09-24-2009 Regular MeetingREGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTY- FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT: James B. Brown, Jr., Chairman
Phillip A. Bradshaw, Vice - Chairman
Al Casteen
Stan D. Clark (Arrived at 8:35 p.m.)
Thomas J. Wright, III
Also Attending: A. Paul Burton, Interim County Attorney
W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator
Carey Mills Storm, Clerk
1/
//
Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Supervisor Bradshaw delivered the invocation.
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 Consent Agenda, add authorization to submit an
application to the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund Advisory Committee for
money to enhance erosion control at Fort Boykin; under the County
Attorney's Report, add authorization to advertise Ordinance to Amend and
Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Enacting Appendix B -2. Coastal
Primary Sand Dune Zoning for public hearing on October 15, 2009; under
the County Attorney's Report, add one (1) closed meeting item; and, under
Public Hearings, Items (D) and (E) will be conducted first, followed by Items
(A), (B) and (C).
Supervisor Wright moved that the Board approve the agenda, as
amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors
Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no
Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the
vote.
//
Chairman Brown called for Special Presentations /Appearances.
1
John Cooke, Emergency Planner for the Western Tidewater Health
District, Rusty Chase, Isle of Wight County Emergency Services Director,
and Katherine Goff, Public Information Officer, Isle of Wight County
Schools, briefed the Board on their respective plans of response to the H1N1
virus.
David Goodrich, School Board Chairman, advised the Board that the
recent downturn in the economy has resulted in recent public construction
projects being bid substantially below prices quoted in the past and presents
an excellent opportunity for the County to accelerate building plans in order
to take advantage of sizeable reductions in building costs. He advised that
Construction Control of Virginia is a firm experienced in school construction
funding and is present tonight to provide the Board with the information
shared earlier with the School Board.
Lee McClure, Construction Control Corporation of Virginia, Brent
Jeffcoat, McGuire - Woods, LLP and Joe Niggel, Southwest Securities
provided a briefing to the Board with respect to the substantial savings that
can be realized on capital improvements projects in today's market.
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 (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown,
Casteen and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting
against the motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the vote.
/1
Chairman Brown called for Public Hearings:
Noting that Supervisor Clark was not yet present at the meeting,
Supervisor Wright moved that the Board defer its vote on Public Hearing
Items (C), (D) and (E) until Old Business. The motion was adopted by a vote
of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen and Wright voting in
favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and,
Supervisor Clark absent for the vote.
Chairman Brown called for a public hearing on the following:
A. An ordinance to amend the following sections of Appendix B.
Zoning: Amendments, Section 1 -1016 (Conditional Zoning),
Section 1- 1019.D.1 (Variances), and Section 1- 1020.H.1
(Nonconforming Situations, Restoration or Replacement)
2
Amy Ring, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, advised that the
proposed amendments are a result of recent legislative changes by the
General Assembly.
Chairman Brown called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the amendments.
No one appeared and spoke.
Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Bradshaw 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: SECTION 1 -1016 (CONDITIONAL ZONING), SECTION 1-
1019 (VARIANCES), AND SECTION 1 -1020 (NONCONFORMING
SITUATIONS, RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT).
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 about the compatibility of uses on public and private lands within
Isle of Wight County and seeks to allow flexibility in the administration of
the ordinance regulations while protecting the health, safety, and general
welfare of present and future residents and businesses of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County
Board of Supervisors that Appendix B, Zoning, Section 1 -1016 (Conditional
Zoning), Section 1 -1019 (Variances), and Section 1 -1020 (Nonconforming
Situations, Restoration or Replacement) of the Isle of Wight County Code be
amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 1 -1016. Conditional zoning.
(a) In order to provide a more flexible and adaptable zoning method to
permit differing land uses and to recognize effects of change,
conditional zoning is permitted. That is, a zoning reclassification
may be allowed subject to certain conditions proffered by the
zoning applicant for the protection and well -being of the
community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned
(7- 1 -97).
(b) The owner of land seeking a rezoning may provide, by voluntarily
proffering in writing, reasonable conditions as part of the
application for rezoning, for which such conditions or proffers are
in addition to the regulations provided for the zoning district.
Proffered conditions shall constitute a part of the rezoning or
amendment to the zoning map and shall remain in effect even if the
property is sold.
(c) The terms of all proffered conditions must be submitted in writing
by the owner ten (10) days prior to a public hearing before the
Board of Supervisors provided that the conditions are in accordance
with the following:
(1) The rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions
(7- 1 -97);
(2) Such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning;
and (7- 1 -97),
(3)
All such conditions are in conformity with the Isle of
Wight County Comprehensive Plan (7- 1 -97).
(d) In determining the reasonableness and acceptability of voluntary
proffers, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County,
Virginia, will follow the most recent cash proffer resolution and its
supporting study, as a guide together with the most current capital
improvements plan of Isle of Wight County, Virginia.
(e) Pursuant to Section 15.2 -2302 of the Code of Virginia as
amended, there shall be no amendment or variation of proffered
conditions part of an approved rezoning until after a public
hearing before the Board of Supervisors advertised pursuant to the
provisions of this Ordinance. However, where an amendment to
the proffered conditions is requested by the profferor, and where
such amendment does not affect conditions of use or density, the
Board of Supervisors may waive the requirement of a public
hearing. Once so amended, the proffered conditions shall continue
to be an amendment to the Ordinance and may be enforced by the
Zoning Administrator pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance.
See, 1 -1019 Provisions for appeals, variances, and interpretations.
(a) Boards of zoning appeals generally.
(1) A Board of Zoning Appeals, as provided for in Section 15.2-
2308 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, consisting of
five (5) residents of the County of Isle of Wight, shall be
4
appointed by the circuit court judge of the County of Isle of
Wight.
(2) The terms of office shall be for five (5) years provided,
however, that the members serving on the Board of Zoning
Appeals on the effective date of this ordinance shall continue
on such Board and shall serve for their remaining respective
terms. The secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall
notify the court at least thirty (30) days in advance of the
expiration of any term of office, and shall also notify the court
promptly if any vacancy occurs. Appointments to fill
vacancies shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term.
Members may be re- appointed to succeed themselves.
Members of the Board shall hold no other public office in the
County of Isle of Wight except that one (1) may be a member
of the Planning Commission of the County of Isle of Wight. A
member whose term expires shall continue to serve until his
successor is appointed and qualifies (7- 1 -97).
(3)
(4) Within the limits of funds appropriated by the governing body,
the Board may employ or contract for secretaries, clerks, legal
counsel, consultants, and other technical and clerical services.
Members of the Board may receive such compensation as may
be authorized by the governing body (7- 1 -97).
(5)
The Board shall elect from its own membership its officers
who shall serve annual terms as such and may succeed
themselves. For the conduct of the hearing and the taking of
any action, the quorum shall not be less than a majority of all
the members of the Board. The Board may make, alter and
rescind rules and forms for its procedures, consistent with the
ordinances of the County of Isle of Wight and the general laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Board shall keep a full
public record of its proceedings and shall submit a report of its
activities to the governing body at least once each year (7 -1-
97).
Any Board member may be removed for malfeasance,
misfeasance or nonfeasance in office, or for other just cause,
by the court, which appointed him, after a hearing held
following at least fifteen (15) days' notice. (7 -1 -97)
(b) Powers of the board of zoning appeals. The Board of Zoning
Appeals shall have the following powers and duties (7- 1 -97):
(1) To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement,
decision or determination made by an administrative officer in
the administration or enforcement of this article or of any
5
ordinance adopted pursuant thereto after notice and public
hearing as provided by Section 15.2 -431 15.2 -2204 (A) of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
(2) To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from
the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public
interest, when, owing to special conditions a literal
enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary
hardship; provided, that the spirit of this ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done (7- 1 -97).
(3) To hear and decide applications for the interpretation of the
zoning district map where there is any uncertainty as to the
location of a district boundary. After notice to the owners of
the property affected by any such question, and after public
hearing with notice as required by Section 15.2 -2204 (A) of
the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Board may
interpret the map in such way as to carry out the intent and
purpose of this ordinance for the particular section or district in
question. The Board shall not have the power, however, to
rezone property or substantially to change the location of
district boundaries as established by the ordinance.
(c) Appeals.
(1) An appeal to the Board may be taken by any person aggrieved
or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the County or
municipality affected by any decision of the Zoning
Administrator or from any order, requirement, decision or
determination made by any other administrative officer in the
administration or enforcement of this article or any ordinance
adopted pursuant thereto. Any written notice of a zoning
violation or a written order of the Zoning Administrator dated
on or after July 1, 1993, shall include a statement informing the
recipient that he may have a right to appeal the notice of a
zoning violation or a written order within thirty (30) days in
accordance with this section, and that the decision shall be
final and unappealable if not appealed within thirty (30) days.
The appeal period shall not commence until such statement is
given. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty (30) days after
the decision appealed from by filing with the Zoning
Administrator, and with the Board, a notice of appeal
specifying the grounds thereof. The Zoning Administrator
shall forthwith transmit to the Board all the papers constituting
the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.
(2) An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the
action appealed from unless the Zoning Administrator certifies
6
(3)
(d) Variances.
to the Board that by reason of facts stated in the permit a stay
would in his opinion cause imminent peril to life or property,
in which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than
by a restraining order granted by the Board or by a court of
record, on application and on notice to the Zoning
Administrator and for good cause shown.
In no event shall a written order, requirement, decision or
determination made by the Zoning Administrator or other
administrative officer be subject to change, modification or
reversal by any Zoning Administrator or other administrative
officer after sixty (60) days have elapsed from the date of the
written order, requirement, decision or determination where the
person aggrieved has materially changed his position in good
faith reliance on the action of the Zoning Administrator or
other administrative officer unless it is proven that such written
order, requirement, decision or determination was obtained
through malfeasance of the Zoning Administrator or other
administrative officer or through fraud. The sixty (60) day
limitation period shall not apply in any case where, with the
concurrence of the attorney for the governing body,
modification is required to correct clerical or other
nondiscretionary errors. (7 -1 -97)
(1) The Board of Zoning Appeals is authorized to grant variances
from the strict application of these regulations when a property
owner can show that his property was acquired in good faith
and where by reason of the exceptional narrowness,
shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property at the
time of the effective date of this ordinance, or where by reason
of exceptional topographic conditions or extraordinary
situation or condition of such piece of property, or of the use or
development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the
strict application of the terms of this ordinance would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the
property or where the Board is satisfied, upon evidence heard
by it, that the granting of such variances will alleviate a clearly
demonstrable hardship, as distinguished from a special
privilege or convenience sought by the applicant; provided,
that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit
and purpose of this ordinance.
(2) The Board of Zoning Appeals shall not authorize a variance
unless it finds (7- 1 -97):
7
(A) That the strict application of this ordinance would produce
undue hardship (7- 1 -97);
(B) That such hardship is not shared generally by other
properties in the same zoning district and the same
vicinity; and (7- 1 -97),
(C) That the authorization of such variance will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the
character of the district will not be changed by the
granting of the variance (7- 1 -97).
(D) No such variance shall be authorized except after notice
and hearing as required by Section 15.2 -2204 (A) 15.2-
431 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
(E) No variance shall be authorized unless the Board of
Zoning Appeals finds that the condition or situation of the
property concerned or the intended use of the property is
not of so general or recurring a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general
regulation to be adopted as an amendment to this
ordinance (7- 1 -97).
(F) In authorizing a variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may impose such conditions regarding the location,
character, and other features of the proposed structure for
use as it may deem necessary in the public interest, and
may require a guarantee or bond to ensure that the
conditions imposed are being and will continue to be
complied with (7- 1 -97).
(G) A variance may be issued for a specified duration or an
indefinite duration (7- 1 -97).
(H) The granting of a variance does not exempt the applicant
from complying with all other requirements of this
ordinance or any applicable County, state, or federal law
(7- 1 -97).
Whenever the Board of Zoning Appeals disapproves an
application for a variance on any basis other than the failure of
the applicant to submit a complete application, such action may
not be reconsidered by the respective Board for a period of one
(1) year unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that (7- 1 -97):
(A) Circumstances affecting the property which is the subject
of the application have substantially changed; or (7 -1 -97)
(B) New information is available that could not with
reasonable diligence have been presented at a previous
hearing. A request to be heard on this basis must be filed
with the Zoning Administrator. Such a request does not
extend the period within which an appeal must be taken
(7- 1 -97).
(C) The Board of Zoning Appeals may at any time consider a
new application affecting the same property as an
application previously denied. A new application is one
that differs in some substantial way from the one
previously considered, as determined by the Zoning
Administrator (7- 1 -97).
(4) The burden of presenting evidence sufficient to allow the
Board of Zoning Appeals to reach a favorable conclusion, as
well as the burden of persuasion on those issues referenced
herein, remains the responsibility of the applicant seeking the
variance. (7 -1 -97)
e. Interpretations.
{1)
The Board of Zoning Appeals is authorized to interpret the
zoning map and to pass upon disputed questions of lot or
zoning boundary lines and similar questions. If such questions
arise in the context of an appeal from a decision of the Zoning
Administrator, they shall be handled as provided in Section 1-
1019.C, Appeals.
(2) An application for a map interpretation shall be submitted to
the Board of Zoning Appeals by filing a copy of the
application with the Zoning Administrator. The application
shall contain sufficient information to enable the Board to
make the necessary interpretation (7- 1 -97).
(3) Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of zones as
shown on the Official Zoning Map, the following rules shall
apply (7- 1 -97):
(A) Boundaries indicated as approximately following the
centerline of alleys, streets, highways, streams, or
railroads shall be construed to follow such centerline (7 -1-
97).
(B) Boundaries indicated as approximately following lot lines,
corporate limits of a municipality and County boundary
9
lines shall be construed as following such lines, limits or
boundaries (7- 1 -97).
(C) Boundaries indicated as following shorelines shall be
construed to follow such shorelines, and in the event of
change in the shoreline shall be construed as following
such shorelines (7- 1 -97).
(D) Where a zoning boundary divides a lot or where distances
are not specifically indicated on the Official Zoning Map,
the boundary shall be determined by measurement, using
the scale of the Official Zoning Map (7- 1 -97).
(E) Where any street or alley is hereafter officially vacated or
abandoned, the regulations applicable to each parcel of
abutting property shall apply to that portion of such street
or alley added thereto by virtue of such vacation or
abandonment (7- 1 -97).
(4) Interpretations of the location of floodway and floodplain
boundary lines or boundaries shall be made by the Zoning
Administrator. (7 -1 -97)
Hearing required on appeals, and variances.
(1) Before making a decision on an appeal or an application for a
variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall hold a hearing on
the appeal or application and shall give due notice to the
parties of interest a public notice as required by Section 15.2-
431 15.2 -2204 (A) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
(2) The Board of Zoning Appeals shall fix a reasonable time
for the hearing of an application or appeal, give public notice
thereof as well as due notice to the parties in interest and
decide the same within ninety (90) days of the filing of the
application or appeal. In exercising its powers the Board may
reserve or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify an order,
requirement, decision or determination appealed from. The
concurring vote of a majority of the membership of the Board
members shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement,
decision or determination of an administrative officer or to
decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is
required to pass under the ordinance or to effect any variance
from the ordinance. The Board shall keep minutes of its
proceedings and other official actions, which shall be filed in
the office of the Zoning Administrator and shall be public
record. The Chairman of the Board, or in his absence the Vice-
1 0
(1)
(3)
Chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of
witnesses.
(3) The hearing shall be open to the public and all people
aggrieved by the outcome of the appeal or application shall be
given an opportunity to present testimony and ask questions of
persons who testify (7- 1 -97).
(4) The Board of Zoning Appeals may continue the hearing until a
subsequent meeting and may keep the hearing open to take
additional information up to the point a final decision is made.
In no event shall a continuance of the hearing extend the time
frame for rendering a decision beyond the maximum days
permitted by statute and subsection F(2), Hearing Required on
Appeals, and Variances of this ordinance.
g. Appeal of decision of board of zoninappeals.
Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by a
decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, or any taxpayer or
any officer, department, board or bureau of the County may
present to the Circuit Court of the County of Isle of Wight a
petition specifying the grounds on which aggrieved within
thirty (30) days after the final decision by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. (7- 1 -97).
(2) Upon the presentation of such petition, the court shall allow a
writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals and shall prescribe therein the time within which a
return thereto must be made and served upon the realtor's
attorney, which shall not be less than ten (10) days and may be
extended by the court. The allowance of the writ shall not stay
proceedings upon the decision appealed from, but the court
may, on application, on notice to the Board and on due cause
shown, grant a restraining order (7- 1 -97).
The Board of Zoning Appeals shall not be required to return
the original papers acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient to
return certified or sworn copies thereof or of such portions
thereof as may be called for by such writ. The return shall
concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and
material to show the ground of the decision appealed from and
shall be verified (7- 1 -97).
(4) If, upon the hearing, it shall appear to the court that testimony
is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may
take evidence or appoint a commissioner to take such evidence
as it may direct and report the same to the court with his
11
(5)
findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute
a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the
court shall be made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly
or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review (7-
1 -97).
Costs shall not be allowed against the Board, unless it shall
appear to the court that it acted in bad faith or with malice in
making the decision appealed therefrom.( 7-1 -97)
h. Taxes and fees must be paid.
(1) Taxes
(2) Fees
(3)
All real estate taxes and any outstanding fees or charges must
be current at such time an application is submitted for all
variance or appeal.
An application for a variance or appeal shall be accompanied
by the prescribed application fee in accordance with Table 3
(Isle of Wight County Fee Schedule). No application shall be
considered complete until the fee is paid.
Fees for Engineering/Consultant Review
If in the discretion of the County review of any request for a
variance or appeal by any outside engineering firm or other
consultant expert in the field of the request is deemed
necessary, the landowner /applicant shall be required to pay the
fee for such review prior to consideration of the request by the
County.
Sec. 1 -1020. Nonconforminz situations.
(a) General description.
(1) If, within zoning district classifications established by this
ordinance, or amendments subsequently adopted, there exist
lots, buildings, structures or uses of land which were lawful
prior to the enactment of this ordinance, or subsequent
amendments, and which would not conform to regulations and
restrictions under the terms of this ordinance or amendments
thereto, or which could not be built or used under this
ordinance, such nonconformities may continue to exist subject
to the regulations contained in this section (7- 1 -97).
12
(2) The purpose of this article is to restrict
buildings, structures, and uses, and to
circumstances and conditions under
nonconforming buildings, structures, and
permitted to continue.
(b) Changes in district boundaries.
Whenever the boundaries of a district are changed, any uses of land
or buildings, which become nonconforming as a result of such
changes shall become subject to the provisions of this section. (7 -1-
97)
(c) Continuation.
(1) Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to authorize the
impairment of any lawful nonconforming situation; except,
that land, buildings and structures and the uses thereof which
do not conform to the regulations and restrictions prescribed
for the district in which they are situated may be continued
only so long as the existing or a more restricted use continues
and such use is not discontinued for more than two (2) years,
and so long as the buildings or structures are maintained in
their then structural condition; and that the uses of such
buildings or structures are continued in their then intensity and
condition; and that the uses of such buildings or structures
shall conform to such regulations whenever they are enlarged,
extended, are reconstructed or structurally altered; and no
nonconforming building or structure may be moved on the
same lot or to any other lot which is not properly zoned to
permit such nonconforming use.
(2) Any lot reduced in area or yard setback to a nonconforming lot
by reason of a re- alignment or dedication of any existing
public highway or by reason of a condemnation proceeding, is
considered to be a nonconforming lot of record. Any lawful
structure on the lot before such reduction in lot size occurs, by
which such action is rendered nonconforming, shall be
considered a legal nonconforming structure and may continue.
However, this provision does not apply to the creation of new
streets in a proposed subdivision (7- 1 -97).
(3)
13
nonconforming
specify those
which such
uses shall be
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the land
owner or home owner from removing a valid nonconforming
manufactured home from a mobile or Manufactured Home
Park and replacing that home with another comparable
manufactured home that meets the current HUD manufactured
housing code. In such mobile or manufactured home park, a
(1)
single - section home may replace a single- section home and a
multi- section home may replace a multi - section home. The
owner of a valid nonconforming mobile or manufactured home
not located in a mobile or manufactured home park may
replace that home with a newer manufactured home, either
single- or multi - section, that meets the current HUD
manufactured housing code. Any such replacement home shall
retain the valid nonconforming status of the prior home
pursuant to Section 15.2 -2307 of the Code of Virginia.
(4) The burden of proof for determining nonconforming status
shall be with the applicant. (7 -1 -97)
(d) Verification of nonconforming uses prior to anv changes in
nonconforming use or structure.
Prior to the approval of any change in, enlargement, extension,
are reconstruction, or structural alteration of, a nonconforming
use or structure, the lawful status of the use shall be verified in
writing by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning
Administrator may also verify in writing the lawful status of a
nonconforming use not proposed to change upon the request of
the owner of the property on which the use or structure is
located or upon the request of a neighboring property owner.
(2) In verifying the lawful status of a nonconforming use, the
Zoning Administrator shall determine the following:
(A) Whether the use, in fact, is a lawful nonconforming use as
defined by this Article; and, if so, then:
(B) The location and floor area (in square feet) of all buildings
associated with the nonconforming use; and
(C) The location, use and size of all structures other than
buildings associated with the nonconforming use, and
(D) The area of land (in square feet) devoted to all aspects of
the nonconforming use (including buildings, parking,
outside storage, travel ways, open spaces, etc.); and
(E) A description of the principal use(s) and all accessory uses
that make up the lawful nonconforming use as a whole.
(3) Classification of use.
If such determination results in the use, or any portion, being
verified as a lawful nonconforming use, the Zoning
14
Administrator shall classify the overall nonconforming use of
the property based on the zoning district in which the use
would be a permitted use. If the use would be permitted in
more than one (1) zoning district, the assigned classification
shall be based on the Zoning District that is the least intense of
all districts where the use would be permitted. The assignment
of such a zoning classification shall not operate to change the
zoning of the property on which the nonconforming use is
located, but shall be used only in determining the applicable
criteria for change of the nonconformance use under the
provisions of Section 1- 1020(e), Permitted Changes of
Nonconforming Uses and Structures.
(4) Basis for the Zoning Administrator's Decision
The decision of the Zoning Administrator shall be based on
information provided by the owner of the property on which
the nonconforming use is located, on information provided by
other persons with knowledge of the property and on any other
information available to the Zoning Administrator as public
record. Such information may include, but shall be limited to,
permits, licenses, tax records, receipts, business records,
photographs, plats, plans, bills, utility information, assessment
information, and sworn affidavits from individuals with
personal knowledge of the use and/or the property on which
the use is located.
(e) Permitted Changes of Nonconforming Uses and Structures
(1) If the proposed change in use is from an existing non-
conforming use to a use that will conform to a use permitted in
the zoning district in which the property is located, the
property owner must make application for the change in use in
accordance with Section 5 -1003, Change in Use, and Section
1- 1013(a)(1), Zoning permit Required and Occupancy Permit
Guidelines, in the same manner as authorized to make an initial
use of a vacant lot.
If, and in the event, conformity of land use with this Ordinance
is achieved, the property may not later revert to the
nonconforming use.
(2) If the intended change in use is to a principal use that is
permitted by right in the zoning district classification where the
property is located, but all of the requirements of this
ordinance applicable to that use cannot be complied with, then
an exception or waiver, as required by the applicable sections
of this ordinance shall be obtained from the appropriate
15
(3)
(f) Repairs and maintenance
A nonconforming structure may be repaired, provided such repair
constitutes only routine maintenance necessary to keep the structure
in the same general condition it was in when it originally became
nonconforming.
(g) Expansion /Improvements to Nonconforming Uses and Structures
(1)
(2) Any permitted expansion shall occur only on the lot occupied
by the nonconforming use or structure and no area of any lot
not originally devoted to the nonconforming use shall be
utilized for any aspect of such expansions.
(3)
approval authority. In considering such requests, financial
hardship shall not be considered as justification for the
exception or waiver, if approved.
A nonconforming use or structure may be changed, enlarged,
extended, are reconstructed or structurally altered only in
accordance with the provisions of this Article and subject to
the appropriate approvals (including, among others,
verification of the nonconforming use, site plan approval,
building permit approval and zoning approval under this
ordinance) otherwise required by law.
A nonconforming use may be extended throughout any portion
of a completed building that, when the use was made
nonconforming by this ordinance, was designed or arranged to
accommodate such use, provided, that current parking
requirements shall be adhered to upon such extension.
A nonconforming structure may be altered to decrease its
nonconformity. (7 -1 -97)
(4) Minor alterations, cosmetic modifications, interior renovations
and similar changes for nonconforming uses or structures may
be permitted, subject to the following standards:
(A) Any building or structure that is conforming as to use, but
is nonconforming as to the requirements of this chapter,
including floor area, lot, yard, road frontage, setback,
parking, loading spaces, fences, signs or height
requirements, may be enlarged or structurally altered, if
the alteration or enlargement complies with this article.
(B) Such construction shall meet all current use requirements
for the zoning district assigned by the zoning
16
administrator as a part of the nonconforming use
verification process.
(5) A nonconforming single- family detached dwelling may not be
expanded, except as provided for in this Article. In addition,
new or expanded detached residential accessory structures or
uses (such as a storage shed, garage, swimming pool, etc.) may
be permitted subject to the provisions of this Article.
Expansion of the dwelling and new or expanded detached
accessory structures and uses shall meet all current zoning
requirements, including height, yard and setbacks, for the
zoning district in which they are located. In no case shall a
nonconforming one- family dwelling be modified to
accommodate additional dwelling units.
(6) For commercial, industrial, other non- residential uses or
residential uses, other than a single family detached use, where
the use is compatible with the proposed land use district as
designated by the Comprehensive Plan, but where the current
zoning requirements (including, but not limited to, parking,
yards, setbacks, landscaping, screening and buffering, height,
signs, lot coverage, connection to public sewer and water) are
not met, expansion of the building, and expansion of the land
area within the lot devoted to activities other than buildings,
may be approved, provided all current zoning requirements
applicable to the expansion are met.
(A) A one -time exemption may be granted by the Zoning
Administrator for properties located in the Highway
Corridor Overlay District in accordance with Section 6-
1005.D.
(7) For commercial, industrial and other non - residential uses not
connected to public water and sewer, where the expansion of a
use compatible with the proposed land use district as
designated by the Comprehensive Plan, and meeting all zoning
requirements except for connection to public water and sewer,
expansion of buildings and the land area within the lot devoted
to activities other than buildings may be permitted subject to a
waiver granted by the Board of Supervisors upon
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
(8) Existing commercial, industrial and other non - residential uses
compatible with the proposed land use district as designated by
the Comprehensive Plan, and which have been made
nonconforming with respect to open space, perimeter
landscape requirements or setback requirements as a result of a
right -of -way dedication to the County or the Virginia
17
Department of Transportation without compensation shall be
allowed to expand the buildings and the land area devoted to
the activity only to the extent that would have been permitted
under the ordinance requirements prior to the dedication.
(9) Improvements may be made to a nonconforming use or
structure for the sole purpose of accessibility or public safety
when such improvements are necessitated by a local, state, or
federal law. Such improvements may be approved by the
Zoning Administrator and are not subject to Items 3, 4 and 5 of
Section 1- 1020.G.
(h) Restoration or Replacement
(1)
A residential or commercial nonconforming structure damaged
or destroyed by a natural disaster, casualty, or other act of God,
may be repaired, rebuilt or replaced to eliminate or reduce the
nonconforming features to the extent possible, without the
need to obtain a variance. If such building is damaged greater
than 50 percent and cannot be repaired, rebuilt or replaced
except to restore it to its original nonconforming condition, the
owner of the property shall have the right to do so. The owner
shall apply for a zoning and building permit and any work
done to repair, rebuild or replace such building shall be in
compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Statewide
Building Code and any work done to repair, rebuild or replace
such building shall be in compliance with the provisions of the
Flood Plain Management Overlay District as contained in
Article VI of this ordinance. Unless such building is repaired
rebuilt or replaced and construction completed within two (2)
years of the date of the natural disaster, casualty, or other act of
God, such building shall only be repaired, rebuilt or replaced in
accordance with the provisions of Section H(2) below.
However, if the nonconforming building is in area under a
federal disaster declaration and the building has been damaged
or destroyed as a direct result of conditions that gave rise to the
declaration, an additional two (2) years shall be provided for
the building to be repaired, rebuilt or replaced as otherwise
provided in this paragraph.
(A)One (1) extension not exceeding ninety (90) days may be
granted by the Zoning Administrator if it is determined that
such additional time is required to reasonably complete the
construction, repair or rebuild the replacement residence.
(2) "Casualty" shall mean as result of a fire or other cause beyond
the control of the owner or by an act of nature, and shall not be
caused by age or ordinary wear and tear or damage intentionally
18
caused by the owner or an agent thereof. For purposes of this
section, "act of God" shall include any natural disaster or
phenomena including a hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high
water, wind - driven water, tidal wave, earthquake or fire caused
by lightning or wildfire. For purposes of this section, owners of
property damaged by accidental fire have the same rights to
rebuild such property as if it were damaged by an act of God.
Nothing herein shall be construed to enable the property owner
to commit an arson under Section 18.2 -77 or 18.2 -80 of the
Code of Virginia, and obtain vested rights under this section.
(3) All other nonconforming uses or structures destroyed or
damaged in any manner, to the extent that the cost of
restoration to its condition before such an occurrence shall
exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the current replacement value of
the structure at the time of damage, it shall be restored only if it
complies with the requirements of this ordinance.
(A) When such use or structure is damaged less than fifty
percent (50 %) of the cost of reconstructing the entire use
or structure, it may be repaired or restored; provided, any
such repair or restoration is started within twelve (12)
months and completed within eighteen (18) months from
the date of partial destruction.
(4) The cost of land or any factors other than the cost of the
structure are excluded in the determination of cost of
restoration for any structure or activity devoted to a
nonconforming use. (7 -1 -97)
(5) Nonconforming uses other than buildings and signs (such as,
but limited to, underground storage tanks, private sewage
disposal systems and parking lots) may be restored or replaced
when such structures become unsafe or unsound. A relocation
on the same lot may be approved by the Zoning Administrator,
provided the new location is less nonconforming than the
original location, and further provided that the new location
shall not cause a greater detrimental impact on conforming
uses in the neighborhood.
(6) Such restoration shall not include any minor alterations,
cosmetic modifications, interior renovations or similar changes
unless approved under the provisions of Section 1- 1020.G,
Expansion/Improvements to Nonconforming Uses and
Structures, of this Article, nor shall such restoration include
any expansion unless approved under the provisions of Section
1- 1020.G, Expansion/Improvements to Nonconforming Uses
and Structures. Such restoration may include changes that
19
make the use less nonconforming than it was prior to the
casualty.
(7) Redevelopment of a site which is non - conforming as to lot
coverage standards shall be permitted to maintain lot coverage
on site equal to or less than the existing impervious coverage
on site at the time of redevelopment, provided that the post -
development stormwater runoff shall meet the quality and
quantity requirements or the County Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Ordinance and stormwater management
regulations.
(i) Moving a Nonconforming Use or Structure
No structure used as part of a nonconforming use shall be moved to
any other lot unless such lot is properly zoned to permit the use, nor
shall such a structure be moved within the lot on which it exists,
unless a relocation is specifically provided for in other sections of
this Article.
(j) Certifications
(1) The construction or use of a nonconforming building or Iand
area for which a zoning permit was issued legally prior to the
adoption of this ordinance may proceed, provided such
building is complete within one (1) year or such use of land is
established within thirty (30) days after the effective date of
this ordinance. (7 -1 -97)
(k) Undeveloped Nonconforming Lots
(1) This section applies only to undeveloped nonconforming lots.
A lot is undeveloped if it has no principal building upon it or if
there is a principal building upon it which is physically unsafe
or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and is
declared by a duly authorized official to be unsafe or unlawful
by reason of physical condition. A change in use of a
developed nonconforming lot may be accomplished in
accordance with Section 5 -1003.
(2) When a nonconforming lot can be used in conformity with all
of the regulations applicable to the intended use, except that
the lot is nonconforming as to the lot area, lot width and/or
frontage, or lot depth, or a combination thereof, required by the
zoning district, unless specifically prohibited, the lot may be
used as proposed just as if it were conforming, provided all
other requirements of the zoning district are met or the Board
20
of Zoning Appeals establishes setbacks in accordance Section
1 -1019, Provisions for Appeals, Variances, Interpretations.
(A) If a lot lacks street frontage, it must be documented that
the lot has an unrestricted right of ingress and egress to a
public street. (7 -1 -97)
(3) For undeveloped lots zoned for commercial, industrial and
other non- residential uses located in the Highway Corridor
Overlay District, the Board of Supervisors upon
recommendation from the Planning Commission may grant
exemptions, whether partial or total, from Highway Corridor
Overlay provisions in accordance with Section 6- 1005(d),
Exemptions to the Highway Corridor District Requirements.
(4) If two (2) or more undeveloped lots or combinations of lots
with continuous frontage under the same ownership are of
record at the same time of passage or amendment of this
article, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the
requirements established for lot area and width, the lands
involved shall be considered to be an unsubdivided parcel for
the purposes of this article, and no portion of said parcel shall
be used or sold in a manner diminishing compliance with the
area and width requirements applicable to such nonconforming
lot (7- 1 -97).
This subsection shall not apply to a nonconforming lot if it is
determined that a majority of the developed lots located on
either side of the street where such nonconforming lot is
located and within five (500) hundred feet of such lot are also
nonconforming. The intent of this subsection is to require
nonconforming lots to be combined with other undeveloped
lots to create conforming lots, but not to require such
combinations when it would be clearly out of character with
the manner in which the neighborhood had previously been
developed (7- 1 -97).
Abandonment and discontinuance of nonconforming situation
(1) In the event a nonconforming use ceases for a period of two (2)
years or more, then the nonconforming use shall be deemed
abandoned and compliance with this ordinance shall be
required. The casual, temporary or illegal use of land or
structure does not establish the existence of a nonconforming
use.
(2) When a structure or use made nonconforming by this
ordinance is vacant or discontinued at the effective date of this
21
ordinance, the two (2) year period for purposes of this article
begins to run on the effective date of this ordinance.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw,
Brown, Casteen and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors
voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the vote.
Chairman Brown called for a public hearing on the following:
B. An ordinance to amend the following sections of Appendix A,
"Subdivisions," also known as the County Subdivision
Ordinance: Section 5.2, "Responsibility for Improvements" and
Section 6.2, "Monument Placement and Materials."
Ms. Ring advised that the proposed amendments are a result of recent
legislative changes by the General Assembly.
Chairman Brown called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the proposed amendments.
No one appeared and spoke.
Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the following Ordinance be adopted:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE
BY AMENDING AND REENACTING APPENDIX A, "SUBDIVISIONS,"
ALSO KNOWN AS THE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE:
SECTION 5.2, "RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS" AND
SECTION 6.2, "MONUMENT PLACEMENT AND MATERIALS."
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 also seeks
to allow flexibility in the administration of the ordinance regulations while
protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of present and future
residents and businesses of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County
Board of Supervisors that Appendix A, Subdivisions, Section 5.2,
"Responsibility For Improvements" and Section 6.2, "Monument Placement
22
and Materials" of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended and reenacted
as follows:
5.2 Responsibility For Improvements
A. The applicant is responsible for providing all required
improvements in conformance with the requirements of this
Ordinance and any other applicable ordinances, codes, rules, or
regulations. All costs associated with the installation of said
improvements remains the responsibility of the applicant and any
bond or other fiscal surety posted as a condition of approval may
not be released until construction has been inspected and approved
by the appropriate engineer or regulating authority (see Section
3.2.8.E, Performance Guarantee). The following forms of fiscal
surety will be accepted:
Cash
Cashier's Check
Certified Check
Surety Bond
Letter of Credit
Any other form of surety must be approved by the Isle of Wight
County Attorney prior to acceptance.
B. The amount of such fiscal surety shall not exceed the total of the
estimated cost of construction based on unit prices for new public or
private section construction in the County and a reasonable
allowance for estimated administrative costs, inflation, and potential
damage to existing roads or utilities, which shall not exceed 10
percent of the estimated construction costs.
Section 6.2, "Monument Placement and Materials"
6.2.1 Benchmarks /Coordinate System
6.2.2 General
A. All monuments must be installed by the subdivider and must meet the
minimum specifications.
B. Prior to recordation of the final plat, all boundary monuments_required
by paragraph 6.2.3 (below) are required to be set. The professional engineer
or land surveyor preparing the plat may include certification (on the plat) that
any additional monuments required by this Section will be set on or before a
specified later date. This date must be approved by the Subdivision Agent.
23
C. Upon completion of subdivision streets, sewers and other
improvements, the subdivider must make certain that all required monuments
are clearly visible for inspection and use.
D. The setting of any monument at any time after recordation of the final
plat will be determined from direct measurements between the established
monuments of record rather than as precisely stated or shown on the recorded
plat.
6.2.3 Specific
A. All boundaries, both exterior and interior, of the original survey
for the subdivision must be marked as provided in 18 VAC § 10-
20-370(B), and as further required by this Section.
B. All street corners, lot corners, all points where the street line
intersects the exterior boundaries of the subdivision, and at right
angle points, and points of curve in each street shall be marked
with reinforced steel rod not less than five - eighths inch in
diameter or galvanized pipe not less than three - fourths inch in
diameter, said rod and/or pipe to be at least 24 inches long and
driven so as to be flush with the finished grade.
C. At least two of the required monuments shall be stone or
reinforced concrete, 30 inches long by four inches wide or five
inches in diameter. These monuments shall be set at opposite
ends of the subdivision. The remaining monuments materials
may be:
1) Iron pipe at least three - quarter inches in diameter and at least
22 inches in length; or
2) Solid square or round iron bars, 22 inches in length, with a
minimum weight of 1.043 pounds per linear foot.
D. New major subdivisions may be required to provide at least two
new benchmarks in a location to be specified by the Subdivision
Agent.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw,
Brown, Casteen and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors
voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the vote.
Chairman Brown called for a public hearing on the following:
C. The application of the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors
and the Isle of Wight County School Board to remove Tax Map
Number 39 -01 -014, 13100 Poor House Road, approximately 14.6
acres owned by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors
for the purpose of constructing an animal shelter, and Tax Map
Number 39- 01 -014A, 17061 Education Drive, approximately 6.3
24
acres owned by the Isle of Wight County School Board, from the
Courthouse Historic District.
Ms. Ring presented the application for the Board's consideration.
Chairman Brown called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the application.
William Bell, on behalf of the Isle of Wight Ruritan Club, expressed
that organization's desire to be removed from the Courthouse Historic
District.
Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the advertisement for the
public hearing tonight is for the County's and School's application and does
not include the Ruritan property. He advised that in order for the Ruritan
Club to be considered for removal from the Courthouse Historic District, the
request must be sent to the Planning Commission for its consideration and
then back to the Board.
Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Wright moved that consideration of the application be
deferred to Old Business and the arrival of Supervisor Clark. The motion
was adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen
and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the
motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the vote.
Chairman Brown called for a public hearing on the following:
D. The request of Isle of Wight County, owner, for a Conditional
Use Permit on Tax Map Parcel 39 -01 -014. Said property,
approximately 14.66 acres, is located on the east side of
Courthouse Highway (Route 258), south of Poor House Road
(Route 692) in the Windsor Election District. The proposed use
of the property is for replacement of the animal control shelter.
Ms. Ring presented the application.
Chairman Brown called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the request.
No one appeared and spoke.
Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Wright moved that the application be deferred to Old
Business and the arrival of Supervisor Clark. The motion was adopted by a
vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen and Wright voting
in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and,
Supervisor Clark absent for the vote.
Chairman Brown called for a public hearing on the following:
E. The request of Carrollton Village LLC, owner, and
Commonwealth Engineering, applicant, for a rezoning of Tax
Map Parcels 34 -01 -108 and 34- 01 -108B in the Newport
Development Service District from Rural Agricultural
Conservation (RAC) to Conditional - General Commercial (C-
GC). Said property, approximately 8.028 acres, is located on the
east side of Carrollton Boulevard (Rt. 17), south of Sugar Hill
Road (Rt. 661) in the Newport Election District. The proposed
use of the property is for a proposed office condominium and
retail development.
Ms. Ring presented the application for the Board's consideration.
Chairman Brown called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the request.
Robert Burnett, 15150 Batise Estates, read a letter into the record from
his wife voicing her concern that a number of issues still remain unresolved.
He read that no ordinance exists and no exits have been established for the
buffer. He read that a commercial building located in close proximity to a
residential area will decrease surrounding property values by 10 %. He
recommended that the density of the plan be reduced and that the developer
needs to proffer a light at the Sugar Hill/Route 17 intersection.
Mr. Burnett read a letter from his neighbor, Mr. Batise of 15156 Batise
Court, stating that recommendations regarding lighting, landscaping,
buffering, roads, trash pick -up and fence elevation have not been included in
a proffer, as promised by Mr. Cohen. He read that Mr. Cohen and an
adjacent property owner have also not yet resolved certain issues currently on
the table. He requested that the landscaping buffer be extended 100 yards
from the adjacent property line with the road part of the buffer area. He also
requested that the statement by Mr. Cohen that the rear of the building would
be identical to the front be added to the proffers and that funds for a traffic
light on Highway 17 also be proffered.
Thomas Finderson of the Newport District commented that it is
upsetting to him to hear that there are two (2) different opinions regarding
where the property lines are located. He noted that Mr. Cohen has not
proffered that there will be no adult book store and he expressed concern that
the conceptual drawing shown by Mr, Cohen only depicts the front elevation
26
and not the rear. He noted that Mr. Cohen also has not proffered a storm
water outfall and that he should be required to mitigate the left -turn visibility
problem at Sugar Hill Road. He commented that if Mr. Cohen had wanted to
be citizen friendly, he would have offered office in the rear and retail in the
front, which would be quieter. He noted that there is more square footage in
this project than Eagle Harbor and there is also less acreage and he would
request that the Board deny the project until it becomes citizen friendly.
Sharon Hart of the Newport District commented that this commercial
project is too dense to be in the middle of all the surrounding residential
properties. She commented that development should not only be business
friendly, but citizen friendly. She stated that this project, as proposed, will
devalue the homes in Batise Estates and she recommended that the density be
reduced. She stated that the residential lots on Brogain Lane need to be
included in the green buffer and the proffers need to state that the commercial
entrance road and the 50 -foot right -of -way for a future road will be outside of
the buffer. She stated that the condition under Item 2C of the proffers should
go with the deed to any future owner. She recommended that Mr. Cohen set
aside a proffer in case a stop light is warranted in the future. She stated that
the trees are not located on the Batise property and Mr. Cohen should be
required to provide a buffer. She stated that the residents of Batise Estates
have requested that the following uses be prohibited: commercial kennel,
communication tower and restaurant drive -in fast food; however, they have
not been included in the proffers.
Mitchell Wilcox, Commonwealth Engineering, responded that the
reason that the uses above were not included in the proffers is because they
all require a Conditional Use Permit. He stated with respect to the tree line,
when Mr. Cohen comes back for site plan approval, the plan will require a 25
foot buffer. He advised that pursuant to the requests of residents for a fence,
Mr. Cohen will be providing a fence or berm, whichever they prefer.
Elliott Cohen, applicant, advised that he had received an email this
afternoon from Mr. Batise after meeting with him and believing that all
concerns had been addressed. He stated with respect to lighting, he has
explained to Mr. Batise that the ordinance not only requires that the applicant
show the location of the light poles, but requires that the applicant do a full
page with lighting engineer illustrating where the light is going to fall on the
property. He stated with respect to the landscape and buffer concerns, he
advised that he has included in his proffers the fence that Mr. Batise
requested. He added that he has also proffered 50 feet so that the County can
build a road through his property to the back of Brogain Lane to achieve the
connectivity that is desired. He advised that trash pickup has been proffered
after 6 :00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. if possible, because he is unsure if he can proffer
something that he has no personal control over. He stated with respect to the
finished building elevation, there will be dormers built into an "A" frame
roof which doubles the space. He stated that the entire building, front and
back, will be constructed of brick with a tiled roof. He stated with respect to
27
a traffic light, VDOT is not requiring a light at this time. He stated with
respect to Mr. Burnett's concerns with the buffer, the County has buffer
requirements which are being met by him.
Lois Martin of Carrollton advised that he was unaware of the request
until arriving at the meeting tonight. He stated that the proposed building
backs up to his property and the proposed roadway coming in Brogain Lane
is located on his property. He stated that there is already a right -of -way
coming into his property off of Sugar Hill Road.
Chairman Brown closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Chairman Brown inquired if Mr. Martin had been properly notified as
an adjacent property owner.
Ms. Ring responded that staff surveys for all adjacent properties and
sends out public notices for each application requiring a public hearing to all
adjacent property owners.
Supervisor Casteen moved that the request be deferred to Old Business
and the arrival of Supervisor Clark. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-
0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen and Wright voting in favor of
the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Clark
absent for the vote.
//
//
/1
Chairman Brown declared a recess.
Upon returning to open meeting, Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the
Board return to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted by
a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen and Wright
voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and,
Supervisor Clark absent for the vote.
Chairman Brown called for the continuation of the presentation from
Lee McClure, Construction Control Corporation of Virginia, Brent Jeffcoat,
McGuire- Woods, LLP and Joe Niggel, Southwest Securities regarding school
construction.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the information be sent to the Board's
Budget and Finance Committee for review and study. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen and
28
Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the
motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the vote.
11
Fred Glanville, President, Isle of Wight Christian Outreach Program,
Inc., requested funding in the amount of $3,000 to assist with that
organization's food program.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the request be referred to County
Administrator Caskey and staff for consideration and recommendation back
to the Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors
Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no
Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the
vote.
Nancy Guill, on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association, notified the
Board about an upcoming memory walk on Saturday, October 17, 2009
beginning at 10:00 a.m. at the Joyner Field on Main Street in Smithfield.
Supervisor Clark arrived at the meeting.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that staff be directed to advertise the
Alzheimer's Association's memory walk on the County's PEG channel. 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 Regional Reports.
With respect to the meeting of the Hampton Roads Economic
Development Alliance, Supervisor Bradshaw reported that the Secretary of
Commerce spoke on the State's activities. He advised that there are currently
127 active projects being worked on in the Hampton Roads area, of which 34
are new. He noted that the total number of projects for last year was 129.
With respect to the meeting of the Hampton Roads Metropolitan
Planning Organization, Supervisor Clark reported that transportation
initiatives will be reprioritized and the public engaged in the process by
conducting public hearings.
With respect to the meeting of the Hampton Roads Partnership,
Chairman Brown reported on the recent conference he had attended in
Williamsburg. He advised that the County was complimented for its
planning for the intermodal park with respect to the development of
29
warehouses, which are located near major transportation centers, as well as
the County's investment in water.
With respect to the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission,
Supervisor Clark reported that only routine business had been discussed.
County Administrator Caskey reported that presentations were received
at the Southside Mayors and Chairs Caucus meeting by Opportunity, Inc.
regarding regional efforts to continue workforce development and the
summer youth employment program. He advised that Mayor Fraim had also
provided an update on the high speed rail effort from Petersburg to the City
of Norfolk.
With respect to the Social Services Board meeting, Chairman Brown
reported that the summer youth employment program had been very
successful. He advised that the Homeless Prevention Rapid Rehousing
Program received a grant in the amount of $363,000, of which 1/3 of that
funding will be received by the County. He advised that the County also
received $16,000 in stimulus funding for this year for a fee -based childcare
grant. He expressed the Social Services Board's concern that its request for a
new fire alarm has not been addressed by the Board.
With respect to the Western Tidewater Regional Jail, Chairman Brown
reported that the Superintendent's evaluation has been completed. He
advised that while no monetary reward had been given due to budgetary
constraints, a letter of commendation is to be placed in his personnel file. He
stated that the Authority was encouraged to submit a letter to the regional jail
in order to capitalize on inmate services for grass cutting and maintenance of
the roads.
Supervisor Clark reported that the Southeastern Public Service
Authority has opted to accept an offer from Wheelabrator for the waste -to-
energy plant; however, another proposal has been offered from ReEnergy
Holdings, LLC to purchase the entire operation of SPSA. He advised that
authoritative legislation requires that SPSA review and consider all bids or
proposals under that legislation that has a possibility of reducing any of
SPSA's costs. He advised that SPSA members favor the Wheelabrator
contract because ReEnergy had the opportunity to bid on the original waste -
to- energy sale, but choose not to, and one (1) of the contractual provisions of
the ReEnergy offer is that each member jurisdiction remain in SPSA for an
additional twenty (20) years, which is an unacceptable provision. He advised
that as soon as the procedural requirements are met, he anticipates that SPSA
will reject the ReEnergy proposal as being non - responsive. He requested that
the Board adopt a resolution stating that the Board will not agree to enter into
a twenty (20) year agreement as proposed by ReEnergy Holdings, LLC under
any circumstances.
30
Supervisor Clark moved that the following Resolution be adopted and
that the letter be presented to the SPSA Board at its next meeting:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, ReEnergy Holdings, LLC. has recently filed a unsolicited
non- binding proposal with the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA)
to purchase all of SPSA's assets; and
WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), requires SPSA
to accept and review ReEnergy Holdings, LLC's proposal; and
WHEREAS, one of the terms of ReEnergy Holdings, LLC's proposal is
for the eight (8) jurisdictions, who are members of SPSA, to enter into a
twenty (20) year agreement with the individual jurisdiction to provide its
solid waste from the jurisdictions to ReEnergy Holdings, LLC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of
Supervisors of Isle of Wight County that it will not agree to enter into a
twenty (20) year agreement as proposed by ReEnergy Holdings, LLC, under
any circumstances.
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 the Finance Committee, Supervisor Bradshaw reported
that a request received from the Department of Forestry is being deferred
until December. He advised that staff is currently undertaking conducting an
evaluation to determine the cost associated with the Department of Forestry
utilizing County facilities at no cost to the State. He advised that the CIP will
be considered and reviewed at the Planning Commission's December 2009
meeting with a public hearing in January 2010 and adoption at the Board's
February 2009 meeting. He advised that staff is recommending approval of
the request by the Social Services Board for a new alarm system in the
Human Services building.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the following Resolution be adopted:
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE FOR
HUMAN SERVICES FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia has approved the installation of a fire alarm system in the Human
Services building; and,
WHEREAS, funds in the amount up to fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000) need to be appropriated from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of
the General Fund to the FY 2009 -10 General Operating Budget of the County
of Isle of Wight, Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000) from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund be
appropriated to the FY 2009 -10 General Operating Budget of the County of
Isle of Wight, Virginia.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the
County of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate
accounting adjustment in the budget 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.
Supervisor Bradshaw reported that the Small Business Committee had
held a successful first organizational meeting.
Chairman Brown reported that Social Services currently pays $1.23 per
square foot monthly for the Human Services Building, of which they occupy
70 %, which equals $1,200 monthly, including electrical services.
Assistant County Attorney Popovich advised that the issue is with the
accounting methods used by the State versus those used by the County. He
advised that the purpose of the initial conversation with the County was to
inform the County that, from a State level, all local departments would be
scrutinized more closely by the State auditing offices.
/1
Chairman Brown called for Transportation Matters.
Eddie P. Wrightson, Director of General Services formally introduced
Todd Morrison, VDOT Eastern Region Traffic Signal Operations Manager,
who addressed the Board concerning signalization lights on Route 17 in the
area of Eagle Harbor. He advised the Board that VDOT is currently
conducting a Federal funded project along the Route 17 corridor from the
Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department to the James River Bridge to improve
traffic flow, which includes surveillance cameras with battery backup and the
capability to hook up a generator in the event of an extended power outage.
He stated that detection equipment is being installed to allow the system to
predict traffic increases southbound in case of a bridge lift.
32
1/
Chairman Brown called for Citizens Comments.
Bill Hayes, Hardy District, on behalf of the Isle of Wight Citizens
Association, advised that the Association has been concerned about the
Planning Commission over the last several months and makes the following
recommendations to the Board: 1) Reduce the Commission to seven (7)
members; 2) rotate the Chairman on an annual basis; 3) supply
Commissioners with meeting packets no later than Monday of the preceding
week to allow adequate time for review; 4) receive proffers to be received by
staff 15 days prior to hearing, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; 5)
Commissioners to review any promised changes to the proffers by the
applicant prior to being forwarded to the Board to ensure inclusion; 6)
recommend staff send a copy of subsequent changes by the Board to the
Commissioners for purposes of education; 7) members shall serve for four
(4) year terms in accordance with State code, at which time they must be
either reappointed or replaced; and, 8) review attendance and absentee
records of Commissioners to avoid issues with lack of quorum.
Emerson Martin advised the Board that he had received a letter from
the County as an adjoining property owner to the application for an office
condominium and retail development by Carrollton Village LLC; however,
he had been under the impression until tonight that his property would only
be impacted at its border. He advised that the proposed right -of -way will be
going through his property and he notified the Board that there is an existing
right of way parallel with Brogan Lane.
Sharon Hart commented that the transportation traffic study indicated
that Sugar Hill Road and Route 17 would fail at build out of the Cohen
property. She inquired if this would constitute a signal light at that
intersection.
MacFarland Neblett, VDOT Residency Administrator, responded that a
Level "E" does qualify the need for a traffic signal although he would need to
research when the left -hand turn out of Sugar Hill Road heading on Route 17
to the City of Suffolk is anticipated to reach that level.
Ms. Ring advised that the Traffic Impact Analysis did recommend
transportation improvements on Route 17 to increase the length of the left-
hand turn lane at Sugar Hill Road and the turn lane length at Cedar Grove.
Chairman Brown called for Board comments.
Supervisor Clark reported on a recent article in The Smithfield Times
which indicated that the Board was upset about Supervisor Casteen making a
33
Freedom of Information Act (FOAI) request; however, Supervisor Casteen
did not make such a request. He stated that the entire article is based on a
flawed premise that Supervisor Casteen made an FOIA request when he
actually made an informal request which could have been accepted or
rejected. He advised that if a formal FOIA request had been made, the
Treasurer's office would have been under an obligation to answer it. He
stated that this is not the only occurrence of misrepresentation from The
Smithfield Times, such as the article about the Board's motion directing
Supervisor Wright to investigate the option of being able to withdraw from
SPSA and the headline in the paper read that the Board opts out of SPSA
which completely and totally mislead the public. He commented that now
that the Board meetings are aired, the public is realizing that The Smithfield
Times' articles are not always factual. He commented that the Board was
discussing School Board issues at its last meeting and he had commented that
all public officials should be willing to meet with the public and the article in
The Smithfield Times made it seem like he was only applying those
comments to School Board members.
Supervisor Bradshaw advised that his comments at an earlier meeting
had also been misconstrued and taken out of context regarding consolidation
of services when articles were written that stated that he was in favor of
abolishing the School Board.
//
Chairman Brown called for the County Attorney's report.
Interim County Attorney Burton, pursuant to the Board's previous
direction, presented a withdrawal letter from the Chairman to the Executive
Director of the Southeastern Public Service Authority advising of the terms
and conditions of withdrawal of the County from the Authority.
Supervisor Casteen commented that he is an anxious as the other Board
members to withdraw from SPSA; however, he does not believe that sending
the letter will accomplish anything on the part of the County.
Supervisor Clark commented that chances are slim that the other
participating member jurisdictions will allow the County to withdraw from
SPSA; however, he did not see any harm in sending the letter.
Supervisor Wright moved that the Chairman be authorized to execute
the letter. 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 declared a 5 minute break.
34
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board return to open 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.
//
Chairman Brown called for the continuation of the County Attorney's
report.
Interim County Attorney Burton requested authorization to advertise
for public hearing at the Board's meeting on October 15, 2009 an Ordinance
to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Enacting Appendix
B -2. Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning.
Supervisor Wright moved that the County Attorney's office be
authorized to advertise the ordinance for public hearing at the Board's
October 15, 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.
Interim County Attorney Burton advised that he had four (4) matters to
discuss with the Board later in closed meeting.
//
Chairman Brown called for the General Services report.
Mr. Wright requested the Board's authorization to waive all permit fees
associated with the installation of private wells for residents and business
owners impacted by the privately owned water system which serves eighteen
(18) residents in the Walters community and which may fail at any time
because of the encroachment of sand and the condition of the pump. He
advised that the majority of the customers did not qualify for financial
assistance through the USDA, although some may be eligible for
Southeastern Rural Communities project loans. He advised that the cost for
the County to dig new wells and install a distribution system is estimated to
be $1 million dollars and it could not be done in the timeframe needed.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that authorization be given to waiving all
permit fees related to the installation of private wells for residents and
business owners impacted by the water system shutdown. 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.
35
Mr. Wrightson requested that the Board authorize a contract be
awarded to Rountree Construction Company in the low bid of $247,870.60
responsive to the sewer problem that has been occurring in Eagle Harbor at
Woodbridge Crossing and that the Chairman be authorized to execute the
agreement pending review by the County Attorney's office. He further
requested that the Board authorize the transfer and appropriation of CIP
funding in the amount of $252,870.60 from the Route 58 Water and Sewer
Extension Project to the Eagle Harbor Sewer Modifications Project at
Woodbridge.
Supervisor Wright moved that the contract be awarded for the Eagle
Harbor Sewer Modifications Project at Woodbridge Crossing to Rountree
Construction Company; that the Chairman be authorized to execute the
agreement pending review by the County Attorney's office; and, that the
following Resolution to Transfer Capital Improvement Program Funds from
the Route 58 Water and Sewer Extension Project to the Eagle Harbor Sewer
Modifications Project at Woodbridge be adopted:
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FUNDS FROM THE ROUTE 58 WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION
PROJECT TO THE EAGLE HARBOR SEWER MODIFICATIONS
PROJECT AT WOODBRIDGE
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia approves award of the Eagle Harbor Sewer Modifications Project at
Woodbridge to the low bidder; and,
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of two hundred fifty two thousand
eight hundred seventy dollars and sixty cents ($252,870.60) need to be
transferred from the Isle of Wight CIP Fund Balance for the Route 58 Water
and Sewer Extension Project and appropriated to the Eagle Harbor Sewer
Modifications Project at Woodbridge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that two hundred fifty two thousand
eight hundred seventy dollars and sixty cents ($252,870.60) be appropriated
via transfer to CIP funding for the Eagle Harbor Sewer Modifications.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the
County of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate
accounting adjustment in the budget 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.
36
Mr. Wrightson notified the Board that the Southeastern Public Service
Authority will be terminating recycling services in March, 2010. He also
advised that the first meeting of the Refuse/Recycling Committee is
scheduled for Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the General
Services conference room. He advised that the opportunity is being explored
of jointly soliciting recycling bids, to include in -house recycling efforts.
Mr. Wrightson formally introduced Frank Haltom, Assistant Director
of General Services, to the Board.
1/
Chairman Brown called for the Economic Development report.
Lisa T. Perry, Director of Economic Development, presented the Isle of
Wight County 2008 Annual Report.
Supervisor Wright moved that the 2008 Annual Report be approved for
distribution. 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 County Administrator's report.
Ron D. Reck, Director of Budget and Finance, presented a grant
request from the Victim Witness office associated with the Commonwealth
Attorney to solicit a grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services
under the V -STOP program. He advised that the grant does require a match
from the County, but in view of the short timeframe in which to submit it, he
would recommend that the Board proceed with authorizing the submission of
the grant application and allow him to meet with the Commonwealth
Attorney to identify the matching funds. He requested that the Board adopt a
revised resolution withholding acceptance of the grant until staff can identify
the matching funds.
Supervisor Clark moved that the Board adopt the following revised
Resolution authorizing submission of the grant application, but withholding
acceptance of the grant (if awarded) until Victim- Witness staff can identify
the matching funds.
GRANT APPLICATION AND TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES
37
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County desires to
support an application for funding from the Virginia Department of Criminal
Justice Services for the Victim Witness V -STOP Program.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight
County that a grant application for support of the V -Stop program may be
submitted and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisor's of Isle of
Wight County will withhold acceptance of the grant (if awarded) pending the
Commonwealth's Attorney identification of matching funds as are required
by the grant.
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.
Mr. Reck presented a Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Funds for
Comprehensive Services in association with Comprehensive Services Act
expenses, which are mandated by the State, for consideration by the Board.
2009
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the following Resolution be adopted:
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES
WHEREAS, Isle of Wight County is a participant in a regional
program to provides benefits in accordance with the State Comprehensive
Services Act, a program whose scope and benefits are mandated by the
Commonwealth and,
WHEREAS, CSA program guidelines require the County to make up
any deficit between the actual cost of services its budgeted contribution for
services at year end and;
WHEREAS, a deficit in the amount of $40,435 existed on June 30,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that an amount up to forty thousand
four hundred thirty-five ($40,435) from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of
the General Fund be appropriated to the FY 2008 -09 Comprehensive
Services Act Budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the
County of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate
accounting adjustments in the budget 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 requested that the Board give
consideration to the location of its retreat scheduled for November 13, 2009
and November 14, 2009 and advise him about any topics the Board may wish
to discuss at that time.
Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that the Board hold its annual
retreat on the campus of the Isle of Wight Courthouse on Friday evening,
November 13, 2009 and Saturday, November 14, 2009. He noted that Mr.
Chandler, in the past, has had a preference for round tables and that staff may
wish to schedule the Demonstration Room in the Human Services Building.
/1
Chairman Brown called for consideration of the Consent Agenda.
A. National Arts and Humanities Month
Resolution Recognizing October as the National Arts and
Humanities Month
B. Request for Certificate of Public Need — Riverside Health System
Resolution of Support that the Virginia Department of
Health Favorably Consider the Issuance of a Certificate of
Public Need for the Ambulatory Surgery Center Proposed
by the Riverside Health System
C. Request for Certificate of Public Need — Sentara Healthcare
Resolution of Support that the Virginia Department of
Health Favorably Consider the Issuance of a Certificate of
public Need for the Ambulatory Surgery Center Proposed
by the Sentara Healthcare
D. Application for Grant Funds — Virginia Association of Resource
Conservation and Development Council
Resolution to Authorize the Submission of a Grant
Application and to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funds
39
from the Virginia Association of Resource Conservation
and Development Council
E. Application for Grant Funds — Virginia Department of Fire
Programs Mini- Training Grant
Resolution to Authorize the Submission of a Grant
Application and to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funds
from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs
F. Tractor Purchase for Parks and Recreation
Resolution to Approve a Contract for Capital Equipment
G. Donation of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus to the Volunteer
Fire Departments
Resolution of Gift to the Volunteer Fire Departments
H. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Acceptance of
New Secondary Roads in Eagle Harbor, Tract 2, Phase 7
Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight
County Requesting Acceptance of Certain Roads in Eagle
Harbor Subdivision, Tract 2, Phase 7, into the Secondary
Systems of State Highways
I. Western Tidewater Regional Jail Inmate Work Crews
Resolution to Authorize Work by the Western Tidewater
Regional Jail Authority Work Force on Property Owned by
the County or Non Profit Organizations
J. Monthly Financial Reports for County and Schools
K. Planning Commission Action list of August 25, 2009
L. Status Report on Follow -up from July 16, 2009 Board of
Supervisors Meeting
M. July 16, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes
N. Authorization to submit an application to the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Fund Advisory Committee for money to enhance
erosion control at Fort Boykin.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that Items (B), (C) and (I) be removed
from the Consent Agenda and the remaining items approved (to include Item
40
(N) added under Approval 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.
Regarding Items (B) and (C), Supervisor Wright moved to accept the
endorsements of Riverside and Sentara Hospitals. 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 Item (I), County Administrator Caskey advised that the
Towns of Smithfield and Windsor need to consider the adoption of a
similarly worded resolution.
Chairman Brown moved that the following Resolution be adopted:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE WORK BY THE WESTERN
TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY WORK FORCE ON
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COUNTY OR NON PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS
WHEREAS, Isle of Wight County, Virginia is a member jurisdiction of
the Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority; and,
WHEREAS, the County has periodically utilized the Western Tidewater
Regional Jail Work Force to remove litter from the County's primary and
secondary highways; and,
WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors wishes to
utilize the Western Tidewater Regional Jail Work Force to perform other tasks
such as cutting grass on County-owned property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that
the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia, pursuant to
Section 53.1 -128 of the Code of Virginia, authorizes the Western Tidewater
Regional Jail Work Force to perform work, such as cutting grass on property
owned by Isle of Wight County or nonprofit organizations.
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
Chairman Brown called for Appointments.
Supervisor Wright moved to reappoint Tom Alphin to serve on the
PACE Program. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors
41
Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion
and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor Wright moved to reappoint Dee Dee Darden to serve on the
PACE 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.
//
Chairman Brown called for Old Business.
The application of the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors and
the Isle of Wight County School Board to remove Tax Map Number
39 -01 -014, 13100 Poor House Road, approximately 14.6 acres owned
by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors for the purpose of
constructing an animal shelter, and Tax Map Number 39- 01 -014A,
17061 Education Drive, approximately 6.3 acres owned by the Isle of
Wight County School Board, from the Courthouse Historic District.
Supervisor Casteen moved that the application be approved. 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 to direct staff to review the entire
Courthouse Historical District; consider the request of the Isle of Wight
Ruritan Club to be removed from that District; and, that all fees be waived
associated with the removal of the Isle of Wight Ruritan Club. 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 consideration of the following:
The request of Isle of Wight County, owner, for a Conditional Use
Permit on Tax Map Parcel 39 -01 -014. Said property, approximately
14.66 acres, is located on the east side of Courthouse Highway (Route
258), south of Poor House Road (Route 692) in the Windsor Election
District. The proposed use of the property is for replacement of the
animal control shelter.
Supervisor Casteen moved that the Conditional Use Permit be
approved. 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 consideration of the following:
42
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the rezoning request be approved, as
proffered. 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/
Supervisor Wright moved that the meeting time be extended 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.
//
With respect to the letter received from Grace Keen, President of the
Isle of Wight Citizens Association, Supervisor Wright moved that staff be
directed to draft a letter in response to Mrs. Keen's letter. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen,
Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting
against the motion.
//
The request of Carrollton Village LLC, owner, and Commonwealth
Engineering, applicant, for a rezoning of Tax Map Parcels 34 -01 -108
and 34- 01 -108B in the Newport Development Service District from
Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) to Conditional - General
Commercial (C -GC). Said property, approximately 8.028 acres, is
located on the east side of Carrollton Boulevard (Rt. 17), south of
Sugar Hill Road (Rt. 661) in the Newport Election District. The
proposed use of the property is for a proposed office condominium and
retail development.
Chairman Brown called for New Business.
Interim County Attorney Burton requested a closed meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2- 3711.A.5 of the Code of Virginia relative to discussion of a
prospective business where there has been no previous announcement has
been made and the business' interest in locating utilities and pursuant to
Section 2.2- 3711.A.7 concerning three (3) matters involving consultation
with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to
economic development.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board enter the closed meeting
for the reasons stated by Interim County Attorney Burton. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Casteen,
43
Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting
against the motion.
Supervisor Wright moved that the Board return to open 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 Wright 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
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
/1
There was no action taken by the Board following the closed meeting.
At 11:40 p.m., Chairman Brown moved that the Board adjourn its
meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors
Brown, Bradshaw, Clark, Casteen and
and no Supervisors voting against the
Carey ills Sto'in, Clerk
r., Chai
45
ht voting in favor of the motion,
es B. Brown