11-05-1992 Regular Meeting,.,
Pn~K. 15 ~ br
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HELD THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER IN .THE YEAR
NINE'T'EEN HUNDRID AND NINETY TWO
PRESENT: Henry H. Bradby, Chairman
Steve W. Edwards, Vice Chairman
Joel C. Bradshaw, Jr.
' , Malcolm T. Cofer
O. A. Spady
Also Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney
Myles E. Standish, County Administrator
W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County '
Administrator/ Community Development
Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the
County Administrator
Carey H. Mills, Assistant Clerk
.Chairman Bradby called. the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. The
invocation was delivered by Supervisor Bradshaw.
//
Chairman Bradby called for Special Presentations.
I
Paul Fleshood of GTE commended the Board for their foresight in
proceeding with. a lengthy, but valuable, enhanced 911. service
implementation for County citizens. Mr. Fleshood distributed a
complimentary clock and coffee cups to the Board on behalf of GTE.
Chairman Bradby noted that the newly implemented emergency 911
service provides amuch-needed service in the County.
Chairman Bradby read the following Resolution of .Appreciation to
.Fred Douglas Thompson, Sr. in his honor and presented a plaque to Mrs.
Fred Thompson, Sr. in Mr. Thompson's absence:
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO FRED DOUGLAS THOMPSON, SR.
WHEREAS, Fred Douglas Thompson, Sr. served the Isle of Wight
school system fortwenty-three years, from 1957 until his retirement in 1980;
and,
WHEREAS, Fred Douglas Thompson, Sr. served the school system as
a teacher, Assistant Principal, Principal and Director of Services; and,
WHEREAS, Fred Douglas Thompson, Sr. simultaneously served on
the.County's Recreational Facilities Authority for thirteen years, from 1974
through 1987; and,
WHEREAS, Fred Douglas Thompson, Sr. served as Chairman of97 e
Recreational Facilities Authority during the fiscal years 1977/1
1
Eo~~ 15:P.:- ~~
1982/ 1983, and 1987/ 1988; and,
WHEREAS, Fred. Douglas Thompson, Sr. subsequently served on the
County's Planning Commission for over two years, between February 1988
and October 1990; and,
WHEREAS, Fred Douglas Thompson, Sr. subsequently served on the
County's Social Services Board for almost two years, between November
1990 and October 1992; and,
WHEREAS, such continuous and broad-based service to Isle of Wight
County is both distinctive and unique, and has undoubtedly touched the
lives of many County residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Isle of Wight -County that Fred Douglas Thompson, Sr. is hereby
recognized for his long record of service to this community and for the.
many significant contributions for which he is responsible.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends
its appreciation to Fred Douglas Thompson, Sr. for these many years of
unselfish public commitment.
Mrs. Fred Thompson stated because of health reasons Mr. Thompson
could not be present and accepted the resolution and plaque on behalf of
her husband.
Linda Bean, Director of Social Services, presented a Certificate of
Appreciation to Mrs. Fred Thompson, Sr. and requested she convey on
behalf of the Social Service Board their sincere thanks and best wishes to
Mr. Thompson.
//
Chairman Bradby called for Transportation Matters.
Cliff C. Molleen, Assistant Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of
Transportation, appeared in the absence of MacFarland Neblett and advised
Laurelwood Drive will meet the criteria as outlined in the Virginia Highway
laws to qualify as a rural addition to the secondary highways.
Supervisor Bradshaw asked Mr. Molleen if VDOT would be surveying.
the bypass around Franklin.
Mr. Molleen stated it was his understanding that VDOT would be
surveying the bypass, although the matter is-being handled through the
District office.
Mr. Molleen reported to the Board regarding- the status of the dip in
the roadway on Route 704 resulting from patching for a gas line
improvement, VDOT will be installing a permanent patch in the road
within the next two weeks.
2
1
1
C 11 ~~k ~~ 'i ~~r V i
Mr. Molleen .advised the Board the pothole at the intersection of
Battery Park Road was fixed yesterday.
Mr. Molleen reported that all issues have been. approved relative to
the commuter parking lot in Carrollton and stated a pole with lights will be
installed within two weeks.
- Mr. Molleen reported concerning the six deceleration lanes requested
by the Board previously, four have been approved and two will be fixed in
the current- fiscal year with the other two to be fixed in the following fiscal
year. Mr. Molleen further advised VDOT did not feel the remaining two
deceleration lanes were needed at this time.
Mr. Molleen reported the speed limit signs would be installed at
Gatling Pointe today.
Mr. Molleen stated regarding grass cutting along the medians and
right of ways, VDOT has been under monetary restraints, but is ,willing to
-work with the County if there are locations ,within the County that the
Board wishes to perform special beautifications on and requested the Bc,ard
.members get with either himself or Mr. Neblett to review the .sites.
Mr. Molleen stated regarding the feasibility and the process for
acquisition, use of property for the dumpster site to be located at the
intersection of Route 10 bypass, VDOT is presently using this site; however,
there is another site where perhaps four or five. dumpsters could be located.
Mr. Molleen further stated he would like to review the site. with County
representatives to see if .this site would be suitable.
Supervisor Edwards requested the status of the speed study at Central
Hill Estates:
Mr. Molleen stated he has not received information on this matter to
date, but would advise the Board upon receipt of same.
Supervisor Edwards requested that the ditches be cleaned out in the
vicinity of Tynes Corner.
Supervisor Spady requested the status of the Ragged Island Road,
specifically if it would be reopened for traffic.
Mr. Molleen stated he would remind Mr. Neblett to, report on the
matter at the next meeting.
Supervisor Cofer requested VDOT place a patch in the pothole on the
- dirt road at the entrance to the commuter parking lot at the Route 10 bypass
-and Route 258.
Henry Bell .requested the status of the Route 681 project, specifically
the obtaining of the necessary signature for. donation of right of way.
Mr. Molleen stated he would get with Mr. Neblett and request that he
3 ~
BOOM 15 _•,- 68
be prepared to discuss the matter at the .next meeting.
R. L. Walker appeared. with expressing his concern regarding the
inappropriate drainage of ditches in the Central Hill azea.
Mr. Molleen stated he would visit the site- and review the matter.
Chairman Bradby requested a progress report on the speed limit
survey on Route 637 in Central Hill Estates.
Mr. Molleen stated he was -not familiar with the speed limit survey,
but would request Mr. Neblett report on the matter at the December 3,1992
meeting.
Chairman Bradby inquired as to the location of the alternative
dumpster site on Route 10 bypass.
Mr. Molleen replied between Business 10 and Route 677.
//
Chairman Bradby called for a public hearing on the following:
An Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Ordinance of Isle of Wight
County to Add Article 8C. Highway Corridor Overlay District
W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County Administrator/Community
Development, stated the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan adopted
by the Board in May of 1991 contained a specific recommendation relative
to the Highway Corridor Overlay District and the need for the County to
develop a higher level of expectation in terms of design of development
activities along the major arterial routes in the County. Mr, Caskey further
stated this District is intended to supplement the regulations that aze
contained in the existing zoning ordinance, as well as any future zoning
ordinances adopted in the County. Mr. Caskey continued this District
would not have impact on the uses permitted in a particular zoning district,
but as an overlay zone, it would create criteria for design, the placement of
buildings, architectural standards, signage, landscaping, buffering, burming,
access, .etc. Mr. Caskey advised the matter was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at several work sessions and a public hearing was held on the
proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Caskey further advised
one change that evolved through the proposal as a result of the Planning
Commission's discussion was the recommendation that the requirements of
the corridor be limited to areas within the Development Service Districts.
County Attorney Crook stated a question was raised by Jon Woltman,
Counsel for Union Camp Corporation, citing the case of Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Council, that the problem with this ordinance originally
as Mr. Caskey has .indicated, is that it applies to all arterial highways,
including the agricultural conservation districts and prevents-the landowner
from clear cutting trees along the roads. Mr. Crook further stated he
advised the Planning Commission that he did not- believe this is
4
4
J
1
1
1
~~ ~'r ~~
gpnA
constitutional because it would amount to taking without compensation to
a landowner. However, Mr. Crook continued, this is a reasonable
regulation in the development areas because the value of the land is
.increased by :zoning to developmenf districts and the County can regulate.
development in such districts. Mr. Crook advised the County still has a
problem if the County does not allow the owners of the land to clear cut the
timber when the land is undeveloped, but. as long as it applies to
' development itself in the development areas, it would not be
unconstitutional in his opinion. This would be reasonable regulation of
development. rather than a taking without compensation.
Chairman Bradby called for persons to speak in favor of the
ordinance.
No one appeared.-
Chairman Bradby called for persons- to speak in opposition to .the
ordinance.
No one appeared.
Chairman Bradby called for comments by the Board.
Supervisor Cofer stated regarding the letter from Jon Woltman,
County Attorney Crook has rendered an opinion that the County can do it.
County Attorney Crook replied it is under the County's general
zoning purposes to regulate ..development and the zoning enabling
legislation is broad enough to include it, as long as the County is dealing
with zoning, rezoning and development.
Supervisor Cofer stated in the Carrsville Development District where
the proposed district runs from the Suffolk line to the Blackwater bridge,
he recommends that it stop at the intersection of Routes 58 and 258.
Supervisor Bradshaw expressed his opposition to cutting it out from
Route 258 in to the City of Franklin. Supervisor Bradshaw also expressed
concern regarding how the setbacks may affect current and future
businesses.
Supervisor Spady stated the concept is good because it will increase
the value of property owners along these particular routes; however, the
County continues to pass rules and regulations which may cause a decrease
in development. Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Caskey what county or city
this ordinance was patterned after. .
Mr. Caskey stated the County was under contract at the time with
Redman, Johnson & Associates who is the firm. that assisted with the
development of the Comprehensive Plan and a majority of the language..
-was provided by the consultant. Mr. Caskey advised the City of Suffolk
-has had a similar ordinance in place for five years although the proposed
ordinance for .the .County is a stronger ordinance because it covers much
5
BO~h ~~ :~:.'' ?O
more detail and is therefore more comprehensive, 1Vir. Casket' further
advised Chesterfield County and Lowden County were considered in the
research process in terms of application and practice.
Supervisor Bradshaw expressed concern with the regulation of colors
used in business signs. Supervisor Bradshaw stated he agreed- with having
a regulation of colors for shopping centers and housing developments, but
warned the County must continue to work with businesses to encourage
development ir. the County.
Mr. Casket' replied the County would make every attempt to be as
flexible as possible, but stressed the County must have parameters and
guidelines for basic design standards.
Supervisor Bradshaw stated he thought the Board should further
review the matter before voting.
Supervisor Cofer stated he was in favor of a highway corridor overlay
district and moved the Board adopt the ordinance with the exception that
the Carrsville District overlay apply to the area from the Suffolk City line
to its intersection with Route 258 and Route 58, as follows:
Article 8C. Highway Corridor Overlay District
Seca 8C-1. Purpose.
The purpose for establishing these provisions is to protect the
aesthetic and visual character of lands in Isle of .Wight County
adjacent to major existing and proposed highway corridors, as defined
herein, and to provide for and promote their orderly development.
The overlay district regulations are intended to supplement the
regulations of the underlying zoning districts and to provide .for
compatibility of development along the identified corridors. All
development proposed .within .this District shall be subject to the
procedures, standards, and guidelines specified in the following
Sections, in addition to those standards pertaining to the particular
base zoning district in which the development occurs. In particular,
the purpose of the Highway Corridor Overlay District is to:
a. Encourage and better articulate positive visual experiences
along the County's major existing and proposed highway
corridors.
b. Provide for the continued safe and efficient use of these
highway corridors.
c. Maintain natural beauty and scenic, cultural, and historic
character of these corridors, particularly distinctive views,
.vistas, and visual continuity.
d. Protect existing natural vegetation. and wildlife habitats
along these corridors.
6
1
~~~n 15.M::• 7~
e. Discourage indiscriminate clearing, excessive grading, and
clear cutting along these corridors.
f. Minimize cut and fill operations by placing emphasis on
the retention of .natural topography of these corridors.
g. Minimize intersections and individual site access points
along these corridors.
The Zoning Administrator shall evaluate all proposed development
activities within the Highway Corridor Overlay District, which will include
a review of the location, character and appearance of new development in
the District. It is the purpose of such review to determine, in a cooperative
fashion with the applicant, whether a proposed development plan meets the
guidelines and other standards of this District.
Section 8C-2. Applicability.
8C-2.1. The Highway Corridor Overlay District shall include
all lands within five-hundred (500) feet of each side of the following
arterialrights-of-ways where such rights-of-way are located within the
boundaries of a Development Service District, as designated by the
.Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan:
a. United States Highway Route 58 Business, extending
between the corporate boundary of the City of
Suffolk and United States Highway Route 258.
b. United States Highway Route 258.
c. United States Highway Route 17.
d. United .States .Highway Route 460.
e. Virginia Highway Route 10.
f. Virginia Highway Route 32.
g. Virginia :Highway Route 260.
8C-2-2. The boundary 'of the Highway Corridor Overlay
District may either follow a fixed distance as set forth in Section 8C-2-
1 or the defined boundaries of a natural or man-made feature as
determined. by the Zoning Administrator.
8C-2-3. The boundary of the Highway Corridor Overlay
District shall be shown on the official Isle of Wight County Zoning
Maps and shall be delineated as a surveyed line on any .property
proposed for development. 4
I
:Sec 8C-3 Affected Development. !
8C-3-1. Review required. All proposed .development.
7
ao~~ 15.~~::~ 72
activities located within the Highway Corridor Overlay Zoning
District shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator,
Any .changes shall also receive such approval. before proceeding. If
a portion of the District will not be visible from the arterial highway
once the project is completed, the Zoning Administrator may waive
the special requirements of this Section for that portion. The Zoning
Administrator may also review preliminary. development plans or
design development drawings at the request of the applicant.
8C-3-2. Development activity permitted within the District.
There shall be no alteration of the existing condition of the lands, uses
or structures within the Highway Corridor Overlay District from the
date of enactment of this Article henceforth, except as provided for by
this Section or by other Sections of this Article.
8C-3-3, Development activity prohibited within the District.
These regulations are supplementary to the permitted uses and
requirements for the appropriate underlying zoning district as
contained in the Isle of Wight County Zoning Ordinance. _ Uses
prohibited in the underlying zoning district are also prohibited in the
Highway Corridor Overlay District.
Section 8C-4. Tree Protection.
8C-41. Development of land for different usesand intensity
of uses may necessitate the removal of .trees to accommodate roads,
parking, buildings, and facilities. It is the expressed intent of this
Section that every effort be made through the design, layout, .and
construction of development projects to incorporate and preserve as
many trees as possible.
8C-42. No person shall cut, destroy, move, or remove any
living, disease-free tree of any species having a trunk with a diameter
of eight (8) inches or larger, measured four and one-half (4 1/2) feet
from the base, in conjunction with any development of land governed
by this Article unless and until such removal or destruction has been
approved under the provisions of this Article.
8C-43, No person shall cut or clear trees for the sole
purpose of offering land for sale. Land may be underbrushed
(bushhogged} in preparation for sale or development.
8C-4-4. The clear-cutting of trees strictly in conjunction with
timbering or silvilcultural activities is permitted upon any .lot, parcel,
or tract of land located within the District except said clear-cutting
shall not occur within at least seventy (70) feet from any arterial right-
of-way designated in Section 8C.2.1. The. term "clear-cutting" as used
herein shall mean the cutting of more than seventy-five percent (75%)
of the trees eight (8) inches in trunk diameter or larger. Clear-cutting
pursuant to an approved development plan shall require the planting
of replacement trees as indicated in the detailed landscaping plan
provided for in Section 8C-11..
8
1
n
>j
BOQK ~_~ -;:~; 7~
8C-4-5. A survey of all trees of applicable size shall be made
and submitted in conjunction with the development plan. All trees
proposed for removal shall be clearly noted. The tree survey shall be
.certified by either a licensed land surveyor, registered engineer, or
landscape architect.
8C-46. The requirement for a tree survey is waived in the
case of golf course construction or when preliminary site evaluation
by the applicant reveals the ability to accomplish the proposed project
without removal of any trees eight (8) inches in diameter or larger.
In the latter case, the applicant shall submit a written statement that
no trees will be removed and his development plan will indicate "No
Tree Removal" as a condition thereof.
8C-4-7. Considerable damage to or the death of trees may
result. if more than six (6) inches of soil is added around the base of
a tree, more than thirty percent (30%) of circumferential bark is
removed, or more than thirty percent (30%) of the root system is
removed. In addition, asphalt paving, building construction, and soil
compaction too close to trees may cause their destruction...
Accordingly, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to institute ~
alternative site designs to assure the best chance of tree survival
whenever these criteria cannot be adhered to,
8C-48.' Those trees designated for preservation in accordance
with the provisions of -this Ordinance as shown on the approved
landscaping plan shall be marked with ribbons encircling the tree ~
trunk at a height.. of four (4) feet above the ground and a barricade.
four (4) feet in height will be erected around the tree at least three. (3)
feet outside the drip line prior to the start of construction.
8C-49. As a condition of approval under this Article, the }
applicant may be required to plant replacement trees for trees.
approved for removal as part of the development plan. In requiring
replacement trees, the followir-g shall be considered: '
a. the intended use of the property.
b. .the existing or pre-development tree coverage, sizes and
types.
c. the number, size, type, and location of .natural trees
proposed for preservation by the applicant.
d. the grading, road, .building, parking, and drainage
requirements.
Section 8C 5 Minimum Visual Buffer Along the Corridor Right-of-
8C-5-1. Each development plan shall provide a minimum
visual .buffer between the right-of-way line of the subject arterial
9
80^M. ~~ .~;!;r 7~
highway and all proposed structures and parking areas. The purpose
of the minimum visual buffer is to soften the appearance of structures
and parking lots from the road, to screen vehicular headlight glare on
and off-site and to lessen spillover light from on-site lighting.
8C-5-2. The buffer shall be continuous, except as set forth
below, and be no less than seventy (70) feet average and fifty (50) feet
minimum depth from the existing right-of-way line or from the new
right-of-way line should the proposed development activity under
consideration be required to or voluntarily provide a dedication of or
easement for transportation purposes. The minimum depth of fifty
(50) feet shall not occur at the high activity areas of a project. These
areas include, but are not limited to, building entrances, vehicular
access and movement areas and loading and unloading zones.
To determine the. average depth of 'the minimum visual buffer,
measurements shall be taken at intervals not greater than ten (10) feet
perpendicular to the property line. Where drainage swales and other.
natural features occur in the minimum visual buffer :and should
remain undisturbed, because of natural land forms or drainage
patterns, additional buffer depth and vegetation shall be required to
augment the screening effect.
8C-5-3. The intent of the minimum visual buffer is to leave
the naturally occurring buffer vegetation intact for its softening effect.
This buffer shall be enhanced or created, where such vegetation is
insufficient or non-existent,' with trees and shrubs of a variety of
species appropriate to County character. If the minimum visual
buffer already .has trees. of protected size and ..species, their
preservation is required, unless otherwise. provided for in Section 8C-
7. Where masses of native shrubs are present, their preservation with
minimum disturbance is strongly encouraged. While complete
screening of a project is not required, sufficient plant material shall be
installed to accomplish the softening effect required.
8C-5-4. In order to maintain the screening effect of preserved
trees, existing limbs or branches shall .not be removed from the
ground more than six (6) feet to the lowest. branches. However, if
understory planting is planned, existing vegetation. may be removed
with the approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Section 8C-6. Exemptions from Buffer Requirements. I
8C-6-1. Purpose. Exemptions, whether partial or total, from
the bufferyard provisions may be granted if it can be sufficiently
demonstra#ed that such bufferyard will have a negative visual effect
upon an existing situation or that through the preservation of an
existing treestand or other unique natural vegetative resource,
particular effort on the part of a developer in protecting the existing
natural environment .warrants the relaxation of bufferyard
requirements..
10
1
90~M ~5 .~,:' 7 a
8C-6-2. Protection of existing visual environment. The
following cases anticipate :those situations where the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation from the Planning Commission
may determine that a bufferyard requirement may be relaxed or
removed:
a. views and vistas of existing buildings which exhibit a high
degree of aesthetic value serving to heighten the visual
experience, serve as important points of spatial
identification or contain value as important historical
resources.
b. views and vistas of existing natural
landscape/topographical features of a particular area of
the District which correspond to certain high 'points
affording panoramic views, views. involving settlement
clusters, views of water, tidal and non-tidal wetlands,
tributary streams and other elements of the physical
landscape.
c. views and vistas to existing recreational/open space areas,
whether natural or man-made, which serve to contribute
to the overall visual environment. Such uses include golf-
courses, State or local parks, equestrian centers,
cemeteries, etc.
d. views and vistas which give the observer an awareness of
a location's inherent character related to views of
farmland, pastures, water activities, such as docks or other
maritime activities.
8C-6-3. Protection of proposed visual environment. Where
a proposed development intends to further enhance or protect the
existing visual environment, the Board of Supervisors with a ~
recommendation from the Planning Commission may exempt, wholly
or partially, the proposed development from the required bufferyard.
Examples include .the following:
a. a proposed development which by virtue of the
characteristics of its structures indicates innovation of
design, a unique relationship with the site, represents a ~
...focal point and establishes a particular identifying element
for the County.
b. a proposed development which exhibits innovative or
unique uses of site landscaping, or which combines in the
use of the site, open recreational areas such as described
above.
Section 8C 7. Permitted Activity in Minimum Visual Buffer..
8C-7-1. No existing vegetation of any type, size, or origin
11
shall be altered or removed unless it satisfies the requirements of this
Article. .
8C-7-2. Within the minimum visual buffer there shall be no
development, clearing, grading, or construction activity with the
following exceptions:
a. roadway or drivEway access to the portion of the site not
in the minimum visual buffer .provided that it is
approximately perpendicular to the arterial public right-of-
way.
b. provision for water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage,
electrical, telephone, natural gas, cable, utility service lines
below the surface of the ground provided that the natural
vegetation is preserved and protected to the greatest
extent practicable.
c. pedestrian and bicycle paths designed to provide
continuous connection along the road corridor, provided
that they. can be constructed without materially reducing
the screening and visual softening capacity of the
bufferyard.
d. lighting fixtures only for approved signs or if, for safety
reasons, they cannot be placed outside the buffer and then
only when electric utility lines serving these fixtures and
necessary easements can be established. and constructed
without reducing the screening and visual softening
capacity of the bufferyard.
e. signs in accordance with the Section 8C-12 of this Article
and the underlying zoning district.
f. clear sight distances at the permitted entrances and exits
to any development as needed to provide for reasonable
traffic safety, in accordance with accepted traffic
engineering practices when recommended or required by
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
g. the addition of plantings, earthen berms, or other visual
buffers which, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator,
would better achieve the purposes of this District.
Section 8C-8. Yard and Hei hg t Requirements.
SC-8-1. Yard requirements. The following yard requirements
shall apply to any lot or parcel located within the Highway Corridor
Overlay District:
a. Front yard setback for all structures and vehicular
movement and parking areas shall be determined by the
12
1
1
u
~~
~.
90nP, ~5 .;,;~ ~~
visual bufferyard as required in Section 8C-5. In no
instance shall the setback for structures or vehicular
parking areas be less than fifty (50) feet. This minimum
setback shall strictly apply on all portions of any lot or
parcel abutting arterial public rights-of--way designated by
this Article, including corner side yards.
b. Side yard setback for all structures and vehicular
movement and parking areas shall be a minimum of
.twenty (20) feet. The minimum corner side yard setback
for any lot or parcel shall be thirty (30) feet.. One (1) foot
..shall be added to each side yard for each (3) feet that the
building height adjacent thereto exceeds forty-five (45) feet
or three (3) stories, whichever is less.
c. Rear yard setback for structures and vehicular movement
and parking areas shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet.
One (1) foot shall be added to each rear yard for each (3)
feet that the building height adjacent thereto exceeds
forty-five (45) feet or three (3) stories, whichever is less.
l
8C-8-2. Height requirements. The maximum height of all
.structures shall be as permitted by the underlying zoning district(s).
8C-8-3. Permitted variations in side and rear yard
requirements. The required minimum side and rear yards for any lot
or parcel within the District may be reduced with the retention of
natural vegetation or the provision of additional landscaping as J
follows: t i~
a. The required side yard may be reduced to ten (10) feet
with the retention of natural vegetation which shall
provide a visual screen or the provision of landscaping in
accordance with Section 8C-11. In no case shall the
required side yard be reduced when the lot or parcel is
adjacent to any Agricultural or Residential District.
b. The required rear yard maybe reduced to twenty (20) feet
with the provision or retention of natural vegetation
which shall. provide a visual screen or the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Section 8C-11. In no case
shall the required rear yard be reduced when the lot or
parcel is adjacent to any Agricultural or Residential.
District. ,
Section 8C-9. Access and Internal Circulation.
i
8C-9-1. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this
Section is to maximize the functional capacity and maintain the level ,
of service of highways within the Highway Corridor Overlay District;
to minimize the number of access points to these arterials and other
public rights-of--way within the. District; to promote the sharing of
_13
ao~~ 15 .Y.:..~g
access and the ability to travel between sites; to provide pedestrian
circulation networks among residential, commercial and recreational
areas; and, to enhance safety and convenience for land uses within the
District.
8C-9-2. Access to arterial highways. Access from any parcel
or lot having frontage along an arterial .highway within the District
and in existence prior to (date of adoption) shall be permitted one (1)
direct access point #o said highway, unless an Access Plan is
submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator and the
Virginia Department of Transportation for more than one (1) access
point as provided for in Section 8C-9-5.
8C-9-3. Access .for two (2) or more lots under singular
.ownership. If two (2) or more parcels are placed under one (1)
common ownership and / or control, such assembly shall be permitted
only one (1) direct access to the arterial highway within the District,
unless an Access Plan is submitted to, and approved by the Zoning
Administrator and the Virginia Department of Transportation for
more than one (1) access .point.
8C-9-4. Access from lots or parcels not permitted direct
access. Direct access to arterial highways shall be provided by one (1)
or more of the following means for lots or parcels not permitted direct
access to the arterial, subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator
and the Virginia Department of Transportation:
a. access to the site may be provided by an existing or
planned public road; and / or,
b. access to the site may be provided via the internal
circulation of a .shopping center, an office complex, or
similar group of buildings. having access. in accordance.
with an approved Access Plan; and no additional direct
access shall be provided to the site from a public street
intended to carry through traffic over and above those
entrances which may exist to .provide access to the
shopping center, office complex, or similar .group of
buildings; and / or,
c. access to the site may be provided by a service drive
generally parallel with -the arterial highway, but located
behind the minimum visual bufferyard (see Section 8C-5)
which provides controlled access to the site.
d. use of reverse frontage or double frontage lot layouts on
parallel roads when possible to provide access exclusively
from the road. All minimum bufferyards shall be
maintained as required by Section 8C-5.
e. use of shared entrances with those established or likely to
be required on adjacent sites to minimize curb-cuts or
14
1
1
1
r.,
' BooK, 15.x;' 7~
increase spacing between curb-cuts.
f. use of deceleration or turning lanes where access must be
from the arterial highway with sufficient capacity to avoid
stacking or queuing of entering vehicles on the arterial
highway..
The means of access .control provided shall be that. which
effectively minimizes creation of new intersections and new
individual site access locations along the corridors and best preserves
highway traffic capacity.
8C-9-5. Access plan. An access plan shall be submitted and
approved prior to development plan approval for those lots or parcels
proposing more than one (1) access point to an arterial highway
within the District. Such access plan shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and distances, and clearly delineate the traffic
circulation system and the pedestrian circulation system as
coordinated with adjacent properties including the location and width
of all streets, driveways, access aisles, entrance to parking areas,
walkways and bicycle paths.
8C-9-6. Traffic impact analysis. A traffic impact analysis
shall be submitted to, and approved by the.. Zoning Administrator
under the following circumstances:
a. any proposed development 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' publication, Tri
Generation, or the Virginia Department of Transportation.
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 District.
8C-9-6. Internal circulation. Sites shall be designed to
achieve direct and convenient pedestrian. and vehicular circulation
between adjacent properties unless otherwise required by the Zoning
Administrator.
Section 8C 10 Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards.
SC-10-1. Purpose and intent. The compatible relationship of
architecture along highways within the Highway Corridor Overlay
District is of critical public concern for any structures or site
improvements. The purpose and intent of these .architectural
guidelines and development standards is not to stifle innovative
architecture or development, but to assure respect for and to reduce
incompatible and adverse impacts on the visual experience from the
highway.
15
!~
1
eoe~. 15:,:.:~ g0
8C-10=2. Architectural guidelines. The architectural design of
structures and their materials and colors shall be visually harmonious
with the overall appearance, history, and cultural heritage of Isle of
Wight County, with natural land forms and existing vegetation and
with other development plans already approved by the County.
Specific consideration shall be given. to compatibility -with adjacent
properties where such projects demonstrate the County's character.
Design and architectural features will demonstrate consistency with
the. following provisions:
a. large work area doors or open bays shall not open toward
or face the highway.
b. heating, ventilating, and air conditioning .equipment, duct
.work, air compressors, other fixed operating machinery
shall be either screened from view or located so that such
items are not visible from the highway. Large trash
receptacles, dumpsters, utility meters, above-ground tanks,
satellite dishes, antennas, etc., shall be similarly treated.
c. fencing along the highway right-of-way, is discouraged,
but if used, such fencing shall be landscaped to minimize
visibility from the highway or be of a style which is
harmonious with the rural and agricultural character of
the County.
d. avoidance of long monotonous facade designs including,
but not limited to, those characterized by unrelieved
repetition of shape or form or by unbroken extension of
line shall be avoided.
e. stucco, natural wood siding, brick,, or other materials with
similar texture and appearance are considered appropriate
to County character. Reflective surfaces may be
considered acceptable based on overall architectural
treatment and use in relation to the site.
f. colors of paints and stains shall be nature-blending with
generally no more than three (3) colors per building.
Semi-transparent stains are recommended for application
on natural wood finishes.
g, no .building facade (whether front, side or rear) will
consist of architectural materials inferior in quality,
appearance, or detail to any other facade of the same
building. The intent. of this requirement is not to preclude
the use. of different materials on different buildings'
facades (which would. be acceptable if .representative of
good architectural design), but rather to preclude the use
of inferior materials on sides which face adjoining
property .and thus, might adversely impact existing or
future development causing a substantial depreciation of
16
1
1
i~
f,,
property values.
h. no portion of a building constructed of barren and
unfinished cinderblock or corrugated material and/or
sheet metal shall be visible from any adjoining property or
public rights-of-way.
$C-10-3. Development standards. Proposed development
within the District should provide for visual compatibility and
harmony with surrounding natural land forms and vegetation; be
protective of views and vistas from the arterial highways within the
.District; and provide continuity of site design within the proposed
development. These objectives include the following standards:
a. Proposed development shall avoid excessive or unsightly
grading, indiscriminate earth moving or clearing of
property, and removal of trees and vegetation that could
cause disruption of natural water courses or disfigure
natural land forms.
b. Proposed development shall be located and configured in
a visually harmonious manner with the terrain and
vegetation of the parcel and surrounding parcels.
Structures shall impede, as little as .reasonably practical,
scenic views from the main highway or from existing
structures and the natural environment.
c. Structures shall not dominate, by excessive or
inappropriate height or mass, any general development,
adjacent building, or natural landscape in an incompatible
manner.
d. - Architectural lighting shall be recessed under roof
overhangs or generated from concealed source, low level
light fixtures.
e. Site lighting shall be of low-intensity from a concealed
source, shall be of a clear white or amber. light that does
not distort colors, and shall not spill over onto adjoining
properties, buffers,. highways, or in-any way interfere with
the vision of on-coming motorists. Such lighting fixtures
or devices- shall be of a directional .type capable of
shielding the light source from direct view. The
development plan must show the relationship of fixtures
and the light patterns to each other, to the project site, to
the unit development, and to the highway corridor.
f. Decorative, .low-level intensity, non-concealed source.
lighting that defines vehicular and / or pedestrian .ways
shall be acceptable when used for such purposes.
g. Vehicular movement and parking areas shall. be paved
17
ao~~ 1~ ., 82
with concrete, asphalt, or other similaz material. Vehicular
movement and parking areas surfaced with gravel or
other similar material shall be prohibited. Concrete curb
and gutter or other stormwater management structure as
approved by .the- Zoning Administrator. shall be installed
around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas.
Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with
pedestrian .traffic.
h. Outdoor storage shall be as permitted by the underlying
zoning district, provided that all outdoor storage areas
shall be visually screened from public rights-of--way,
internal roadways, and adjacent property. Screening shall
consist of either a solid board fence, .masonry wall, dense
evergreen plants, or such other materials as may be
approved by the Zoning .Administrator. All such
screening shall be of sufficient height to screen storage
areas from. view and shall be appropriately landscaped in
accordance with the standards set forth in Section 8C-11.
Outdoor storage shall include the parking of all company
owned and .operated vehicles, with the .exception of
passenger vehicles.
i. Site development should include streetscape
improvements. These improvements are. considered as
those architectural or functional facilities or structures that ~
occur on site but are not part of the building and that
encourage and facilitate human interaction with the built
environment. Examples include, but are not limited to the
following: decorative light fixtures, fountains, sculptures,
benches and tables, planters, retaining walls, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, bicycle parking structures, trash
receptacles and enclosures, vendor areas, and fences.
These improvements shall be designed to be consistent
with all requirements listed above, and shall be reviewed
for aesthetic functionality and compatibility with County
character.
8C-11. Landscaping Requirements.
$C-11-1. Purpose and intent. A comprehensive landscaping
plan for each individual lot or parcel within the District is essential
for the visual enhancement of the corridors and to protect and
promote the appearance, character, and economic values of land along
the corridors and surrounding neighborhoods. The purpose and
intent of such landscaping requirements is also to reduce the visibility
of paved areas from adjacent properties and streets; moderate climatic
effects; minimize noise .and glare; .and to enhance public safety by
defining spaces so as to influence traffic movement.. Landscaping will
also reduce the amount of storm water runoff and provide transition
between neighboring properties.
18
1
D
1
BD~K. .~5 ~~;; ~~
8C-11-2. Standards or requirements for landscape plans. The
landscape plans for the proposed development shall provide visually
:harmonious and compatible setting for structures on the same lot and
on adjoining or nearby lots and shall blend with the surrounding
landscape. Natural appearing landscape forms are strongly
encouraged. The following standards or requirements shall apply to
all landscape. plans:
a. A landsca m lan shall be submitted in conjunction with
P~ g P
development plan submittal.
b. Such landscaping plan shall be drawn to scale, include
dimensions and distances, and clearly delineate all
existing and proposed vehicular movement and parking,
and the location, size and description of all landscaping
materials.
c. All. plant materials shall be living and in a healthy
condition. Plant materials used in conformance with the
provisions of these specifications shall conform to the
standards of the most recent edition of the "American.
Standard for Nursery Stock", published by the American
Association of Nurserymen.
d. The property owner, or his designated agent, shall be ~
- responsible for the maintenance repair, and replacement
of all landscaping materials as may be required by the
provisions of this Subsection.
e. ~ All plant material shall be tended and maintained in a
healthy growing condition and free from refuse and debris
at all times.
f. .Where landscaping is required, no Certificate of
Occupancy shall be issued by the Building Official until
the required landscaping is completed in accordance with
the approved landscape plan. When .the occupancy of a
structure is desired prior to the completion of the required
landscaping, a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued
only if the owner or his designated agent provides to the
County a form of surety acceptable to the County in an
amount equal to the costs of the remaining plants, related
materials and installation costs.
Should an acceptable surety be provided, then all required
landscaping shall be installed and approved by the first
planting season following issuance of a Certificate of
Occu,_pa, n~ or the surety shall be forfeited to the County.
In addition, all required landscaping shall. be maintained
by .the property owner in accordance with the approved
landscape plan.
19 4
8~~~ 15 ~r'~' J~
8C-11-3. Replacement of trees and other vegetation, Should
the Zoning Administrator determine that trees eight (8) inches in
diameter or greater and/or vegetation have been removed without
specific approval for such removal or .have been. removed in
accordance with an approved landscape and/or development plan,
the Zoning Administrator shall require replacement of said trees or
vegetation. The minimum height of the new replacement trees shall
be eight (8) to twelve (12) feet. The minimum height of new shrubs
used to create the minimum visual buffer shall be three (3) feet.
8C-12. Signs.
8C-12-1. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this
Section is to regulate the use of publicly visible- displays or graphics
within the Highway Corridor Overlay District; to protect and enhance
the character of these arterial highways and surrounding areas; to
prevent diminishing property values within these areas; to safeguard
the public use and nature of these arterial highways; and, to minimize
visual distractions to motorists along these arterial highways.
8C-12-2 General regulations. The following shall apply to all
signs within the District:
a. .Applicants for new or replacement signs in the District
shall apply to the Zoning Administrator for review at the
time of .development plan review or as a separate
submittal.
b. Signs shall meet all applicable requirements contained in
this Article and .the Isle of Wight County Zoning
.Ordinance.
c. .All signs shall meet the requirements of applicable State.
and Federal laws and/or regulations.
d. The amount of information on signs shall be no more than
is necessary to provide reasonable identification of the
name and nature of the business. to the passerby.
e. Signs and advertising .structures shall not obstruct any
window, door, fire escape, stairway, ladder or opening
intended to provide light, air or ingress and egress for any
building or structure.
f. No sign shall be used or permitted to portray information
of an unlawful nature.
g. Individual rate signs or price signs shall be prohibited.
Motor vehicle fuel and service stations shall be allowed to
integrate fuel rate and price information into a
freestanding, detached business identification sign.
20
1
1
.~~~~ 15 X35
h. No sign shall be higher than the roof line or parapet wall
of any building for which the sign is proposed. A sign
may be attached to the facia of a pitched roof of a
structure, but may not be located so as to extend above
the upper edge of the facia of said roof. Also, a sign may
be attached to the facia of or located on the sloping roof
of a structure, but may not be located so as to ex
said
more than four (4) feet above the lower edge of
.sloping roof.
i. Temporary. construction signs within the District shall
comply with the design guidelines set forth in this Section
and Article for colors and materials. In the case of
multiple principals (for example, owner, developer,
architect, engineer, contractor, or real estate or leasing
agent), all information shall be contained on a single sign.
j. . Portable .signs .shall be prohibited in the District.
lc. Temporary, portable business signs identifying seasonal
'
goods or services may be permitted in the District.
SC-12-3. Sign design standards.
a. A unified system of signage and graphics shall be
required for each individual development with the
Highway Corridor Overlay District. The establishment of
an integrated signage system. for .existing development
within the District is strongly encouraged.
b. These systems shall be reviewed for materials, colors,
'
letter style,
shapes, sizes, compatibility with architecture,
graphic display, and establishment of unity of design for
the development.
c Materials, colors, and shapes of proposed signs shall be
. compatible ..with .the related .building(s). Size and
ortions shall not be a dominant feature of the site and
prop
shall be judged by sizes and proportions of signs on
adjacent and nearby properties that are compatible with
County character..
d. Freestanding, detached signs shall be encased within a
structure that is architecturally related to and compatible
with the main building(s) and. overall architectural design
of the development.
8C-12-4.. Sign landscaping.
a. Landscaping shall be integrated with each individual
freestanding, detached sign. Clustering of plant species
shall be required to provide a pleasing composition mix of
21
aanK 15 P:,, g~
natural vegetation.
b. All such landscaping shall be depicted on the landscaping
plan as .required in Section 8C-11.
8C-12-5. Sign illumination.
a. External lighting shall be limited to light fixtures utilizing
white, nat colored, lighting. and. shall not be blinking,
fluctuating, or moving. External lighting shall be
provided by concealed and/or screened spotlight(s) or
floodlight(s). Spot-lighting of signs ~ shall be restricted to
not more than one (1)150-watt light per side for sign faces
up to forty (40) square feet and no more than two (2) 150-
watt lights per sign faces over forty (40) square feet. The
sign base and/or proposed landscaping shall be designed
to shield the light from on-coming motorists and to
conceal the light fixture.
b. .Internal lumination shall be limited to an internal white
light contained within. translucent letters and internal
illuminated sign boxes, provided the background or field
on which the copy and / or logos are placed, is .opaque.
The area illuminated is restricted to the sign face only.
c. Temporary signs within the District shall not be lighted
except for those temporary signs identified in Subsection
8C-12-2(k).
8C-12-6. Sign maintenance and abandonment.
a. Following project completion, all appearance features of
signage required by the Zoning Administrator or shown
on an approved development plan shall be maintained in
good condition by the .owner and all subsequent owners
of the property.
b. Any sign located on property which becomes vacant and
is unoccupied for a period of thirty (30) days or more
shall be deemed abandoned. The sign face or faces of an
abandoned sign shall be removed by the owner of the sign
or the owner or lessee of the property.
c. If the owner or lessee fails to remove the sign, the Zoning
Administrator ,shall give the owner fifteen (15) days
written notice to remove the abandoned sign. face or faces.
Upon failure to comply -with this notice, -the Zoning
Administrator may initiate such .action as may be
necessary to gain compliance with this Subsection.
8C-12-7. Comprehensive sign plan
22
1
1
f•,
BOOT, 15 .; :- `87
a. Prior to erection of any sign, with the exception of
temporary construction signs, noted herein, a
comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator. for review.
b. The Plan shall provide the location and size of all
proposed sign or signs within-the development as well as
- proposed colors, sizes, lighting, location, etc. .
fiction 8C-13 Exemptions to the Requirements of the Hi~hway
Corridor Overlay District.
8C-13-1. The construction of detached single-family dwelling's
on individual lots or parcels within the Highway Corridor Overlay.
District which are not located within a residential subdivision are
exempt from this Article. Also, construction of detached single-family ~
dwellings on lots or parcels within a residential subdivision are
exempt if the subdivision plat was legally recorded prior to (date of
adoption).
i
8C-13-2. The construction of bona-fide agricultural structures
required for on-premise farming operations involving the cultivation
of crops or the raising and keeping of livestock and the preparation
of land for. cultivation of crops are exempt.
fiction SC-14. Develoyment Plan Review.
8C-14-1. Applicability. All development proposed in the
Highway Corridor Overlay District and other applicable projects shall
submit a development plan to the Zoning Administrator for review.
8C-14-2.. Minimum requirements for development plan
review. All development plans submitted for review shall be
complete according to the requirements of this Article before being
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for conformance with all
standards and guidelines of this Article. No development .plan
submitted for review shall be considered until the minimum items of
submission required by this Article have been submitted in a format
acceptable to the Zoning Administrator and the review fee as
.established by this Ordinance has been paid.
8C-14-3. Content of development plan. A development plan
submitted .for review by .the Zoning Administrator shall include
clearly labeled plans, drawings, photographs and/or narratives
depicting or presenting the following, unless deemed unnecessary by
the Zoning Administrator due to the scope and nature of the
proposed development:
a. surveyed property lines.
b. survey of existing topography and the location of trees
and other vegetation meeting .the preservation and/or
23
'BOOK ~~ ,~~;' C78
protection provisions of this Article.
c. a site development plan or plans depicting the dimensions
and location of all structures (including. roof lines), all site.
improvements -with distances and dimensions, and the
bufferyard requirements of Section 8C-5.
d. photographs or drawings of neighboring uses -and
..architectural styles.
e. location of bordering public or private streets or roads and
existing, proposed, and / or approved access points.
f. comprehensive sign plan prepared pursuant to Subsection
8-12-7.
g, location, dimensions, and layout of all areas to be used for
pedestrian movement areas and vehicular movement and
parking areas
h. architect's or artist's rendering of all proposed structures
depicting the front, side and rear elevations including
architectural treatment of all structural exteriors,
including building materials and colors to be utilized.
i. a landscaping plan prepared pursuant to Section 8C-11-2.
j, the location and design of all proposed exterior site
lighting within the proposed development.
k. location, size, and dimensions of all yards and setbacks.
1. a time-line or schedule as to -the project start date,
completion date, and occupancy date.
Section 8C-15 Development Plan Review Procedures.
Section 8C-15-1. All development plans shall be submitted
and reviewed according to the following procedures:
a, a complete development plan shall be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator.
b. after the complete development plan and related materials
have been submitted, it shall be reviewed and processed
by the Zoning Administrator and other affected
governmental agencies for conformity to this Article and
other applicable regulations. The Zoning Administrator
shall act upon. a complete development plan and related
materials as submitted by the applicant, or as modified by
the development plan. review process within thirty (30}
days, unless extensive modification to the development
24
1
i
~;
epnK 15 ~~~,; ~;J
plan or extenuating circumstances require additional time.
c. .applicants shall be informed in writing of the outcome of
their review including a list of required revisions, if
necessary.
d. applicants shall be informed in writing of a final approval
of the development plan.
Section 8C 16 Review by Board of Supervisors with recommendation from
Planning
Commission.
8C-16-1. A development plan meeting the requirements of
Section 8C-142 may be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors with
a recommendation from the Planning Commission under the
following circumstances:
a. if the Zoning Administrator feels that due to the scope,
nature or location of the proposed development, Boardof
Supervisors and Planning Commission review is necessary
or desirable.
b. if the applicant and the Zoning Administrator cannot
reach a mutually agreeable understanding regarding any
aspect of the development plan.
8C-16-2. Requests for review by the Board of Supervisors and
Planning Commission shall be submitted and reviewed. according to
the following procedures:.
a. A complete development plan shall be submitted not less.
than twenty-one (21) .days before the Planning
Commission meeting at which the applicant wishes the
plan to be considered.
b. The Commission will render a recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors within sixty (60) days of submittal
by the Zoning Administrator.
c. Applicants shall be informed in writing of the outcome of
the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission
respective reviews. The Board of Supervisors shall direct
its determination and findings to the Zoning
Administrator and the applicant in writing not more than
five (5) working .days after taking action..
d. In addition to those items required elsewhere in this
Article, an application for development plan approval '
shall be considered complete by the Zoning Administrator
when the .Board of Supervisors' final approval with
25
I
A~~b 15:x.;. 90
written recommendations and findings shall be received
by the Zoning Administrator, except when the sixty (60)
days period for action has been exceeded,
The motion passed (4-1) with Supervisor Bradshaw voting against the
motion .and the other. members voting in favor of the ordinance.
Chairman Bradby called for a public hearing on the following:
The application of W. C. and Gayle Sawyer for a change in
zoning classification from A-1, Agricultural Limited to C-M-1,
Conditional Industrial Limited, fourteen (14) acres and from B-1,
Business General to C-M-1, Conditional Industrial Limited
twenty-six (26) acres, a total of forty (40) acres of land, located
on Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17) between Channell Way
(Route 662) and Sugar Hill Road (Route 661) in Newport
Magisterial District
Al Jones, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer appeared. Mr.
Jones stated the matter was heard by the Planning Commission and tabled,
and certain proffers were developed to .coincide with the Planning
Commission's desires. Mr. Jones advised the applicants desire to make all
forty acres light industrial with certain B-1 uses and the property is
designed for an industrial park. Mr. Jones stated building permits will not
be initiated for any uses unless and until the sewer .line comes through and
the area is served by -the Hampton Roads Sanitation District. Mr. Jones
continued the proffers also include the construction of a water system
approved by the Health Department, as well as approved by the County's
Utility Department; and the water system will ultimately be conveyed to the
County's Public Service Authority at no expense to the County. Mr. Jones.
pointed out that the proffers state that no more than two curbcuts will be
off of Route 17, but in the Board's agenda package there is only one curbcut
shown. Mr. Jones further advised there maybe either one or two curbcuts,
but no more than two lots would be able to gain access from Route 17 if
VDOT approves this.
Chairman Bradby .called for citizens- to speak in favor of the
application.
No one appeared
Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in opposition to the
application.
No one appeared.
Chairman Bradby called for comments by the Board.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board approve the application of W. C.
and Gayle Sawyer. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Chairman - Bradby called for a public hearing. on the following
26
-~
~~
f;
B O'!] r, 15 ~ ~ ~~
application:
The .application of W. C. and Gayle Sawyer for a change in
zoning classification from A-1, Agricultural Limited to C-R-A,
Conditional Rural Residential, approximately twenty-five (25)
acres of land located on Omera Drive .which is between
Channell Way (Route 662) and Sugar Hill Road (Route 661) in
Newport Magisterial District
Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in favor of the
application.
Al Jones, attorney representing- Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer appeared.. Mr.
Jones stated upon completion, this will be an extension. of Omera Drive and
a portion of the area being sought to be rezoned will be constructed into
single-family residences and would use septic tanks until such time as the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District sewer line is in place. Mr. Jones further
stated on side B, the soils do not accept a sewer system and no homes will
be built there until the sewer line is in place. Mr. Jones continued a small
existing water system would serve the first eight lots which would be
served by a septic system until such time as the community water system
is constructed and, at that time, all of the lots would. be supplied by the
community water system which would ultimately be conveyed to the Public
Service Authority.
Chairman Bradby called for citizens io speak in opposition to the.
application. !
No one appeared.
Chairman Bradby called for comments from the Board.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board approve the application. The
motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Chairman Bradby called for a public hearing on the following:
The application of Elmo F. Roberts Estate, owner and Johnny L.
Woods, prospective owner for a change in zoning classification
from. A-1, Agricultural Limited to C-R-1, Conditional Residential
..Limited, .5 acre of land located on the east side of Carroll
Bridge Road (Route 654), south. of Scott's Factory. Road (Route
620), in Newport Magisterial District
Chairman ..Bradby called for citizens to speak in favor of the
application.
.John Woods spoke in favor of the application.
Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in opposition to the
application.
27
No one appeazed.
After calling for comments from the Boazd, Chairman Bradby moved
the Board approve the application. -The motion passed (40) with
Supervisor Bradshaw absent at the time of the vote.
//
Chairman Bradby called for- Citizens Comments.
Alan Bradby spoke in support of the Board of Supervisors' newly-
authorized responsibility of appointing School Board members.
//
Chairman Bradby called for .the Community Development report.
W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County .Administrator/ Community
Development, introduced Eric Jenkins, Staff Director of the Chesapeake Bay
Local Government Advisory Committee.
Mr. Jenkins stated his Committee was organized under the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement and at that time a committee was appointed of
twenty members who are representatives of local. government. Mr. Jenkins
further stated his Committee advises. the executive council on issues of
importance to local government and also works with local governments to
provide .technical and educational assistance and other opportunities to
them through workshops, etc. Mr, Jenkins continued last year his
Committee published a manual on local innovations in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed which are innovations that could be directly linked to improving
the quality of local waters as well as the Chesapeake Bay and the .
Committee this year initiated an awards program to continue to
acknowledge those local governments with programs on the cutting edge.
Mr. Jenkins stated the program recognizes significant local government
actions that lead to restoration of local waters in the Chesapeake Bay, gives
greater visibility to successful initiatives and inspires similar efforts within
other jurisdictions. Mr. Jenkins presented the Board with a 1992 Award for
Local Innovation for the Count}~s contribution and. commitment to the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay for implementation of the County's
Comprehensive Plan on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Local Government
Advisory Committee.
Mr. Caskey presented the .following request to the Board:
Request to amend Lot #1 of the recorded Subdivision Plat of
"Waterford" in Newport Magisterial District
Mr. Caskey stated this request came before the Board at a prior
meeting in September and was referred back to the Planning Commission
for reconsideration in view of certain concerns, questions, etc. related to
potential traffic safety matters. Mr. Caskey further stated the matter was
reviewed by the Planning Commission and representatives of the Virginia
Department of Transportation were present to address further questions and
28
1
~~
sock ~5.~:~ ~3
comments relating to any `traff'ic safety issues related to the access of this
property from Route 10. Mr. Caskey continued the Planning Commission
voted 6-2 to recommend to the Board that the property be allowed to have
ingress only directly from Route 10 and that other ingress and egress be via
the internal road system of Canteberry Lane.
William H. Riddick, III, attorney representing Southern Oil Company,
owners of the property, stated his client intends to construct a convenience
store at this location. Mr. Riddick advised that when his client purchased
this property,. his client applied for two access points with the Department
of Transportation who reviewed. his client's request and placed restrictions
on the property requiring that the landowner's first access point be sixty
feet from the intersection,. although the Virginia Department of
Transportation approved the project he submitted. Mr. Riddick further
stated the concern of the .Planning Commission is that the construction at
this location may cause more accidents there. Mr. Riddick continued this
project meets the Virginia Department of Transportation's safety criteria and
their traffic flow criteria and the lack of access to Route 10 was: not any part
of the. zoning conditions. Mr. Riddick stated without permitting access to
Route 10, the only way to reach. this business would be to enter on
Canteberry Lane and make a U-turn and come in the other way which
would not be conducive to good business. Mr. Riddick reiterated this is not
a requirement of zoning, but would bring revenue and jobs into -the County...
Mr. Riddick pointed out that the Exxon Miller Mart, just down the road
from the. proposed business, is an exact duplicate of what is being proposed
for this location. Mr. Riddick pointed out that the stop light would reduce
the average speed at the proposed .location as opposed to where the Miller
.Mart is located.
Mr. Riddick advised the Virginia Code provides two ways to
accomplish the vacation of a portion of a plat: An ordinance can be '
adopted by the County or it can be done by an agreement. Mr. Riddick
..stated he had contacted the property owners, including the lien holders on
the property, who must consent to the change of the plat. Mr. Riddick
continued he has prepared an such an agreement and provided a copy to
the. County Attorney for his review. Mr. Riddick stated if the Board is
inclined to approve the request to allow that the notation on the plat be
removed, then it would be approved subject to obtaining the signatures and
..the County Attorney's approval as to the form of the agreement.
County Attorney Crook .stated this matter .was brought before the
.Planning. Commission and he was not present at the beginning of the
presentationbecause he arrived at the meeting late from court. Mr. Crook
further stated the matter then came to the Board of Supervisors and he was
not present due to a flat fire and the Board referred the matter back to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Crook continued when the matter was reviewed
by the, Planning Commission the second time, he was able to hear the entire
presentation and realized it was under the wrong format. Mr. Crook stated
.the request was not. a change to a condition, it was simply to vacate a plat
and there are two ways to vacate a plat, one by resolution. of the Board and
the other is by ordinance. Mr. Crook. further stated he so advised Mr.
Riddick and he has now prepared an agreement for all the property owners
29
50^K ~5 •k';' :J~
to sign to agree to it, although all the necessary signatures have not been
obtained yet.
Mr. Riddick stated he has gotten verbal commitments from all the
property owners involved, but not knowing what the decision of the Board
might be today, it would be premature for him to proceed.
County Attorney Crook stated if the Board is inclined to approve the
request, the Board can so indicate and Mr. Riddick will get the agreement
signed and County Attorney Crook will prepare a resolution and bring it
back to the Board at their November 19, 1992 meeting.
Supervisor Cofer moved the Board direct the County Attorney to
prepare a resolution amending the plat on l:,ok #1 for ingress and egress
onto Route 10 contingent upon Attorney Riddick securing all the necessary
signatures. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Chairman Bradby called for a public hearing on the following:
Request to amend the "Amended Declaration of Restrictions and
Covenants for Waterford" in Newport Magisterial District
Mr. Caskey stated this is a request from the developer of this tract to
allow for certain amendments and modifications to the restrictions and
covenants-for Waterford. Mr. Caskey further stated when the rezoning was
approved for this commercial subdivision, the applicant at that time
proffered that the restrictive covenants and deed restrictions would meet
with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Caskey continued the Planning
Commission unanimously recommended approval to the Board.
Chairman Bradby called. for comments from the Board.
Supervisor Cofer moved the Board approve the request. The motion
passed (40) with Supervisor Edwards absent at the time of the vote.
Chairman Bradby called for a public hearing on the following:
Consideration of the Preliminary Subdivision Flat for Gatling
Pointe South -Phase I, in Newport Magisterial District
Mr. Caskey stated this is a proposed residential development to be
located on approximately 250 acres of land bounded on the north side by
Battery Park Road, east side by County Way, south side by Jones Creek and
the west side by Town Farm Creek which is property under a_ conditional
rezoning application approved by the Board of Supervisors in October of
1989. Mr. Caskey further stated there are specific conditions which apply
to the rezoning in the Board's agenda package and the County's subdivision
ordinance requires that preliminary and final plats go before the Planning
Commission and Board for review and approval. Mr. Caskey. continued in
addition to receiving preliminary plat approval, the proposed developer of
the subdivision will have to appear again before. the Board for consideration
of a major water quality impact assessment because the. subdivision is
30
1
1
1
eo~K :15 ~~~~ ~r3
located in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation area. which requires storm
water and best management practices be applied to the development of the
subdivision. Mr. Caskey stated this document is being reviewed at this
.time by athird-party independent engineer at the expense of the developer
and the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the plat to the
1
County Attorney Crook- declared for the .record that he has
represented Old Towne Real Estate in other matters although he did not
represent them in this matter. Mr. Crook advised independent counsel was
obtained on their part for this and therefore he does not believe he has a
conflict of interest.
Board.
' Supervisor Spady stated for the record that he is a stockholder in one
of the corporations proposing the development and. he would therefore
abstain from discussion .and voting on the matter due to a conflict of
interest.
Supervisor -Cofer moved the Board approve the preliminary plan as
.presented for Phase I. The motion passed (4-0) with Supervisor Spady
abstaining from voting on the matter.
//
Chairman Bradby called for the. County Attorney's report.
i
1
County Attorney Crook stated he was requested at the previous
meeting to determine if the statutes allow the County to add motor vehicles.
olice officers for the exemption to the requirement for
owned by Auxiliary p
the local license tax and decal. Mr. Crook advised the statute does so allow
and he has prepared. an amendment to the County ordinance on motor
vehicle licenses to add vehicles owned by Auxiliary police. officers to be
exempt similar to rescue squad and fire department vehicles.
Supervisor Edwards moved the Board authorize the County Attorney
to advertise the matter for public hearing. The motion passed (4-0) with
Supervisor Spady absent at the time of the vote.
Mr. Crook stated at a prior meeting of the Board it was suggested that
the County adopt an ordinance that is similar to the ordinance of the Prince
George .County concerning exemption for the elderly and disabled. Mr.
Crook advised the County presently has a deferral ordinance and, in
studying the matter, a letter was prepared for the Board along with a
proposed amendment to the ordinance in which he has recited the history
of the tax exemption ordinance in the County. Mr. Crook stated the Board
can determine from reading. the letter that originally the County did
provide for tax exemption for the elderly by ordinance adopted November
7, 1974 and that this ordinance allowed owners whoo exceed $25, 00 to
exceed $5,000 and a net combined financial worth not t
qualify. for the exemption. Mr. Crook advised this ordinance was amended
in 1977 to increase the combined income from $5,000 to $7,500 and to allow
a portion of income be excluded up to $3,000 and left the financial net
31
worth at $25,004. Mr. Crook further advised in 1981 this ordinance was.
again amended to increase the combined income to $18,000 not including
the first $4,000 of relatives living on the property, .and a net combined
financial worth increased to $65,000 with a cap of $500 on real estate taxes
exempt. Mr. Crook stated this is basically .the ordinance the County has
followed since that time except in 1984 it was changed to a deferral and the
County no longer had a cap on the exemption. 1Vir. Crook further stated the
way a deferral system works is the taxes are not paid until the person dies
or the property is sold. He stated that the Prince George ordinance
proposal that the Board now has under consideration would reduce the
income to $15,000 and reduce the net combined worth to $55,000, so in
effect, the County would be reducing the number o~ people that qualify and
provide an exemption of 50% of the real estate taxes where, before, the
person has had a deferral of 100%. Nir. Crook warned the Board will have
to explain to the taxpayers who have had a deferral since 1984 that they
may no longer qualify for an exemption because of the reduced income and
net worth and also explain to those who do qualify that they now do have
an exemption, but only of 50%, which may present a problem. Mr. Crook
advised the Board should further study the matter because of these
repercussions before adopting exemption versus deferral, but if the Board
wished to change from deferral to exemption, he would recommend the
Board keep it at $65,000 net combined worth and keep the income at
$18,000 excluding the first $4,000. Mr. Crook explained then the County
would not have a change in the number of persons who qualify, although
if the Board goes with 50% exemption, the Board would still have citizens
paying taxes each year when they have not. been required to pay under
deferral.
Supervisor Cofer pointed out that he has heard from citizens that they
do not like the deferral program and would rather pay their taxes now
because they would like to leave the house to their children. Supervisor
Cofer stated a public hearing would determine whether the exemption
program is really wanted in the County..
Supervisor Edwards asked County Attorney Crook if the County
could have two programs, one for exemption and one for deferral.
County Attorney Crook replied "yes". Mr. Crook stated his concern
was not with deferral versus exemption, but with the decrease in the
income and net worth, as well as cutting off citizens who have been
qualifying, but would not now if the County followed the Prince George
County ordinance.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board table the matter until the
November 19, 1992 meeting to allow him additional time to confer with
Grace Keen and the members of the. Commission on Aging .Committee to
receive their input. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
//
Chairman Bradby called for the County Administrator`s report.
32
i
1
' BOCK ~5 -;,.;' ;J~ .
Architect William Greaves presented a recommended design, schedule
and construction budget for the- second floor renovation to the old
Smithfield High School for the Paul D. Camp Community College site.
.Supervisor Edwards moved the Board approve the design, schedule
. and budget and authorize payment to the .architect. The motion passed
unanimously (5-0).
' Alan Nogiec, Director of .Parks & Recreational Facility Authority .
advised the Authority has an immediate need for a heating system in .the
Nike Park administration building and the replacement of a vehicle used by
the maintenance department that is no longer serviceable. Mr. Nogiec then
requested the Board deviate from the established capital improvements
program and allow him to provide exact prices to the Board for these items
at their .next meeting. Mr. Nogiec further stated regarding the roof and
ceiling repairs to the Isle of Wight/Smithfield Museum, the Board had
reviously directed him to put the items out to bid which has been
P
accomplished. Mr. Nogiec .advised he has received three bids of which
these were the ones who .quoted prices received previously at the exact.
same cost. Mr. Nogiec stated the report submitted #o the Board dated
.September 24,19921ists the cost of repairs and what the insurance company
adjuster has agreed to as the insurance company's responsibility and
requested the Board's permission to proceed at a cost of $23,768 to replace
the .roof,. replace the entire ceiling and paint the interior of the building.
lvlr. Nogiec advised the insurance company would cover the cost of $6,426
with a $1,000 deductible.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board appropriate $23,768 from the
unappropriated fund balance to restore the ceiling to the museum. The
motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Nogiec advised the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign
Wars and the Vietnam Veterans of America have all been involved i 92 at
Veterans Day event which is scheduled for Saturday, November 8, 19
Riverview Park at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Nogiec further advised Chairman Bradby
will present certificates to Edgar Brock and Granville Ashton Starke }t the
program and the Continental Army Band will be performing
ceremony with a recognition ceremony .recognizing the Vietnam Veterans.
Supervisor Spady requested Mr. Nogiec contact local auto dealers to
determine if they can match State .bids on the vehicle.
County Administrator Standish stated included in the agenda is a
report regarding the October 15, 1992 meeting with the State Corporation
Commission relative to extended area calling. Mr. Standish reported ate '
request of the Chamber of Commerce Committee is that the Board alloc .
an amount not to exceed $10,000 to retain a specialist to work with the State
Corporation Commission and the General Assembly.
Supervisor Edwards stated he was in favor of extended area calling
in the County and urged the Board to support the effort.
33
'BOCK 15 •;::;' ~JL)
Supervisor ~ Spady moved the Board appropriate $5,000 from the
unappropriated fund balance and requested that expense statements be
provided to the Board on a monthly basis by the Committee. The motion
passed unanimously (5-0).
Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following .resolution:
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED REDUCTION IN THE
PEANUT PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM AND.
INCREASED IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN PEANUTS
WHEREAS, peanut production is an essential element of the
agricultural economy of the Southeastern and Southwestern United States;
and,
WHEREAS, the agricultural economy is of vital importance to the
citizens of Isle of Wight County, as well as to those of other counties in
Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, the USDA peanut program is operated at very little cost
to the U. S. taxpayer, and,
WHEREAS, the Dunkel proposal of -the General, Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) negotiations contains two important .sections, each of
which would adversely impact U. S. peanut farmers:
1) a twenty (20%) percent cut in internal price
supports, and
2) a domestic market access for. foreign peanuts that
starts at three (3%) percent in 1993 and increases to
five (5%) percent over the six-year period between
1993 and 1999
WHEREAS, the Dunkel proposal would allow the importation of over
512 million pounds of foreign peanuts into the United States over the six-
year implementation period, and because production standards and quality
controls are not as high elsewhere as in the United States, the imported
peanuts would be of inferior quality. to those grown in the United. States;
and,
WHEREAS, a study conducted by the University of Georgia
concluded that the Dunkel proposal would result in a loss of gross income
to U. S. peanut farmers of $1.675 billion over the six-year period; and,
WHEREAS,- such a loss in farm income -would impose substantial
economic hardship upon an industry which is already severely stressed,
and importantly, could cause a further reduction in the number of family
farms not just in Isle of Wight County, but throughout the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Isle of Wight County that its congressional delegation is urged to oppose
34
1
1
[11
~: ----
B ~ ~ K 15 ~ ~„~ ;J%3
-any reduction in the Federal government's Price Support Program. for
Peanuts, and is urged to oppose any proposed increase in the importation
of foreign peanuts.
BE IT .FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Honorable Charles S. Robb, the Honorable Norman Sisisky
and the Honorable John W. Warner.
The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
County Administrator Standish introduced Sharon Corey Winegar,
Manager for Insight Cablevision, and stated that Insight.. is proposing
technical improvements to their systems, change in rate structure, and. an
increase in rates and new services for disabled and elderly.
Supervisor Bradshaw stated Insight presently has a .cable running
from Franklin to Central Oil where it cuts off and asked if Insight is
interested in running cable further for interested residents. ,
Ms. Winegar stated she would meet with Supervisor Bradshaw to
discuss the request and determine if it would be feasible for Insight to run ~
the cable in that area.
Supervisor Cofer .pointed out that with these changes, County
residents would no longer have to use the black box with their television
sets if their television sets are cable ready. ~
County Attorney Crook advised. these changes in rates must be the
same for all service areas, including Franklin and Southampton.
Ms. Winegar confirmed that they would be the same for all service
areas.
Chairman Bradby noted that residents of Mill Swamp Road are
interested in receiving cable television and requested Ms. Winegar to look
into the matter.
Ms. Winegar advised Insight had previously performed a feasibility
study on Mill Swamp Road and it was determined that Mill Swamp Road
does not meet the residential density requirements which require Insight to
.build lines, although the matter can be reviewed from an economic point
of view.
County Administrator noted for the Board's information and review
are the October budget .reports, as well as an economic report entitled
Impact on Military in Hampton Roads generated by the. Hampton Roads .
Planning District Commission. Mr. Standish noted that based upon the
outcome of the election this past Tuesday, he has also provided the Board
with a list of School Board members. and their appointment dates.
County Administrator Standish advised with the completion of the
Public Safety building, County staff is now working with the contractor and
35
L-
~,
OJ~R 15- rl~^'i oo
the architect to complete the last change order which should be a credit
back to the County. The building construction would be completed with
less than a 1% contingency.
Mr. Standish passed out a schematic of the Public Safety. building
illustrating the desk space in the squad room and advised that rather than
buying individual desks for this Moom it would be more cost efficient to
have the cabinet maker return and build counter-top type desks at a cost
quote of $3,600 which is $1,500 less .than buying individual desks. Mr.
Standish stated a final recap and appropriation for this project would be
presented for the Board's consideration at a future meeting.
//
Chairman Bradby called for Old Business.
Chairman Bradby requested the status of the dumpster site on Mill
Swamp Road.
County Administrator Standish advised that County -staff is
attempting to contact the owner of an abandoned house on Route 626 to
determine if the County can use this for a possible dumpster site. Mr.
Standish further advised the .Principal of Hardy Elementary School has
requested the .County remove the existing dumpsters which may possibly
be moved to a site on Old Stage Highway/Route 10.
//
Chairman Bradby. called for New Business.
There was no new business for discussion by the Board.
//
Chairman Bradby called for Appointments.
There were no nominations for appointment by the Board.
//
Chairman Bradby called for approval of the October 1, 1992 regular
meeting and October 7, 1992 called meeting minutes.
Upon recommendation of County Attorney Crook, Supervisor Cofer
moved the Board adopt the October 1, 1992 regular meeting and October
7,.1992 called meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
//
County Attorney Crook requested an executive session under Section
2.1-344 A7 of the Freedom of Information Act for consultation with counsel
concerning acquisition of property for public purposes, two items.
36
{'.
~o,,K 15 , r:;-10i
At 3:15 p.m., Supervisor Cofer moved the Board go into executive
session for the reasons stated by the County Attorney.. The motion passed
unanimously (5-0).
-Upon returning to open session at 3:38 p.m., Supervisor Cofer moved
the Board adopt the following resolution:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened an executive
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, 2.1-344.1A of the Code of Virginia requires a certification
by this Board of Supervisors that such executive 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 executive meeting to which .this
certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard,
discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisor.
VOTE
i
AYES: 5
..NAYS: 0
ABSENT DURING VOTE:. 0
ABSENT DURING MEETING:. 0
The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board accept the deed of Gertrude
Tyler .Haynes and authorize the Chairman to sign same on behalf of the
..Board of Supervisors. The' motion passed unanimously (5-0). `_.
1
//
At 3:39 p.m., Supervisor Edwards moved the Board adjourn. The .
motion passed unanimously (5-0).
~ _ ~~, / // enry H. radby, Chairman.
Myles ~Sta
Clerk
37