08-07-1986 Regular MeetingPage 26
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE
SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX
PRESENT: Richard L. Turner, Chairman
C. Fred Bailey
Henry H. Bradby
Joel C, Bradshaw, Jr.
Thomas L, Ross, Vice Chairman
Also attending: H, Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney
~ W. B. Owen, County Administrator
Terry D, Lewis, Planning Director
Betty Scott, Secretary
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 2:06 P,M, The invocation
was delivered by Supervisor Bradshaw.'
//
Supervisor Bradby asked R, W. Coates, Resident Engineer, Department of
Highways and Transportation, for his assistance in determng the necessary pro-
cedure for including the roads in Paradise Heights .Subdivision in the state
maintenance system, Mr. Coates stated he would write a letter to County Ad-
ministrator, W, B. Owen, giving the specifics,
//
Chairman Turner called for a public hearing on the following ordinances:
1, An Ordinance To Amend The Subdivision Ordinance of Isle of
Wight County To Provide For Interior Streets And Other Re-
quirements For Lots Fronting On Arterial Roads, High Service
Secondary Roads and Low Service Secondary Roads.
County Attorney, H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., informed the Board members that
the following amendment should be considered along with the abovementioned
ordinance:
2. An Amendment To The Isle of .Wight County Land Use Plan
And Map To Add Trafficways Plan
Guy E, Bishop, of the Peninsula. Housing and Builders Association, re-
presenting real. estate agents, developers and surveyors opposed to the change,
appeared and stated the amendment was impractical. It would be an inefficient
use of the land and would unfairly deny landowners access to public roads. Mr.
Bishop continued stating. the trafficways plan that classified roads is arbitrary
because it places an unfair burden on landowners on busy roads more than those
on less traveled roads. The ordinance would also increase the cost of new
homes in the County, as well as the estimated cost of new subdivision streets
which would be $90,00 per linear foot, said Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop asked the
Board members to study the amendment further and. appoint a committee, including.
some real estate agents, to review and study same and bring suggestions back to
the Board.
"Good .Afternoon, Gentlemen, I am,....,
Two professional associations representing more than 720 real estate,
.~
August 7,1986
construction, land development .and related businesses in the .
Included are businesses that work in your county and are here..,..
I want. to speak on behalf of my local constituents about the proposed
amendment to your subdivision ordinance. The change will restrict,
in varying severity, the access of some property to public roads.
The amendment may appear reasonable end worthwhile yet - in all
candor - it is considerably impractical, potentially wasteful of
land, possibly. discriminatory and ambiguously written.
In addition, it will probably result in either an unjustified
financial loss or burden on many land owners in the county.
Not just so-called large landowners but. small ones as well. Some
who need the sale. of land to survive as farmers or as citizens of
limited income.
Page 27
I won't mention any comments - at this moment - about the amendment
possibly being contrary. to either the Code or Constitution of Virginia.
Rather, I ask your patience as I recite some of the more obvious
problems the proposal will create.
I request your understanding that an important matter deserves
some thoughtful consideration which requires some few minutes,
Before I mention any of these problems, let's refresh our memories by
defining what a subdivision is in this county.
It is any tract of land that is divided into two or more lots or
parcels - any one of which is less than ten acres -for the purpose
of transfer or ownership or building development.
Further, if a new street is involved, a subdivision is any number of
lots - any one of which is less than twenty acres.
No differentiation is made between residential, commercial and in-
dustrial development.
With the definition in our minds, let's now consider some of the
primary problems the amendment .will create.
One, being applicable only to residential subdivisions, it would deny
anyone developing land for residential use the rights given to those
developing for commercial and industrial purposes:
The reasonably direct access to publicly-owned roads.
Two, the amendment is written ambiguously. I ask you to direct your
attention to sections l2 and 13.
I believe you will agree that section 12 actually says - quote - all
residential subdivisions fronting on class 2 roads are required to
have a minimum area of 2 acres - unquote.
Similarly, section 13 requires residential subdivisions on class 3
roads to have a minimum of 1 acre.
For the third problem, let's make an .assumption. Let's assume that the
intention was to require lots - not subdivisions - to be either 2 or 1
acre in minimum size.
If this assumption was the intention, the result would be a grossly
inefficient use of land and needlessly increase the cost of all housing
in certain parts of the county.
This inefficient use and increased cost would, in a real sense, penalize
those buying homes in some parts as compared to other parts.
r
August 7, 1986 Page 28
Further, the frontage requirements would - in all probability - result
in restricting logically configured lots limiting in innovative site
plans, and reducing design options,
These also would increase the cost of housing for those persons. wanting
a home in certain areas of the county.
Please consider the result of a 3.00 feet width with a 150 feet setback,
That's. more than an acre of land required to be denied of any reason-
able use, An acre for each and every lot,
The 200 feet width with a .100 feet setback results in almost one-half
an acre of wasted land for each lot.
Land that must be paid for through purchase and taxes but denied any
benefit of.
One might-conclude that the intention. is to financially force someone
to accept the less costly alternative. This also..,,,
The .fourth probable problem is who will define what class any
particular road is,
More importantly, who will declare what roads are - and I again quote -
carryng considerable through traffic. from one population center to
another - unquote?
Also, what factual basis will ba used for making such declarations?
Might such declarations be based on some individual's whim or sub-
jective decision,
Declarations considered capricious and arbitrary by o her reasonably
minded people?
Another problem would be the .effect on a local landowner who wants to
develop a small parcel of land himself,
Could he secure a performance bond required to construct what would
become public roads,.
Or, would he be forced to sell land at its new land value?
Remember - two or more lots are a subdivision.
And, declaring one section of a particular road as carrying consider-
able. traffic almost mandates declaring all of that road as such,
Otherwise, questions of discrimination ,t,.
The last problem I want to mention is the increased cost of residential
construction.
Section .12 would require an additional 90 feet of driveway .and utilities
as compared to ,,,,,
,And, section 13 would require an additional 40 feet,
That's an increased cost of $60 to $150 per lot,
An increase that would not be borne by all residents of all the county,
But, by those unfortunate enough to want to live on or near certain
roads.
Now let`s consider a few questions about other aspects of this amend-
ment,
Would the owners of property considered for residential development. be
denied the same rights and. privileges as those owners of ultimately
commerical and industrial construction?
Would the amendment really promote public. health, safetyr prosperity
morals and public welfare?
rl
lJ
August 7, 1986 page 29
Would the amendment deprive some citizens of the',reasonable use of
their land?
And, would this deprivation amount to taking land without due pro-
cess of law?
Also, would .the amendment be over]_y arbitrary anal place undue burdens
upon some landowners when compared with the previous ordinance?
I'm not qualified to attempt an answer to any. of t?~ese questions, but -
Some informed people might conclude that the amendment is a violation
of the Constitutiional principle of equal protection,
.There does appear to be a conflict between the amendment to the.sub-
.division ordinance and certain provisions of the zoning ordinance.
But, let's not dwell on any legalistic possibility.
Instead, let's dwell on the desire of my constituents..
Being citizens as well as business people of the .county, they share
your objective.
To help keep Isle of Wight a progressive community that is meeting the.
needs of its present and future citizens.
In that spirit of positive participation, we suggest you do two things.
One - put this amendment aside and -
Two, for a joint county - business committee.
A group that would develop a practical and workable alternative.
There may be roads now and in the future where the amount of traffic
warrants reasonably contzolled access.
There are aJ~ternatives to the amendment which could be considered,
As examples -
Semi-circular driveways or turnaround spaces on lots which face certain
roads.
Driveways that are shared by two or more lots,
Another idea would be to require a single entrance for every. so many
feet -say 1000 - for residential subdivisions of certain number of
lots - perhaps 75 -fronting on specific roads such as Route 17,
Perhaps, of greater importance, the entire subdivision and zoning
ordinances may need complete overhaul to suit current and future
trends.
A bandaid never is a satisfactory substitute for surgery.
Again, let me emphasis that -while I have imposed much on your time --
I have not attempted any thorough recitation.
There are other practical and legal. aspects which I have omitted in
respect to your time,
In closing,. gentlemen, we hope the problems of application and
questions of Legality convince you to put .aside the amendment and to
appoint a joint committees
Or, even more desirably for the county, you authorize a compelte
overhaul of the two. ordinances."
James R, Cobb, of Windsor, said he saw little public demand for the change.
"Why are we at this point-today", he asked.
t
August 7, 1986
Page (?
Robert Boyd, a Newport resident, spoke in favor of the ordinance stating.
that while he agrees with ..the concept of interior roads for new subdivisions,
he thought the proposal was ambiguous,
Planning Director Lewis informed the Board that after a year of study,.
"this is the best compromise that. can be presented to you at this time",
Ann Simpson Jones, attorney with Jones & Jones, thanked the Board for the.
opportunity of having worked on the proposed ordinance. Mrs, Jones asked the
Board to exempt the subdivision applications already on file from the proposed
ordinance if adopted.
Supervisor Bradby stated he has seen a big increase in traffic on County
roads-and a silent majority favors control by the Board for the future safety
of its citizens.
Supervisors Rass and Turner stated they think the amendment restricts
uses of property too much .and some adjustments to the lot sizes and setback
requirements need to be made.
Following discussion, Supervisor Ross moved the Board-table action on `"An
Ordinance To Amend The Subdivision Ordinance Of Isle of Wight County To Pro-
vide For Interior Streets And Other Requirements For Lots Fronting On Arterial
Roads, High Service Secondary Roads and Low Service Secondary Roads" and '"An
Amendment To The Isle of Wight County Land Use. Plan And Map To Add Trafficways
Plan"' until the August 21, 1986 Board meeting at which time a committee will
be appointed to further study the matter, .The motion passed by unanimous vote.
3. An Amendment To The Zoning Ordinance Of Isle of Wight County
Concerning Number of Dwellings On .Land
Cornelius Duff, landowner near Chuckatuck, appeared stating he would like
to find out a little more about the ordinance. He asked if the proposed
ordinance prevented him from building a house foz a family member or tenant
on his own land. County Attorney Crook replied "'no not without conveying the
lot". Mr. Crook also stated there is a family exemption which could apply..
James R. Cobb, of Windsor, also expressed concern regarding the proposed
ordinance.
Supervisor Bailey stated hehas a problem with building a guest house or
servants quarters, feels the lot size needs to be defined.
County Attorney Crook advised the Board members that Sections 2-1-1, 3-1-1
and 5A-1-1 could be deleted and Sections 4-1-1, 5-1-1 and 5.1-2(1) could be
left and the proposed ordinance could then be considered by the Board.
However, following discussion and on motion of Supervisor Ross, the Board
e
August 7. 1986
Page 31
voted unanimously to table action until the August 21, 1986 Board meeting on
"An Amendment To The Zoning Ordinance Of Isle. of Wight County Concerning Number
of Dwellings On Land" for further review and study.
County Attorney Crook advised the Board members the .following Ordinances
had previously been approved at the July 3, 1986 meeting.. However, it had been
determined they were not properly advertised when approved and had to be re-
advertised and adopted.
1. An Ordinance To Amend The Zoning Ordinance Of Isle of Wight
County To Amend The Setback For. Accessory Buildings At Less
Than Other Structures
2. An Ordinance To Amend The Zoning Ordinance Of Isle of Wight
County To Reduce The Time For Posting Of Signs Prior To The
Public Hearing From Fifteen Days To Ten Days
3. An Ordinance To Amend The Subdivision Ordinance To Delete
Provisions For Farmette Subdivisions
4. An Ordinance To Amend The Zoning Ordinance Of Isle of Wight
County Defining Accessory Buildings
5. An Ordinance To Amend The Zoning Ordinance Of Isle of Wight
County For Setback For Structures
On motion of Supervisor Ross, the Board voted unanimously to adopt the
said zoning ordinance amendments..
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ISLE. OF WIGHT COUNTY
TO AMEND SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AT LESS DISTANCE THAN
OTHER STRUCTURES
BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, that the following sections of
the Zoning Ordinance of Isle of Wight County be amended to read as
follows:
4-1-6. Accessory buildings as defined, however, garages
or other accessory buildings such as carports, porches and
stoops attached to the main building shall be considered part
of the main building. No accessory building may be closer. than
five (5) feet to any property line.
5-1-14. Accessory buildings permitted as defined: however,
garages or other accessory structures such as carports, porches
and stoops attached to the main building shall be considered part
of the main building. No accessory building may be closer than.
five (5) feet to any property line.
Adopted this 7th day of August, 1986. _
°`~
~ •-
t ~ r'
~- ~ ,
~' m ;
`.Richard L. Turner, Chairman
Attest:
~- ,,' '~i
W. B. Owen, Clerk
~J
August 7, 1986 Page 32
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY
TO REDUCE THE TIME FOR POSTING OF SIGNS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING
FROM FIFTEEN DAYS TO TEN DAYS
BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, that Section 10-1-4 of the Zoning
Ordinance of Isle df Wight County be amended to read as follows:
Section 10-1-4. Posting of signs; res~nonsibility; contents.
In addition to notice of public hearings as .required generally by
law, the applicant for rezoning of property,. conditional use permits,
variances and/or special exceptions shall erect on or immediately
adjacent to such property a sign or signs as specified herein, giv-
ing public notice of the zoning action requested, The wording,. size
and color of such sign shall be as specified by the County Ad-
ministrator.and approved by the Board of Supervisors. One (1) sign
shall be erected so as to be visible and legible to each abutting
public street.. Where the property. has extensive road frontage, one
(1) sign shall be erected for each 500 feet. of frontage. When a
property has no frontage on a public street, it shah be Hosted
adjacent to the nearest public street from which future access is
contemplated. Such signs shall be erected not less than ten
calendar days before any public hearing of which they give notice
and removed by the applicant within two (2) days after the public
hearing. Such signs shall be required for each public hearing at
which the apph cation is considered. It shall be unlawful for any
persons to pull down, write on, cut or otherwise injure or deface
such public notice, which will constitute violation of this Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance
or replacement of signs obliterated or destroyed during the posting
period. The County Administrator may require. the applicant to de-
posit with the County a cash bond equal to the replacement value of
the sign(s). ,
~,
Adopted this .7th day of August, 1986.%`~ ,~'fiF-~ ~~,,% ~`_~
___ ,
Richard L. Turner, Chairman
Attest:
~>
A
W. Owen, Jerk
AN .ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO DELETE PROVISIONS
FOR FARMETTE SUBDIVISIONS
BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, that the following sections of the
.Subdivision Ordinance of Isle of Wight County be deleted: 7-4-0,
7-4-1, inclu:d.ing subparagraphs (1) and (2), 7-4-2, 7-4-3, 7-4-4,
including subparagraphs (a) through (f), 7~4-5 and 7-4-7, including
diagram for typical section roadway,
Adopted this 7th day of August, 1986.
.__.~
t ~
~, ,. ~% '`
7 \
r t
j t i'
Richard L, Turner, Chairman
Attest:
~>
~~.
W. B. Ow n, Clerk
August 7, 1986
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY
DEFINING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE
OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, that Sections 3-1-28, 4-1-6, 5-1-14 and
5C-1-6 of the Zoning Ordinance of Isle of Wight County be amended
to read as follows:
Accessory buildings as defined,
Amend Section 15-2 of said ordinance to read as follows:
Section 15-2. Accessory building or structure,
A subordinate building or structure customarily incidental to and
locating upon. the same lot occupied by the main structure or build-
ing.
Page 33
Adopted this 7th day of August, 1986.
__ --:
f
f r ~~
//f~ ~{r .. ~.ir
/`~; fit/ ~a~/{ f~ rri-'~sx ~1
Richard L. Turner, Chairman
Attest:
E'
W. en, Clerk
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ISLE OF WIC=HT COUNTY
ON SETBACK FOR STRUCTURES
BE IT AND TT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, that the following sections
of the Zoning Ordinance. of-Isle of Wight CAUnty be amended to read
as follows:
Section 2-5-1. Side. The minimum side yard for each structure
shall be fifteen (i5) feet and the total width of the two (2) re-
quired side yards shall be thirty-five (35) feet or more,
Section 2-5-2, Rear. Each structure shall have a rear yard
of thirty-five (35) feet or more,
Section 2-6-2, The minimum side yard on the side facing the
street shall be thirty-five (35) feet for each. structure,
Section 3-5-1. Side. The minimum side yard for each structure
shall be f fifteen (15) .feet and the total-width of the two (2) re-
quired side yards shall be thirty-five (35) feet or more.
Section 3-5-2. Rear, Each structure shall have a rear yard
of thirty-five (3 S) feet or more,
Section 4-5-1. Side. The minimum side yard for each structure
shall be fifteen (15) feet and the total width of the two required
side yards shall be thirty-five (35) feet or more.
Section 4-5-2. Rear. Each structure sYlall have a rear yard of
thirty five (35) feet or more.
Section 4-7-2. The side yard on the side facing the side street
shall be thirty-five (35) feet or more for each structure.
Section 5-5-1. Side. The minimum side yard for each. structure
shall be ten (10) feet and the total width of the two required side
yards shall be twenty--five (25) feet or more.
r.
August 7, 1986 Page 34
Section 5-5-2. Rear, Each structure shall have a rear yard of
twenty-five (25) feet or more.
Section 5-7-2. The side yard on the side facing .the. side street
shall be thirty-five (35) feet or more for each structure,
Adopted this 7th day of August, 1986.
~~ i
~ ~ ~
t ~ _ ' ~_-r'l. ~ ~+`'... ("r y.,T..,,~ 1.
Richard L. Turner, Chairman
Attest:
W. en, Clerk
The Chairman called for a public hearing on the following music festival
application:
Request of Conrad G. Ashe to hold a music festival on August
15; 16 and 17, 1986 at the American Sportsman Family Camp-
ground on Route 650 in Hardy Magisterial District.
Mrs. Conrad G. Ashe appeared. No one appeared in opposition.. Supervisor
Bradshaw moved the Board approve the request of Conrad G. Ashe to conduct a
music festival on August 15, 16 and 17,.1986 at the American Sportsman
Family Campground on Route 650 in Hardy Magisterial District and that Mr.
Ashe post a $500.00 bond prior to the festival .The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Turner called for a public hearing on the following rezonir_g
applications•
I. The application of John W. Loughridge, Jr. and Louise W.
Loughridge, owners, and Arthur H. Cooper., prospective
owner, fora change in zoning classification from A-l,
Agricultural Limited, to Conditional R-A, Conditional
Rural Residential, approximately 25 acres of land located
on the north and south side of Route. 673, between Routes
705 and. 672, in Hardy Magisterial District. The purpose
of the application is for no more than 8 rural residential
lots.
Arthur Cooper appeared and.. stated he would be glad to answer any questions
the Board may have. No one appeared in opposition. The Planning Commission
recommended approval, stated Supervisor Bradby. Supervisor Bradby moved the
Board concur with the Planning .Commission's recommendation and approve the ap-
placation of John W. Loughridge., Jr. and Louise W. Loughridge, owners, and
Arthur H. Cooper, prospective owner, for a change in zoning classification.
from A-1, Agricultural Limited, to Conditional R-A, Conditional Rural Residential,
approximately 25 acres of land located on the north :and south side of Route 673,
between Routes 705 and 672, in Hardy Magisterial District. The vote in favor
was unanimous.
2, The application of Wilson S. Holland and Willian N. Howell,
i
III
August 7, 1986 Page 35
owners, and Donald E. Goodwin, prospective. owner, for a change
in zoning classification from A-l, Agricultural Limited, to
Conditional R-A, Conditional Rural Residential, approximately
2.7 acres of land located on the east side of Route 615, bet-
ween Routes 258 and 611, in Windsor Magisterial District, The
purpose of .the application is for one rural residential lot,
Susan Goodwin appeared to represent the applicants. No one appeared
in opposition. The Planning-Commission voted to recommend approva]_, stated
Chairman Turner.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve the application of Wilson S.
Holland and William N. Howell, owners, and Donald E. Goodwin., prospective owner,
for a change in zoning classification from A-l, Agricultural .Limited, to Con-
ditional R-A, Conditional Rural Residential, approximately 2.7 acres of land
located on the east side of Route 615, between Routes 258 and 611, in Windsor
Magisterial District. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Board.
Chairman Turner turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Ross because
of a conflict of interest in the upcoming .rezoning application.
3. The application of Mary Ella Courtney for a change in zoning
classification from A-l, Agricultural Limited, to R-l, Re-
sidential Limited., approximately 16 acres of land, beginning
at a point 600 feet off the southwest side of Route 17, bet-
weep Routes: 662 and 661, in Newport Magisterial District. The
purpose of the application is for single family residential
development.
Ann Simpson Jones, attorney representing Mrs. Courtney appeared, and stated
the applicant is seeking zoning that will allow development of a single family
residential subdivision. Mrs. Jones continued stating the site is located at
the rear of the land zoned Conditional M-1 and between two tracts zoned R-l.
The land is presently being farmed stated Mrs, Jones.
No one appeared in opposition, The-Chairman stated the Planning Commission
recommended approval,
On motion of .Supervisor Bradshaw, the Board. voted unanimously to approve
the application of Mary Ella Courtney for a change in zoning classification from
A-l, Agricultural Limited, to R-l, Residential Limited, approximately 16 acres
of land, beginning at a point 600 feet off the southwest side of Route 17,
between Routes 662 and 661, in. Newport Magisterial District. Supervisor Bailey
was absent when the vote was taken. Chairman Turner did not vote.
Vice Chairman Ross turned the meeting back over to Chairman Turner.
4. The application of Eunice W. Daughtrey, pwner, and Isle of
Wight County, prospective owner, for a change in zoning
classification from A-l, Agricultural Limited, to R-A, Rural
Residential, 6,571 acres of land located on the east side
of Route 58, in Carrsville between the Seaboard Airline Rail-
road and the Suffolk Corp, line, The purpose of the applicat-
ion is to construct a fire department building and accessory
uses.
i
August 7, 1986 Page 36
Charles Clifford, Vice President of the Carrsvil.le Fire Department,
appeared to represent the application. No one .appeared in opposition, The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval,. stated Chairman
Turner.
pn motion of Supervisor Bradshaw, the Board voted unanimously to_approve
the application of Eunice W, Daughtrey, owners and. Isle: of Wight County, pros-
pective owner, fora change in zoning classification from A-1, Agricultural
Limited, to R-A, Rural Residential, 6,.571 acres of land located on the east
side of Route 58, in Carrsville.between the Seaboard Airline Railroad .and the
Suffolk Corp. line. Supervisor Bailey was. absent when the vote was taken.
5. Booker T. Estates located in Newport Magisterial District -
from A~l, Agricultural Limited, to R-1, Residential Limited,
Lots 33A ~l), 1-20, 2431, pt, of 33, 34- 58, 33A (2) Sec.
A. 5-13, Sec. B 5-13, 33A (3) 9-22 and from A-2, Agricultural
General, to R-l, Residential Limited, Lots 33A (1) 21-23, 33A
(3) Sec, A 1-4, Sec, B 1-4, 33A (3) 1-8 and. also adjoining parcel
33 (1) 197B from A-l, Agricultural Limited, to R-l, Residential
Limited.
No one appeared in favor or opposition.
Ann .Simpson-Jones, attorney representing Hampton Promotions, Inc. and B.
B. Bailey, appeared and stated the site is located in the Booker T. Estates
Subdivision and on Routes 258. and 32 at Routes 1930 and 193, Mrs.. Jones con-
tined stating the adjacent land outside the subdivision is in commercial use
on the east (auto junkyard) and west side (large antique shop). and is wooded
and/or vacant toward the rear. Mrs. Jones stated a compromise between the
applicants' attorney, Sonny Cuffey, and her clients had been reached whereby
the applicants agreed not to seek rezoning of lots within the. subdivision
which are owned by B> B. Bailey and Hampton Promotions, Inc. Mrs. Jones asked
the Board's favorable consideration of her request not to rezone the property
of h.er clients.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approva]_ of the
rezoning as agreed in the compromise. by the applicants and representative of
Hampton Promotions, Ine. and B. B> Bailey, stated the Chairman,..
Following discussion, Supervisor Bailey moved the Board concur with the
Planning Commission's recommendatidn and approve rezoning Booker T, Estates
Subdivision located in Newport Magisterial District - from A-1, Agricultural
Limited, to R-l, Residential Limited, Lots .33A (1), 1-20, 24-31, pt. of 33,
34-53, 33A (2) Sec. A 5-13, Sec.. B 5-13, 33A. (3) 9-22 and from A-2, Agricultural
General, to R-l, Residential Limited, Lots 33A (1) 2-123, 33A (3) Sec. A 1-4,
Sec. B ~1.4, 33A (3) 1-8 and also adjoining parcel 33 (1) 197B from A-l, Agri-
August. 7, 1986
Page 37
cultural Limited, to R-l, Residential Limited, with the condition the property
owned by B. B. Bailey and Hampton Promotions, Irc. remain as is, The vote in
favor was unanimous. Supervisor Bradshaw was absent when the vote was taken.
6. The application of David Brown for a change in zoning
classification from R-2, Residential General, to R-MH-A,
Rural Mobile Home District, Lots 87, 88 and 89 on the
-south side of Roosevelt Avenue, in Jamestown Annex, in
Windsor Magisterial District. The purpose of the applicat-
ion is for the permanent location of a mobile home,
David Brown appeared. No one appeared in opposition. The Planning Com-
mission voted unanimously to recommend approval, stated Chairman Turner..
On motion of Supervisor Ross, the Board voted unanimously to approve the
application of David Brown for a change in zoning classification from R--2,
Residential General, to R-MH-A, Rural Mobile Home District, Lots 87, 88 .and
89 on the south side of Roosevelt Avenue, in Jamestown. Annex, in Windsor
Magisterial District.. Supervisor Bradshaw was absent when the vote was taken,
//
Robert Boyd, Newport citizen, expressed caution in adopting ordinances
that may be too restrictive because of what he referred to as recent Attorney
General ruling which limited the Board's authority to grant variances to
ordinances. Therefore, it may be in everyone`s best interest for the ordinances
to allow the property owner little broader development rights than to be overly
restrictive, stated Mr. Boyd.
~~
Alan Nogiec, Director, Parks and Recreation Facilities Authority, informed
the Board he would like them to adopt a Litter Grant Resolution whereby a
grant in the amount of $5,408.00 would be applied for to be used in a joint
effort with the Towns of Windsor and Smithfield, Mr, Nogiec continued, stating
the Town of Windsor had applied for the litter. grant separately since"they had
not had any correspondence from him. However, they are going to participate
in the joint effort, said Mr. Nogiec.. Mr. Nogiec stated they are planning to
use $2,258 for replacement parts for equipment and $2,250 to be coardinated
through the Chamber of Commerce, Civic organizations and the youth .program to
pay persons to pick up litter along the County roads.
Mr. Nogiec asked the Board to adopt the Litter Grant Resolution in the
amount of $5,408.00. County Attorney Crook stated a change was needed in the
resolution prior to adoption to authorize rlr. Nogiec to make. application for
the grant on behalf of the County only. He would need resolutions from the
Towns to apply on their behalf
August 7, 1986
Page 38
Following discussion and on motion of Supervisor Ross, the Board voted
unanimously to adopt the amended Litter Grant Resolution.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the exist-
ence of a litter problem within the boundaries of Isle of Wight
County, Virginian and
WHE1tEA5, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides,
through the Department of Conservation and Historic Resourcesn
Division of Litter Control, for the allocation of public funds in
the form of Grants for the purpose of enhancing local litter control
programs, and
WHEREASn having reviewed and considered the Regulations
and the Application covering administration and use of said funds
BE IT RESOLVEDn that the Board of Supervisors:
.Hereby endorses and supports such a program for the County
of Isle of Wi:gh , .and
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with.. Smithfield in
in a mutually agreed upon and Cooperative Progrars contingent on
approval of the Application by the Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources, Division of Litter Control, and contingent on
receipt of funds, and
Hereby authorize Isle,of Taight County Public Recreational
Facilities Authority to apply on behalf of Isle of Wight County for
a Grant, and to be responsible for the administration., implementat-
ion, and. completion of the Program as i.t is described in the .attached
Application Form LC-G-l, and
Further accepts responsibility jointly with. Town of Smith.-
field for all phases of the Programsn and
Further accepts liability for its pro. rata share of any
funds not properly used or accounted for pursuant to the Regulations
and the Application, and
That said funds, be received, by Isle of Wight County Public
Recreational Facilities Authority, All. Funds wi11 be used in the
Cooperative Frogram to which we .give our endorsement and support,
Hereby requests the Department of .Conservation and
I-Iistoric Resources, Division of Litter Control, to consider and a~-
prove the Application and Program, said Program being in accord with
regulations governing use and expenditure of said funds.
Adopted on; August 7, 1986
Richard L. Turner, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
//
County Attorney Croak advised the Board everything is in proper order to
proceed with the closing .for the Carrsvil.le Volunteer Fire Department pro-
petty, Supervisor Bradshaw moved to authorize County Attorney Crook to follow
through with the closing. The motion passed unanimously,
Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve payment of $1,125.00 to the
farm tenant of the Daughtrey-Carrsville Volunteer Fire Department property,
:~
J
August 7, 1986
Page 39
The motion passed unanimously.
By motion of Chairman Turner, unanimously adopted, the Board of Supervisors
directed the, Board of Supervisors Building Committee and the Fire Department
Building Committee meet and begin working on plans for thenew Fire Department
building. County Administrator Owen was directed by the Chairman to set up the
meeting between the two committees.
/~
Planning Director, Terry D, Lewis, presented the following Conditional Use
Permit application fox the. Board's consideration:
The application of J. E, and Ann Kello, owners, and Guy L, and
Betty Hardy, prospective owners, for a Conditional Use Permit
to locate a mobile home for their sin, Guy L. Hardy,- Jr., on
one (1) acre of land located off Route 460, in Windsor
Magisterial District.
Mrs. Betty Hardy appeared. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
.recommend approval, stated Mr. Lewis.,
Supervisor Bailey moved the Board-approve the application of J. E, and Ann
Kello, owners, and Guy Z, and Betty Hardy, prospective owners, for a Condit-
Tonal Use Permit to locate a mobile home for their son, Guy L. Hardy, Jr,, on
one (_1) acre of land. located off Route 460, in Windsor Magisterial District,
with the condition the mobile home be occupied only by Guy L. Hardy, Jr. and
his immediate family. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Board.
Mr, Lewis presented. the following subdivision plats f.or the Board's con-
sideration:
1. Walnut Ridge Farm located on Route 681 in Hardy Magisterial
District.
No one appeared in favor or opposition. The Planning Commission voted un-
~,
animously to recommend approval, said Mr, Lewis, ~
On motion of Supervisor Bradby, the Baaxd voted unanimously to approve the
subdivision of Walnut Ridge Farm located on Route 681 in Hardy Magisterial
.District.
2. Wrenn's Mill Estate Plat -
Planning Director Lewis stated the developers desired to have the plat ap-
proved so they can record the. well lot plat for the property which will allow
the developers to go ahead with construction and installation of pumping appara-
tus. .Therefore, the water system will be approved and in place before the
operation is approved, said Mr. Lewis. This can be approved. under Section
28-4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, stated Mr, Lewis.
County. Attorney Crook questioned the well. lot line which. appeared to be in
August 7, 1.986
the middle of the easement.
a utility easement.
Page 40
Planning-Director Lewis stated it was essentially
R. Z. Stephenson, Stephenson Realty and developer, appeared and stated the
easement is for ingress-and egress and also utilities,. He further stated it
straddles the proposed property line because the engineers told them exactly
where the well has to go and wanted it that way.
Following discussion and on motion of Supervisor Bradby, the Board voted un-
animausly to approve the Wrenn's Mill Estate well. lot plat as corrected.
~~
Beryl H. Perry, Jr., Treasurer, appeared before the Board and advised he has
reviewed the delinquent tax list for personal property and real estate and land
in jeopardy (three years old). Mr. Perry continued stating the Code 58.1-3958
states the governing body of any county, city or town. may impose on delinquent
taxpayers a fee to cover the administrative costs associated with the collect-
ion of delinquent. taxes. Such fee shall be in addition to all penalties and
interest, and shall not exceed ten dollars for taxes collected. subsequent. to
the filing of a warrant or other appropriate legal document but prior to judg-
ment, and fifteen dollars for taxes collected subsequent to judgment. Mr,
Perry continued stating he feels fees should be where it is warranted and not
on the taxpayers and suggested an ordinance be prepared to cover .same, Per
Mr. Perry's sugestion, the Chairman requested County Attorney Crook to prepare
the proposed ordinance and bring it back to the Board.
Supervisor Bradshaw expressed concern regarding the location of the County
decals on automobiles. County Attorney crook stated the State law provides
the option of locating the decal in the center at the top of the windshield
or where the Superintendent of the State Police designates.
Following discussion Supervisor Bradshaw moved the-Board direct County
Attorney Crook to prepare a proposed. ordinance to allow the owner the option
of placing the. decal at the top of the windshield or at such other place as
designated by the Superintendent of the State Police. The vote in favor was
unanimous.
On motion of Supervisor Ross, the Board voted unanimously to advertise the
three year. delinquent real estate tax list by September 10, 1986.
/~
Per recommendation of County Administrator Owen and .motion of Supervisor
Ross, the Board voted unanimously to refund the $75.00 rezoning fee to Edith
August 7, 1986
Page 41
J. Houston, Route 3, Bax 442, Smithfield, Virginia, since she withdrew .her ap-
placation prior to advertising.
Supervisor Ross moved the Board accept Public .Works Director, Donald
Bernd's, recommendation to accept the bid of Wilson-Finley, in the amount of
$9,069.00, to repair the caterpillar D-6 bulldozer, Chairman Turner asked if
they were caterpillar parts of another kind. Donald Bernd stated the parts were
Burline parts and comes with .the same guarantee as caterpillar parts, Mr. Bernd
further stated that Goodman & Holland have been using parts from Wilson-Finley
for many years, The motion gassed by unanimous vote of the Board,
Supervisor Ross moved the Board accept the Windsor Jaycees and- Windsor
Jaycees Women's donation of lettering for the front of the Windsor Rescue Squad.
Building. The motion carried unanimously.
Supervisor Ross moved the Board adopt the resolution to amend the South-
eastern Virginia Planning District Commission charter to provide reasonable
requirements for the purchase of goods, services and personal or real property
by the Planning District Commission on terms other than cash. The vote in favor
was unanimous.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Com-
mission wishes to amend the charter agreement, and requests the
member governing bodies comprising the Southeastern Virginia Planning
District Commission to concur and adopt said amendments, and;
WHEREAS, it is necessary and in the best interest of the
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, that the prin-
cipal office be relocated, and;
WHEREAS, it is also necessary, in order to better serve
the member subdivisions, to amend the charter to provide reason-
able requirements. for the purchase of goods; services and personal
or real property by the Commission, on terms other than cash.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Article I: Organization,
Section 2, Principal Office be amended to read as follows: Article
1. Organization, Section 2 - The principal office of the Commission
shall be in Norfolk, Virginia, until same is moved to Chesapeake by
a majority vote of the Commission,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Article VII., Finances and
Contracts, Section 3, be amended to read as follows: Article
VII. Finances and Contracts, Section 3 - The Commission shall be
authorized to enter into such contracts as any other political sub-
division not expressly prohibited by law. No governmental sub-
division shall be liable for the payment of any funds or the per-
formance of-any obligation incurred by the Commission unless such
governmental subdivision is a party to the. contract or agreement
creating the obligation.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by-the Council/Board of
Supervisors of the E~~y/County of Isle of Wight
that the above .amendments be adopted, ratified, and approved, on
this the 7th day of August, 1986.
WITNESS the following signatures and.. seals:
!
1
August 7, 1986 Page 42
-'__`.~,
~~ `~- ,
~ _ :;
Richard L. Turner,1Chairman
Attest:
W. B. Owen, Clerk
~/
Chairman Turner queried County Administrator Owen as to whether the pro-
blem with Rogers Veterinary had been taken care of, to which Mr. Owen replied
it is in the .process.
//
Chairman Turner informed the Board members he would have more information
relative to the 200th Anniversary of the Constitution celebration at_the next
Board meeting.
//
Supervisor Bradby informed the Board members that John Stallings, Chief
of the Smithfield Fire. Department, had worked with the. citizens in his area
to form a volunteer fire department. and. that they are on the right track and
progressing very well.
//
Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board accept the bid of Wilbur R. Drewry
to furnish and. install all piping and fittings at the sewer tap at the address
of 206 Pocahontas Avenue at a cost of $1,800.00. The vote in favor was un-
animous.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board direct County Administrator Owen to
advise Mrs. Otelia Rainey. to meet with the Public Service Authority relative
to the tap on fee in Camptown. The motion passed unanimously.
On motion of Supervisor Bradshaw, the Board voted unanimously to approve
the Joint Committee Town of Windsor and Tsle of Wight County~s request for
proposal to .seek an engineer or engineering firm to provide professional service
in design, drawings and specifications and limited construction/contract ad-
ministration for the complete design and installation of a sewerage treatment
plant for the Town of Windsor and the adjacent areas of Tsle of Wight County
and the design and installation of water storage facilities and pipe lines
connecting the County`s well east of Windsor off Highway 460 to the vicinity
of the Town s Corporate Line and Highway 460 on the west, including all con-
nections, fittings, hydrants, and other equipment that may be required.
{
t
August 7, 1986. Page 43
Supervisor Bailey stated he would be responsible for tr=e advertisment.
Supervisor Ross advised. the Board members that a Consta utiona.i Officer
had requested the Board not take action on the proposed 40 hour work week
schedule until he has had an .opportunity to meet with the committee,. There
fore, Supervisor Ross moved that action on the proposed 40 hour .work week be
tabled until the August 21, 1986 Board meeting, The motion passed unanimously.
/I
Shirley Braswell, Hardy resident, expressed concern relative to the buffer
between .her property and the Twin Pond Mobile Home Park. Following discussion
and on motion of Supervisor Ross, the Board voted unanimously to direct County
Administrator .Owen to ask Planning Director Lewis to meet with Newman Beale,
owner of the Twin Pond Mobile Home Park, relative to the buffer between his pro-
perty and the property of Shirley Braswell and a report be given at the August
21, 1986 Board meeting.
~~
Supervisor Ross moved the Board recommend to the Circuit Court .the appoint-
ment of Franklin E. Hall, 142 Lumar Road, Smithfield, Virginia, to serve as a
member of the Board of Zoning Appeals representing the Smithfield Election
District. The vote in favor was unanimous.
On motion of Supervisor Ross., the Board voted unanimously to direct County
Administrator Owen to draft a letter to Janice B. Scott thanking her for her
services as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals,
/~
Per recommendation of County Administrator Owen and on motion of Supervisor
Bradshaw, the Board voted unanimously to approve payment of $901.22 to Caro,
Monroe & Liang Architects for work relative to the Windsor Rescue Squad Build-
ing with $1,326.00 being withheld until an agreement is made between the
architect and contractor relative to the additional. cost for drain construction.
Supervisor Bradby moved the General Fund Bill Register be approved as
amended. The vote in favor was unanimous,
//
County Attorney Crook advised the Board members he had reviewed the July
17, 1986 Board minutes and recommended them for adoption, Supervisor Ross
moved the Board adopt the July 17, 1986 Board of Supervisors minutes. The
motion carried unanimously.
//
At 4:50 ,P .M. Supervisor Ross moved the meeting be adjourned, which passed
August 7, 1986 Page 44
unanimously.
f ^ 3
~.
+~p+ ' f
Richard L. Turner, Chairman
W. B. Owen, rk
:ck~~c~~~~;9c*~:c~:c4cx~c~4c:c*~c~k~4c9c~~c~::csc~c4c:e:c'k'.e~cx:e4c~ck~c~~c4c.c9c4ck~Y4c9c~2k*:e:e~e~~9c:e:ex4c4e4c:e'c4c4ck~;~4c:c
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE
TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX
PRESENT: Richard L. Turner, Chairman
C. Fred Bailey
Joel C. Bradshaw, Jr. (7:15 P.M,)
Thomas L. Ross, Vice Chairman
Also attending: H, Woodrow Crook, Jr,, County Attorney
W. B. Owen, County Administratoz
Terry D. Lewis, Planning Director
Juanita L. Byrum, Assistant County Administrator
Betty Scott, Secretary
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. and delivered
the invocation.
/~
The Chairman called for a public hearzng on °tAn Ordinance To Amend The
Ordinance Imposing Tax Levies For The Fiscal Year July 1, 1986 Through .June
30, 1987 Adopted June 26, 1986 By Reducing Tax On Real Estate From $0.55 To
$0.53 And Tax On Machinery And Tools From $0.86 To $0.85'".
County Administrator Owen informed the Board members the anticipated tax
from the Utility Tax Ordinance would generate approximately $200,000 and approxi-
mately $35,000 from the Utility Tax On Gross Receipts Ordinance for a total of
$235,000 per year. Mr. Owen continued stating there would be an adjustment in
real estate by $28,000, business professional and license tax (included in the
budget, but not adopted by the Board) $100,000 and septic tax permit fees (in-
eluded in the budget, but not adopted by the Board) $19,500 for a total of
$147,500. This will. net $87,500 which can be used to reduce tax rates as well
as using part of the undesignated balance, not to exceed $100,000, said Mr. Owen.
Supervisor Bailey expressed concern regarding the $1,000,000 surp]_us which.
was not shown. any place in the budget and stated that even though we have been
doing it that way for the past three years does not make it right. Mr. Bailey
feels the public should have known about the money.
On motion by Supervisor Ross, the Board voted unanimously to reduce tax
rate on real estate from 55~ to 52~ and tax rate on machinery and tools from
86~ to 84G.