Loading...
03-16-1989 Regular MeetingeooK 14 ,,.;, z~,3 1 i REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE PRESENT: .Henry H. Bradby, Chairman. Joel C. Bradshaw, Jr., Vice Chairman Steven W. Edwards Thomas L. Ross Richard L. Turner Also attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney Myles E. Standish, County Administrator ' W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County Administrator/Community Development Kenneth L. Chandler, Assistant to the County Administrator. (7:05 P.M.) Sheriff C. W. Phelps Captain Steven G. Bowman, Sheriff's Department Betty Scott, Assistant Clerk Chairman Bradby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The invocation was delivered by Supervisor Ross. // The Chairman moved to amend the agenda to consider .Item VII, Old Business, paragraph a. The vote in favor was unanimous (5-0). On motion of Supervisor Edwards, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to hear comments from the citizens present relative to Item VII (a) . Chairman Bradby called for consideration of the following rezoning applications VII. a. An application .for a change in zoning classification for the property owned by Crown Creek Land Trust (D. Mason .Anderson, Trustee) from Conditional R-3, Conditional .Townhouse Residence District, to A-1, Agricultural Limited, approximately 90 acres of land located on the .east side of Route 665, between Route 712 and Johnson ' Lane; Newport Magisterial District. (Tabled 1/19/89.) AM application for a change in zoning classification for property owned by Rae Parker, Jr. from Conditional A-2, Agricultural General, approximately 180 acres, from Conditional R-1, Conditional Residential Limited, approximately 120 acres, from Conditional R-2, Conditional Residential General, approximately 140 acres, and from Conditional R-3, Conditional Townhouse Residence District, approximately 150 acres to A-1, Agricultural Limited, a total of approximately 590 acres of land, located on the east side of Route 665, between Route 712 and Johnson Lane, Newport Magisterial District. (Tabled 1/19/89.) James Hartung, Bay Harbor Subdivision resident, appeared in opposition to the Kings Colony development. Mr. Hartung stated he was opposed to the sewer line, and expressed concerns relative to economic control of land use, water aquifers, police protection, fire protection, school situation, and the tax burden on County citizens. Mr. Hartung stated he .feels the County should cater to industries that want to purchase land and asked the Board to say no to the King's Colony project and the sewer line because it is not in the best interest of Isle of Wight County. Madeline Folks, Hardy District resident, read the following letter from J. Leo Bourassa, President of the Virginia Lakes Association, relative to the water tables in the area of the proposed King's Colony project: "Virginia Lakes Association To be read at March 16, 1989 Supervisors Meeting BOOK 14.rQ"'~~J1 March 9, 1989 From: J. Leo Bourassa President of the Virginia Lakes Association Route 1, Box 266 Carrollton, Virginia 23314 To: Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors Courthouse Isle of Wight, Virginia Gentlemen: I regret that a long standing engagement over in the west part of the State prevents me 'from being able to appear before Xou in person this evening. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the water tables in this area (at least 15 miles in circumference from the center of Carrollton) has been dropping an average of 2-4 feet per year due to several factors; (1) The drought that we have been experiencing in the southeastern part of Virginia and (2) The heavy withdrawal of water from our aquifer due to increased growth of both industrial needs and private needs. This dropping can be confirmed by many reputable well drillers in this area. The salt increase in the aquifer has gradually been intensifying in combination with the increased drawdown of the water table, this salt increase can also be confirmed by the testing of water and by reputable plumbers in the area because there is evident of an increase of corroded faucets and pipes due to salt residue. The effect of a 1/2 million gallon withdrawal of water from this aquifer will be a very noticeable water drop throughout the area and possibly will cause a great deal of trouble and expense to the private well owners in the area. Should the developer decide to drill much deeper in the aquifer than expected more than likely. the deeper he goes to more increase in salt content. Should this salt increase seep into the aquifer it could well destroy all of our drinking water here forever. Once an aquifer is polluted by salt water it can never be cleaned up again. I would like to recommend that you, the members of the Board of Supervisors, insist that the developer make his application to the State Water Control Board and you await the findings of the Board before committing yourselves to approve this large development. The law in the State of Virginia request that any potential large user of groundwater must get a permit for large withdrawals of water. I am sure the developer is aware of this requirement and it disturbs me that he did not do so before this time. I hope he was not planning to start up a large well before being detected. Respectfully submitted, s/J. Leo Bourassa P. S. I am sending a copy of this letter to the regional State Water Control Board. Mr. Larry Mc Bride Regional Division of the 827 Pembroke Office Park Virginia Beach, Virginia State Water Control Board 23462" Robert S. Kenerley, resident of 2 Riverpoint Trail, Carrollton, appeared in opposition and read the following letter: "March 16, 1989 Board of Supervisors Isle of Wight, Virginia 1 Gentlemen: enoK ~ 14 r~:~2~5 '~ 1 Tonight is the night to dispose of King's Colon once and for all. You have the legal basis to downzone King's Colony property and reverse a situation that will be devastating to this county. The attorney's general ruling that the King's Colony proffers are unenforceable simple reaffirm what our group has known all slang. We do not have a legal contract. Shortly, the developer will ask that you table this issue one more time because, with just a little fine tuning and by waiting until July when new legislation becomes effective,. the proffers will qualify. Gentlemen, the fact of life is that the developer has had more than sufficient time to present a legal contract and conduct the necessary studies and plans to support his project. I submit to you that we have accommodated the developer to the last degree and we have no further obligation, legal or otherwise, to extend this matter beyond this evening Based on new legislation effective in July, I feel confident there will be much better deals for our county in the future. So if there are going to be_any further accommodations, let it be .to the citizens and taxpayers of Isle of Wight. In addition to the unenforceabilty of the proffers, much new information has been presented to you from the Lower James River Association and the Environmental Council. The recent revelation about the irreversible damage this project will do to our water supply is sufficient grounds alone to downzone this project. If you downzone this property, the developer still has the option to reapply to the planning commission. So although you may close the door, it is certainly far from being locked. The citizens-and taxpayers overwhelming opposed this project by 2-1. You may also recall, at the last meeting the Committee for Responsible County Planning presented you with a petition which contained 1100 valid signatures which re-enforces the opposition to this project. Prior to rezoning of this property, the Virginia Department. of Transportation recommended that xou not approve this project until such time as a detailed traffic study has been conducted. For some unknown reason, this was not done and potential displacement of Route 665 residents continue to be a concern. I heard just this week that the developer has obtained a right of way from Route 17 to the subject property. Based on this new information, I think it is important that you study. very closely the ring road affect that this proposed right of way would create. This type of road system will not alleviate the traffic problem on Route 665, and eventually Route 665 would still have to be widened resulting in displacement of Route 665 residents. I seriously doubt. VDOT would approve such a right of way, but either way, if you don't downzone this property, you won't have another chance to reverse this situation and you will be gambling the homes of third generation families on Route 665. Gentlemen, let me ask you a few questions relevant to this issue: 1. Do you want to go forward without a legal contract by accepting the developer's proffers which are unenforceable? 2. Can you, in good conscience, ignore the new damaging information from the Lower James River Association and the Environmental Council? 3. Do you want to compromise our only water supply and create problems for wells within a 25 mile radius? 4. Are you willing to abort the county's plans to develop the Windsor corridor which presently show so much eooK 14 ~~::-2`~6 potential for generating positive tax revenue? 5. Are you willing to proceed without a comprehensive development plan to deal with the explosive growth that will take place if sewer is brought to the James River area? 6. Do you want to move forward without an appropriate economic impact study to determine what this situation will do to our taxes and support services? 7. Are you willing to deal with the potential displacement of third generation families on Route 665 to profit a Maryland developer? 8. Are you prepared to ignore the wishes of the citizens who are overwhelmingly opposed to this project? I want to express our concern as citizens over the new damaging information that has been presented to you over the past several weeks. This project, if allowed to proceed, would negatively impact on us as residents, so there is no question that this time the pendulum should swing in favor of the citizens of this county and not a Maryland developer. There is no reason why you should not be unanimous in your vote to downzone this project. Sincerely, s/Robert S. Kenerley 2 Riverpoint Trail Carrollton, Va. 23314" Andrew Michael Casey, Planning Commission member and Carrollton resident, spoke. in opposition expressing concerns relative to growth in the County, educational facilities, and the impact studies which have been conducted. Mr. Casey stated he feels we should slow down and take a good look at the project, then decide what to do. Brenda Lee, Route 665 resident in Carrollton, spoke in opposition expressing concerns relative to water supply, tai on fee for the sewer systems and stated we do not want the K~:,ng's Colony development. Herman Jones, Route 665 resident in Carrollton, spoke in opposition expressing concern regarding the four lane roadway. Mr. Jones asked the Board to down zone the proposed property, Randolph Barlow, Hardy District resident, spoke in opposition. Mr. Barlow expressed concerns.. relative to water problems, traffic problems, fire ~rote~tion, and police protection. Mr. Barlow continued stating the development would be a burden on the Count}; however, one good .point would be the possibility of sewer coming into the County, but stated it would be no good without central water (maybe from- Lake Gaston) not talking. about groundwater. Mr. Barlow stated this size development could destroy the water system in the County. Malcolm Clark, nearby resident of the proposed development, appeared in opposition and expressed concerns regarding the inability of the County to be able to conduct a referendum for the proposed project and Board members voting the wishes of the County residents. Mr. Clark asked the Board to vote the citizens wishes on the King's Colony project. Stan Clark, attorney in Portsmouth, appeared in opposition and asked the Board to down zone the proposed application. Mr. Clark expressed concern regarding the proffers and the enforceability of same, displacement threat, and the possibility of a law suit. Mr. Clark stated that in his opinion the Board had to down zone the property under the present laws of Virginia. A. L. Jones, II, attorney representing the applicants, introduced Dan Keusal, the developer, and Dr. Rae Parker, Jr., one of the property owners of the proposed project. Mr. Jones stated the proposed project would bring tremendous benefits to ~_ J 1 1 ~.... Book 14 r~:-2~7 1 the County such as sewer, industrial development along Route 17, and-the developer would pay the necessary fees to help defray the costs. Mr. Jones stated the project would provide services beneficial to the County residents. In conclusion, Mr. Jones asked the Board to table action on the proposed application because of the following: because the Attorney General's opinion does not give total determination that. proffers are unenforceable, acquisition of new roadway and adequate time. to develop a traffic impact study, and the developer will reduce the number of units by approximately 45$. George Braswell, Newport resident, appeared in favor of the proposed project. Rev. James Johnson, Carrollton resident, appeared in favor of the proposed project because it would provide a much needed sewer system for the area residents. Rev. Johnson asked the Board members to vote in favor of the application. Willie James Hill, lifelong County resident, appeared in favor of the proposed project because of the availability of a sewer system. King David Johnson, Pastor of the Sweetheaven Church of God in Carrollton, appeared in favor of the application. Francis Griffin, Planning Commission rebuttal to comments of Attorney Jones Commission did not take only thirty minus proposed application when it came before the Mr. Griffin stated a considerable amount of given the application. member,. stated in that the Planning tes to consider the Planning Commission. time and study was Supervisor Edwards expressed cpncerns regarding the Attorney General's opinion, an environmental stud and an economic impact study. funded by the developer which indicated the Board was unaware of the project's full impact-when the land .was rezoned residential in October,-1988. 1 1 Supervisor Ross -asked the residents to work with the developer to come up with an acceptable project for the site. Supervisor Ross continued stating that the developer has an interest in this project, and he won't go away. Supervisor Ross also stated, "I think it would behoove us to work with him in the future". Supervisor Turner stated the project offers the County an opportunity for awell-planned development and sewage for the Carrollton are to be paid for by the developer. Supervisor Turner then asked the audience: "Are you, the people, here tonight, willing for Isle of Wight County to forget about Mr. Keusal's putting in the sewage` system that is needed? Are you willing for the County to put in the sewage system?" A loud chours of yeas was heard from the audience. Supervisor Turner then asked the audience: "Are you ready for the County to pay for the sewage system?'" A chours of yeas was again heard from the audience. Turning to the Board members, Supervisor Turner stated,, "Now, you hear, the people have spoken." Supervisor Turner continued stating, "The situation of sewage must take planning and we are not voting on that issue tonight, but I am concerned about sewage for the area because of the soil conditions.. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have approved in the last several months several subdivisions, one of 30 lots, one of 70 lots, and one 150 lots. At this rate, it doesn't take long for the number of residential lots to add up to a large number. The County needs to look at overall growth. If the County is not going to look favorably upon this project which will bring in a central water system, sewage and build new roads, then the County should take a strong look at any development project." Supervisor Turner asked County Attorney Crook to address, the proffer situation. Supervisor Turner asked County Attorney Crook to address the proffer situation. County Attorney. Crook responded by advising the Board members that the legal status concerning the proffers had $OOK ~~ ipn•~%JO developed a great deal since the proffers were initially offered. Many jurisdictions were accepting proffers like those and they are in the same boat as Isle of Wight County. Mr. Crook continued stating that when the Board elected to seek rezoning of the property, they requested an Attorney General's opinion which was obtained. The Attorney General's office was very dismayed at the request because of the practice that was going on in the State of Virginia and that an opinion from the Attorney General's office might upset a lot of apple carts. I think it has a tremendous impact on the legislation in the General Assembly, said Mr. Crook. Mr. Crook continued stating the Attorney General ruled under the existing law that the proffer of impact fees was unenforceable as a future payment of money. The General Assembly then passed a bill which gave Isle of Wight County the same ability to negotiate conditions that existed in Northern Virginia previousl~r. Under that law, in Northern Virginia, they have been negotiating agreements with developers to pay funds for capital improvements for years. The onl}~'thing that they did not give Isle of Wight County was the conditional zoning voluntary proffers of impact fees. That's the only thine we lack at this point. In view, of the Attorney General's opinion, and Z have stated this previously to the Board of Supervisors, the Attorney General's opinion, the information that has been developed, the environmental. impact study, the fiscal impact studies, although you need more information, other information developed for the Board, the Board may justify rezoning of the property. Now, that doesn't mean that the Board cannot be taken to court and the court could decide otherwise, but in my opinion the situation that has developed, the Board is in a situation where they- can rezone the property, .which is to return it to A-1. The other alternative for the Board, if they choose to do so, would be to authorize negotiations with the developer, that -the owner and developer in the County could undertake to negotiate an agreement under the .new legislation for reasonable conditions. to take effect after July 1, but that would have to be conditioned on the new capital improvements plan which is being prepared. So that is a very prospective thing that would require a tabling action by the Board while that was worked out and it might take six months, it might take a year and six months before that was accomplished. That is a course that is open to 'the Board. Therefore, it is my advice to the Board that, you may rezone A-1, or you could undertake to negotiate this matter further. Supervisor Edwards moved the Board comply with the Planning Commission recommendation and return to the original zoning prior to the Board's vote last fall. The motion passed (4-1) with Supervisors Edwards, Bradshaw, Bradby and Ross voting aye and Supervisor Turner voting nay. // At 8:57 P.M. Chairman Bradby moved the Board have a ten minute recess, which passed unanimously (5-0). The Board reconvened at 9:16 P.M. // Consideration of rezoning applications continued: b. The application of Roger L. Duke, owner, and William D. Schultz, prospective owner, for a change in zoning classification from A-l, Agricultural Limited, to Conditional R-MH-A, Conditional Rural Mobile Home District, approximately three acres. of land located south of the Seaboard Airline Railroad, between Routes 615 and 641,. in Windsor Magisterial District. The purpose of the application is for the permanent location of one mobile home. (Tabled;3/2/89.) County Attorney Crook addressed the rezoning application stating a dirt road served a mobile home park and several lots and a meeting with Mr. Duke, William N. Howell, Mr. Howell°s attorney, Bob Hart with Hart Realty, and himself had been held to resolve the road problem. Mr. Crook continued stating that the road was a "farmette" dirt road with rock and that Mr. Howell had deeded the right-of-way to Mr. Duke, who would assume the U L' 1 ~ooK 14 ;~::~2~3 responsibility of the upkeep of the road in question. Mr. Crook further stated he recommended approval of the application. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. 1 Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve the application of Roger L. Duke, owner, and William D. Schultz, prospective owner, for a change in zgning classification from A-1, Agricultural .Limited, to Conditional R-MH-A, Conditional Rural Mobile Home District, approximately three acres of land located south of the Seaboard Airline Railroad, between Routes 615 and 641, in Windsor Magisterial District. The vote in favor was unanimous (5-0). // On motion of Supervisor Turner, the Board voted unanimously (5-O) to adopt the following resolution establishing the recommendations of the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia fore the 1989 Virginia Department of Transportation Pre-Allocation hearing. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA FOR THE 1989 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PRE-ALLOCATION HEARING WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation will conduct a pre-allocation hearing for interstate, primary and urban system projects for the Suffolk District on April 10, 1989; and WHEREAS,. the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County expresses its appreciation to the Virginia Department of Transportation for the opportunity to articulate transportation improvement priorities within the County; and ~"1 ~~ _ . WHREAS, Isle of"Wight County wishes to make specific recommendations for transportation improvement projects to be listed on the proposed`:Six Year Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County that the following projects are considered transportation improvement priorities in the County: 1. Construction of parallel bridge span and approaches on the Route 17 crossing over Chuckatuck Creek. 2. Route 58 Frankin By-pass connector. 3. Realignment and four lane Route 258, between Route 10 and Route 460. 4. Four lane Route 10 Smithfield By-pass. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator to forward a copy of this resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation for inclusion in the record of the 1989 pre-allocation hearing and for adoption of the Six Year Improvement Program for the Commonwealth of Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Turner, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to set April 6, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. as the date for the School budget public hearing. D Supervisor Ross moved the Board approve the Southeastern Public Service Authority's (SPSA) curbside recycling program in the Town of Smithfield. The motion passed by unanimous (5-0) vote of the Board. On motion of Supervisor Edwards, the. Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve Count Administrator Standish and staff conducting a public briefing relative to the road/street naming ~ooK 14 ~A~:~00 project prior to the public hearing to be held April 20, 1989, to entertain public questions and. comments. Supervisor Turner moved the Board grant permission to County Administrator Standish to have architects review and prepare a report relative to alternatives of the old Smithfield High School gymnasium. The vote in favor was unanimous (5-0). On motion of Supervisor Ross, the Board voted unanimously (5-O) to adopt the follo~aing resolution recognizing Virginia Power for its contributions to the Isle of Wight County Economic Development Program: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING VIRGINIA POWER FOR ITS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the County of Isle of Wight is committed to the balanced economic development of the County made possible by the expansion and attraction of commercial, industrial and other business opportunities within the County; and WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors has established an Economic Development Program which seeks to provide for balanced growth while maintaining the County's excellent quality of life, and WHEREAS, Virginia Power has provided guidance, expertise and professional support to the County's Economic Development effort; and WHEREAS, Virginia Power deserves special recognition for its outstanding contribution in the production and publication of a community profile and an audio-visual presentation entitled, "Isle of Wight Wight County - The Right Place for Business"; and WHEREAS, the County of Isle of Wight will utilize the profile and video presentation in its economic development promotional efforts to increase ane encourage quality business development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its sincere appreciation to Virginia Power for its support and continued efforts on behalf of economic development in the County. On motion of Supervisor Bradshaw, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to support Union Camp's air quality program. County Administrator Standish informed the Board members that at its April 6, 1989 meeting a resolution would be presented relative to April being Drug and Alcohol Abuse Week. County Administrator Standish reminded the Board of the luncheon on Friday, March 17th, with the Virginia Review editorial staff. // Sheriff C. W. Phelps presented the following activity report for the month of February: 3,147 man hours; 41,055 mileage; 1,074 papers served; 227 response to calls; 62 prisoners transported; 5 mental patients transported; 23 misdemeanors with 18 arrests; 25 felonies with 13 arrests; 72 traffic summons issued - 6 were no County tags; and $3,_323 fines collected. // On recommendation of County Attorney Crook and on motion of Supervisor Edwards, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to adopt the February 16, 1989 minutes as presented. // I i 1 Supervisor Edwards moved the Board go into executive session for the purpose of discussing with legal counsel and staff 800K 14 ra:~iVO~ 1 1 members personnel, property acquisition and potential litigation. .The vote in favor was unanimous (5-O). // Upon returning to open session Supervisor Turner left the meeting. // At 10:13 P.M. Supervisor Ross moved the meeting be adjourned, which passed unanimously (5-0). My es E Standish, Clerk Henry H. ad y, Chairman