision it has come to the Board's attention that an administrative revision is required for the designation of the Pons Precinct. 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors, Virginia, that Chapter 5. Elections. Article III. Section 5 -11. Enumerated is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 5-11. Enumerated. The precincts for each election district and the polling place for each precinct shall be as set forth below: (a) Carrsville election district. (1) (2) Carrsville precinct: Polling place -- Carrsville Volunteer Fire Department. (3) Camps Mill precinct: Polling place -- Otelia J. Rainey Center. Walters precinct: Polling place -- Walters Ruritan Building. (4) Zuni precinct: Polling place - -Zuni Ruritan Building. (5) Raynor precinct: Polling place - -Mt. Sinai Baptist Church 14165 Racetrack Road, Ivor, Virginia (b) Windsor election district. (1) Windsor precinct: Polling place -- Windsor Volunteer Fire Department. (2) Orbit precinct: Polling place -- Woodland United Methodist Church Social Hall. (3) Courthouse precinct: Polling place - -Isle of Wight Ruritan Building. (c) Hardy election district. (1) Pons precinct: Polling place - -Mt. Tabor Church of God and Christ 13468 Waterworks Road Smithfield, Virginia (2) Rushmere precinct 24 Polling place -- Rushmere Volunteer Fire Department. (d) Smithfield election district. (1) Smithfield precinct: Polling place -- Smithfield Center. (e) Newport election district. (1) Carrollton precinct: Polling place -- Carrollton Nike Park. (2) Bartlett precinct: Polling place -- Carrollton Ruritan Building -14138 Norsworthy Drive, Carrollton, Virginia (6- 24 -71, § 2; 5- 20-81, § 2; 4- 25 -91, § 2; 8- 18 -94; 4- 15 -99; 5 -3 -2001, § 2; 11- 21 -05; 2- 13 -07; 12 -5 -08; 1- 22 -09.) 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 Brown called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 15, Taxation, Article II, Real Estate Taxes, Section 15 -7, Exemption or Deferral for the Elderly and Handicapped Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the matter had been properly advertised. He stated the amendment would eliminate the deferral provisions allowing only exemptions for qualified citizens; allow the Commissioner of Revenue latitude; allow for exemption beyond the filing deadline, taking into consideration the income from all household occupants rather than just owners; and, provide an alternative methodology to qualify for the exemption by filing certain documentation with the Commissioner of Revenue. Chairman Brown called for those to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. Gerald H. Gwaltney, Commissioner of the Revenue, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Casteen moved that the following Ordinance be adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE 25 ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 15. TAXATION. ARTICLE II. REAL ESTATE TAXES. SECTION 15 -7. EXEMPTION FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia adopted an Ordinance providing for a real estate tax exemption or deferral for qualified elderly and handicapped property owners or partial owners, Chapter 15, Article II, Section 15 -7 of the Isle of Wight County Code on November 7, 1974, and subsequently amended the ordinance on November 3, 1977; August 6, 1981; June 21, 1984; March 4, 1993; August 23, 2004; February 17, 2005; and October 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance in Section 15 -7 (b), as adopted and subsequently amended by the Board of Supervisors provides that exemptions shall be granted to qualified persons subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, in compliance with Sections 58.1 -3210 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), desire to provide for an exemption from real estate taxes for the elderly and handicapped; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, in compliance with Sections 58.1 -3210 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), desires to allow for consideration of all household income to determine the eligibility for exemptions; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, in compliance with Sections 58.1 -3210 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), further desires to allow individuals to qualify for such exemptions as a result of a substantial change in circumstances; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, in compliance with Sections 58.1 -3210 et sue. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended) further desires to grant the Isle of Wight County Commissioner of the Revenue the discretion to waive the application deadline for good cause shown. BE IT, AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article II, Real Estate Taxes, Section 15 -7, be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 15 -7. Exemption for the elderly and handicapped. (a)Real estate tax exemption is provided for qualified property owners or partial owners who are either: 26 or (1) Heads of households and sixty-five (65) years of age and older; (2) Permanently and totally disabled and who are eligible according to other terms of this section, as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b)Exemption shall be granted to qualifying persons subject to the following provisions: (1) The title of the property for which exemption is claimed is held, or partially held, on December 31 of the immediately preceding taxable year by the person claiming exemption; (2) The person claiming the exemption was, as of December 31 for the year immediately preceding the taxable year, either: a. Sixty -five (65) years of age or older, or b. Permanently and totally disabled, which, for the purposes of this section, means to be unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity which can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for the duration of such person's life. (3) The total combined income during the immediately preceding calendar year from all sources of the occupants of the dwelling living therein does not exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00); provided, that the first six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500.00) of income of each relative, other than spouse, of the owner or owners, who is living in the dwelling, shall not be included in such total. The county, in subsequent tax years, shall increase the thirty -five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) combined income limit by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI -W) for the twelve -month period ending September 30 of the year immediately preceding the affected tax year, provided such increased amount shall not exceed the limits imposed by Section 58.1 -3211 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); (4) The net combined financial worth, including equitable interests, as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year, of the owners and the spouse of any owner, excluding the value of the dwelling and the land not exceeding one (1) acre upon which it is situated, does not exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00); The county shall annually increase the net combined financial worth limit by an amount equivalent to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI -W), for the twelve -month period ending September 30 of the year immediately preceding the affected tax year. 27 (5) Changes in respect to income, financial worth, ownership of property or other factors occurring during the taxable year for which the affidavit shown in subsection (e)(2) of this section is filed and having the effect of exceeding or violating the limitations and/or conditions of this section, shall nullify any relief from real estate tax liability for the current taxable year and the taxable year immediately following. (c) When the person or persons claiming exemption conforms to the standards and does not exceed the limitations contained in this section, the tax exemption is on the sole dwelling owned and occupied by the applicant or applicants and up to one (1) acre of land upon which the dwelling is situated. (d) If the person elects exemption, the real estate described in this section shall be exempt from the following percentages of the real estate taxes based upon the total combined income as described in paragraph (b)(3) above: Range of Income 0 - $20,000.00 $20,001.00 - $25,000.00 $25,001.00 - $30,000.00 $30,001.00 - $35,000.00 $35,001.00 and above Exemption provided, that if the ownership of the property for which the application is made is not held solely by the applicant, or jointly with the applicant's spouse, than the amount of the tax exemption, hereunder, shall be in proportion to the applicant's ownership interest in the subject real property, as that ownership interest may appear. (e) (1) The Commissioner of the Revenue, or his authorized designee, shall administer the exemption according to the general provisions of this section. The Commissioner is hereby authorized and directed to prescribe forms and make such further inquiry of persons applying for exemption, including the requirements of answers under oath, production of certified tax returns and appraisal reports or other proofs, as may be reasonably necessary to determine income, financial worth and qualifications. (2) Annually, but not later than October 15 of the taxable year unless otherwise approved by the Commissioner of the Revenue for good cause shown, the person or persons claiming an exemption must file a real estate tax exemption affidavit with the Commissioner of the revenue. The 28 100% up to a maximum of $800.00 75% up to a maximum of $800.00 50% up to a maximum of $800.00 25% up to a maximum of $800.00 0% affidavit shall set forth, in a manner prescribed by the Commissioner, the location and assessed value of the property, the names of related persons occupying the dwelling for which exemption is claimed, the gross combined incomes of such persons, the net combined financial worth of such persons, the age or nature of the disability of the applicant and, if the person is eligible for social security, a certification by the Social Security Administration or, if such person is not eligible for social security, a sworn affidavit by two medical doctors licensed to practice in the state, to the effect that such person is permanently and totally disabled as defined in subsection (b)(2)b of this section. (f) Any person who has title to real estate transferred to his name after he becomes permanently and totally disabled or reaches age sixty -five (65), solely for purposes of obtaining the benefits permitted under this section, shall be disqualified from obtaining the exemption created by this section. (g) When the person or persons claiming exemption do not qualify for said exemption based upon the previous year's income limitations and financial worth limitations, such person may, nonetheless, qualify for the current year by filing an affidavit with the Commissioner of the Revenue that clearly shows a substantial change of circumstances, that was not volitional on the part of the individual to become eligible for the exemption, and will result in income and financial worth levels that are within those set forth in subsection (d) of this Section. Such exemption by the Commissioner of the Revenue shall be conditioned upon the individual filing another affidavit at the end of the year in which the exemption is granted showing that the actual income and financial worth levels were within the limitations set forth in subsection (d) of the Section. If the actual income and financial worth levels exceed the limitations set forth in this Section, any exemption shall be nullified for the current taxable year and the taxable year immediately thereafter. (h) This section shall apply to tax bills due in June, 1993 and semiannually thereafter until amended or repealed. (11 -7 -74, Sections 1, 2; 11 -3 -77, Sections 1 to 6; 8 -6 -81; 6- 21 -84; 3 -4 -93; 8- 23 -04; 2- 17 -05.) This ordinance shall be effective for real estate taxes for the fiscal tax year beginning July 1, 2006, and ending June 30, 2007, and subsequent fiscal tax years, and shall be effective for mobile homes for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2006, and ending December 31, 2006, and subsequent calendar tax years. For state law as to authority of the county to enact this section, see Code of Virginia, Section 58.1 -3210 (1950, 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. 29 II Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board return to 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 Brown called for the continuation of the County Administrator's report. County Administrator Caskey presented a request from the School Board for an additional $229,306 to be used with unencumbered funds remaining in the FY2008 school projects to replace the failing roof at Windsor Elementary School. Peter Andrew, Isle of Wight County Schools, represented the request. He explained that in 2003, approximately five (5) years after the building was built, a hurricane with over 60 mph winds had come through the County and lifted the asphalt shingles off the decking, which is not covered by the warranty. He stated that since that time, the roof has been gradually deteriorating. Supervisor Wright inquired if the roof had been insured. Mr. Andrew stated that he was unsure if the roofed had been insured. He stated that portions of the roof had been patched since the hurricane and it is possible that insurance money had been used to do that. He advised that the roof is currently leaking and being patched, as necessary. He advised that he had walked on the roof following a wind storm last year and found that it is in very poor condition. Supervisor Clark requested that Mr. Andrew investigate whether or not the schools had filed an insurance claim and that he report back to the Board at its February 19, 2009 meeting. He stated that he specifically wanted to know why insurance had not covered all of the damages associated with casualty claim on the wind damage. Supervisor Clark moved that the request be postponed until the Board's February 19, 2009 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. Liesl R. DeVary, Director of Budget and Finance, stated responsive to the solicitation of an RFP for the renewal of health insurance, she would recommend that the Board award the contract to Anthem. 30 Supervisor Wright moved that the contract be awarded to Anthem to provide the County's health insurance effective March 1, 2009 which will include adjustments in the employee payment tiers for prescription drugs. 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 made reference to information contained in the agenda with respect to the Southeastern Public Service Authority's (SPSA) proposed tipping fee increase, which will be considered by the Board of Directors on January 28, 2009. He noted that the anticipated impact to the County is included in the report. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that Chairman Brown relay to the Southeastern Public Service Authority Board of Directors that this Board does not agree with the increase in the tipping fee, it will support an increase in the tipping fee of $245 a ton on a month -by -month basis until information is received from the financial consultants and the County's legal advisors. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that the Director of Budget and Finance attend the next Southeastern Public Service Authority meeting and that it be conveyed that it would be appropriate for the financial directors of all eight (8) localities have access to all the financial information for their review. I/ Supervisor Casteen spoke in opposition of the tipping fees being raised. At 11:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board extend its meeting past 11:00 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. /1 Kari L. Sletten, Director of Information Technology, provided a brief presentation on the 2010 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. County Administrator Caskey advised with respect to the Board's Strategic Planning Retreat held on November 14 -15, 2008, Dr. Chandler has presented a summation of the information discussed and agreed upon by the Board. He stated, if agreeable, staff will proceed to develop and publish the information in a more presentable format, that it be provided back to the Board, and that it be placed in the County's libraries and on the County's PEG channel and website. 31 Ms. DeVary presented the Monthly Financial Reports for County and Schools which have been revised by staff in order for the Board to more easily monitor the budget throughout the year. Donald T. Robertson, Director of Information Resources and Legislative Affairs, advised that House Bill 2250, which was submitted by Delegate Barlow, and which would allow a severance tax to be imposed on items removed from borrow pits in the County was defeated by the subcommittee. He offered to continue pursuing this, but noted that there is not a great deal of support from around the State. He advised that the BPOL tax will be an upcoming critical issue. He advised that legislation has been submitted for the naming of the Holland /Councill Memorial Bridge (Route 58 Business) and staff does not expect any opposition to the Bill. Supervisor Clark suggested that Delegate Barlow make another attempt at resurrecting the extraction tax and that a coalition be formed. He requested that Mr. Robertson advise him of the individuals that Delegate Barlow had contacted to request that they speak at the public hearing. He further requested Mr. Robertson to advise him who sits on the sub - committee. Supervisor Bradshaw suggested that Mr. Robertson contact Senator Lucas with respect to her support in the Senate. Chairman Brown called for consideration of the Consent Agenda. A. Isle of Wight Museum/Mechanical and Electrical Expenditures B. Additional Funding for Isle Prepay Program Resolution to Appropriate Funds from the Unappropriated Fund Balance to Expand the Isle Prepay Program C. Additional Staff Position for Commissioner of Revenue Resolution to Appropriate Funds from the Unappropriated Fund Balance for the Addition of a Tax Compliance Auditor Position D. Bridgewater 4 -Plex Condominiums, Eagle Harbor, Tract 3 — Modification to Approved 4 -Plex Condominium Building Architectural Design E. Recyc Systems, Inc. Biosolids Status Report Supervisor Clark moved that Item (A), Isle of Wight Museum/Mechanical and Electrical Expenditures, be removed and that the 32 remaining items on the Consent Agenda be adopted. 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. With respect to Item (A.), Isle of Wight Museum/Mechanical and Electrical Expenditures, Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator, advised that Buck Jones had provided an estimate of $100,000 to accomplish the electrical work, but the final bill was slightly higher at $105,000. Supervisor Clark moved to authorize the transfer of $5,731 from the Capital Contingency line item to the appropriate line item in the budget. 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 Assistant County Administrator Small provide a summary of all funds spent in association with the Museum in the Consent Agenda for the Board's February 19, 2009 meeting. // 1/ Chairman Brown called for Appointments. No appointments were offered. Chairman Brown called for Old Business. A. The application of Edward R. and Sharon C. Lenz, owners, for an exception to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance, for two adjacent lots. Specifically, Section 4002 (B)(2)(a.) to allow encroachment of up to 50 feet into the 100 foot Resource Protection Area Buffer for the construction of a single - family home on each lot. Lot 59, containing nearly 0.51 acres of land, and Lot 60, containing just over 0.40 acres of land, are located in the C. L. Obrey Subdivision on the north side of Lakeview Lane, Carrollton, in the Newport Election District. Supervisor Clark moved that staff be directed to advise Attorney Riddick that this item will be on the Board's February 19, 2009 meeting agenda at which time the Board intends to take action. 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. 33 Supervisor Bradshaw advised that he has received numerous calls from citizens in his district with respect to the change in hours for the County's convenience centers. He stated that a strategic plan needs to be developed for trash collection and he is unsure if the cost savings of $80,000 is realistic if the hours are reduced. Supervisor Bradshaw moved to direct staff to change the convenience center operating hours back to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven (7) days per week with the exception of the Camptown facility which should be left as it is currently posted. It will be left up to staff's discretion when the most feasible time is to revert back to those hours. 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. Sheriff Phelps advised that a legislative committee for the Virginia Sheriffs' Association had met at the Capitol to discuss the budget reduction and current proposed budget, to include a loss of at least 302 Deputy Sheriffs, with Senators Ken Stolle and Janet Howell. He advised that the legislative committee discussed the possibility of legislation that would provide sufficient revenue to restore the cuts to sheriffs; provide staff for the new service; and provide funding for the new equipment necessary to implement the proposal. He stated that the sheriffs would provide electronic incarceration to a qualified population of State inmates that meet certain criteria to ensure the safety of the community and that the sheriffs would have total control over the program. He reported that the Department of Corrections' (DOT) current projections indicate that there will be 4,100 inmates that may be eligible to enter into the program. He stated that the legislation would provide that the inmates be transferred into the custody of the sheriffs for electronic supervision and that they could be returned to the DOC if the inmate violated any rules of the program. He noted that he would be forwarding the legislation to the Board when it is drawn up. /I Chairman Brown called for New Business. Supervisor Clark moved to direct staff to come back with ideas consistent with consolidating services between the schools and the County, to include the Human Resources Department, Budget and Finance Department and the County Attorney's office at the Board's February 19, 2009 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. I/ 34 At 11:50 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, Casteen and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the mot arey ills Storm, Clerk 35 . Brown, Jr., Chairman