01-06-2011 Regular MeetingREGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HELD THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY IN THE YEAR
TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT: Thomas J. Wright, III, Chairman
Al Casteen
Stan D. Clark
JoAnn W. Hall
Kenneth M. Bunch
Also Attending:
A. Paul Burton, Interim County Attorney
W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator
Carey Mills Storm, Clerk
Chairman Wright called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Supervisor Casteen delivered the invocation.
The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted.
Chairman Wright called for nomination of a Chairman for 2011.
Supervisor Casteen moved that Supervisor Wright be elected as
Chairman of the Board for 2011. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0)
with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of
the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for nomination of a Vice- Chairman for 2011.
Supervisor Bunch moved that Supervisor Clark be elected as Vice -
Chairrnan of the Board for 2011. The motion was adopted by a vote of (3-
2) with Supervisors Bunch, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion
and Supervisors Casteen and Hall voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for the appointment of a Clerk of the Board for
2011 and moved that Carey Mills Storm be appointed. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and
Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the
motion.
Chairman Wright called for the appointment of a Deputy Clerk of the
Board for 2011.
Supervisor Clark moved that LuAnn Delosreyes be appointed as
Deputy Clerk of the Board for 2011. The motion was adopted by a vote of
(5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in
favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for consideration a meeting schedule of the
Board for 2011.
Supervisor Casteen noted a conflict with the proposed June 2, 2011
meeting date and requested that it be moved to June 16, 2011.
Supervisor Clark moved that the following meeting schedule of the
Board for 2011 be adopted, as amended: Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 5:00
p.m.; Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, March 3, 2011 at
5:00 p.m.; Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, May 5, 2011 at
5:00 p.m.; Thursday, June 16, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, July 7, 2011 at
5:00 p.m.; Thursday, August 4, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 1,
2011 at 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.; Thursday,
November 3, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.;
and, Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
All advertised public hearings will be scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on the
above meeting dates.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch,
Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for consideration of the Rules of Procedure of
the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors and moved that it be adopted,
as follows:
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ARTICLE I MEETINGS
Section 1 -1. Organizational Meeting; Schedule of Regular Meetings
On the first Thursday of January of each year, or on such other date in
the month of January as it may designate, the Board shall assemble at the Isle
of Wight Courthouse, Isle of Wight, Virginia, or such other public place as it
may designate, and conduct its Organizational Meeting. During the course of
such meeting, the Board shall fix the date, time, and place of all of its
Regular Meetings during the ensuing calendar year, and it shall fix the day on
2
which a Regular Meeting shall be continued if the Chairman declares that
weather or other conditions make it hazardous for members to attend. All
hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the
continued meetings. Should the Board subsequently change the date, place,
or time of Regular Meetings, it shall comply with the requirements of Code
of Virginia Section 15.2 -1416 (1950, as amended).
Regular Meetings may be recessed from day to day or from time to
time or from place to place, but not beyond the time fixed for the next
Regular Meeting, until the business of the Board is concluded.
Section 1 -2. Special Meetings
The Board of Supervisors may hold such Special Meetings as it deems
necessary and at such times and places as it may find convenient. A Special
Meeting shall be called pursuant to the requirements imposed by Code of
Virginia Section 15.2 -1418 ( 1950, as amended).
Section 1 -3. Quorum and Method of Voting
At any meeting, a majority of the Supervisors shall constitute a
Quorum. All questions submitted to the Board for decision shall be
determined by roll call vote of a majority of the Supervisors present and by
voting on any such question, unless otherwise provided by law. The name of
each member voting, and how he voted, must be recorded.
The Board of Supervisors has elected not to have a tiebreaker, as
provided by the Code of Virginia, as amended, and a tie vote on any question
shall defeat it.
Section 1 -4. Procedure for Roll Call Vote
The Clerk or Deputy Clerk shall call the name of each member and
receive in reply the vote of such member as either "Yes" or "No" on the
measure being considered. The order in which the names of the members are
called shall be determined by the Chairman, who shall always cast the last
vote. At the beginning of any meeting, the Clerk shall conduct a Silent Roll
Call of members present and absent.
Section 1 -5. Board to Sit with Open Doors
The Board of Supervisors shall sit with open doors, and all persons
conducting themselves in an orderly manner may attend the meetings.
However, the Board may hold Closed Meetings, as permitted by law.
Closed Meetings may be placed on the agenda, or may be requested by
any member of the Board. However, no Closed Meeting shall be convened
3
unless, and until, the Board has favorably acted on a motion to so convene,
and, then, only if such motion accurately states a lawful reason for such
Closed Meeting, as permitted by and outlined in Code of Virginia Section
2.2 -3711 (1950, as amended).
ARTICLE II — OFFICERS
Section 2 -1. Chairman and Vice - Chairman
At the Organizational Meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board
shall elect from its membership a Chairman and Vice - Chairman, each of
whom shall serve for a term which will expire on December 31 of the same
year in which elected, or until their respective successors shall have been
elected. In the event that the Chairman and Vice - Chairman are absent from
any meeting of the Board, then the members present at such meeting shall
choose one of their number as temporary Chairman by majority vote of the
members present and voting.
Section 2 -2. Chairman May Administer Oath
The Chairman, as provided in Code of Virginia Section 15.2 -1410
(1950, as amended), shall have the power to administer an oath to any person
concerning any matter submitted to the Board, or connected with its powers
or duties.
Section 2 -3. Clerk
The Clerk of the Board shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors
at its Organizational Meeting, and the duties and responsibilities of the Clerk
shall be as specified in Code of Virginia, Section 15.2 -1539 (1950, as
amended) and as delegated by the Board. The Board may also designate a
Deputy Clerk, and at the discretion of the Board, any County employee can
be designated as Temporary Clerk.
Section 2 -4. Parliamentarian
The County Attorney shall serve as the Parliamentarian for the Board at
all of its meetings.
ARTICLE III _ CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
Section 3 -1. Order of Business
At meetings of the Board, the order of business shall be as follows:
(a) Call to Order
(b) Silent Roll Call of Members
(c) Invocation
4
(d) Pledge of Allegiance
(e) Approval of Agenda
(0 Scheduled Presentations (when required)
(g) Consent Agenda Approval
(h) Regional Reports (when required)
(i) Transportation Matters
(j) Citizens' Comments
(k) Board Comments
(1) County Attorney's Report
(m) Department Reports (when required)
(n) County Administrator's Report
(o) Appointments
(p) Old Business
(q) New Business
(r) Public Hearings (when required)
(s) Closed Meeting (when required)
(t) Adjournment
Section 3 -2. Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda shall be introduced by a motion "to approve the
Consent Agenda" and shall be considered by the Board as a single item.
There shall be no debate or discussion by any member of the Board regarding
any item on the Consent Agenda, beyond asking questions for simple
clarification.
At the request of any member of the Board of Supervisors, an item
shall be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Approval of the motion to approve the Consent Agenda shall constitute
approval, adoption, or enactment of each motion, resolution, or other item of
business thereon, exactly as if each had been acted upon individually.
Section 3 -3. Manner of Addressing Board; Priority in Speaking
When any citizen speaks to the Board, he or she shall address the
Chairman and shall confine his or her remarks strictly to the question before
the Board.
When two or more members of the Board wish to speak at the same
time, the Chairman shall designate the order in which each member shall
speak.
Any person engaging in any conduct which impairs the ability of the
Board to conduct, or citizens to participate in, a meeting may be ejected from
that meeting and may incur additional penalties.
Section 3 -4. Motion
No proposition shall be entertained by the Chairman until a motion for
the same has been duly made. The Chairman may make a motion without
vacating the chair. Discussion of items will be permitted only after a motion
is on the floor.
Section 3 -5. Motion to Adjourn; Automatic Adjournment
A motion to adjourn shall always be in order and shall be decided
without debate.
The Chairman shall automatically adjourn, without benefit of any
motion or debate, any meeting of the Board which has not concluded by
11:00 p.m. No meeting of the Board shall continue beyond 11:00 p.m.
unless, and until, a motion to extend the time has been offered and passed by
a majority vote of the members present and voting.
Section 3 -6. Motions While a Question is Under Debate
When a motion is under debate at a meeting of the Board, no motion
shall be received unless it be one to amend, to commit or refer for study, to
postpone, to call for the previous question, to call for a substitute motion, to
lay on the table, or to adjourn.
Section 3 -7. Reconsideration of Motions, Etc., Upon Which a Vote has been
Announced
At a meeting of the Board, when any vote upon any motion, resolution,
ordinance, or question has been announced, it may not be reconsidered
unless, and until, a motion to that effect is made by a member of the Board
who voted with the prevailing side when such motion, resolution, ordinance,
or question was considered. Any such motion to reconsider shall be decided
by a majority vote of the members present, unless a greater number of votes
was required to pass the measure, in which event, the motion to reconsider
shall not prevail, except upon the vote of as great a number of members as
was required to pass the measure.
For the purpose of this Section, "meeting" shall include any Continued
or Special Meeting occurring prior to the next Regular Meeting.
Section 3 -8. Robert's Rules of Order; Suspending Rules
The proceedings of the Board of Supervisors, except as otherwise
provided in these By -Laws and by applicable State law, shall be governed by
the principals of Robert's Rules of Order.
These Rules may only be suspended on presentation of a motion to that
effect which is carried by unanimous vote of the members present and voting.
6
ARTICLE IV — PUBLIC HEARINGS
Section 4 -1. Format for Public Hearings
The following format shall be followed for all Public Hearings
conducted before the Board of Supervisors:
a. The Chairman will make a brief statement identifying the matter
to be heard and verify that all legal notification requirements
have been met.
b. The Chairman will call upon the appropriate county staff member
to present the item to be heard. Staff presentations should be
concise.
c. The applicant may appear on his own behalf, or be represented by
counsel or an agent. The applicant, or his counsel or agents, shall
have a combined total of ten (10) minutes to speak.
d. The Chairman will open the floor to public comment, if any, after
the applicant, or his counsel or agent, has spoken. Any private
citizen may speak for or against the issue. The Clerk shall prepare
a register sign their name and address. The Chairman shall call
each speaker in the order that their name appears on the register.
Each speaker shall clearly state his or her name, address and/or
City /County of residence for the records. Citizen comments are
limited to five (5) minutes per speaker. Citizens may not donate
their unused time to other citizen speakers. The applicant, or his
counsel or agent, shall be given an opportunity for rebuttal,
which shall last for no more than five (5) minutes. All speakers
shall provide their name and address or election district. The
Chairman may in his discretion change the five (5) minute time
limit per speaker to three (3) minutes when he believes there is a
significant number of people who wish to speak at the Public
Hearing.
e. Speakers will be given a warning one (1) minute prior to the
expiration of their presentation time.
f. The Parliamentarian shall be responsible for noting the expiration
of time limits, and the Chairman shall be responsible for
enforcing it.
g.
The Chairman shall then close the Public Hearing and refer the
matter for Board discussion.
Section 4 -2 Close of Hearing
7
When a Public Hearing shall have been closed by order of the
Chairman of the Board, no further public comments shall be received.
However, any Board member may ask a question of any person who spoke at
the Public Hearing.
ARTICLE V — AGENDA AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Section 5 -1. Preparation
The Clerk shall prepare a proposed Agenda for each meeting,
conforming to the order of business specified in Section 3 -1 under Order of
Business. The Board shall adopt an Agenda, with such additions or deletions
as it may desire, immediately following the Pledge of Allegiance.
Section 5 -2. Delivery
The Agenda shall be received by each member of the Board and by the
County Attorney no later than the Friday preceding the Board meeting. The
Clerk of the Board may request an adjustment to the delivery schedule, due to
special circumstances.
Section 5 -3. Posting
A copy of the proposed Agenda shall be posted in the Office of the
County Administrator.
Section 5 -4. Copies
The Clerk or the Deputy Clerk of the Board shall prepare, or cause to
be prepared, extra copies of the Agenda and shall make the same available to
the public in the Office of the County Administrator at the same time that the
Agenda is posted pursuant to Section 5 -3 above. The Clerk or Deputy Clerk
shall also have copies available at each meeting.
Section 5 -5. Citizen Comment
Any citizen who desires to address the Board during the "Citizens'
Comments" portion of the Agenda shall sign the registration form,
identifying, with reasonable certainty, the subject matter of his comment
prior to the commencement of Citizens' Comments. Citizens who do not
sign the registration form prior to the commencement of Citizens' Comments
may address the Board at the end of the meeting.
Speakers participating in Citizens' Comments shall clearly state their
name and address, and /or city /county of residence, and shall be subject to a
five (5) minute time limitation, to be kept and enforced as stated in Article IV
hereof. Speakers will be given a warning one (1) minute prior to their
8
presentation time expiring. Each citizen speaking during Citizens'
Comments shall be limited to one (1) appearance at each Regular Meeting of
the Board, and citizens may not donate their unused speaking time to another
speaker.
The Board shall not respond to any comments, or answer any
questions, posed by speakers during Citizens' Comments.
ARTICLE VI — ENACTMENT OF RULES; AMENDMENTS
Section 6 -1. Enactment of Rules; Amendments
These Rules of Procedure shall be reenacted at each Organizational
Meeting of the Board with any amendments the Board deems necessary or
desirable.
No later than December 1st of each year, the County Attorney shall
deliver a copy of the most recently enacted Rules of Procedure to each
member and member elect of the Board, soliciting any proposed changes to
the Rules. The County Attorney shall prepare proposed amendments based
on any such Board comments and include them in the Agenda for
consideration at the Organizational Meeting.
The Board may amend these Rules from time to time, by a majority
vote of the Board.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch,
Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for Approval of the Agenda.
Interim County Attorney Burton offered the following amendment to
the agenda: Under the County Attorney's report, add one (1) closed meeting
item regarding a personnel matter per Interim County Attorney Burton; under
New Business, add one (1) item pertaining to the Hampton Roads Economic
Development Alliance Campaign per County Administrator Caskey; and,
under Old Business, add one (1) item pertaining to security camera repairs at
the Windsor Middle School per County Administrator Caskey.
Supervisor Clark moved that the Board approve the agenda, as
amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors
Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
9
Chairman Wright called for Special Presentations /Appearances.
Chief Sullivan displayed a dog that is currently available for adoption
at the County's animal shelter.
Judge Rodham Delk thanked the Board for its support of the new
Young -Laine Court facility.
Commander Matt Baker addressed the Board concerning the Navy's
need to use the Franklin Airport for military landing practice operations. He
stated that the Navy had initially solicited an RFP, but found that it had a real
estate interest at the John Beverly Rose Airport. He stated that the Navy now
recognizes that it should have addressed the Board at the time it spoke to the
City of Franklin as the airport is owned by the City of Franklin, but located in
the County. He advised that the Navy is currently in the process of an
environmental assessment, anticipated to be complete in April, which will
reveal both positive and negative impacts to the community and the Navy
would like to share some of the benefit gained by the Navy with the
surrounding community. He advised that following the design phase, the
Navy can begin negotiating what services will be require at the airport in
order for training to be conducted at that site. He requested the Board's
consideration of the Navy continuing with its assessment and the Board
keeping an open dialogue.
Supervisor Clark moved to renew and continue the dialogue initiated
by Commander Baker tonight and that the Board be a party in what goes
forward from this point. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with
Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the
motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Constance Rhodes, President, Chamber of Commerce, introduced Gary
Grey with G &L Printing in Carrollton as part of the Small Business Close Up
segment on the agenda which is designed to highlight small businesses in the
County.
Frank Haltom, Assistant Director of General Services, pursuant to the
Board's direction at its December 16, 2010 meeting, introduced Terry Tribo,
Senior Water Resources Planner, Hampton Roads Planning District
Commission (HRPDC), who briefed the Board regarding the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Chesapeake Bay Total
Maximum Daily Load regulations. She advised that the EPA is the agency
responsible for determining nutrient sediment load reductions while the State
is responsible for determining how those load reductions will be met by
developing watershed implementation plans. She advised that the EPA has
released their load requirements and proposed a back -stop load to the State
for implementation which has resulted in a significant cost increase to
localities for stormwater. She advised that the Planning District Commission,
10
on behalf of local governments, requested the State to strengthen its
implementation plan to avoid EPA's back -stop load, which has been done
and approved by the EPA. She advised that the new plan requires storm
water treatment of approximately 23% of impervious lands, compared to the
65% that would have been required by EPA's back stops, which reduces the
stormwater costs by approximately 75 %. She stated that the plan requires the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) to reduce an additional two (2)
million pounds of nitrogen and included stronger reasonable assurances that
they would meet the agriculture reductions, including a pledge to proceed
regulations if the tracking indicated that voluntary reductions are not being
met. She advised that the State and the EPA have agreed that the James
River loads would not have to be reduced further pending a study that is to be
undertaken by the State. She stated that for the County, this means voluntary
reductions in agriculture lands, mandatory stormwater reductions within the
permitted area and voluntary reductions for developed lands outside the
permitted area. She advised that the HRPDC has developed cost estimates
which will continue to be revised as additional information is obtained. She
stated that currently the estimated cost to meet the stormwater requirements
for the County is $58 million between now and 2025. She advised that in
2012, the EPA will be developing stormwater rules which may change the
County's permit boundaries and expand the current area. She advised that
the County's stormwater permit will expire or be renewed in 2013. She
advised that by 2017, HRSD is expecting to have achieved 60% of the
reductions and 2025 achieved all the reductions. She advised that HRSD
does anticipate numerous proposals for State legislation, specifically on
urban fertilizers and expansion of the nutrient credit exchange program and
the HRSD will be keeping track of the proposals as they are submitted and
keeping localities updated accordingly on what is happening at the State
level.
Supervisor Clark inquired how the HRPDC will determine if each
locality is doing what it is supposed to so that the County does not end up
paying for what other localities may not be doing.
Ms. Tribo advised that extensive tracking at the local and State levels
will ensure that all localities are getting credit for what they are doing and
being held accountable for what they might not be doing.
Anita Felts, member of the Southampton County Board of Supervisors
and Smart Beginnings Western Tidewater Board member, thanked the Board
for its past financial support of that organization whose mission is to be a
resource and referral agency that assists those who work with children to
prepare them for school and life. She formally introduced Ellen Couch,
Executive Director, Smart Beginnings Western Tidewater and Edith Scott,
Data Manager and Public Relations, Smart Beginnings Western Tidewater.
11.
Chairman Wright called for consideration of the Consent Agenda.
A. Resolution of Recognition and Appreciation
Resolution to Recognize the Contributions of Phillip A.
Bradshaw
B. Waterworks Operator License — Class 4 Issued to Michael
Hargrave by Board of Waterworks and Wastewater Works
C. Land and Water Conservation Fund
Resolution to Request Congress to Implement Legislation
Specifying an Annual Allocation of at Least 40% of LWCF
Funds to the State Assistance Program
D. Part -time Utilities Accounting Technician
Resolution to Authorize the Treasurer to Hire a Part -time
Utilities Accounting Technician
E. Board of Zoning Resolution of Appreciation for Verna M. Jones
F. Board of Zoning Appeals 2010 Annual Report
Supervisor Casteen moved that Item (B), Waterworks Operator License
— Class 4 Issued to Michael Hargrave by Board of Waterworks and
Wastewater Works, be removed from the Consent Agenda and that the
remaining items be approved. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0)
with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of
the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Following a brief description of Mr. Hargrave's accomplishment by
Mr. Wrightson, Supervisor Casteen moved that Item (B), Waterworks
Operator License — Class 4 Issued to Michael Hargrave by Board of
Waterworks and Wastewater Works be approved. The motion was adopted
by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright
voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Mr. Wrightson notified the Board that Eric D. Rosser, an employee in
the Department of General Services, has earned his professional Engineer's
license and he will be formally introduce to the Board at its February 17,
2011 meeting.
Chairman Wright called for Regional Reports.
Supervisor Hall reported that the Chamber of Commerce is beginning
another Leadership class and she advised the Board that it will be receiving
an e -mail invitation to an upcoming Chamber breakfast on January 28
County Administrator Caskey advised that the County, in conjunction
with Southampton County and the City of Franklin, had previously formed a
regional task force to address solid waste issues and options for its disposal
in the future.
The following Board members were appointed by Chairman Wright to
serve on the 2011 Board Committees:
Budget & Finance /CIP
Stan D. Clark
Thomas J. Wright, III
Building & Grounds /Transportation Personnel
Al Casteen Stan D. Clark
JoAnn W. Hall JoAnn W. Hall
Refuse /Recycling Schools
Thomas J. Wright, III Al Casteen
Al Casteen JoAnn W. Hall
Intermodal Law Enforcement
Kenneth M. Bunch Stan D. Clark
Thomas J. Wright, III Thomas J. Wright, III
Franklin Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Kenneth M. Bunch
Thomas J. Wright, III
Smithfield Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Al Casteen
Stan D. Clark
JoAnn W. Hall
Windsor Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Kenneth M. Bunch
Thomas J. Wright, III
Social Services Board
Al Casteen
South Hampton Roads Resource Conservation & Development Council
13
Parks and Recreation
Al Casteen
JoAnn W. Hall
Kenneth M. Bunch
Western Tidewater Regional Jail
JoAnn W. Hall
Thomas J. Wright, III
Chairman Wright called for Transportation Matters.
There were no matters offered for discussion.
Chairman Wright called for Citizens Comments.
Pete Green spoke in favor of the Navy utilizing the Franklin Airport for
touch and go landings noting that young people are deserving of the best
possible protection.
Pat Clark spoke in favor of the Navy utilizing the Franklin Airport for
touch and go landings noting the importance of the military. He stated that
he is sympathetic to those who will be impacted by the noise; however, the
Navy needs the Board's support.
John Bryant, Beaverbrook Manner Mobile Home Park, spoke in
opposition to the Navy utilizing the Franklin Airport for touch and go
landings due to the noise.
Joe Joyner of Walters Highway spoke in opposition to the Navy
utilizing the Franklin Airport for touch and go landings due to the impact that
the noise will have on the surrounding community.
Byrd Seville of Newport News and member of the Tidewater Soaring
Society in Orbit spoke in opposition to the Navy utilizing the Franklin
Airport citing a concern with the potential for impact between the Navy's
planes and the Society's. He commented that members of the Society
contribute to the County's economic development. He distributed copies of
articles regarding the City of Hampton expanding its space to protect the
public.
At 6:00 p.m., Supervisor Clark moved to amend the agenda in order to
conduct the public hearings, as advertised. The motion was adopted by a
vote of (5--0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting
in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
14
Chairman Wright called for a public hearing on the following:
A. The application of Charles L. and Deborah C. Owens, trustees of
the Charles L. Owens and Deborah C. Owens Living Trust, for a
change in zoning classification from Rural Agricultural
Conservation (RAC) to Conditional -Rural Residential (C -RR)
approximately 4.2 acres of land located on the east side of Carroll
Bridge Road (Route 654), approximately 1 mile north of Bowling
Green Road (Route 644) in the Windsor Election District, and the
request to withdraw the 4.2 acres from the Courthouse
Agricultural /Forestal District. The purpose of the application is to
create two (2) single - family residential lots, as conditioned.
Sandy Robinson, Planning and Zoning, presented the application.
Chairman Wright called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the application.
Charles L. Owens, Carroll Bridge Road, requested approval of the
application for financial reasons.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
There being no comments, Supervisor Clark moved that the application
of Charles L. and Deborah C. Owens, trustees of the Charles L. Owens and
Deborah C. Owens Living Trust, be approved. The motion was adopted by a
vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting
in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for a public hearing on the following:
B. The application of American K -9 Interdiction, LLC, applicant
and owner for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an
expansion of a commercial dog kennel on approximately 47.589
acres of land located at 4007 Burdette Road in the Carrsville
Election District.
Matthew Smolnik, Principal Planner, presented the application to allow
an additional 200 dog kennel, identical to the existing one (1) constructed on
site, and amend the current conditions.
Interim County Burton certified that the application had been properly
advertised.
15
Chairman Wright called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the application.
William Riddick, Attorney for the applicant, advised that a concern of
certain neighbors involved the noise from the kennels. He advised that the
applicant has had studies conducted and determined that the noise emitted is
within legal limits; however, the applicant does wish to enclose both of the
kennels, but would rather stay away from a dropped ceiling because of mice
and snakes. He recommended that language be incorporated into Proffer #8
to state "or sound deadening materials of comparable effectiveness" after the
language "sound deadening ceiling panels ".
Herb DeGroft of Mill Swamp Road commended American K -9
Interdiction for its past efforts and requested that the Board approve its
application.
Albert Burckhardt, Newport District, urged the Board to support K -9
Interdiction's request. He commented that they have been good and valuable
neighbors to the Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department. He advised that for
the past three (3) years, the Marines assisted with unloading his truck at
Christmas time, which resulted in a successful Christmas tree fundraiser. He
further advised that K -9 Interdiction had also donated $15,000 to the
Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department to purchase CPR equipment, which has
saved at least one (1) life to date.
Pinky Hipp, Hardy District, stated that these dogs are extremely
important to the work being done by the Government. She noted that there
are only a small number of people that may be affected by the kennel and she
requested the Board to approve the application.
Mr. Boykin, the Walter's representative on the Southern
Redevelopment Committee, urged the Board to require American K -9
Interdiction to sound proof its facility. He advised that he could hear dogs
from his home which is a good distance away. He stated that the existing
timber currently buffers the sound, but it may be cut at some point in the
future. He stated that the only opposition is to the noise as the site has been
cleaned up and does serve a good purpose.
J. N. Perry, 4056 Burdett Road, stated that he had voiced his concerns
regarding additional traffic and noise to the Planning Commission when the
initial rezoning application was approved and that all his concerns have been
founded as evidenced by the "roar" which goes over the top of the trees for
four (4) hours in the morning and four (4) hours in the evening. He stated
that he had moved into the County to enjoy its peace and quiet. He stated
that two (2) of the members of the Planning Commission had visited the site
and substantiated the "roar" over the tops of the trees to the Commission. He
advised that the noise can be heard from inside and outside his home and his
16
property value will be reduced if the noise is not addressed. He requested the
permit or additional kennels be revoked if the noise continues.
Mr. Harrell, surrounding timberland property owner, advised that
American K -9 Interdiction has been a good neighbor to him and improved
the existing site. He notified the Board that he has a right -of -way to cut the
timber, which he intends to do at the first good opportunity, which will
intensify the noise.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Clark inquired if additional landscaping or buffering along
the perimeters of the property could be accomplished to address the noise
issue.
Brian Camden, Powell Management, advised that landscaping will be
done as required by the County's Ordinance and there should be a drastic
noise level reduction by enclosing the facility. He advised that American K -9
Interdiction owns approximately 400 feet into the woods and has acquired
additional woods adjacent to the property. He advised that this renovation
will result in the mitigation of the "roar" that the neighbors are now
complaining about.
Supervisor Bunch inquired about the level of sound reduction expected
to be achieved.
Mr. Camden advised that he could not put a numerical number on it
and explained that enclosing it will result in mechanical, code and health
issues, which is the reason for the ceiling being deleted. He stated that it will
have a roof on it and be extremely insulated, not only for thermal, but for
acoustic value.
Supervisor Clark advised that when American K -9 was located in
Carrollton, all noise complaints were resolved once the kennels were
enclosed by American K -9 and that the reason they moved from that location
was because their lease had expired. He stated that the appearance of the
facility in Walters is greatly improved since being purchased by American K-
9.
Supervisor Clark moved that the application of American K -9
Interdiction, LLC be approved with the incorporated suggested language of
Attorney Riddick in Proffer #8 of "or sound deadening materials of
comparable effectiveness" after it states "sound deadening ceiling panels ".
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen,
Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors
voting against the motion.
17
Chairman Wright called for a public hearing on the following:
C. An Ordinance to amend the following sections of Appendix B,
Zoning: Section 1 -1015, Amendments, to revise the requirements
for recording a zoning boundary plat and to revise the submittal
requirements for rezoning applications, and Section 1 -1016,
Conditional Zoning, to revise the requirement for a conditional
use permit associated with an approved conditional zoning
amendment.
Mr. Smolnik presented proposed amendments to the County's Zoning
Ordinance responsive to the Board's establishment in the fall of 2009 of the
Small Business Committee (SBC) in an effort to better understand the
challenges that are faced by small County businesses. He advised that the
SBC had drafted a Position Paper outlining five (5) priorities believed to
make the County a more pleasurable place to own and /or operate a business.
He advised that this is the first of a series of amendments for consideration by
the Board.
Supervisor Casteen recommended that the Board be notified in the
Consent Agenda when properties receive an extension.
Chairman Wright called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the Ordinance.
No one appeared and spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposed
amendments.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Clark moved that the following Ordinance be adopted:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE
BY AMENDING AND REENACTING APPENDIX B,
ZONING, ARTICLE I, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS ", SECTION
1 -1015, ENTITLED "AMENDMENTS ", AND SECTION
1 -1016, ENTITLED "CONDITIONAL ZONING ".
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
18
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, Article I, entitled "General
Provisions ", Section 1 -1015, entitled "Amendments" of the Isle of Wight
County Code be amended and reenacted as follows:
1 -1015 Amendments
A. Powers and Duties of the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission shall have alI the powers and duties of
local Planning Commissions set forth in Sections 15.2 -2211 -
15.2 -2310 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended and any
other powers and duties now or in the future delegated to local
Planning Commissions, in order to promote the orderly
development of the locality and its environs pursuant to Section
15.2 -2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended and
accomplish the objectives of Section 15.2 -2200 of the Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended.
B. General Description
The Board of Supervisors hereby acknowledge as fact that
sections of the County are rapidly changing from a rural area to
residential, commercial, industrial and other urban uses and,
although an attempt has been made in the Comprehensive Plan to
anticipate and direct such growth along desirable lines, it is
inevitable that no such plan will be perfect or everlastingly valid.
The Board of Supervisors, therefore, anticipates that the
Comprehensive Plan will need amending from time to time as
contemplated and authorized by section 15.2 -2223 et. seq. of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and that this ordinance and
the zoning map must also be amended from time to time in order
that it may continue to be in conformity with the expectations of
the Board of Supervisors.
C. Findings for Change of Zoning Map Classification
1. The Zoning ordinance and districts shall be drawn and
applied with reasonable consideration for the existing use
and character of property, the Comprehensive Plan, the
suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth
or change, the current and future requirements of the
community as to land use for various purposes as
19
determined by population and economic studies and other
studies, the transportation requirements of the community,
the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks,
playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, the
conservation of natural resources, the preservation of flood
plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the
conservation of properties and their values and the
encouragement of the most appropriate use of land
throughout the locality.
2. The fact that an application for reclassification complies
with all of the specific requirements and purposes set forth
in this ordinance shall not be deemed to create a
presumption that the proposed reclassification and resulting
development would, in fact, be compatible with surrounding
land uses and is not, in itself, sufficient to require the
granting of the application. (7 -1 -97)
D. Filing Procedures for Amendment Applications
1. An application for text amendment may be initiated by
resolution of the Board of Supervisors, by motion of the
Planning Commission, or by application petition of any
property owner(s) addressed to the Board of Supervisors.
An application for text amendment will set forth the new
text to be added and the existing text, if any, to be deleted or
amended.
2. Zoning map amendment applications may be made by the
Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission or by any
property owner(s) or duly authorized agent. A map
amendment may cover a single lot or a larger contiguous
area.
3. All real estate taxes and any outstanding fees or charges
must be current at such time an application is submitted for
a zoning map amendment application.
4. Applications by property owners for change in zoning
classification of property shall be accompanied by the
prescribed application fee listed in Table 3 of this ordinance
(Isle of Wight County Fee Schedule). Such application fee
is non - refundable and no application is considered complete
until the fee is submitted. In addition, an application for
rezoning not including the entire tract of land shall require a
boundary plat to be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, which must be
recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of Isle of
20
Wight County, Virginia, prior to the rezoning taking effect.
If a boundary plat of the rezoned area is not recorded within
twelve (12) months of the approval of same by the Board of
Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, for good
cause shown, the Zoning Administrator may extend this
time period beyond twelve (12) months after the
applicant /property owner provides justification for the
specified extension demonstrating that the
applicant /property owner has diligently pursued the
completion of the aforementioned requirements. If the
Zoning Administrator cannot find just cause to grant the
extension, then said rezoning will be null and void and the
property will revert to the zoning classification existing
prior to the action of the Board of Supervisors.
E. Amendment Application
a. Proof of said recordation shall be presented to the
Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any
zoning permits for the property which has been
rezoned.
5. An application petition by any property owner for an
amendment or change in the zoning district classification of
property which is substantially the same as any petition or
application denied by the Board of Supervisors for the same
subject property will not be reconsidered within one (1)
year of said action of denial. The Zoning Administrator
shall determine whether petitions or applications are
substantially the same.
1. Applications for text or map amendments shall be submitted
on forms provided by and filed in the Office of the Zoning
Administrator (7- 1 -97).
2. A Community Impact Statement shall be required for all
application amendments for residential subdivisions of five
or more lots, planned development, commercial and
industrial amendment applications, in accordance with
Section 1015.F.
3. Upon receipt of an ordinance amendment application, the
Zoning Administrator shall review the application. If the
Zoning Administrator finds all required information has
been provided and the required fee paid, then the
application shall be accepted. (7- 1 -97).
4. All application files will be in the custody of the Zoning
Administrator and will be open to public inspection during
regular office hours. No application file will be removed
from the custody of the Zoning Administrator's office. Any
persons may, at their expense, obtain copies of any and all
exhibits. (7- 1 -97).
5. Upon determination by the Zoning Administrator that the
application is complete in accordance with the herein
requirements, the application shall be promptly submitted
for comment and review to appropriate County Departments
and Agencies and scheduled for review before the Planning
Commission. (7 -1 -97)
6. Fees for Engineering /Consultant Review
If in the discretion of the County review of any request for a
zoning map amendment 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. The purpose of the review will be to ensure
that the request complies with all regulations.
F. Community Impact Statement
A. Community Impact Statement shall address the following:
1. Adequacy of existing public facilities and services intended
to serve the proposed development. Analysis shall be made
of sewer, water, drainage, schools, fire stations, roadways,
and other major locally financed facilities.
2. Additional on -site and off -site public facilities or services
which would be required as a result of the development.
3. A traffic impact analysis is required for:
a. Any development proposed which will generate
two hundred (200) average daily trips (ADT) or
more based on vehicular trip generation rates as
defined by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' most recent publication, "Trip
Generation ", or the Virginia Department of
Transportation. The analysis must indicate the
relationship of the proposed development on the
cumulative effect of the traffic and road use for the
arterial and secondary roads providing access to
the development and any other road or intersection
impacted by the development. The traffic impact
analysis shall also include traffic data from other
existing development to show the cumulative
impact of traffic and road use for the effected
roadways. Additional areas may be required to be
incorporated into the analysis where traffic and
accident data warrant.
b. At the request of the Zoning Administrator, when
the proposed development is expected to
significantly impact the vehicular movement on the
arterial highways within the area.
4. Fiscal impact analysis of the proposed development on the
County prepared by the applicant to be reviewed and
approved by the Zoning Administrator when the proposal
includes residential dwelling units. A fiscal impact analysis
is optional when the proposal does not include any
residential dwelling units. The analysis shall contain a
comparison of the public revenues anticipated to be
generated by the development and the anticipated capital,
operations, maintenance and replacement costs for public
facilities needed to service the project at the adopted County
service standards, as well as employment opportunities to
be generated by the development. The County shall
consider the information provided by the applicant during
the development review process; provided, however, that
the fiscal impact analysis shall not serve as the sole basis for
the approval or disapproval of an individual development
proposal unless the health and safety of the community is
affected by the inability to provide transportation, fire,
police, emergency equipment and services, sewer or water
to the proposed development.
G. Action of the Planning Commission for Amendment Applications
1. All proposed amendments to this ordinance will be referred
to the Planning Commission for review and a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors (7-1-97).
2. The Zoning Administrator or their designee shall present a
report representing a review of the application by the staff
of the Department of Planning and Zoning and such other
agencies as may be appropriate. The staff report may
include, without limitation, the following matters:
population change, availability of public facilities, present
23
and future transportation patterns, compatibility with
existing and proposed development for the area and the
relationship of such proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one (1) public
hearing on such proposed amendment after notice as
required by Section 15.2 -2204 (A) of the Code Virginia
(1950), as amended, and may make appropriate changes in
the proposed amendment as a result of such hearing. Upon
completion of this work, the Planning Commission shall
present the proposed amendment to the Board of
Supervisors together with its recommendations and
appropriate explanatory materials within one hundred (100)
days after its first meeting following receipt of the proposed
amendment.
H. Action of the Board of Supervisors for Amendment Applications
1. Before considering any amendment, the Board of
Supervisors shall hold at least one (1) public hearing
thereon, pursuant to public notice as required by Section
15.2 -2204 (A) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
after which the Board of Supervisors may make appropriate
changes or corrections in the proposed amendment;
provided, however, that no additional land may be zoned to
a different classification than was contained in the public
notice without an additional public hearing after notice
required by Section 15.2 -2204 (A) of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended. An affirmative vote of at least a
majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors shall
be required to amend this ordinance or the zoning map.
2. The record in all zoning cases shall include the application,
all documents or communications submitted regarding the
application, the recorded testimony received at the hearing,
any reports or communications to or from any public
officials or agency concerning the application, the
recommendation of the PIanning Commission, and the final
decision of the Board of Supervisors. The record shall be
open to public inspection and shall be maintained by the
Zoning Administrator. The burden of proof for any zoning
change shall be upon the applicant (7- 1 -97).
I. Continuance and Withdrawal of Amendment Applications
1. The applicant may withdraw, in writing, a text or map
amendment case from consideration prior to the public
24
hearing of the Planning Commission or Board of
Supervisors. Any new application for rezoning of said
property shall be subject to all procedures and fees of an
original application. (7- 1 -97).
2. If a request by an applicant for continuance of a public
hearing on a map amendment is granted after the required
public notice has been given, the applicant shall pay an
additional fee for another public notice. (7- 1 -97).
3. Nothing shall be construed as limiting the right of the
Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors to
continue amendment cases on its own initiative. (7 -1 -97)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Isle of
Wight County Board of Supervisors that Appendix B, Zoning, Article I,
entitled "General Provisions ", Section 1 -1016, entitled "Conditional Zoning"
of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended and reenacted as follows:
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.
1. Conditional Uses may be considered as a permitted use and
granted by the Board of Supervisors when included as a part
of a conditional zoning amendment, and shall not require a
separate Conditional Use Permit application.
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:
25
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 applicant, 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.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch,
Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for a public hearing on the following:
D. An application to amend the Comprehensive Plan of Isle of
Wight County, Virginia through the addition of the proposed
Carrollton Nike Park and Heritage Park Master Plans.
Mark W. Furlo, Director of Parks and Recreation, responsive to the
Board's authorization for staff to contract with CHA, presented Master Plans
for Carrollton Nike Park and Heritage Park, which is recommended by the
Planning Commission as an appendix to the County's Comprehensive Plan
following a public hearing on the issue with the condition that staff identify
committees to prioritize the different amenities as done with the Hardy Park.
He advised that several meetings had been held with large user groups from
each park, other County departments and the general public and
recommendations received for adoption as an appendix of the County
26
Comprehensive Plan by the Isle of Wight Fair Committee, the Isle of Wight
Bike and Pedestrian Committee and the Isle of Wight Equine Task Force.
Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the matter had been
properly advertised for public hearing.
Chairman Wright called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the application.
Albert Burckhardt of the Newport District distributed a handout
pertaining to the effects of nuclear weapons. He recommended that the
Board preserve the reinforced masonry buildings at Nike Park and find a
reuse for them. He advised that the Carrollton Civic League is proposing to
the Board that it share half the cost of a VDOT and Department of Historical
Resources' historical marker should the Carrollton Civic League be
successful in raising the other half of the cost.
Rudolph Jefferson of Smithfield stated that the citizens of Rushmere
have been trying to get a recreational facility in that area; however, were told
that the funds to do so were not available. He stated that the County had
been given fifty (50) acres of land in the Rushmere area for a park; however,
to date nothing has been done with that land. He requested the Board to
consider spending County funds in Rushmere to enhance the quality of life
for those area residents.
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Casteen, responsive to Mr. Burckard's concerns,
recommended that the existing buildings not be demolished. but saved for
future historical purposes.
Mr. Furlo advised that the Plan does not include the retention of those
buildings. He stated that alternate plans had been considered originally when
the location of a Cold War Museum was being discussed; however, when the
offer was declined, the buildings were removed from the Plan as there was
not a use for them and it is difficult to justify spending maintenance funds on
them. He stated he would be in favor of saving them if they were functional
for recreational purposes.
Supervisor Casteen expressed concerned with adopting a Plan that
demolishes the buildings when they are some of the very few, if not only,
remaining examples of these types of support buildings and that they may
have more of a historical significance than originally believed.
Supervisor Clark advised that the County has not received any calls
from historical organizations or preservation societies about the buildings,
which are full of asbestos. He stated that he believes the buildings are a
27
hazard to be in and if the County saves all the old buildings, there will be no
room for new buildings. He stated that the Board has invested a great deal of
money in that site. He stated there are other ways to highlight that site's
historical value and this valuable site needs to be put to good use whenever
there are funds, as well as the site in Rushmere.
Supervisor Clark moved that the application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan of Isle of Wight County, Virginia through the addition
of the proposed Carrollton Nike Park and Heritage Park Master PIans be
approved. The motion was adopted by a vote of (3 -2) with Supervisors
Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and Supervisors
Casteen and Bunch voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for a public hearing on the following:
E. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County
Code by Enacting Chapter 14. Sewers and Sewage Disposal.
Article XV. Use of Public Sewer System.
Mr. Haltom presented the proposed Ordinance amendment. He stated
that the Board, in March of 2009, authorized the County Administrator to
execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Hampton Roads
Sanitation District (HRSD) for a Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Abatement
Program to help control FOG discharges that create sewer system blockages
and cause sanitary sewer overflows. He advised that the HRPDC developed
a FOG program in coordination with representatives from the fourteen (14)
signatory localities of the Special Order of Consent. He stated that in
compliance with the MOA, staff has developed a FOG ordinance that
prohibits the discharge of fats, oils and grease into the public sanitary sewer
system. He stated that research has indicated that the largest contributors to
FOG entering the public sanitary sewer system are Food Service
Establishments (FSE) and that the FOG Ordinance will require all existing
and future FSE's to register with the Division of Public Utilities, with
inspections of the existing facilities to be performed to determine if the
existing FSE is contributing FOG to the public sewer system. He advised
that all FSE's identified to be contributing FOG will be required to take
mitigation measures and that all future FSEs will be required to install grease
control devices prior to occupancy.
Interim County Attorney Burton certified that the proposed Ordinance
amendments had been properly advertised.
Chairman Wright called for persons to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the Ordinance.
No one appeared and spoke.
2
Chairman Wright closed the public hearing and called for comments
from the Board.
Supervisor Clark moved that the following Ordinance be adopted:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE
BY ENACTING
CHAPTER 14. SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL.
ARTICLE XV. USE OF PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, in order to update the current Isle of Wight County Code
to provide for the regulation and prevention of pollutants and waste into the
County sewer system that will interfere with the wastewater system of the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Isle of Wight County Board of
Supervisors to protect County wastewater facilities from potential damage
due to the introduction of such pollutants and/or waste; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the provisions of the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality and the Special Order by Consent
effective September 26, 2007 certain protections must be put in place to
reduce the amount of fats, oils and grease introduced into the County's sewer
system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County
Board of Supervisors, Virginia, that Chapter 14. Sewers and Sewage
Disposal is hereby amended and reenacted by enacting Article XV. Use of
Public Sewer System as follows:
Article XV. Use of Public Sewer System.
Sec. 14 -93. Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purposed of this Ordinance is to aid in preventing the introduction
and accumulation of fats, oils, and grease into the county's sanitary sewer
system that may contribute to sanitary sewer blockages and obstructions.
Food service establishments, grease haulers and other industrial or
commercial establishments generating or collecting wastewater containing
fats, oils, and grease are subject to this Ordinance. This Ordinance regulates
such users by requiring that grease control devices and other approved
strategies be installed, implemented and maintained in accordance with the
provision of this Ordinance and other applicable requirements of the County
of Isle of Wight.
(b) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all food service
29
establishments within the County of Isle of Wight and to all grease haulers
providing service to any such food service establishment.
Sec. 14 -94. Definitions.
Brown Grease shall mean floatable fats, oils, grease and settled solids
produced during food preparation that are recovered from grease control
devices.
Enforcement Response Plan shall mean a system that sets forth the process
and procedures for enforcement of this section by the County of Isle of
Wight.
Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) shall mean material, either liquid or solid,
composed of fats, oils or grease from animal or vegetable sources. Examples
of FOG include, but are not limited to, kitchen cooking grease, vegetable oil,
bacon grease and organic polar compounds derived from animal and /or plant
sources that contain multiple carbon triglyceride molecules. These
substances are detectable and measurable using analytical test procedures
established in the United States Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Part
136, as may be amended from time to time. FOG may be referred to herein
as "grease" or "greases ".
Food Service Establishment (FSE) shall mean any commercial, industrial,
institutional, or food processing facility discharging kitchen wastewaters or
food preparation wastewaters including, but not limited to, restaurants,
commercial kitchens, caterers, motels, hotels, correctional facilities,
prisons or jails, cafeterias, care institutions, hospitals, schools, bars and
churches. Any establishment engaged in preparing, serving or otherwise
making food available for consumption by the public shall be included. Such
establishments use one or more of the following preparation activities:
cooking by frying (all methods), baking (all methods), grilling, sauteing,
rotisserie cooking, broiling, boiling, blanching, roasting, toasting, or
poaching. Also included are infrared heating, searing, barbequing, and other
food preparation activity that produces a hot, non - drinkable food product in
or on a receptacle that requires washing.
Grease Control Device (GCD) shall mean a device used to collect, contain, or
remove food waste and grease from the wastewater while allowing the
remaining wastewater to be discharged to the County's sanitary sewer system
by gravity. Devices include grease interceptors, grease traps, automatic
grease removal devices or other devices approved by the Director of General
Services or his designee.
Grease Hauler shall mean a contractor who collects the contents of a grease
interceptor or trap and transports it to an approved recycling or disposal
facility. A grease hauler may also provide other services related to grease
interceptor maintenance for a FSE.
30
Grease Interceptor shall mean a structure or device, usually located
underground and outside a FSE, designed to collect, separate and contain
food waste and grease while allowing the wastewater to be discharged to the
County's sanitary sewer system by gravity.
Grease Removal Device shall mean an active, automatic device that separates
and removes FOG from effluent discharge and that cleans itself of
accumulated FOG at least once every twenty -four hours utilizing a
electromechanical apparatus.
Grease Trap shall mean a device typically located indoors and under the sink
or in the floor, designed for separating and containing grease prior to the
wastewater exiting the trap and entering the sanitary sewer system. Such
devices are typically passive (gravity fed) and compact with removable
baffles.
Renderable FOG Container shall mean a closed, leak -proof container for the
collection and storage of yellow grease.
Yellow Grease shall mean FOG used in food preparation that have not
been in contact or contaminated with other sources such as water,
wastewater or solid waste. An example of yellow grease is fryer oil, which
can be recycled into products such as animal feed, cosmetics and
alternative fuel. Yellow grease is also referred to as renderable FOG.
Sec. 14 -95. Registration Requirements.
(a) All FSEs shall be required to register their GCDs. Registrations shall
be on forms provided by Isle of Wight General Services to ensure that such
devices are properly sized and maintained, as well as to facilitate inspection
in accordance with the requirements established by Isle of Wight General
Services.
(1) Existing FSEs shall register all GCDs within ninety (90) days of
the adoption of this ordinance. New establishments shall register when
setting up their water and sewer service or prior to obtaining a certificate of
occupancy.
(2) All grease haulers, owners, or employees servicing GCDs for
FSEs within the County of Isle of Wight shall be required to obtain a
certification to service GCDs from the Hamptons Roads FOG regionally -
approved training program provided by the HRPDC.
(3) All grease haulers shall obtain the required permits, certifications
and or approvals from the facility in which waste will be disposed of. Grease
haulers discharging to a Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD)
treatment plant shall be approved through the HRSD Indirect Wastewater
31
Discharge Permit.
(4) FSEs shall have a current employee who has successfully
completed the Hampton Roads FOG regionally- approved Best Management
Practices training program provided by the HRPDC.
Sec. 14 -96. Discharge Limits.
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged from any FSE any
wastewater with FOG in concentrations or quantities that will damage the
sewers or sanitary sewer system, as determined by Section 301 D. of the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District's Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Regulations.
Sec. 14 -97. Grease Control Devices.
(a) Requirements. All FSEs shall have a GCD(s) meeting all applicable
requirements of the International Plumbing Code or its successors. The
GCD(s) shall be designed in accordance with the Hampton Roads Regional
Grease Control Device Design Standards.
(1) New Establishments --- Except as provided in subdivision (a) (2),
FSEs shall be required to install, operate, and maintain a GCD in compliance
with the requirements contained in the Ordinance. GCDs shall be installed
and registered prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
(2) Existing Establishments with GCD's — Existing FSEs in
operation as of the effective date of this Ordinance shall be allowed to
operate and maintain their existing GCDs, provided such GCDs are in proper
operating condition and not found to be contributing FOG in quantities to
cause line stoppages or to necessitate increased maintenance of the sanitary
sewer system. If the FSE is determined to be contributing FOG in quantities
to cause line stoppages or to necessitate increased maintenance of the sanitary
sewer system, the existing FSE shall comply with the requirements of this
section. Existing FSEs that are renovated or expanded shall install a GCD
meeting the requirements of this Ordinance. GCDs shall be installed,
inspected and registered as condition of final approval of such renovation or
expansion.
(3) Retrofit- Any existing FSE shall be required to install or upgrade
a GCD if such FSE is contributing FOG to the sanitary sewer system, as
determined by the County and HRSD. Such devices shall be registered with
the County within 30 days of installation.
(b) Installation of Grease Control Devices
GCDs shall be installed by a plumber licensed in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Every GCD shall be installed and connected so that it may be
32
readily accessible for inspection, cleaning, and removal of the intercepted
food waste and grease at any time.
(c) Maintenance of Grease Control Devices
(1) All GCDs shall be maintained at the owner's expense.
Maintenance shall include the complete removal of all contents, including
floating material, wastewater and settled solids. Decanting or discharging of
removed waste back into the grease interceptor or private sewer line or
into any portion of the County's or HRSD's sanitary sewer system is
prohibited.
(2) Grease interceptors shall be pumped out completely when the
total accumulation of FOG, including floating solids and settled solids,
reaches twenty -five percent (25 %) of the overall liquid volume. At no time
shall a GCD be cleaned less frequently than once every three (3) months
unless allowed by the Director of General Services or his designee for good
cause shown. Approval will be granted on a case -by -case basis upon
submittal of a request by the FSE, documenting reasons for the
proposed frequency variance.
(3) Grease traps and grease removal devices shall be opened,
inspected and completely cleaned of food solids and FOG a minimum of
once per week, unless allowed by the Director of General Services or his
designee for good cause shown. Approval will be granted on a case -by-
case basis upon submittal of a request by the FSE documenting reasons
for the proposed frequency variance. In no event shall the content of food
solids and FOG exceed twenty -five percent (25 %) of the overall liquid depth
of the device.
(4) The Director of General Services or his designee may establish a
more frequent cleaning schedule if the FSE is found to be contributing FOG
in quantities sufficient to cause line stoppages or to necessitate increased
maintenance of the sanitary sewer system.
(d) Use of Additives
The use of additives by FSEs including, but not limited to, products
that contain solvents, emulsifiers, surfactants, caustics, acids, enzymes or
bacteria are prohibited for use as grease management control; provided,
however, that additives may be used to clean the FSE drain lines so long as
the usage of such additives will not cause FOG to be discharged from the
grease control device to the sanitary sewer system. The use of additives
shall not be substituted for the maintenance procedures required by this
Section.
(e) Waste Disposal
(1) Waste removed from a grease trap shall be disposed of in the
solid waste disposal system or by a grease hauler certified by the Hampton
Roads Planning District Commission.
(2) Waste removed from a grease interceptor shall be disposed
of at a facility permitted to receive such wastes. No materials removed from
interceptors shall be returned to any grease interceptor, private sewer line
or into any portion of the County's or HRSD's sanitary sewer system.
(3) FSEs shall dispose of yellow grease in a render able FOG
container, where contents will not be discharged to the environment. Yellow
grease shall not be poured or discharged into the County's or HRSD's
sanitary sewer system.
(f) Inspection of Grease Control Devices
The Director of General Services or his /her designee shall have the
right of entry into any FSE, during reasonable hours, for the purpose
of making inspections, observation, measurements, sampling, testing or
records review of the sanitary sewer system and GCDs installed in such
building or premise to ensure that the FSE is in compliance with this
Ordinance. The owner or occupant may accompany the Director or his
designee. Operational changes, maintenance and repairs required by the
Director or his designee shall be implemented as noted in the written notice
received by the FSE.
(g) Record Keeping
(1) FSEs shall retain and make available for inspection and copying
records of all cleaning and maintenance for the previous three (3) years for
all GCDs. Cleaning and maintenance records shall include, at a
minimum, the dates of cleaning/maintenance records, the names and
business addresses of the company or person performing each
cleaning/maintenance and the volume of waste removed in each cleaning.
Such records shall be kept on site and shall be made immediately available to
any employee of Isle of Wight General Services upon request.
(2) FSEs shall retain and make available for inspection and copying
records of yellow grease disposal for the previous three (3) years. Yellow
grease disposal logs shall include, at a minimum, the dates of disposal, name
and business address of the company or person performing the disposal
and the volume of yellow grease removed in each cleaning. Such records
shall be kept on site and shall be made immediately available to any
employee of Isle of Wight General Services upon request.
Sec. 14 -98. Grease Hauler Requirements.
(a) Any person collecting, pumping or hauling waste from GCDs
located within the municipal boundaries of the County of Isle of Wight shall
34
be certified by the Hampton Roads FOG regionally- approved training
program provided by the HRPDC.
(b) The grease hauler shall notify the County of Isle of Wight within
twenty -four (24) hours of any incident required to be reported to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality.
(c) Grease haulers shall retain and make available for inspection and
copying, all records related to grease interceptor pumping and waste disposal
from businesses located in the County's wastewater service area. Records
shall include waste manifests that, at a minimum, include time, date and
volume of waste removed from the device and the time, date, volume and
destination of the waste disposed. These records shall remain available for a
period of at least three (3) years. The County of Isle of Wight may require
additional record keeping and reporting, as necessary, to ensure compliance
with the terms of this Ordinance.
Sec. 14 -99. Fees.
(a) Fees provided for in this Ordinance are separate and distinct from all
other fees chargeable by the County of Isle of Wight. Fees applicable to this
Ordinance are as follows:
(1) FSE registration fees shall be in the amount of One Hundred
Dollars ($100.00) and shall be payable at the time of submittal of the
registration.
(2) FSE inspection and re- inspection fees shall be as set forth by
Director of General Services and which may be amended from time to time.
Such fees shall be due upon invoice by the County of Isle of Wight. Such
fees may be added to the FSE's public service bill.
(b) In order to induce voluntary compliance with this Ordinance, the fees
chargeable pursuant to this Section shall be waived until March 31, 2011.
Sec. 14 -100. Compliance.
The County of Isle of Wight may require existing FSEs to modify or
repair any noncompliant GCD and appurtenances as noted in the written
notice received by the FSE.
Sec. 14 -101. Violations and Penalties.
(a) Any person who, intentionally or otherwise, commits any of the acts
prohibited by this ordinance shall be liable to the County of Isle of Wight for
all costs of containment, cleanup, abatement, removal and disposal of any
substance unlawfully discharged into the sanitary sewer system, as well as
the costs of any damages or regulatory fines, that are proximately caused by
such violations.
(b) Any person who, intentionally or otherwise, commits any of the acts
prohibited by this Ordinance shall be subject to a fine in an amount not to
exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per violation. The court assessing
such fines may, at its discretion, order such fines to be paid into the treasury
of the County for the purpose of abating, preventing or mitigating
environmental pollution.
(c) Enforcement will be in accordance with the associated Enforcement
Response Plan. The County of Isle of Wight may terminate water and/or
sewer services for continuing violations of this Ordinance.
(d) In addition to any other remedy for the violation of this Ordinance, the
Director may bring legal action to enjoin the continuing violation of this
ordinance, and the existence of any other remedy, at law or in equity, shall be
no defense to any such action.
(e) The remedies set forth in this section are cumulative, not exclusive; and
it may not be a defense to any action, civil or criminal, that one (1) or more of
the remedies set forth herein has been sought or granted.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch,
Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright declared a recess.
Supervisor Casteen moved to revert back to the regular order of the
agenda. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch,
Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for the continuation of Citizens Comments.
Herb DeGroft of 15411 Mill Swamp Road spoke in favor of the Navy
utilizing the Franklin Airport for touch and go landings. He also advised that
he had made an inquiry to the Virginia Department of Education and was
informed that the Virginia General Assembly, this past year, for this one (1)
time, is not requiring jurisdictions with left over State funds to ask about
retaining those funds due to the current economic conditions. He advised
that he had reviewed the School Board minutes of October 12, 2010 in which
the Board was asked to carry over $1+ million, of which some of that funding
36
was State funds. He distributed information which was provided to the
School Board which indicates that the County was shorted $593,407. He
suggested that the Board conduct an inquiry as to why it received incorrect
information and he encouraged the Board to pass a resolution stating that all
Federal and State education monies provided to the School system must be
used first before expending local funds before the Board would approve the
carry over of any State funds.
Rick Ivy of Franklin expressed opposition to the Navy's use of the
Franklin Airport for touch and go landings. He advised that he had recently
attended a meeting in Franklin of concerned citizens at Woods Edge where
there is a growing consensus that it would be dramatically impacted along
with other Franklin communities by the Navy's use of the airport. He
advised that two (2) of Franklin's Council members had attended that
meeting and that he had come away from the meeting encouraged by the
consensus that there was no need to rush to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Navy, particularly in the absence of any public
hearings on the subject. He advised that the meeting keyed in on the
suitability of the Franklin Airport and what happened to the other locations
which expressed interest early on in this project. He stated that the impact of
property values, quality of life and attracting businesses to the area were
questions which need answers and there was consideration given about
approaching the Commonwealth of Virginia's Assessment Board in order to
gain some understanding of the impact on commercial and residential
properties. He stated that while the Navy holds a real estate interest in the
Airport conveyed by way of a 1947 deed with Franklin, the likelihood of
imposing themselves might be considered remote. He stated that Admiral
Harvey said on record that the Navy has no desire to impose a solution on
localities and strong sentiment was also expressed that the County deserves a
seat at the table regarding this matter. He stated there are far more questions
than answers at this point and the citizens want answers to those questions
before the issue goes any further.
Daryl Butler of Hunt Club Road addressed the Board and asked those
in the audience in opposition to the Navy utilizing the Franklin Airport for
touch and go landings to stand. Approximately 30 individuals stood. He
stated that the noise is only a small part of why he came to the conclusion
that this use does not fit what is in the best interest for the surrounding
community. He stated that the Navy's use does not ft into the County's
Comprehensive Plan and he encouraged the Board to review the No OLF site
from Washington County, North Carolina where in 2005, a Federal Judge
found falsified environmental records.
Chairman Wright called for Board comments.
37
Supervisor Clark commented on a recent article in The Smithfield
Tunes which he considered unjustifiably pessimistic with respect to the water
agreement with the City of Norfolk. He stated that agreement ensures a
stable water supply for the next forty (40 +) plus years, which is important
since new groundwater permits are not available from the Environmental
Protection Agenda and the Department of Environmental Quality despite the
closure of International Paper (IP). He stated that the agreement will allow
intermodal and industrial facilities to take hold in and around Windsor and
the southern end of the County. He stated that the IP property will be
repurposed largely due to the efforts of County staff and elected leaders at the
local and State levels. He stated that potential new facilities may bring even
more revenue and job growth over the next five (5) years, which will
supplement the IP losses. He stated that the article failed to note that
Smithfield Foods had one (1) of its strongest years in 2010; that tourism in
the County is at record levels; and, that a new Smithfield Fire Department, a
courthouse and an animal shelter will be built at low construction costs not
witnessed in a decade. He stated that in 2010, County citizens had a County
government that took care of business here in the County and was active at
the regional, State and national levels. He stated that the Board, over the last
ten (10) years, has worked to impact State and Federal legislation before it
becomes law and has been proactive, not reactive. He stated that the Board is
active in the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) in order to protect the
County's interest in Richmond. He stated that at the National Association of
Counties (NACo), unfunded Federal mandates are fought and the massive
misuse of tax dollars at the national level, as well as unfair and expensive
Environmental Protection Agenda (EPA) regulations that push up water and
sewer costs. He stated that Phillip Bradshaw was the past VACo President
who served on many committees; Mr. Wright was Chairman of the Western
Tidewater Water Authority and the Western Tidewater Jail and has begun a
national effort to bar the use of plastic bags as being farmer unfriendly and
environmentally unsound. He stated that he and Mr. Wright serve on
numerous NACo steering committees that are pivotal in lobbying the General
Assembly and he serves on the NACo Transportation and Resolutions
Committees. He stated that he was elected as Chairman of the Hampton
Roads Planning District Commission, a Federally mandated organization to
do regional transportation planning in order to qualify for Federal Highway
Administration funds and to voice opposition to tolls. He stated that Ms.
Hall is a VACo Committee member and actively involved in those
committees. He stated that the County is well positioned for the future and
when the economy rebounds, the County's economic incentives will
encourage economic investment in the County as opposed to other localities.
He stated that the County is positioned to compete and it will win as it will
have economic growth and new job opportunities and further diversify the
County's tax base. He stated that American K -9 Interdiction is already
requesting to expand its facility in Walters and Mike Duman and Blanchard's
Tires have located in Carrollton from Suffolk. He stated that we can not fail
to plan and invest in the County's future in the form of water, education,
administration of justice, law enforcement, fire and rescue and other areas.
38
He stated it is much easier to write some simplistic jingle and much harder to
keep taxes low and realistically govern with an eye toward the future and a
brighter tomorrow.
Supervisor Casteen commented that the 1998 Western Tidewater Water
Authority Agreement entitles the County to three (3) million gallons of water
per day and the City of Suffolk was entitled to nine (9) million gallons of
water per day. He stated that the County agreed to pay for one (1) fourth of
the capital cost of all the development and the City of Suffolk would pay for
three (3) fourths. He stated that twelve (12) years later, the County is using
one -tenth of the three (3) million gallons that the Agreement developed for in
1998 and yet the County is still paying for one -fourth of all the capital
development. He stated that experience has shown that the County should
consider discussing with the City of Suffolk some reallocation. He stated
that the water agreement with the City of Norfolk entitles the County to 3.75
million additional gallons of water per day for the next forty (40) years at
which time the agreement is terminated. He stated that the forecast for water
demand for the County from its consultants show that the County may need
three (3) million gallons of water per day in forty (40) years and the logic and
vision of acquiring 3.75 million additional gallons of water per day beginning
in 2014 is unrealistic.
Supervisor Clark commented that the demand today is not the demand
of tomorrow and the consultant's estimates for residential growth did not
include the Intermodal facility or any type of development in the Windsor
area. He stated if the County does not have the water in advance, growth will
not occur, which means jobs. He stated that the door is open for the
economic future of the County, as well as for providing residential growth in
other areas of the County.
Supervisor Casteen commented that he fully supports the concept of
the $14 million to build the pipeline from the City of Suffolk to the
Intermodal Park. He stated International Paper would have never been there
if it had to purchase water from the County and Smithfield Foods would not
be there if it had to purchase commercial water. He stated that the only way
companies that use a great deal of water can operate is with wells. He stated
that it has to be economically feasible for it to be a factor and attractive.
Supervisor Clark remarked that the Cities of Norfolk and Virginia
Beach's large industrial bases are supplied by surface water piped in from
Lake Gaston and commercial developers pay for that every day.
/1
Chairman Wright called for the County Attorney's report.
Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the 2011 Rules of
Procedure of the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors were acted upon
39
under Item (1), Election of Chairman and Vice - Chairman for 2011,
subparagraph (F).
Interim County Attorney Burton advised that he had one (1) personnel
matter for the Board to discuss during the closed meeting.
Chairman Wright called for the Parks and Recreation report.
Mr. Furlow advised that the Carrollton Library is experiencing severe
drainage problems due to flat adjacent grades and the build up of lawn at the
edge of the parking lot. He further advised that Scott Courtney, Resource
International, is recommending that a portion of the parking lot be raised, an
additional drainage swale be cut and a portion of the lawn be regraded to
facilitate off -site drainage. He advised that $18,000 has been appropriated in
the FY2011 -12 Capital Improvement Budget to complete this work; however,
per the County Administrator's Budgetary Directives memorandum of June
23, 2010, staff must seek Board authorization before beginning a capital
project.
Supervisor Clark moved that staff be authorized to move forward with
the Carrollton Library Drainage Capital Improvement Project. The motion
was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall
and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against
the motion.
Chairman Wright called for the General Services report.
Mr. Haltom advised that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
was scheduled to release the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) by the end
of December 2010 and in early 2011, the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR) will assign maximum pollution
loadings. He stated that localities must respond by the end of 2011 with a
Watershed Implementation Plan (Phase II WIP) to reduce pollution and the
County must also provide DCR a "draft" plan by June 2011. He stated that
while staff is hopeful that there will be an extension of this timeline, staff is
prepared to meet that schedule.
He advised that engineering consulting services will be required to
review existing County programs and TMDL requirements for impacts on
future land use. He advised that staff will work with the engineering
consultant in developing a "draft" response to DCR, which will detail a
County - specific alternative that establishes the most effective way for Isle of
Wight to meet the required pollutant loading reductions. He advised that
40
these recommendations will be provided to DCR during the development of
the Phase II Water Shed Implementation Plan.
He advised that in the absence of a detailed plan, Isle of Wight will be
required to accept the default approaches to meeting TMDL regulations
crafted by DCR. He advised that the proposed Isle of Wight plan would be
one that is defensible and tailored specifically to the County.
He advised that funding in the amount of $25,000 for the planning and
strategy process of the County's TMDL plan was approved and is available
in the Engineering category of the FY2010 -11 Capital Improvement Plan.
Supervisor Clark requested that staff investigate and report back to the
Board in the future regarding how the County will be tested with regard to
whether or not it is meeting the requirements. He recommended that the
public be educated and staff be assertive so that the County may not be
required to have some of the construction costs, which can be astronomical.
Supervisor Clark moved to authorize expenditures, as approved in the
CIP, to fund the initial planning of the County's TMDL. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and
Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the
motion.
Eddie P. Wrightson, Director of General Services, requested the Board
authorize execution of Amendment No. 1 to the Animal Shelter Construction
Contract and adopt a Resolution to Authorize Contract Amendment Number
1 to Martin Horn Inc. Contract to Perform Site Work at the New Animal
Shelter Building.
Supervisor Casteen moved to authorize the Chairman to execute
Amendment No. 1 to the Animal Shelter construction contract and adopt the
following Resolution:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER
1 TO MARTIN HORN INC. CONTRACT TO PERFORM SITE WORK AT
THE NEW ANIMAL SHELTER BUILDING
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia (the "Board ") have entered into a contract with Martin Horn Inc. for
the design and construction of a new Animal Shelter; and
WHEREAS, in order to expedite the site plan approval process, site
grading, parking, storm water management and erosion and sediment controls
were not initially included in the Martin Horn building construction contract;
and
41
WHEREAS, including the site work with the Animal Shelter building
construction will benefit the County by improving coordination of building and
site activities and assigning construction responsibilities to one (1) entity; and
WHEREAS, the cost for Contract Amendment Number 1 has been
evaluated and determined to be within the project budget and below the
engineers estimate; and
WHEREAS, the approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 will result in a
net contract increase of $($129,682.00; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that the Chairman 3f the Board of
Supervisors is authorized to execute Contract Amendment Number 1
resulting in an increase to the total contract costs in the amount of One
Hundred and Twenty -Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty -Two Dollars
($129,682.00).
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch,
Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for the Emergency Services report.
James R. Chase, Chief of Emergency Management, stated pursuant to
the Board's direction at its regular meeting on November 18, 2010, he has
further reviewed the Streamflow Monitor system. He advised that in March
2010, staff requested and received a one -year extension of the USGS grant
for acquisition and installation of a streamflow gauge.
Chairman Wright commented that he is having difficulty understanding
why the County is being requested to provide funding for work that the
USGS is responsible for performing.
Shaun Wicklein, Hydrologic Network Operations Chief, USGS,
advised that the USGS is responsible for monitoring the gauge, which will be
located on Route 620 and provide a more accurate prediction of storm events
and flooding. He stated that it responds differently based on the type of
storm event and the weather services needs additional base information in
order to provide more accurate predictions of flooding.
Chairman Wright stated that this cost should the responsibility of the
weather service, not the County.
Mr. Wicklein advised that the reason that the USGS is requesting the
County to provide some funding for this site is that there are approximately
7,000 stream gauges across the country and the Federal government supplies
42
funding to the USGS to operate those stream gauges, but it is not sufficient
funding to operate all the stream gauges. He advised that the USGS is
authorized to take the funds that are provided by Congress and leverage those
funds with partnerships and get localities and other State agencies to provide
funding for a stream gauge that will be located in a location that will benefit a
Iocality.
Mr. Chase advised that the current location for the gauge is on Route
620 over the Blackwater River located north of Zuni, as well as one (1) in the
City of Franklin at the new bridge.
Supervisor Casteen inquired if having the gauge would provide the
County with additional notice sufficient to really make an impact. He stated
if it will not provide an early warning to the County of any significance, then
he is not confident that it is really needed.
Mr. Wicklein replied that the gauge is not only beneficial as an early
warning system, but it will also contain other information that can be used for
looking at environmental impacts and provide good decision making with
respect to where development can occur. He advised that the information can
also be used by FEMA with respect to a flood study.
Mr. Chase advised that the gauge will most likely not be an early
warning system, but will be helpful with data collection for flood zones and
will provide for the water temperature stream flow, which will have an
environmental impact such as if the County is considering a wildlife preserve
with canoes, as well as additional information on how high the water is
rising. He stated this could be a benefit to the County with respect to its
history of flooding; however, much of the areas in the County that have
flooded in the past have now been mitigated and there are not many homes
being built along the Blackwater River.
Supervisor Bunch noted that half of the Blackwater River is located in
Southampton County and stated that he does not understand why
Southampton is not being asked to assist with funding.
Donald T. Robertson, Director of Information Resources and
Legislative Affairs, advised that he is not clear why Southampton is not
participating, as staff was only advised that Southampton County is not a
participating entity with regard to the grant.
Chairman Wright moved to deny the grant request. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and
Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the
motion.
Mr. Chase requested that the Board appropriate carryover capital
funding in the amount of $1,700,000 remaining on June 30, 2010 which was
43
approved in the FY2008 -09 and FY2009 -10 Capital Budgets for renovations
to the Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue Squad Building. He advised that a
public hearing had been held on the matter on December 18, 2010 and he
would like authorization from the Board to solicit an RFP.
Chairman Wright commented that the building can not be started until
the Smithfield Volunteer Fire Station building is complete.
Brian Carroll, Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue Squad, commented that
construction of the Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue Squad was originally
delayed because of the water project in Smithfield and the construction of the
Smithfield Volunteer Fire Department and the thought at that time was that
the construction of the bay portion of the building would build out while the
Smithfield Volunteer Fire Department was being completed, thus allowing
the Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue Squad a location to house its equipment
and that the Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue Squad would move into the
existing fire station. He stated that ideally, the Isle of Wight Volunteer
Rescue Squad building project should begin several months before the
Smithfield Volunteer Fire Department construction is completed.
Supervisor Clark moved that the following Resolution be adopted and
authorize staff to put out an RFP (A.K.A. IFB) for the Isle of Wight
Volunteer Rescue Squad Building:
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE CAPITAL
DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE FOR THE RENOVATIONS TO
THE ISLE OF WIGHT VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD BUILDING
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia in its FY2009 -10 appropriation resolution, appropriated funds for
the renovation of the Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue Squad building and;
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of one million, seven hundred
thousand ($1,700,000) for this capital improvement have been set aside by
the Board of Supervisors to ensure completion of this project and;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems it necessary to set aside
and restrict these funds appropriated in FY 2010 -11 to make certain that
appropriated funds are available for this project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
will set aside and restrict one million, seven hundred thousand dollars
($1,700,000) appropriated in FY2010 -11 to make certain that appropriated
funds are available for this project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County
Administrator of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make
44
the appropriate accounting adjustments in the budget and do all things
necessary to give this resolution effect.
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch,
Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Mr. Chase requested authorization to fill a recently vacant, full -time
Paramedic position and four (4) part -time Paramedics. He advised that two
(2) of the requested positions will be assigned to the Windsor Volunteer
Rescue Squad and two (2) at the Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue Squad.
Supervisor Casteen moved that staff be authorized to fill a recently
vacant, full -time Paramedic position, through internal processing and to fill
four (4) part -time Paramedics. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0)
with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of
the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Mr. Chase advised that during the budgeting process, the FY2010 -11
training budget for Fire and Rescue volunteers was reduced from $25,000
annually to $10,000. He advised that this funding is used for EMT and fire
fighter training by the County's volunteer fire and rescue department and the
Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association is requesting $15,000 to restore
funding. He advised that training is needed for the County's volunteer fire
and rescue personnel and he recommended that the Board adopt the
Resolution to Appropriate Funds from the Unappropriated Fund Balance for
Volunteer Fire and Rescue Training contained in the agenda.
Chairman Wright moved that the following Resolution be adopted up
to $25,000 for this budget line item:
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE AND
RESCUE TRAINING
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia has authorized additional funding for the volunteer fire and rescue
training budget; and,
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000)
needs to be appropriated from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the
General Fund to the FY 2010 -11 General Operating and Capital 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
45
appropriated to the FY 2010 -11 General Operating and Capital 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 Bunch,
Casteen, CIark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for the County Administrator's report.
Diane M. Jones, Emergency Communications Center Manager, advised
that applications have been prepared by the Emergency Communications
Department requesting grant funding in the amount of $126,400 from the
Virginia Wireless Services Board. She advised that the grant request is
broken into six (6) pieces, one (1) for each type of equipment requested. She
advised that a County match is required for one (1) of the six (6) requests.
She requested that the Board adopt the Resolution to Apply for Grant Funds
from the Virginia Wireless Services Board PSAP Grant Program contained in
the agenda.
Supervisor Casteen moved that the following Resolution be adopted:
RESOLUTION TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE VIRGINIA
WIRELESS SERVICES BOARD PSAP GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Manager of the Emergency Communications Center
has prepared grant requests for six types of equipment from the Wireless
Services Board PSAP GRANT PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of one hundred twenty six thousand
four hundred dollars may be made available through a grant from the
Virginia Wireless Services Board.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that the County Administrator or the
Chairman of the Emergency Communications Board are hereby authorized to
execute for and on behalf of Isle of Wight County any actions necessary for
the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the Virginia
Wireless Services Board.
46
The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch,
Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Ms. Jones addressed the Board regarding a regional interoperability
radio system known as ORION that would permit interoperable
communications with responders from disparate radio systems in an
emergency situation, such as the evacuation of the region due to a hurricane
or during an incident on the James River where County personnel would
work cooperatively with personnel from Newport News and the State. She
advised that the ECC Board of Directors endorsed bringing the system to the
County; however, the Sheriff and the Chief of Emergency Services are less
enthusiastic about this system. She advised that the Chief of Emergency
Services is specifically concerned about the cost in light of the current
budgetary situation. She advised that the most recent funding is designated
to create a site in the County and the recommended location for same is on
the water tower behind the new Young -Laine Courts Building. She advised
that once the site is installed and reaches the end of its warranty period,
ownership of the equipment would pass to the County, which would become
responsible for ongoing maintenance. She requested the Board to consider
the installation of an ORION radio site on the Courthouse water tower.
Supervisor Casteen moved to approve the installation of an ORION
radio site at the Isle of Wight Courthouse water tower. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and
Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the
motion.
County Administrator Caskey presented a request from Judy C. Wells,
Treasurer, to fill a full -time Deputy Clerk I position without waiting the
required ninety (90) days in order to retain a successful intake of revenue.
Supervisor Casteen moved that the full -time Deputy Clerk I position be
filled effective March 1, 2011. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0)
with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of
the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Chairman Wright called for Appointments.
Supervisor Casteen moved that James A. Minton, Jr. be appointed to
the Planning Commission representing the Smithfield District and replacing
Lee Winslett. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors
Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
47
Chairman Wright moved that William Saunders be reappointed to
represent the Windsor District on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
Committee. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors
Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor Hall moved that Gloria Wilson be reappointed to represent
the Hardy District on the Beautification Committee. The motion was adopted
by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright
voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor Hall moved that Bobby Bowser be appointed to serve on the
Redistricting Committee for the 2010 Census. The motion was adopted by a
vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting
in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor Clark moved that Jerianne Gardner be reappointed to
represent the Newport District on the Wetlands Board. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and
Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the
motion.
Supervisor Casteen moved that James R. Chase be reappointed to the
Tidewater Emergency Medical Services Council, Inc. The motion was
adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and
Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the
motion.
Due to the resignation of William Bell, Supervisor Clark moved that
Ed Easter be appointed to serve as the Chairman of the Redistricting
Committee for the 2010 Census. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0)
with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of
the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
The Board concurred that William Bell is to remain a member of the
Redistricting Committee for the 2010 Census.
Chairman Wright called for Old Business.
County Administrator Caskey brought to the Board's attention that
Supervisor Clark had previously requested that the Board be apprised of
inoperable items in all school facilities, such as security camera repair at the
Windsor Middle School. He stated at that time, Mr. Bradshaw, the School's
Chief Financial Officer, advised that Peter Andreu was in the process of
developing a short and long -term facilities maintenance plan to be shared
with the County's Budget and Finance Director. He stated that he has
48
provided the Board with information received in his office today from Mr.
Andreu relative to cost estimates for the replacement of cameras at the
Windsor Middle School.
The Board's consensus was to discuss this matter further at the Board's
joint meeting with the School Board on January 11, 2011.
Chairman Wright called for New Business.
Supervisor Clark relayed Mike Barrett's request that the Board support
the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance Campaign.
Supervisor Clark moved that staff be directed to prepare a letter under
the Chairman's signature in support of the Alliance's campaign as stated in a
letter to Supervisor Clark and dated January 3, 2011 from Michael J. Barrett
of Virginia Beach. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with
Supervisors Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the
motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
Michael W. Terry, the County's new Director of Budget and Finance,
was formally introduced to the Board.
Supervisor Clark requested that staff prepare a report to be included in
the Board's February 17, 2011 agenda under the Consent Agenda regarding
code compliance issues associated with Elliott Cohen.
1l
Linda Mathias of Windsor spoke in favor of the Navy utilizing the
Franklin Airport for touch and go landings. She advised that she is a member
of the glider club in Orbit. She stated that the Navy is being very cooperative
with the glider club and Navy representatives are scheduled to meet with the
members of the glider club in the near future to discuss any problems. She
advised that when the gliders are flying, there will be visual flight rules in
effect and during those conditions, the Navy pilots will be looking outside
their windows as required by FAA rules whenever a plane is not in the
clouds. She advised that she is a regular pilot flying out of the Franklin
Airport and she is confident that the Navy will do every thing that they can to
be a good neighbor to the pilots at the Franklin Airport. She stated that she
attended the December test flight and she did not think that the noise was all
that bad. She stated that if all the citizens say "not in my backyard" the
defense of the nation will be impacted, as well as the safety of naval aviators.
Joe Mathias of Windsor spoke in favor of the Navy utilizing the
Franklin Airport for touch and go landings. He advised that he has been
flying for 72 years and every airport has take -off procedures aimed at
49
keeping the noise level at a minimum and a pilot can be fined if these
procedures are not adhered to. He stated that the airplane being flown by the
Navy at the Franklin Airport is one (1) of the quietest planes flown today.
Supervisor Clark commented on a recent trip aboard an aircraft carrier
that turned out to be one (1) of the most inspiring and educational
experiences in his life as he witnessed young Navy personnel diligently
working on very complex equipment. He stated it was an incredibly
rewarding experience which changed his perspective about what the Navy
does. He stated that the biggest single investment that any entity has in
Hampton Roads is the Navy and he is looking forward to working with the
Navy to ensure that its needs are met.
1/
Interim County Attorney Burton requested a closed meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2- 3711.A.1 to discuss a personnel matter pertaining to a specific
public official.
Supervisor Clark moved that the Board enter the closed meeting for the
reasons stated. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors
Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor Clark moved that the Board return to open meeting. The
motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bunch, Casteen,
Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors
voting against the motion.
Supervisor Clark 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.
50
VOTE
AYES: Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright
NAYS: 0
ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0
ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0
Rudolph Jefferson, Assistant Fire Chief, Rushmere Volunteer Fire
Department, requested the status of the replacement of doors at the fire
station; funding for the renovation project and the rescue pump truck. He
informed the Board that snakes have been accessing the living quarters at the
fire station which are coming in through the doors because they not properly
sealed and are in need of being replaced. He advised that the building has a
flat roof which leaks because there is no change in elevation. He presented a
work request dated October 6, 2010 of 26 of outstanding items at the
Rushmere Volunteer Fire Department which has been presented to the
Department of General Services, but not yet been accomplished.
Brandon Jefferson, Chief, Rushmere Volunteer Fire Department and
Chairman of the Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association, advised that the
need for the replacement of overhead doors has been discussed by the
Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association. He advised that when the last repairs
were made at the Rushmere Volunteer Fire Department, the Department of
General Services was advised that the doors were in need of replacement. He
stated that old parts from rescue squad doors were installed which did not fit
the existing doorframe and caused two (2) of the doors at the Rushmere
Volunteer Fire Department to be inoperable.
Jeremiah Jefferson, President of the Rushmere Volunteer Fire
Department, advised that he had a recent conversation with Mr. Wrightson
who informed him that nothing could be done to the Rushmere Volunteer
Fire Department until July 1, 2011. He stated that the conditions are not
getting any better in the building which has not had any maintenance for the
last 20 years.
Supervisors Clark and Hall agreed to meet with the Assistant Fire
Chief, the Chief and the President of the Rushmere Volunteer Fire
Department at the Rushmere Volunteer Fire Department on January 31, 2011
to review their concerns. Mr. Wrightson is to also be in attendance at the
meeting.
51
At 9:00 p.m., Supervisor Hall moved that the Board adjourn its
meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors
Bunch, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
52