01-26-1995 Regular MeetingB(tOK 1~ PAGE ~,~~
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF
.SUPERVISORS HELD THE 'T'WENTY-SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY IN THE
YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY FIVE
PRESENT: O. A. Spady, Chairman
Malcolm T. Cofer, Vice Chairman
Henry H. Bradby.
Phillip A. Bradshaw
Lud Lorenzo Spivey
Also Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney
W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator
Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the
County Administrator
Carey H. Mills, Assistant Clerk
Chairman Spady called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The
invocation was delivered by Supervisor Bradshaw.
//
Chairman Spady designated County Administrator Caskey to act as
Chairman for the election of a new Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
for 1995. Mr. Caskey opened the floor for nominations.
Supervisor Bradshaw nominated Malcolm T. Cofer as Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors for 1995. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board close
the nominations. Malcolm T. Cofer was elected Chairman of the Board for
1995 by a vote of (4-0) of the Board. Malcolm T. Cofer abstained. from
voting.
Chairman Cofer called for nominations for Vice Chairman. Supervisor
Bradby nominated Phillip A. Bradshaw as Vice Chairman for 1995.
Supervisor Spivey moved the Board close the nominations. Phillip A.
Bradshaw was elected Vice Chairman of the Board far 1995 by a vote of (4-
0) of the Board.. Phillip A. Bradshaw abstained from voting.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board designate W. Douglas. Caskey as
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for 1995. The motion was unanimously
(5-0) adopted.
County Attorney Crook stated that although the Board has designated
the Clerk annually, by statute the County Administrator serves as Clerk of
the Board.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board designate the third
Thursday of the month at 6:00 p,m. with public hearings to commence at
7:00 p.m. in the Board Room at the Isle of Wight Courthouse as the regular
meeting day and time for the Board of Supervisors to meet for 1995_ Thee
motion was unanimously (5-0) adopted.
//
1
1
1
1
g~~~x ~6Pa~F1~45
Chairman Cofer requested Robert P. Taylor to come forward and
presented the following resolution to him in recognition of his
accomplishments: '
1
RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF ROBERT P. TAYLOR
WHEREAS, Robert P. Taylor is a resident of Isle of Wight County, Virginia;
and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Taylor has been actively involved in the agricultural
industry producing high quality crops and livestock in Isle of Wight County
for more than 50 years; and, °
WHEREAS, Mr. Taylor has served the citizens of Isle of Wight County as
a vocational agriculture instructor in the public school system; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Taylor has shared his knowledge of agriculture and
farming expertise as an extension agent for Isle of Wight County; and,
WHEREAS, Robert P. Taylor was selected as the top pork producer, 40
years and older, in the Commonwealth of Virginia at the annual Virginia
Pork Industry Conference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight that the accomplishments of
Robert P. Taylor, top pork producer in the Commonwealth of Virginia, are
recognized and appreciated.
Supervisor Spady moved. the Board adopt the resolution which. passed
by unanimous vote (5-0).
//
Chairman Cofer called for Transportation Matters.
R Bryan David, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated on November
17, 1994, the Board requested VDOT to provide information concerning the
estimated construction costs associated with. raising the vertical clearance of
the Jones Creek bridge to 15 and 17 feet, respectively. At the Board's
meeting on December 15, 1994, the Board discussed information provided
by VDOT concerning raising the design height and, following this
discussion, the Board adopted unanimously a motion to advise VDOT that
the County is not in agreement with the proposed design clearance and
further that the design clearance be increased to 17 feet; otherwise, the
Board .requested a representative. of VDOT appear before the Board at its
January 1995 meeting to further advise why the 17 foot vertical clearance
could not be accomplished. Mr. David stated as supplementary
information, .the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) had previously allocated $144,000 to this project under funding from
the Surface Transportation Program regional allocation. The CTS
Committee, advisory body to the MPO, has tentatively identified further
2
8~~x .16 pacE 14&
discretionary funding to be applied to this project in the amount of
$150,000. Such funding is tentative and .will be subject to approval by the
MPO .which should occur by June of 1995, stated Mr. David.
Clif Molleen, Assistant Resident Engineer, VDOT, stated the County
has requested VDOT to address the concept of raising the Route 704 Bridge
over Jones Creek to a height of 17 feet and the impacts associated. The
bridge,. in its present design, is a compromise to social, economic, and
environmental considerations and is the most cost-effective structure VDOT
could design, keeping in mind that VDOT first wanted to minimize the
impact to adjacent property owners, improve navigational access to the
bridge, provide a safe structure for the traveling public, and minimize
environmental impacts. To increase the height to 17 feet would result in
an additional $130,000 in actual construction costs, including labor,
equipment and materials. Preliminary engineering costs are estimated at
$65,000, to include bridge design, roadway design, right-of-way acquisition,
and contract preparation and review. Additional right-of-way costs would
be approximately $2,000 due to a small parcel belonging to Roland Spady
that VDOT would need to acquire. Additional environmental costs would
be based on the amount of necessary right-of-way that would be needed.
Initially there would be archeological .investigations that could cost
approximately $15,000; however, if artifacts are found, and additional
investigations are necessary, the costs could go up substantially. At this
time, total estimated costs for modifying the bridge's design height are
$212,000. There would be a significant increase in the approach roadway
grade that would impact the Mary V. Wooster property, making it unsafe
to access, which could mean that VDOT would be required to purchase all
of the property, increasing the overall cost substantially. An increase in the
bridge grade would block the line of sight to the river for some of the
property owners and all of these impacts would delay the advertising and
construction of the project approximately 12 to 18 months. This project has
been advertised as of January 10, 1995 and is due to be shown to the
contractors on February 3, 1995. If the County is in agreement to stopping
the project and is willing to finance these additional costs, VDOT needs to
know immediately in writing and will proceed with a new design, stated
Mr. Molleen.
Supervisor Spady asked how much the Mary Wooster property would
be impacted.
Mr. Molleen stated VDOT has discussed raising the grade
approximately four (4) feet on this piece of roadway.
Supervisor Spady asked if there would be any present roadbed left at .
the present height where the Wooster property is or will it be 2.5 feet higher
.where it is now?
Norman Hollowell, Location and Design, VDOT, replied that it will
be at least 2,5 feet higher than where it is today.
Supervisor Spady stated under the present circumstances, this would
probably render that property unusable..
~~
BnuK ~6PAGf 147
1
Mr. Molleen stated at the least °t would be extremely unsafe.
Supervisor Spady asked how much higher the new roadbed would be
as compared to the old.
Mr. Hollowell stated approximately four to five feet. What would
happen, an eight to ten foot rail would extend out to the Wooster property.
The grade would have to be approximately eight to ten percent which is the
maximum that a car could negotiate coming up the private entrance grade.
Supervisor Spady asked how much further back on the causeway will
the fill have to go than on the present plan.
Mr. Hollowell replied raising the grade at the maximum of five (5)
feet, from twelve (12) to seventeen (17) feet across the bridge, most of the
fill area would be in four (4) feet to zero at a .one-half to one, so VDOT
would be actually filling six (6) feet more on each side, as far as Length is
concerned.
Supervisor Spady. stated he did not want to render the property
unusable because the cost would go up considerably, although he believed
VDOT could work this out.
Mr. Molleen stated VDOT has all the right-of-way that is needed to
build it and what Supervisor Spady is proposing would have to be some
sort of a private deal.
Supervisor Spady stated "no" VDOT could get the right-oE-way at no
cost to make that property usable so VDOT does not need to buy it. If you
get more right-of-way at zero cost and get the permits to make an entrance
to this property, it would be minimal in what would have to be paid for,.
replied Supervisor Spady.
1
Mr. Molleen stated the property Supervisor Spady is referring to is
marshlands and VDOT would be required to deal with environmental
issues.
Mr. Hollowell stated VDOT would be limited in what fill can be put
in. Right now the private entrance would go beyond the right-of-way and
VDOT has taken care of the permit process, but any additional fill or going
any further on the property, VDOT would be totally limited.
Jack McCambridge, Environmental Manager, VDOT, stated regarding.
any activity involving additional impact on private property to render
private property usable, agencies must be convinced that this is beneficial
In other words, you must mitigate for impacts.
In response to County Attorney Crook's question if by mitigation Mr.
McCambridge meant acquire additional land and convert it to wetlands, Mr.
McCambridge replied "yes".
Vice Chairman Bradshaw .asked the. amount of acreage being
4
discussed.
BnOK ~6 PAGE ,i.."~~
Mr. McCambridge replied the general figure for mitigation is $30,000
per acre on marshlands. He further stated if you impact marshlands and
fill it in, in order to get the permit you have to give back what is taken, but
you must first convince the agencies .that this is the way it should be. In
order to give back what you take you must go to an area that is not
wetlands and make it wetlands which costs approximately $30,000 per acre
and does not include the cost for right-of-way to purchase the property.
Supervisor Spady stated less than 1 / 5 of an acre is being .discussed.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked what if the County can do this itself
by getting someone else to do it? If you have a business .that has to
mitigate in order to construct something, then maybe they in turn would
give the County 1 / 5 of an acre or whatever is needed.
Supervisor Spady stated the #igure of $212,000 is not high considering
the County will have a bridge that will last 50-60 years or more. There are,
however, figures that are not known and in order to make a good decision,
the Board needs to know what. the costs will be.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated the Board is in agreement that they
want the bridge higher than what is proposed because they are trying to
plan and look toward the future..
To Supervisor Bradby's question that the additional money would
have to be funded by the County, Supervisor .Spady replied .the County's
secondary road funds would be used.
Mr. Molleen noted some of the County's construction priorities now
may .move down on the priority list.
Supervisor Spady inquired if the MPO money is new money.
Mr. David replied this would be new money that would be
appropriated and there may be the potential for some supplementary funds.
This project received $144,000 several years ago from this funding source
and is tentatively identified for $150,000 as of January 1995 which is subject
to the MPO to allocate, not the State, advised Mr. David.
Supervisor Spady stated the Wooster property situation bothers .him,
but this is an unknown.
Mr. David stated the past two years the MPO's had control over this
money, projects have been identified at a preliminary stage and tracked
through without any changes. This project is offered up by the County and
acceptable by other jurisdictions in getting its prorated share of funding
source, noted Mr. David.
Supervisor Spady stated he believes the Board should proceed with
their request to raise the bridge; however, there may come a time when the
5
1
1
6(10K ~6PAGE 14y
LJ
Board finds. out that the property being discussed may. cost more than the
Board wants to give up.
Mr. Molleen stated the County can. stop at any time, but the County
will have spent funds. for engineering and associated costs, and the County
will spend the money if redesign is initiated. Mr. Molleen stated he needed
to know by February 3, 1995 because there is no need in proceeding with
a showing by contractors, only to then stop the project.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked why it could not be delayed for a
month.
Rick Riddick, VDOT, stated when advertised, certain dates and
schedules must be met, and when the advertisement is out, the date is set.
As far as the County wanting to stop it immediately, this may take two (2)
to three (3) months because the ad has gone out and the contractors have
bought the plans and .are preparing for the showing and ready to bid.
Normally, after a showing, there is a 45 to 60 day period until the actual
intent to award. Should VDOT delay by twelve (12) months, the County
can look at escalating the costs and other. impacts, stated Mr. Riddick.
1
Supervisor Spady stated if the County held the project up and later
found out that it should proceed as it was, the County would lose only
time.
Ted Kelpien, a resident of property on Jones Creek, stated regarding
excavation, he understands a lot of the :property is fill land and he doubts
there will be artifacts. To figure it will cost $212,000 because of the
possibility of finding artifacts or the possibility of having to mitigate some
wetlands is coloring of the presentation by VDOT. The bridge located there
now is suppose to have an eight (8) foot clearance although his eight (8)
foot motorboat more than half the time cannot clear the bridge. The tides
in Jones Creek have great surges and the road in Rescue is frequently wet
because the tide comes up two to three feet higher than it should making
the eight (8) foot clearance bridge less than it should be. A twelve (12) foot
clearance bridge would suffer. the same. effect if it is measured from mean
high water. If they measure from where the water is frequently up, it might
be worth considering, but as it is today, none of his friends' cruising boats
can get under the bridge and most of them could not get under a twelve.
(12) foot clearance bridge without taking down their antennas. If the bridge
does not have a fifteen (15) foot clearance, then we are in the same situation
and this is not the time to make a mistake that will last fifty to eighty years
into the future. The present bridge is fifty years old and the new one will
probably last eighty years.
Jim Holthoff, a resident of the. Creek, pointed .out that as for the
mitigation of wetlands, originally the .State wanted to purchase fifty feet
across his property, but decided against it because it was more feasible to
buy the whole property. There is another 50 feet by :150-200 feet of
property that can be made into wetlands without affecting any other
wetlands, stated Mr. Holthoff.
6
BnOit l~ PAGf 15~
County Administrator Caskey advised he did receive a call this
morning from Mrs. Carter who did not identify her .first name who
indicated she and other property owners were interested in having the
bridge remain at the proposed twelve (12) foot design height.
Supervisor Spady stated Mr. Molleen earlier stated. that some of the
property owners on the other side would not be able to see the river if the
design height is raised.
Mr. Molleen clarified that if the design height is raised it will block
what can be presently seen.
Supervisor Spady pointed out that if the bridge is raised to the
proposed twelve (12) feet, a lot of the. property owners would be blocked
as well. On the east side of the bridge the only property that would be
affected. any more because. of the raising would be a small piece owned by
Roland Spady.
Mr. Molleen stated this is correct.
Supervisor Spady stated based on the facts as known tonight, he
moves the Board request staff to ask VDOT to proceed with raising the
Jones Creek Bridge to seventeen (17) feet and authorize him in the
meantime to meet with VDOT to see. how the Wooster property will be
affected and how it can be handled. The motion was adopted unanimously
(5-0).
Mr. David stated for the Board's consideration, VDOT is requesting
the Board adopt a resolution agreeing to the temporary road closure of
Route 681, Raynor Road, to through traffic between Route 625, Modest Neck
Road and Route 683, Dews Plantation Road for construction purposes. The
temporary closure is for the project to replace the bridge over Rattlesnake
Swamp and will only apply to through traffic. The duration of the closure
will be approximately 120 days, stated Mr. David.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION AGREEING TO THE REQUEST OF THE
VIRGINIA. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CLOSE
ROUTE 681 TEMPORARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPLACING
A BRIDGE OVER RATTLESNAKE SWAMP
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation is desirous of closing
Route 681 for the purpose of replacing a bridge over Rattlesnake Swamp.
Project 0681-046-P98, MS02, B626.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Isle
of Wight County, Virginia that the Board concurs with the recommendation
that Route 681 be closed to thru traffic between Route 625 and Route 683
during the time of construction replacing a bridge over Rattlesnake Swamp,
thereby eliminating the construction of an expensive detour.
r
1
1
7
BGOK 16 PAGE 151
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Administrator Caskey noted VDOT will be notified by staff
to advise all emergency response personnel and other .pertinent agencies
that use those roadways of the road closure.
1
1
1
Chairman Cofer called for citizens with highway concerns.
Henry Bell requested the County Attorney to provide the status of
requiring the necessary signatures designating rights~f-way for Raynor
Road which is too narrow.
County Attorney Crook advised Mr. Bell that .there are three parcels
of land and one parcel has 16 heirs of which 14 have signed deeds giving.
the necessary rights-of-way on the Hall estate. His office has not yet been
able to get an address for one of the remaining heirs, a second has moved
from the address given and his mother has advised she will provide the
correct address. Another owner, Ms. Joyner has not yet agreed to sign a
deed although he believes she will and Mrs. Chapman is not willing to sign
a deed at this point, advised Mr. Crook.
Chairman Cofer called for comments from the Board concerning
transportation matters.
Supervisor Bradby stated at the last meeting County Attorney Crook
was requested to contact Mr. Goodrich in Surry County concerning rights-
of-way in the Rushmere Shores area and requested a status of the matter.
County Attorney Crook stated he will call Mr. Goodrich tomorrow
regarding the matter.
Supervisor Spivey asked the County Administrator if he had had any
response from VDOT regarding a speed limit study on Cut Through Road
and Five Forks Road going towards Deer Path Road; signage obstruction on
Route 644 onto Route 460; and, the main stop light at the Farmers Bank in
Windsor needing aleft-turn signal and longer sequence on the caution light.
County Administrator Caskey stated the County has heard from
VDOT on information relative to property owners and right-of-way
dedications along Pruden Road only.
Mr. David stated in conversations with Mr. Molleen it was noted that
several of the items Supervisor Spivey requested information on will be
discussed at the Board's February 16, 1995 meeting.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw requested the tree limbs be trimmed along.
the road near the cotton gin going out of Windsor towards Suffolk.
//
There being no further transportation matters, Chairman Cofer called
for Citizens Comments.
8
g~~K 16 PA~F 152
Gavin Carter, Windsor Athletic Association, requested a County
donation to provide upgrades and fencing additions to the dugouts at the
Windsor Elementary School. The Parks and Recreational Facilities
Authority at their next meeting will consider funding .approximately 40%
of the $2,555 needed, or $1,000, and he is requesting the County to fund the
remaining 60%.
Supervisor Spady stated the Parks and Recreational Facilities
Authority receives their funding from the County and the County is
therefore already funding 40%.
Alan Nogiec, Director of Parks and Recreational Facilities Authority,
stated he met with the representatives of the Windsor Athletic Association
and Mr. Carter yesterday. It is the Authority's responsibility to maintain
facilities that are developed and used by the general public; however, the
Windsor Athletic Association is a primary user of those facilities for youth
baseball and softball and with recent fiscal restraints the Authority felt this
was a reasonable compromise in that both the Authority and the
Association provide funds. The facilities are approximately ten years old
and are in need of upgrading, stated Mr. Nogiec.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated the County originally installed the
fields and asked if the Association has been performing the maintenance
and upkeep.
Mr. Nogiec replied the maintenance the Association has been doing
is dragging the fields and making them usable. The Authority has an
agreement with the different associations, although this has not been done
in Windsor for the last several years because they had people with the
capabilities of doing the initial maintenance on the field to bring them up
to playable standards, and the School Board cuts the grass.
Vice Chairman .Bradshaw stated using the fields at Windsor
Elementary School is part of the Authority's long-range plan in providing
programs for the Windsor community.
Mr. Nogiec stated the Authority's philosophy is that because the
athletic associations, whether it be Smithfield or Carrsville, provide youth
baseball and softball, that the Authority, as a County agency, would not
provide that program..
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated he and Supervisor Spivey are
working with Parks & Recreation looking at the long-range plans and he
has talked with various members of the Association on this, but the Board
is looking at short term now.
Supervisar Spady asked how much the Association has that can be
put up.
Mr. Carter replied $1,555.
Supervisor Spivey stated he believed Mr. Baker was present at the last
1
1
9
L~
gniiK 16 FADE 153
meeting and never addressed the Board although he believed he spoke with
Mr. Nogiec. There have been several in the Windsor area who have
contacted him about this concern and he is in ,agreement with what
Supervisor Spady said because this is a facility used by the public in general
although he is not aware of all the agreements between the Associations.
and Parks & Recreation. One concern addressed to him was the question
as to what basic agreement there is between :Parks and Recreation and. the
School Board for using those facilities and he sensed a reluctance on the
Association's part to spend money if there is not a commitment for the use
of the facility which he believes is a valid concern. Mr. Spivey stated. he
does not know where this ties into the complete County plan, but maybe
it should be a consideration in the Capital Improvements Program. As far
as what the County contributes, this is a Board decision, although he
believes this is a valid request and he would like to give it full attention..
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated whether it is an association, the
schools, or Parks & Recreation, it is stall citizens of the County .and the
money must come from the same place whether it comes from the citizens
directly or the government organization.
Supervisor Spady requested the total figure. needed.
Mr. Carter stated $2,555 of which Parks & Recreation would contribute
$1,000 and the Association $1,555.
Mr. Nogiec stated the Association submitted a list to the Authority of
items they would like see done to the field. The Authority investigated the
cost, met with the Association and decided where their priorities were. The
Authority felt like it could offer $1,000 towards this effort but this amount
will come out of the. operating budget and it is not for items the Authority
had, planned on doing this year. If the same circumstances occurred in '
Carrsville, the Authority would propose that the Carrsville Athletic
Association get involved in part of the cost as they are the primary users.
Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Carter if the Association could come up
with $500 if the Board funded $1,000 and Parks & Recreation funded $1,000.
Mr. Carter stated the Association would appreciate this contribution.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board contribute $1,000 to the
Recreation Authority with the money coming. from the contingency fund for
upgrading the Windsor elementary athletic facilities. The motion .was
adopted unanimously (5-0).
Othello Batten requested the Board's permission to sell some of his
farm land fronting on Mill Swamp Road. It has more than a 150 foot road
frontage and selling this land would leave .him with 2.15 acres where he
lives. When he originally bought his farm in 1961 which consisted of 38
acres, he changed the entrance to face the hard surface driveway and the
farmland comes in betwee~t his home and Mill Swamp Road. Mr. Batten
stated he and his wife no longer need this land and are not able to keep it
up. The land rents for $25 per acre, but costs him $81.72 in taxes annually.
10
BnoK 16 PAGE 154
Mr. Batten stated when he began selling lots: on his farm of 38 acres of .open
land, he required each lot be approximately one acre in size although most
are 1.5 to 2 acres, resulting in six lots being sold on these 38 acres. The rest
of the 7.5 acres of open land has been sold as farmland and he is at a point
where he needs money to help with high medical bills. Mr. Batten stated
he does not believe County ordinances work in every situation but are
necessary in most cases, they can paralyze in some cases.
Mr. David stated Mr. Batten contacted him approximately one year
ago concerning subdivision of his property.. Mr. David presented the Board
with a .diagram of Mr. Batten's farm as subdivided over the years. Mr.
Batten wants to further subdivide parcel #2 and his house would be located
on approximately two acres. A section of the Subdivision Ordinance
requires that in order to create a lot not fronting on the public road, the
parent tract of land has to have at least 21 acres and Mr. Batten has four
acres in parcel #2. There is also the section in the Subdivision Ordinance
that requires a limitation of three lots. created and not fronting on a public
road. Mr. Batten has created lots 3, 4 and 5 out of this parent tract of land
so he has met this ceiling. There is also another issue in that when he
rezoned the property for lots 2, 3 and 4 they were part of a rezoning action
for not more than three lots, so several things would have to happen to
permit this subdivision of property: The rezoning would have to be
amended to increase it from three lots to five and the Board would have to
grant a total exemption from Section 3-4-1 for lots not fronting on the public
road.
Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Batten if he planned to remain in his
home and did not plan on selling the property.
Mr. Batten confirmed he planned on remaining in his home.
County Attorney .Crook stated the Board in the past has made
exceptions for the homeplace to be cut out so a precedent has been
established for that exception under the Subdivision Ordinance. This is a
two-fold- problem, in that you can grant the exception to the Subdivision
Ordinance now, but he still must apply for a change in zoning which
presently limits it to three lots to allow an increase to five.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board grant an exception to Section 3~-1
to allow Mr. Batten to subdivide lot #2 into two lots. The motion was
adopted unanimously (5-0).
Dr. Jane T. York, School Superintendent, thanked Lynn P. Harris,
Director of Economic Development for her help in securing the assistance
of Virginia Power to do a video tape, as well as Donald T. Robertson,
Assistant to the County Administrator, for showing school age children
around the Courthouse and for working with the School Board on
.numerous other projects. Dr. York stated she also wanted to thank R. Bryan
David who has worked with gifted children in the County.
//
U
1
1
11
g~~~K 16 PAGE 155
At 7:00 p.m., Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved, and the motion was
adopted unanimously, that the Board amend theorder of the agenda to
hear the following public hearings:
A. Resolution Abandoning a Portion of State Route 617 From the
Secondary System of State Highways
Mr. David stated the construction and opening of Route 260,. Union
Camp Drive, has created a dead end street for a portion of Council Road.
There are two property owners along this section of Route 617 which have
expressed an interest in its abandonment. VDOT has concurred that the
road no longer serves a functional public use because of .the Route 260
improvements and this roadway is therefore eligible for abandonment
pursuant to a certain code section. Notice of the public .hearing has been
advertised in the Tidewater News and sent to adjoining property owners,
the City of Franklin, GTE and Insight Cablevision. David J. Murphy,
Director of Public Utilities, is advising that there is a water main owned by
the City of Franklin within this right-of-way to be abandoned and that at
some point an easement will have to be secured and put to record allowing
the water main.
Chairman Cofer called for those to speak in favor of or in opposition
to the proposed abandonment.
1
Jim Keene, Franklin Equipment Company, appeared to speak in favor
of the abandonment. Mr. Keene stated Franklin Equipment Company is
planning to expand in Franklin and space is needed for parking lots and
safer entrances. on and off the property. Mr. Keene stated he has already
asked the County for .permission to erect a new 15,000 square .foot
warehouse in the area and is looking to move an additional 20-25
employees onto this property- from areas outside the County.
Upon no one appearing in opposition, Chairman Cofer closed the
public hearing and called for comments from the Board.
Supervisor Spady asked, if abandoned, who gets the property.
County Attorney Crook advised the individuals who own the
property on both sides.
Mr. Keene stated VDOT owns the land to the west. This property was
granted to VDOT by-Union Camp when the new bypass was installed and
the property will revert back to Union Camp. Mr. Keene stated .this piece
of property has given Franklin Equipment Company visibility problems at
the intersection.
D
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated his concern is with County services
and he contacted staff after receiving the information to see if the County
may have a need for the property. Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated he
would .recommend the Board table the matter for thirty days and in the
meantime have County staff review it to see what the potential use for the
future for the County is because of the utilities growth in this area. Also for
12
s~aK ' 16 PAGE 156
the possibility of trash collection and what the County will do because there
is a trash collection site nearby that is on private property.
Supervisor Spady asked Vice Chairman Bradshaw if he would place
the trash collection site on the right-of--way.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated he thought County staff should
explore the possibility of a viable use by the County before the Board makes
a decision.
Supervisor Spady stated he is not sure the County, if it is a public
right-of-way now, and the County abandons it, can claim it.
County Attorney Crook stated normally when a road is abandoned,
the adjoiners would take to the center of the road. Mr. Keene has stated
that this right-of-way would revert back to Union Camp.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked if the Board could petition VDOT to
give it to the County.
County Attorney Crook stated you would have to look and see what
VDOT has. If they have aright-of-way then it goes back; if VDOT owns
this by deed, VDOT could convey the property to the County.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board table the matter for thirty
(30) days until the February 16, 1995 meeting. The motion was adopted
unanimously (5-0).
B. .The application of David W. and Sheila B. Epperly for a change
in zoning classification from Conditional Rural Mobile Home
Districk (C-RMH-A) to Rural Residential (R-A) 1.6489 acres of
land locaked on the south side of Burwells Bay Road (Route 621)
between Moonlight Road (Route 627) and Purvis Lane (Route
673) in Hardy Magisterial District. The purpose of the
application is for a rural residential home site.
Mr. David stated no one appeared in opposition at the Planning
Commission meeting. The applicant appeared and represented the rezoning
as requested so that the existing mobile home and the single family
dwelling currently under construction may be permitted. The applicant
further stated tha# the mobile home is to continue on that portion of
property currently rezoned Conditional Rural Mobile Home and that he and
his family plan to occupy the single family dwelling on that portion of
property proposed to be rezoned Rural Residential. The Planning
Commission was advised that the RMH-A District permits only one single
family dwelling per lot, parcel or tract of land; therefore the portion of
property containing the single family dwelling is proposed to be zoned
Rural Residential and that acreage is then to be subdivided from the current
parcel. -The Planning Commission was further advised that the zoning
certificate and building permit were issued for the single family dwelling
conditional on the removal of the mobile home prior to a Certificate of
Occupancy being issued for the dwelling, unless otherwise approved by the
13
g(lOK 16PAGE 157
1
Board. The Planning Commission discussed this application concerning the
rezoning action permitting the permanent location of the mobile home, the
subdivision plat which is also being submitted 'by the applicant for
approval, the feasibility of using the one septic disposal system and the one
water well by both residences, .the complexity and number of water and
sewer line easements needed to permit the two residences to be located on
separate lots, potential problems with maintenance of the joint sewage
system and well should the properties be under separate ownership in the
future, and the precedent which might be set if the application were
approved. The Planning Commission voted (5-3) to recommend denial of
the application to the Board. Mr. David stated. also under the Community
Development report there is a subdivision plat that the Board may wish to
consider at the same time after the public hearing on this rezoning request...
Chairman Cofer called for persons to -speak in favor. of or in
opposition to the proposed application.
David W. and Sheila B. Epperley appeared. Mr. Epperley stated it is
his intent to have this land rezoned for the purpose of building the
residence at this time and leaving the mobile home for a family memb_r.
Upon no one appearing in opposition, Chairman Cofer called for
comments from the Board.
1
Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Epperley if he wanted to separate the
land so that he can sell it.
Mr. Epperley stated he did not want to separate the land at all, but
because of the Ordinance they have to subdivide.
Supervisor Spady asked if the Health Department has authorized
them to use the same mound system for the septic drainfield.
Mr. Epperley stated being there would be easements delineated on the
plat filed and a deed of easement for both properties' use of said lines.
1
Supervisor Bradby stated he has no problem granting the request
because it has been well taken care of.
Chairman Cofer stated if this is approved by the Board, there are
some easements that need recording.
County Attorney Crook stated the Health Department pointed this out
in their letter. The problem the Planning Commission had with it is the
subdivision. They voted 7-1 not to grant the exception to the Subdivision
Ordinance provisions which were adopted last January, that the subdivision
shall provide within the boundary lines of the lot, all the area necessary for
the septic tank, drainfield or sewage disposal- and not to be on -other parcels.
The Planning Commission does not feel a subdivision should be approved
with .the septic system located on another piece of property rather than the
property that the house is located on.
14
BOOK 1U PAGE 15U
Chairman Cofer stated the Board :would be setting a precedent and he
usually prefers to go with the Planning Commission's recommendation, but
he believes this is a situation that goes back to the beginning when they
first bought the land. I believe the Epperley's problem in this case was their
total honesty with the County, he stated. Most times citizens come in and
say they are going to build in three years and renew the permit two or
three times. After looking at the property, Mr. Cofer stated he would
personally not have any problem granting the exception to the subdivision.
Supervisor Spady asked if the sand mound will be on the residential
.property so the trailer would have an easement over to it.
Mr. Epperley stated yes and the pumping stakion is located on the
trailer side.
Supervisor Spady asked if there was other land on the trailer side
suitable for a septic system.
Mr. Epperley stated not according to the Health Department.
Supervisor Spady asked if the Epperley's have been asked to upgrade
the septic system.
Mr. Epperley stated no.
Supervisor Spady asked Mr. Epperley what happens when they sell
the trailer lot and something happens to the septic system.
Mr. Epperley stated he checked with his attorney on this matter and
if it is filed on the plat and it is in the deed for both pieces of property, then
at that time upon selling it, each property owner would be responsible for
maintenance for both pieces of property.
Supervisor Spady stated he did not have a problem with the request,
but he does not understand the Health Department because this is a system
put in for the trailer and now a home is going to be built with a septic
system serving both residences and the Health Department has not asked
for an upgrade. Supervisor Spady stated he would like to have the Health
Department present so he could ask them some questions.
Mr. Epperley stated the .system is a size larger ~ than the trailer
requires.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board approve the application of David
W. and Sheila B. Epperley. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Chairman Cofer requested the subdivision plat of parcel A and parcel
B of David W. and Sheila B. Epperley, currently listed under the
Community Development section of the agenda, be heard at this time.
Mr. David stated this plat represents atwo-lot subdivision of 3.287
acres of land and the current zoning of parcel A is C-IZMI-~-A which was
1
r
1
1
enoK 16eACE~1~9
approved by the Board on July 5, 1990 for the permanent location of one
mobile home. There is asingle-family dwelling under construction on
parcel B. The subdivision plat is in compliance with the County's applicable
Ordinance, provided that an exception is granted to Section 44-4-1 of the
Subdivision Ordinance in order to provide for appropriate easements for the
joint utilization of the sand. mound system by both the trailer and the
single-family home under construction. The Planning Commission, because
of the action taken on the rezoning, voted 7-1 to recommend to the Board
the subdivision plat not be approved and the exception to Section 444-1
not be granted.
Chairman Cofer called for discussion by the Board.
Supervisor Bradby moved the Board approve the plat with the minor
corrections necessary plus recording of the necessary easements. The
motion was adopted. unanimously (5-0).
C. The application of E. Carson, Jr. and Margaret Whitley for a
change in zoning classification from Industrial Limited {M-1)
and Industrial.General (M-2} to Agricultural General (A-2) 35.52
acres of land located off the south side of Carrsville Highway
(Route 58) between Lees Mill Road (Route 616} and Carver Road
(Route 1603) in Windsor Magisterial. District. The purpose of
the application is for. uses permitted in the Agricultural General
Zone.
Mr. David stated the Board approved a rezoning on the subject
property to M-2 on June 17, 1982 and further approved a rezoning of a
portion of this property to M-1. This portion being an area of 300 feet by
300. feet and located on the east side of Lee's Mill Road at its intersection
with Carver Drive. The Planning Commission's public hearing was
conducted in December and no one appeared in opposition. The applicant
appeared and stated that the property has not been developed during the
past seven years he and his family have owned the property. The. applicant
further represented that he wishes to continue farming the property and
requested downzoning for tax relief purposes. The Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application to the Board.
1
Chairman Cofer called for persons to speak in opposition to or in
favor of the application.
Margaret Whitley appeared in favor stating it is her understanding
that in order for her property to be taxed at an agricultural rate, it has to be
rezoned to an Agricultural District. She has been paying an industrial rate
on this property which has been in continuous farm use and she is looking
for ways to reduce her expenses. At the current corn and cotton crop
prices, they are only paying approximately half of the assessed taxes.
Upon no one appearing in opposition to the request, Chairman Cofer
called for comments from the Board.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked for clarification, specifically if this
16
Bn~K 1~ PAGE 160
land is zoned as industrial, why is it not a possibility for it to be assessed
in land use rather than as industrial. He noted that .the Commissioner of
the Revenue has not provided him with an answer on this and today faxed
information to him, but it still did not fully elarify the matter.
County Attorney Crook stated this is within the purview of the
Commissioner of the Revenue, but he is guided by the statutes. Generally
speaking, the land use qualification for local taxation was based upon the
use of the land, and the General Assembly has changed the statute I believe
at the requests of the. Commissioners of the Revenue, so that when it is
zoned to a different use, even though it may still be used for agricultural
purposes, it loses that land use ability. Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked me
about this tonight and I am not prepared to give a definitive opinion on the
matter and I would ask for time to review the statutes and talk with the
Commissioner of the Revenue on this, stated Mr. Crook.
Supervisor Spady stated it would save the Whitleys time later if they
could do this, but he was surprised the Commissioner of the Revenue could
not provide an answer at this time because it is within his purview and not
up to the Board.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated he would like the County Attorney
to meet with the Commissioner of the Revenue to see what answer can. be
obtained.
.Supervisor Spady moved the Board table the matter until the February
16, 1995 meeting to allow the County Attorney time to meet with the
Commissioner of the Revenue regarding an opinion on the possibility of it
being assessed as land use. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0)
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board return to the regular order
of the agenda. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Ron York, Isle of Wight Historical Society, stated at a previous
meeting the .Board voted to support the ISTEA grant application for funds
to restore Boykin's Tavern. In conversations with Lynn Harris, I understand
that in going with this application it would be better to have local funding
allocated for this. The Isle of Wight Historical Society wishes to invite the
County to meet. them in the 20% match of the estimated total of $440,000 for
the project at a total of $88,000 that would be funded locally. The Isle of
Wight Historical Society does have in an account funds an excess of $20,000
that is earmarked for a project of this sort. Union Camp has also made a
donation of $1,000 and some unofficial voluntary donations have also been
received. The Isle of Wight Historical Society is suggesting that they will
be the fund raising arm to solicit the private donations to augment our
donation and would ask the County to fund the $44,000 to preserve this
historically significant building located next door to the Courthouse.
Supervisor Spady asked when the ISTEA grant is effective.
Mr. York stated the application must be in Richmond by Tuesday.
There is a possibility the County will not receive a grant and the possibility
17
1
BUUK 16 FAfE~~~
of not getting it is greatly enhanced by going in with. no funding attached.
County Administrator Caskey stated there has been a reduction in the
total project cost from $500,000 to $440,000 with the intent .that the County
would not consider further relocation of the structure on the property.
Mr. York stated to move the building at all would preclude it from the
National Register.
Lynn P. .Harris, Director of Economic Development, .stated
approximately two years ago an estimate was performed on what it would
cost to renovate and stabilize Boykin's Tavern. This would not be a
restoration that would get the building into Williamsburg form, rather this
is a structural renovation that would stabilize it and get it ready for
occupancy. The- cost- in 1992 was approximately $399,000 and present
estimates indicate the Board should. add an additional 10% or a total of
$440,000.
Supervisor Bradby asked if the Board moved in this direction, would
the facility be used for a tourist attraction.
Ms. Harris stated the plan at this point would be to use the bottom
floor as a visitor's center for the Tourism Bureau, one room as a museum,
and the other two floors for office space..
1
1
Supervisor Spady stated he was not in favor of spending a lot of
money on Boykin's Tavern and was not in favor of buying the facility
originally; however, if the Board pledges $44,000 and may get back $400,000
and be able to use some of the space for office space he would move the
Board pledge $44,000 toward the ISTEA grant if the grant is approved. The.
motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Supervisor Spady stated the Board does not need to appropriate the
.money now as it would come from next year's budget.
//
Chairman Cofer called for the Community Development report.
Mr. David stated for the Board's consideration is an application for a
permit to hold bingo games submitted by .the Isle of Wight County
Recreational Facilities Authority. These games are conducted at the Isle of
Wight/Franklin Skating Rink on Walters Highway. Enclosed in the agenda
is the application for the annual permit required for the. Authority to
conduct the bingo games once a week at the Skating Rink. If approved, the
permit is valid for one calendar year beginning January 1, 1995 and bingo.
games are regulated under Chapter 3.1 of the County Code, stated Mr.
David.
Supervisor Spady questioned if the. effective date of the permit should
be January 1, 1995 or January 26, 1995.
BOOK . ~U PAGE 1 V~
County Attorney Crook stated the date should be effective January 2b,
1995.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board approve the application with the
effective date of January 26, 1995. The motion was adopted unanimously
(5-0).
Chairman Cofer stated Christine Ledford, Director of Budget and
Finance, pointed out that the proceeds go into the Parks & Recreation's
General Fund.
Mr. Nogiec stated the proceeds from bingo are used to offset the cost
of the operation of the Skating Rink.
Mr. David stated for the Board's consideration is the request of Ellis
Development Corporation to amend the subdivision plat of Waterford,
situated at the intersection of Benns Church Boulevard and Canteberry
Lane. The subject property is across from Smithfield Plaza Shopping Center
and the request is to eliminate the notation "no ingress/egress permitted
along Route 10 from the recorded subdivision plat in .order to permit one
vehicular access point approximately two hundred thirty-one feet south of
Canteberry Lane. If the notation is removed, vehicles may access the
prospective owner's proposed retail auto parts business directly from Benns
Church Boulevard. This property was zoned Conditional B-1 by the Board
on July 6, 1989. On .August 2, 1990, the Waterford subdivision plat was
approved by the Board delineating a strip ten feet in width restricting
access to the property directly from Benn's .Church Boulevard. A# the
Planning Commission's public hearing in December, no one appeared in
opposition and the applicant provided information concerning the purpose
of the request and the site access requirements of the owner. The Planning
Commission discussed the .precedent which was established with a prior
retail business in the Waterford development. The Commission also
discussed access to Route 10 by the joint use of the proposed entrance on
this piece of property, future development of the remainder of the
Conditional B-1 property and the ongoing vehicular access requirements of
retail businesses.. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the request to the Board subject to the applicant
meeting the procedural requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance to
permit the removal of the notation on the plat.
Chairman Cofer called for comments from the Board.
Following no other comments from the Board, Chairman Cofer moved
the Board approve the request of Ellis Development Corporation. The
motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Attorney Crook asked if GTE has signed off on this.
Mr. David replied yes and he was delivered the agreement earlier
today.
Mr. David stated for the Board's consideration is the street lighting
19
8110K 16 PAGE 163
1
request of Owens Estates Subdivision. The Board adopted a street lighting
policy on March 17, 1994 which established the minimum requirements and
procedures needed to be fulfilled by citizens who desire the installatian and
operation of street lights in their subdivisions or neighborhoods. A petition
by residents of Owens Estates was duly submitted requesting the
installation of street lights in the subdivision. Virginia Power has advised
the total cost of operating the six street lights in this subdivision for a
period of five years will be approximately $3,000. The County's Street
Lighting Policy requires that the cost of energizing the street lights be a cash
settlement made by the residents prior to the County's agent approving the
installation of the street lights. A representative of the residents in Owens
Estates .has inquired if the County- would accept a down payment on the
cost to operate the street lights with the balance to be paid in regular
installments. If acceptable, the amount of the down payment and the
installment schedule will be determined.
Rudolph Jefferson, Owens Estates Subdivision, requested the
opportunity to pay the installation fee for these lights in installments rather
than the full $3,000 at this time. .The Civic League does not have this.
money at this time, but the lights are needed for security purposes and
safety throughout the neighborhood, stated Mr. Jefferson.
Supervisor Spady asked if the diagram for the location of the .lights
is satisfactory with all the residents in the Civic League and how much
money does the Civic League have at -this point.
Mr. Jefferson stated once the Board determines the amount that must
be paid down, the Civic League will go throughout the neighborhood to get
the remainder of the money.
Supervisor Bradby stated. he understood that the lights would be
installed and the cost of lights would be included in their light bill, rather
than ask for money before the lights are installed.
Supervisor Spady stated it is not a good idea sometimes to take
payments stretched out, although he can understand the situation.
Supervisor Spady asked the County Attorney if there would be a problem
with this.
County Attorney Crook advised no because this is the Board's policy.
The cost is the operating cost for five years and, under the Board's. adopted.
policy, they are to provide the money up front.
Supervisor Bradby stated he has a problem with this.
1
Supervisor Spady moved the Board accept a-down payment of $1,000
with the balance of $2,000 to be paid over the next three years. The details
of the payment. plan are to be worked out with the County's. agent. The
motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Mr. David stated for the Board .consideration is a late item, specifically
a letter received today from Michael Huffman, concerning a Conditional
20
B~~K 16 Pacc 164
Use Permit that has expired for his mobile home. The permit has expired
and the mobile home is still on site. The County is working with Mr.
Huffman to make application for an extension. Mr. Huffman, however, has
been unable to come up with the application fee and he asked that the
matter be presented to the Board tonight for their consideration.
Supervisor Bradby stated he spoke with Mr. Huffman who is
requesting additional time to come up with the $250 fee. Supervisor Bradby
stated he did not believe this was unreasonable because Mr. Huffman is
struggling. Mr. Huffman is not present tonight because of his work
schedule, but he is progressing on the permanent dwelling which he is in
the process of completing.
1
Supervisor Spady asked Mr. David if Mr. Huffman has been before
the Planning Commission.
Mr. David advised no and this is the third request for an extension.
County Attorney Crook stated Mr. Huffman cannot present the
extension request to the Board, he must go to the Planning Commission
first.
Mr. David stated Mr. Huffman is asking him to accept the application
for his extension without having to pay the fee. I cannot process the
application without payment of the fee, stated Mr. David.
Supervisor Bradby stated Mr. Huffman will have the money to pay
the fee shortly and is hoping the Board will agree to allow him to pay the
fee in two weeks and have the application processed.
County Attorney Crook stated Mr. Huffman is attempting to build a
home and keeps coming back and getting extensions on his Conditional Use
Permit. Mr. Huffman was told this would not be allowed any longer by
both the Planning Commission and the Board, but now he wants to file for
another extension. The reason for the fees for the applications are to pay
the costs. of processing those applications. If the fee is not charged before
the application is filed and a person gets an undesirable result on his
application, then the County will never get the fee and the taxpayers will
have to pay for processing and advertising the applications.
Responding to Supervisor Spady's question of how many times Mr.
Huffman has requested an extension, Mr. David replied the mobile home
has been there since 1972 and Mr. Huffman received the original three-year
extension in 1986, was granted another. two-year extension in 1990 and in
November of 1992 was granted an additional two years which expired in
November of 1994._ Mr. Huffman obtained a building permit on November
17, 1994 to convert the garage into a garage apartment and up until that
point in time had not secured any building permits. Mr. David stated he
has checked with the Inspections Department and they have not been
requested to perform any inspections on that property since the building
permit was issued.
1
1
21
enox ~Seacc ~65
U
Supervisor Spivey stated he is in agreement with Supervisor Bradby
in working with people and Mr. Huffman is asking for the time .for the
money to be raised for the fee. Mr. Huffman is very directly asking for an
extension on his permit and I believe we have limitations on these matters
and with this kind of history I also share the same concerns as Supervisor
Spady as to these matters being treated on a case-by-case basis.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board direct Mr. David to place Mr.
Huffman's application on the March 1995 Planning Commission agenda.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Chairman Cofer stated the Board is giving. Mr. Huffman athirty-day
extension from this point to have his application and the money so that Mr.
David can go through the process and have the matter advertised -for the
March meeting of the Planning Commission.
//
Chairman Cofer called for the County Attorney's report.
County Attorney Crook stated the Twin Ponds Water Agreement was
referred to the Windsor Town Cour-cil and they have recommended
favorably that the County grant the modification to the water agreement for
Twin Ponds which was basically that they not be required to have the
system in place within two years. Mr. Crook stated he has prepared an
amendment to the water agreement for the Board's consideration to grant
them the waiver.
1
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board approve the amendment
as prepared by the County Attorney and authorize. the County
Administrator to sign it on behalf of the County. The motion was adopted
unanimously (5-0).
County Attorney Crook stated the Clerk of the Circuit Court has
approached him about the Circuit Court expansion project and he had
forwarded a letter to the architect concerning this because it is a small
project with an estimated cost of approximately $25,000. The architect who
designed it is Frank Spady in Suffolk who has indicated. that the best way
to handle this project would be #o negotiate with a contractor on a "cost
plus basis" rather than going through the process of putting the matter out
to bids. County Attorney Crook stated he asked Mr. Spady if he would
certify that and the Board could, under the Public Procurement Act, make
an exception. Normally any construction work has to go out to bids, but
the Board can make an exception based upon the estimated low cost of the
project and it would be negotiated bid. County Attorney Crook stated he
has prepared a resolution for consideration by the Board based on the
architect's certification.
Supervisor Spady provided Supervisor Spivey with background
information on the matter stating the Clerk needs additional office space
and whether this is the best way to go or not, it is cheaper than building a
new addition. The Clerk of the Circuit Court indicated to the Board at that
22
BOOK ~ 1U PAGE 1UU
time that if he gets this he would have adequate space for the next ten
years.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution in
the amended amount of $25,000 on construction modifications to the Clerk
of the Circuit Court's office:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Circuit Court Clerk's Office of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia,: is in need of alteration, repair, and renovation including expansion
thereof; and,
WHEREAS, Frank A. Spady, Jr., Architect of Spady and Spady, Suffolk,
Virginia, has certified to the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County,
Virginia, that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not
fiscally advantageous to the public for this alteration, repair and renovation,
including expansion, and that it would be most advantageous to the. public
to allow competitive negotiation with a contractor on a basis of cost plus
labor and has further certified to the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight
County that this project is not expected to cost more than $25,000.
IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, pursuant to Section 11-41,C.,2.,(ii) of the
Public Procurement Act of the Code of Virginia, the Board of Supervisors
of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, now makes this determination in advance
and sets forth in writing that competitive sealed bidding is either not
practicable or not fiscally advantageous to the public for this project of the
alteration, repair and renovation including expansion of the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County, Virginia and said Board hereby
directs that competitive negotiation as defined in said Public Procurement
Act may be used for this project.
The motion was adopted .unanimously (5-0).
County Attorney Crook stated the lease agreement for the YMCA was
prepared and faxed to the County before the last meeting. It was approved
by the Board and signed by the Chairman and sent to the YMCA attorney
who faxed it to him and made a minor change of address for sending
notices under .the lease. The YMCA attorney elected to redo the lease and
it must therefore be approved again and the Chairman authorized to sign
it on behalf of the County.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board approve the lease with the YMCA
with no substantive changes (change of address) and authorize the
Chairman to sign it on behalf of the County. The motion was adopted
unanimously (5-0).
County Attorney Crook stated at the request of the Board a lease has
been negotiated for the Walls property located adjacent to the Courthouse
primarily for its use as a fairgrounds. .This is a ten-year lease .with the
owners of the property, which he received today, signed with a minor
change. Mr. Crook stated he had put in the lease that it is understood by
23
i~
8(10K ~6PAGE ~~~
lessors the lessee may annually conduct the County fair or other events on
said property and they have .amended it to say "other similar events" on
said property.
1
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board approve the lease as
presented with the change noted. The motion was adopted unanimously
(5-0).
County Attorney Crook stated he has received a contract from the
proposed contractor, G W. Brinkley, Inc. for the building for storage which
he was not satisfied with and rewrote. Mr. Crook stated they have agreed
to the contract with two minor changes: 1) the requirement for a
Superintendent on the job, and 2) in his contract the contractor would
secure the construction permits and in the requests for bids the County
stated it would .procure the permits which is not a good policy and causes
problems. Mr. Crook stated he does not recommend this but in this case
the County must live with it because it was in the Request for Bids. Mr.
Crook stated the contract did not include a beginning and finish date which
has since been determined to be February 1, 1995 for start-up and be
completed by April 17, 1995. Mr. Crook stated he would like the Board to
approve the contract for the erection of the building and authorize the
Chairman. to sign. the contract on behalf of the County.
Supervisor Spivey moved the Board approve the contract, as modified,
and authorize the Chairman to sign the it on behalf of the County. The
motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Attorney Crook stated he was asked at the last meeting to
prepare a resolution concerning the Right to Farm Act. Mr. Crook stated
he has prepared a resolution that addresses the concerns he has with the
Right to Farm Act which asks the General Assembly to revisit it and clarify
what it means.
Supervisor Spivey stated he is interested in understanding the -law
better and moved the Board adopt the following resolution as presented by
the County Attorney:
RESOLUTION REGARDING
RIGHT TO FARM ACT
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Virginia by an Act to amend and
reenact Chapter 293 of the Acts of the Assembly of 1991, Senate Bill 513,
Chapter 779 of the Virginia Acts of Assembly, 1994 Session, amended
Section 3.1-22.28 of the Code of Virginia, by an Act, generally referred to as
"The Right to Farm. Act'; and,
WHEREAS, said Act amending Section 3.1-22.28 of the Code of Virginia.
provides that no County shall adopt any ordinance that requires that a
special exception or special use permit be obtained for any production
agricultural or silviculture activity in an area that is zoned as an agricultural
district; and,
24
snox, ~.SPacf~~8
WHEREAS, it is xtot clear from the language of said Act if the General
Assembly is prohibiting counties from making agricultural activities
"conditional", and if such be the case, then the language of the amendment
to Section 3.1-22.28 should be amended to provide that "no County shall
adopt any ordinance that requires that a special exception, special use, or
other conditional use permit be obtained"; and,
WHEREAS, .the said amendment to Section 3.1-22.28, defines the r
agricultural activity as "shall not include the processing of agricultural or
silviculture products or the above ground application or storage of sewage
sludge" and it is not clear from the language of said statute whether land
application of livestock waste effluent is included in said "sewage sludge"
of said Act; .and,
WHEREAS, that the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia
although believing that the intent of the General Assembly to protect
farming activities by the Right to Farm Act is beneficial to farmers and the
citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, said Board of Supervisors is of
the opinion that the language of the amendment of Section 3.1-22.28 should
be clarified by the General Assembly of Virginia by reconsideration and
further amendments.
IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, be and it is hereby ordained by the
Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County that this Resolution of the
Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly review the Right to Farm
Act, Senate Bill 513, Virginia Acts of Assembly 1994 Session, Chapter 779,
to clarify if the purpose of the Act is to prohibit counties from requiring any
type of conditional use permit for production agriculture or silviculture
activities and to clarify whether production agriculture or silviculture
activities .includes land application of livestock or animal waste effluent.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded
to all members of the General Assembly representing the County of Isle of
Wight.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked if the County would be represented
at the hearings or would the resolution be delivered to the members of the
General Assembly.
County Attorney Crook stated the Board could send representatives
if they wished.
County Administrator Caskey stated he understands there is no
.legislation proposed at this point in time to revisit the Right To Farm Act
and he does not know if there will be any hearing or committee reviewing
this matter during this General Assembly session.
County Attorney Crook. stated the attorney collecting delinquent taxes
for the County under contract has a conflict of interest with a delinquent
taxpayer and therefore had referred the matter to him. As a result, .the
25
BnOK ~.6 PAGE 1~~
County Administrator and he had met with Mr. Riddick who is
representing the Town and Mr. Riddick will be pursuing collection of these
delinquent taxes from this taxpayer on the property located in the Town of
Smithfield. Mr. Riddick is willing to handle the matter for both the County
and the Town at the same rate of compensation he previously received to
collect taxes.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board approve the modification to the
agreement on collection of back taxes. The motion was .adopted
unanimously (5-0).
Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked how involved does the Treasurer get
in collecting delinquent taxes.
7
County Attorney Crook stated the Treasurer does not do anything
other than notify the property owner that his taxes are delinquent when
dealing with real estate. You must have an attorney to pursue collection of
delinquent real estate taxes by taking the property through court for a
judicial sale which is beyond the purview of the Treasurer.
County Attorney Crook stated he has three other matters for executive
session later in the meeting.
County Attorney Crook stated he has spoken with the County
Administrator and the Director of Budget and Finance regarding deferred
compensation. Changes in the agreement are being asked for. and he is not
ready to present this to the Board at this time, stated Mr. Crook.
//
At 8:15 p.m., Supervisor Spady moved the Board take afive-minute
recess. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Upon returning to open session at 8:25 p.m, Chairman Cofer called for
the County Administrator's report.
County Administrator Caskey stated the Governor has included in his
budget package a proposed phase out of the BPOL Tax over afive-year
period which will have a significant impact on the County's revenues by
eliminating approximately $350,000 in local tax revenues equaling
approximately a three cent increase on the local real estate tax rate or a
thirty-five cent increase on the County's local personal property tax rate.
In the agenda is a resolution for the Board's consideration opposing the
proposed reduction and elimination of the BPOL tax which I recommend
for the Board's approval, stated Mr. Caskey.
County Attorney Crook~noted the resolution contained an error and
should be amended to reflect of instead of m the Business, Professional
and Occupational License Tax.
Supervisor Spady stated he went to Richmond yesterday where the
first hearing on the matter was held.. The Governor has proposed finding
enoK ~,6Pacf ~.~~
some money to pay the counties back for the money lost if everyone would
eliminate the. BPOL Tax. Supervisor Spady stated he did not think this
would pass because some counties do not have a BPOL Tax and counties
that do have it would be reimbursed, however, the ones that don't have it
would not receive anything, which is not fair. Supervisor Spady stated this.
is not a fair tax because it is on gross receipts.
Supervisor Spivey moved the Board adopt the following amended
resolution:
RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
PROPOSED STATE REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF THE
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATION LICENSE TAX
WHEREAS,. proposed amendments to the FY96 State budget include a
reduction .and eventual elimination of the Business, Professional and
Occupation License Tax levied by local governments; and,
WHEREAS, such proposed amendment would have an adverse effect on the
County of Isle of Wight by eliminating an estimated $350,000 in revenue to
the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight is in opposition to such
proposed budget amendment and respectfully requests the General
Assembly to reject this amendment to the FY96 State budget.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
members of the Isle of Wight County delegation of the Virginia General
Assembly.
The motion was. adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Administrator Caskey stated effective July 1, 1994, the
Commonwealth Attorney's office was funded through the State
Compensation Board as a full-time office and in order to correct some salary
disparity, the Compensation Board has provided. funding for additional
levels of salary in the Commonwealth Attorney and his staff.
Supervisor Spivey moved the Board adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX DOLLARS FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COMPENSATION BOARD
TO THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY FOR SALARIES
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia has received additional funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Compensation Board, for salary increases for the Commonwealth's Attorney
and his employees; .and,
WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of six thousand nine .hundred
1
1
27
,.
BnOK 16 PAGE 1 ( 1
eighty-six dollars ($6,986) from .the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Compensation Board need to be appropriated to, the Commonwealth
Attorney's salary line item in the 1994-95 budget of the County of Isle of
Wight, Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that six
thousand nine hundred eighty-six dollars ($6,986) to be xeceived from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Compensation Board be appropriated to the
Commonwealth Attorney's salary line item in the 1994-95 budget of the
County of Isle of Wight.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the
County of Isle of Wight, .Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate
accounting adjustments in the budget for. the grant and to do all the things
necessary to give this resolution effect.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Administrator Caskey stated the following resolution is
provided for the Board's consideration which he recommends for approval.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the following
resolution
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE SIX THOUSAND
DOLLARS FROM THE RUTH CAMP CAMPBELL FOUNDATION;
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM THE CAMP YOUNTS
FOUNDATION; TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM THE CAMP
FOUNDATION FOR FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES IN THEIR
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight,.
Virginia received a donation for fire and rescue service; and,
WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of ten thousand ($10,000) are needed
to be appropriated to the fire and rescue line item in the 1994-95 budget of
the County of Isle of Wight.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) be accepted and appropriated to the Carrsville Volunteer
Fire Department line item ($4,000); Windsor Volunteer Fire Department line
item. ($2,000) and Windsor Volunteer Rescue Squad line item ($4,000) in the
1994-95 budget of the County of Isle of Wight.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the.-County
of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate accounting
adjustments in the budget for this program and to do all the .things.
necessary to give this resolution effect.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
- ~
SnoK , ~~ eAGE 1
Vice Chairman. Bradshaw requested the volunteer organizations send
letters of appreciation to the foundations when the money is received by
them.
M. Christine Ledford, Director of Budge and Finance, stated the Board
previously approved the purchase and installation of a new data processing
system. Regarding the cost estimates of the systems, staff discussed the
need to purchase additional computers and printers, as well as the data
communication lines that run the communications from this complex to
Monette Information Systems. Ms. Ledford stated she has solicited bids
from area banks and other financial institutions requesting to be on .the
County's bid list and attached is a summary of the bids received. Ms.
Ledford stated she spoke with the County`s financial advisor, Larry Wales,
who believes a variable rate based on prime may not be in the County's
best interest. The lowest interest rate submitted is with NationsBank with
a fixed rate of 5.98% for five years with quarterly payments of principal and
interest.
Supervisor Spady asked how much better NationsBank's rate was than
First Union on asemi-annual.
Ms. Ledford responded that NationsBank is cheaper by a couple
hundred dollars. An amortization table indicates a total financing cost of
$13,252.46 with NationsBank.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked why the hard drive is 420 megs when
the standard today is almost 1,000.
Ms. Ledford stated this is considered sufficient and almost all of the
software on the market today will run on 340 megs or better.
- Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked why the County does not go ahead
and get what is standard with today's technology.
Ms. Ledford stated the proposed computers will have 8 meg of ram.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated there will be additional cost because
this is an add on and- standard personal computers .can be purchased with
this already on it.
Ms. Ledford stated the price is Mr. Monette's cost for the equipment
that was negotiated in his contract. Ms. Ledford stated the County has a
contract with Monette to purchase equipment at this price.
Supervisor Spady stated Mr. Monette is going to be handling it and
if Mr. Monette is satisfied, then he is satisfied. Supervisor Spady stated
Vice Chairman .Bradshaw may be able to do a better deal,. but he is not
going to be doing it.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated the County should be buying what
is current technology.
r
1
1
29
r,
B~~~x 16PAGE173
Ms. Ledford pointed out that in a year .from now what is current
technology today will be outdated. The equipment has been discussed with
the computer committee, with the consultant, Monet~e and DBS, stated Ms.
Ledford.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution
accepting the recommendation of using NationsBank for computer
hardware financing:
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT FINANCING OPTION AND
DESIGNATE THE FINANCING AS A QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT
OBLIGATION OF THE COUNTY OF ISLE OF WIGHT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors. of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia has approved the purchase of computer .hardware and
communications equipment and elected to finance such purchase; and,
WHEREAS, bids for such financing have been solicited and received; and,
WHEREAS, it was reported by the Director of Budget arid Finance than of
the bids received, the bid offering the lowest interest to the County was
NationsBank fixed rate offer; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight
designates the financing as a qualified tax-exempt obligation of the County
of Isle of Wight.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that the financing for
the purchase of computer hardware and communications equipment is
awarded to NationsBank at a fixed interest rate of 5.98%.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the County
of Isle of Wight is authorized to make the necessary arrangements and
execute the necessary documentation.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Administrator Caskey stated the Board at their December
meeting was briefed as to the recurring problems associated with the
existing telephone system which serves the County Courthouse.
Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the County Administrator, stated
the County is in desperate need of action in regards to the telephone
..system. There are two alternatives the County can pursue at this point: 1)
pursue an upgraded and more efficient PBX system or 2) pursue the
Centrex alternative offered by GTE under their program which is known as
Centranet. There are some significant differences and similarities between
the two systems, but in terms of options, both systems are similar. In terms
of the long-term needs of the County, Centranet may have some advantages
over a PBX system. A PBX system will cost more up front, but long-term
costs may level out. With Centranet there are no hardware costs upfront.'
30
_ . ,.~-
BOOK ' 1U PAGE ~7~
Mr. Robertson stated he is presently seeking direction in terms of which
way the Board wishes to go on this matter.
Supervisor Spady asked would the County would be leasing .the
hardware from GTE if the Board went with the Centranet system.
Mr. Robertson stated the existing hardware will work in conjunction
with Centranet; however, if the Board goes with the PBX digital system, the r
County will need to purchase hardware to work with this system at a cost
of approximately $200 to $300 per phone, which does not include the actual
PBX unit. He stated with Centranet, start-up costs are minimal. The
County is using a network approach and discussed a possibility of 200-300
lines because the more the lines, the lower cost per line, stated Mr.
Robertson. This would allow the County to network all governmental
agencies in the County such as Parks and Recreation and the schools, as
.well as any agencies the Board would want included in the network. Mr.
Robertson stated staff would need to get with these agencies to find out
what their needs are and if they wish #o participate iri a plan such as .
Centranet. There would potentially be a significant savings because the.
County would take all the individualized bills and consolidate them under
one bill. Mr. Robertson stated there is some question as to how much of a
.savings the County would see because it is based on toll-free calling. If the
toll-free calling does not come .into effect, the County would have to
institute FX lines which are extensions that allow the County to go outside
of its local calling area at a reduced rate, stated Mr. Robertson.
Supervisor Spady asked what the other- local governments are using.
Mr, Robertson responded that a poll of the neighboring communities
indicates there is increased movement towards Centranet. If the County
chooses the PBX, this would have to be put out to bids. Centranet is a
proprietary system and the County would only have to negotiate with GTE
to bring this on line. It has only become available in this area within the
last six months and is brand new, stated Mr. Robertson.
County Attorney Crook asked if GTE is the only supplier of
Centranet.
Mr. Robertson stated because the County is within GTE's service area,
GTE is the only supplier of Centrex services within their service area.
Supervisor Spivey asked if the Board might pursue this similar to the
way it handled the computer question and have a committee meet with Mr.
.Robertson, along with the involved agencies.
Supervisor Spady suggested Donald Robertson meet with each agency
and explain what the County is considering and advise the Board of their
reactions at the Board's February 16, 1995. meeting.
County Administrator Caskey stated the Board may also wish to
consider whether or not they wish to have a representative from GTE attend
their next meeting to explain .the Centranet system.
1
1
31
,.,
J
BnilK ~6 PAf,E ~~~
Supervisor Spady stated staff may be able to provide the .Board in_
writing information that explains Centranet which they can study.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT R. BRYAN DAVID
AS SUBDIVISION AGENT FOR ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight have
adopted a Subdivision Ordinance of Isle of Wight County, Virginia of 1969
to establish certain subdivision standards and .procedures within the
County; and,
WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance requires that
the ordinance be administered by an agent appointed by the governing
body; and,
WHEREAS, R. Bryan David currently serves the County in the capacity of
Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight that R. Bryan David be
appointed to serve as the Subdivision Agent for Isle of Wight County.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Supervisor Spivey moved the Board adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT R. BRYAN DAVID
AS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight have.
adopted a zoning ordinance to establish certain landuse standards and
procedures in the County; and,
WHEREAS, Section 15.4 of the County's Zoning Ordinance that the
ordinance be administered and enforced by a Zoning Administrator
appointed by the governing body; and,
WHEREAS,. said appointment must be made by formal resolution; and,
WHEREAS, R. Bryan David currently serves the County in the capacity of
Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVID by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight that R. Bryan David be
appointed as the Zoning Administrator for Isle of Wight County.
1
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-O).
County Administrator Casket' noted for the sixth month of the fiscal
32
BnOK ~~ PgGE 1 1 U
year the delinquent tax collection attorney collected $13,327.65 at a cost to
the County of $1,193.07 which represents 9% of the amount collected.
Mr. Caskey stated the Board at their last meeting directed that he
communicate. with the delinquent tax attorney and the agenda package
contains a response from Mr. Windsor noting why the costs for collection
of taxes were elevated at the last reporting period. Mr. Windsor did note
that overall the fees paid by the County are approximately 14% of the
amount collected, which is over $724,000.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board accept the report on the monthly
delinquent real estate tax collection. The motion was adopted unanimously
(5-0).
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board direct staff to request the
Treasurer to .provide the delinquent accounts to the delinquent tax attorney
as quickly as possible. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Administrator Caskey presented as a late item a resolution
and information provided by SPSA relative to proposed legislation
identified as House Bill 1802.
Mr. Robertson stated House Bill 1802 has been patroned by Delegate
Cooper of York County which deals with solid waste management and
collection. It states that if there is a private hauler currently operating
within the locality, in order for that locality to either provide those services
itself or contract with SPSA, until that private haulers contract runs out the
Board would be obligated to compensate that b~~siness for one year's gross
receipts or the locality would have afive-year waiting period before the
locality could initiate those actions. There is considerable .opposition
statewide to this legislation and staff is still attempting to get clear on all of
the implications of the Bill.
Chairman Cofer stated if the private hauler can prove that he has
outlaid capital to provide equipment to do the contract that you are taking
away from him, the County must also reimburse the capital on top of this.
County Attorney Crook noted a correction should be made in the last
paragraph of the resolution to include "General Assembly".
Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution
with an amendment on the last paragraph to reflect "General Assembly":
RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE HOUSE BILL 1802
WHEREAS, local governments, because of limited resources, have
been encouraged to operate and provide services in a more effective
manner; and,
WHEREAS, in certain instances local governments and/or public
service authorities are capable of providing local services at a lower cost to
.taxpayers than private businesses providing the same or similar services,
33
enox ~.6pACE 177
and,
WHEREAS, the provisions of HB 1802 prohibit localities from taking
advantage of immediate cost savings to taxpayers which could potentially.
be returned to taxpayers in the form of expanded services and/or lower
local taxes; and,
WHEREAS, HB 1802 penalizes local governments for innovation and
cost effectiveness in providing waste management services; and,
WHEREAS, HB 1802 inhibits regional cooperation in the provision of
waste management services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that the
members of the General Assembly are respectfully requested to oppose HB
1802 and any other legislation which discourages the cost effective provision
of waste management services to the citizens of Isle of Wight County.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
u
County Administrator Caskey stated the City of Norfolk and County
staff had previously scheduled a site visit of Robert Taylor's farm located
off Route 10. Even though Mr. Taylor's farm is not geographically located.
within the City of Norfolk's watershed, Norfolk city officials expressed an
interest in viewing what was represented to .them as astate-of-the-art
facility as it pertains to intensive feedlot operations.. Mr. Caskey stated the
Board appointed a .committee of Supervisors Bradshaw and Bradby at their
last meeting to meet with the City-of Norfolk officials in order to have a
discussion relative to potential. impacts in their watershed and the issue
involving the incidence, in other areas of the country, of cryptosporidium.
On Friday, January Z0, 1995, the site visit was held and dialogue took place
between the Board members and City of .Norfolk officials who represented
that they were satisfied with the fact that the County .was .aware of their
overall concerns as it relates to watershed management. Norfolk officials
indicated, at this time, they felt there was not any further need to meet and
suggested that later the region, through the HRPDC, have workshops or
discussions as it relates to watershed management and the issue of
cryptosporidium and what that means in terms. of public water. supply
systems.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated the tour of the Taylor farm was very
impressive and the Norfolk officials had a lot of questions with the site
itself. Mr. Taylor being .very knowledgeable about the County and the
geographical areas was able to point out that the drainage does not go into
Norfolk's watershed, but rather the James River. By the time it does drain
into the James River, if there is runoff from his operation, Mr. Taylor
advised it would be filtered. Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated he was
thankful for Mr. Taylor's presentation and the knowledge and expertise he
has to set up this operation was very impressive.
Supervisor Bradby stated Norfolk officials were concerned about their
34
800K ~ ~.~ PAGE 178
water system being contaminated with the runoff from the hog operation
and the presentation was very good. What will eventually happen at this
point is unknown and I believe Mr. Taylor is going to the fullest extent to
do whatever is necessary to prevent anything from happening. Supervisor
Bradby stated the County will have to continue to monitor hog farms to see
that nothing is contaminated in the water system as it will probably drain
into the James River. Supervisor Bradby further stated the operation being
constructed by Mr. Taylor is much better than past operations and he is t
doing all that he can to prevent contamination. Supervisor Bradby stated
the Board should not forget that 400,000 people became sick and
approximately 100 died from the possibility of contamination coming from
a livestock operation in the Midwest.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated he agreed with Supervisor Bradby in
that the Board should give direction to the Department of Community
Development to continue to meet with Mr. Taylor. to monitor his operation..
Vice Chairman Bradshaw noted that Mr. Taylor was very open about doing
this which was very impressive to him. Mr. Taylor is not trying to hide
.anything .and wants the County to be involved in monitoring his operation,
stated Vice Chairman Bradshaw.
Chairman Cofer thanked Vice Chairman Bradshaw and Supervisor
Bradby for their efforts on this committee regarding this matter. The Board
will ask the Department of Community Development to continue working
with and looking at these facilities as they enter the County.
County .Administrator Caskey stated he has distributed to the Board
a proposed FY1995-96 budget calendar as presented by the. Director of
Budget & Finance for the Board's information. There is a budget work
session proposed for March 16, 1995 that would be the regular date of the
Board's meeting. If the Board is agreeable, the early part of the afternoon
of that same date the .Board could. have a work session on the budget and
break to have its regular meeting in the evening.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated he understood the various agency
and Department Heads would be presenting their budgets and requests
would be available for questions.
Chairman Cofer stated he believes it is time that the County has
agencies, as .well as .Department Heads, present their own budget to get
them involved. The FY1995-96 budget year will be a tough one with the
constraints the Board is already aware of so he would ask Department
Heads to be conservative and be present to explain and justify their
individual budgets.
Supervisor Spady stated he did not suggest adopting the budget
calendar, rather attempt to adhere to most of the deadlines as close as
possible.
County Administrator Caskey stated the Board was provided as a
separate item in their agenda package a transmittal letter from the Planning
Commission Chairman regarding the Planning Commission's recent action
1
35
gnOK 1~PAGE,L.17
1
1
on the FY1995-2000 CIP program. Included with .this transmittal was. a copy
of the CIP and if it is appropriate the Board should set a public hearing for
their February 16, 1995 meeting for consideration of the CIP at that time.
Supervisor Spady suggested working .with the CIP as the Board
considers the budget.
Supervisor Spivey stated it would be advantageous if the Department '
Heads were present to answer the Board's questions.
Supervisor Bradby stated he agreed with Supervisor Spivey because
the Volunteer Rescue Squads and Fire Departments Association can come
before the Board to address their questions.
Supervisor Spady stated three .weeks' time is not adequate time to
review the CIP program as presented. In March the Board may wish to
have the CIP public hearing separate from the annual budget, but at this
time he did not want to single that out.
Supervisor Bradshaw stated the Board could adopt: the five-year Flan
and the current year budget simultaneously.
County Attorney Crook stated the CIP must have a public hearing,
although it does not have to be separate from the annual budget. The
Board in the past has held. the Capital Budget and annual Operating Budget
public hearings together.
Supervisor Spady stated the CIP is only a guideline for the Board and
if the Board ado is the CIP budgets, the Board must find some way to fund
P
them.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated the Board can adopt the five-year
plan, but that does not mean we have to adopt it for the current year
because that is a separate budget action.
Chairman Cofer pointed out the annual budget and the five-year plan
should reflect the budget the Board adopts. The annual budget is the part
#hat is funded.
Chairman Cofer stated the Board will receive it andtake it up during
the budget process.
County Administrator Caskey statedhe would recommend the Board's
consideration to invite .Jim Borberg, Executive Director, Hampton Roads
Sanitation District, to attend the February 16, 1995 meeting to provide. a
status report on the interceptor lines being constructed and proposed in the
northern portion and Windsor area of the County.
Chairman. Cofer stated he was especially interested in the .Windsor
interceptor project.
Supervisor Spady stated he would recommend staff place Mr. Borberg
36
eno,K ~.6 PAGE 1QO
on the agenda at his preference so that he will not have to wait.
County Administrator Caskey advised the Board he was advised by
the Fifth Circuit Court Judges that because of repairs to the Southampton
County Courthouse and renovations occurring there, there will be a number
of additional court. cases added to the court docket at the Isle of Wight
County Courthouse involving Southampton County matters.
County Administrator Caskey reminded the Board that previously the
Volunteer Rescue Squads and Fire .Departments Association requested a
County representative at their monthly meetings which Mr. Robertson is
coordinating..
County Administrator Caskey noted staff will contact Board members
to coordinate travel plans to Richmond for the VACo Legislative Day set for
February 9, 1995.
Supervisor Bradby stated he and Supervisor Spivey recently met with
concerned citizens about hog operations and in attendance are some of
those citizens which may like to address the Board.
County Administrator Caskey noted Board members were sent copies
of proposed amendments to the Southampton County Zoning Ordinance
and a letter from Mr. Stephen Merrill, Isle of Wight Defense League,
highlighting modifications to those requirements.
Mr. Merrill stated this is going to be a four-month process and the
Planning Commission will need direction from the Board on the matter.
Right now, this County .has virtually no protection .from hog farm
operations which will come to the County because there are no regulations,
stated Mr. Merrill.
Supervisor Spivey stated he has received additional information
tonight and he did meet with concerned citizens. He stated that Mr. Merrill
telephoned him last evening at which time he indicated to him that his
understanding is that Southampton County has passed through their
Planning Commission an ordinance which is much more detailed than the
County's which passed last month. Supervisor Spivey stated he understood
from Mr. Caskey that the Southampton County ordinance has not yet
reached the Board for action.. Supervisor Spivey stated he has heard the
report concerning their water concerns and his position is that he has not
had a significant amount of feedback from farmers in the County on what
Southampton County is considering to adopt. I am not closed minded on
this issue, but I do see it as an ongoing concern and my position is that I
want to talk to more of the farmers, he stated. Supervisor Spivey stated he
does not have a problem with the law, rather what the law is and he is
finding himself trying to find the time to do everything else that is involved
in this position aside from going over the laws that are being passed.
Supervisor Spivey stated he appreciated the .opportunity to meet with the
concerned citizens because it was. a good exchange and there were issues
raised that they had not thought about and some issues he had not thought
about. I will be interested to see what Richmond does, stated Supervisor
1
~~
37
1
B~~~K 16 Pa~,E 181
Spivey.
Chairman Cofer stated SPSA is the waste manager for six cities and
two counties_ The General Assembly in the late 1970'sand early 1980's said
regionalization on waste management was the way to go resulting in a
state-of-the-art landfill facility being built in Suffolk which, along with
SPSA, are recognized nationally and internationally as one of the best waste
management operations, Chairman Cofer stated. Since then there have been
changes in Richmond resulting in five private landfills having been opened
east of Interstate 95 in the past six years. He stated that these landfills are
owned by private haulers who are hauling the waste out of the region.
Federal legislation is pending which contains a .provision #hat member
communities may require any waste hauler in the County's jurisdiction to
haul to SPSA.. This is expected to be passed in May which will give us the
right to manage the waste in the area and require private haulers to deliver
to SPSA, stated Chairman Cofer. In the meantime, a revenue shortfall is
occurring because of what is going out is affecting the current bonds.. In
two efforts, there will be a public hearing on April 26, 1995 to consider.
raising municipal rates from $34 to $63 per ton for the remainder of the
fiscal year and SPSA staff is negotiating with private haulers. on a 1C0%
delivery contract at a rake they will probably refuse. Chairman Cofer
stated if we recover, this tonnage figure will not go into effect on May 1,
1995. If the volume is not recovered, this tipping fee will take effect for the
months of May and June and the potential impact to the County is
approximately $75,000. Chairman Cofer stated SPSA is working diligently
and has found 15% in the operational budge: that they have cut out which
will reduce the operational budget in a five-month period, to include 115
SPSA employees. Chairman Cofer stated currently in the eight
municipalities, only 42% of the garbage goes to a landfill and 58% is either
recycled or burned through the RDF plant that provides electricity to the
naval yard in Portsmouth. The guideline to be .met in 1995 was 25%
reduction in waste and we have far exceeded this, stated Chairman Cofer..
//
Chairman Cofer called for Old Business.
Shady Grove Estates, Shady Grove Drive off of Smith's Neck Road
(Route 665) in Newport Magisterial District (tabled 11f 17/94)
Mr. David stated he received late this afternoon concerning the
application of Shady Groves Estates Subdivision.. The Board tabled
.consideration of an exception request at its meeting in October. The
subdivider had requested at the Board's November 1994 meeting that the
matter be tabled until January 1995 so that the issues involved between the
developer and the adjacent property owner might be resolved. Mr. David
stated Mr. Allen, who is .the principal owner of the Crown Creek property
died in December of 1994 causing negotiations between Mr. Keusal and Mr.
Alien to cease. William Riddick and Mr. Keusal are attempting to negotiate
with the heirs of the estate and are requesting that the matter be tabled .for
one additional month with. the understanding that a decision will be made
at the Board's February 16, 1995 meeting. If the Board is not inclined to
38
B~oK ~ 16 P~~E 18'?
table the matter for one. additional month they would request that the
request for the exception be withdrawn.
County Attorney Crook advised that the Board. has a time limit on
tabling zoning amendment matters, but this is a request for. an exception,
so the Board can table the matter again.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board table the matter until the February
16, 1995 meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated the trash collection site in Carrsville
has been experiencing problems with unlawful dumping and the Board had
previously requested the Director of Public. Works to monitor the site. In
recent conversations with citizens in the area, Carrsville now has residents
from Chesapeake dumping yard waste because they .can dump their
materials cheaper here than leaving it on the roadside for the City of
Chesapeake to pick up because they charge them. Vice Chairman Bradshaw
stated we have contractors that are continually dumping shingles and other
construction materials every weekend and I recently found one of the
containers completely filled with tires. Vice Chairman Bradshaw indicated
there is a disabled individual who has spoken with him who has offered to
issue tickets to individuals if provided appropriate authority to do so. Most
occurrences happen on weekends and it has been suggested that the site be
locked up at night and opened again in the mornings, stated Vice Chairman
Bradshaw. Perhaps. if we could get the word out that the County is
monitoring the site the abuse would stop. The site is currently fenced with
double gates.
Supervisor Spivey asked if it would be possible to ask the Director of
Public Works to randomly station a community service worker there to
observe.
Lud#ord T. Creef, III, Director of Public Works, stated most of the
abuse occurs during the night. He further stated the site can be locked if
the Board desires although he does not have any personnel stationed near
the site. There is a sheriff's office located nearby that could possibly be
utilized, stated Mr. Creef.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated the County may be able to work out
a contract with Mr. Grant.
Chairman Cofer stated the legalities of the matter could be worked out
with the County Attorney. In Southampton County at one of the remote
.sites they simply put a sign stating the site would be closed at a certain
time and locked the site for two weeks, stated Chairman Cofer. He added
that the dumping was eliminated and now the site is unlocked all the time
although the sign has been left up.
Supervisor Bradshaw requested the Director of Public Works to
pursue locking the site at night in an attempt to discourage unlawful
dumping.
39
BnOK 16PAGE,LU~
~~
Chairman Cofer called for New Business.
1
1
Supervisor Spivey thanked Public Works and associated staff for their
efforts on a complaint he received from a citizen concerning the main
highway corridor in and around the Courthouse. The area was cleaned up
quickly and he is sure the citizen feels like she received a good response.
//
Chairman Cofer called for Appointments.
Supervisor Spivey moved the Board appoint Donald T. Robertson to
fill the unexpired term of Myles E. Standish on the Western Tidewater
Community Mental Health and Retardation Services Board which expires
in December of 1995. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Chairman Cofer moved the Board reappoint Anne B. Martin
representing the Smithfield District on the Commission on Aging for an
additional three-year term which will expire in January of 1998. The motion
was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Chairman Cofer moved the Board reappoint Ida B. Kerney
representing the Smithfield District on the Commission. on Aging for an
additional three-year term which will expire in January of 1998. The motion
was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Chairman .Cofer moved the Board reappoint Lawrence Pitt
representing the Smithfield- District on the Planning Commission for- an
additional four-year term which will expire in February of 1999.. The
motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board reappoint Edna R. King
representing the Carrsville District on the Planning Commission for an
additional four-year term which will expire in February of 1999. The
motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board reappoint Sandra Freeman
to the Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Project for an additional one-
year term which will expire in January of 1996. The motion was adopted
unanimously (5-0).
Supervisor Bradby stated the Equalization Board is interested in
knowing why the rate of compensation for their Board dropped from. $75
to $50.
County Attorney Crook stated the Board's policy was $50 per meeting
which included the Equalization Board. The Reassessment Board received
$75 along with the Equalization Board in the .past which was brought to the
Board's attention and this Board decided to pay at a rate of $50.
40
800% ~„V PAUf ~U
Supervisor Spivey asked if the expiration date for the Planning
Commission was effective the end of, or first of, February.
Chairman Cofer replied the end of the month; however, the Planning.
Commission meets between now and February.
County Administrator Caskey noted the election of officers for the
Planning Commission will occur at their February meeting.
County Attorney Crook stated if Supervisor Spivey can make his
nomination before the February meeting of the Planning Commission he
should if the appointment willexpire in February.
Supervisor Spivey moved the Board reappoint Francis S. Griffin
representing the Windsor District on the Planning Commission for an
additional four-year term which will expire in February of 1999. The
motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Supervisor Spady stated he has not yet spoken with Robert Leber and
moved the Board reappoint Robert Leber representing the Newport District
on the Planning Commission for the February .1995 meeting. The motion
was adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Administrator Caskey read a letter received from William M.
Camp, Jr. noting his resignation from the Industrial Development Authority.
Supervisor Bradshaw moved. the Board appoint Joel C. Bradshaw, Jr.
to fill the unexpired term of William M. Camp, Jr. which will expire in
April of 1996. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
County Attorney Crook stated Supervisor Spivey was recently
nominated for an appointment to the Western Tidewater Regional Jail Board
and he had questioned whether this might be a conflict of interest. Mr.
Crook stated he has spoken with the probation department who contacted
the Assistant Attorney General and they have. indicated that it is not a
conflict under the State's Conflict of Interest Act.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board appoint Lud L. Spivey to the
Western Tidewater Regional Jail Board as an alternate. The .motion was
adopted unanimously (5-0).
f/
Chairman Cofer called for approval of the December 15,1994 minutes.
County Attorney Crook stated he recommends the minutes to the
Board, however, he understands some of the Board members .may have
individual comments, but he has no problems with the minutes as
presented.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated that on page 30 in his motion where
he stated "Supervisor Bradshaw further moved that the Board establish a
41
1
1
1
u
1
Bf10K ~6 PAGE 18~
committee under the direction of the County Administrator" he intended
to give the County Administrator the authority to establish a committee of
employees. Vice Chairman Bradshaw asked the County Attorney if this is
the proper wording because the Board is not going to establish a committee,
rather the Board has given the County Administrator the authority to do
that.
County Attorney Crook stated if Vice Chairman Bradshaw wanted to
do that by a separate action he could, but the minutes are reflecting what
was done at the meeting. If your motion at that meeting was that the
County Administrator form such a committee, only then should the
minutes be so corrected.
Vice Chairman Bradshaw stated he asked for clarification and the
motion was to give the County Administrator the authority to establish a
committee.
Supervisor Spivey stated he has mentioned to the Assistant Clerk one
correction on page 23, but after looking at the word again, realized it is
appropriate. In the paragraph involving the City of Norfolk and their
statement to the County it noted Cryptosporidiosis and he was thinking it
should have been the other term Cryptosporidium, but he now believes this
word to be appropriate.
Supervisor Spivey noted page 36 he intended to abstain from voting
on his appointment when the Board appointed him to the .Public Service
Authority.
Chairman Cofer stated Supervisor Spivey can vote for himself.
Supervisor Spivey stated he hoped that he abstained because this is
what he intended to do.
Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the December 15, 1994
minutes as amended on page 30 to reword the motion to state "the Board
gives the County Administrator the authority to establish a committee" and
on page 36 to reflect that Supervisor ,Spivey intended to abstain from voting
on his appointment to the Public Service Authority. The motion was
adopted unanimously (5-0).
//
County Attorney Crook requested an executive. session pursuant. to
Sections 2.1-344 A3 and 7 of the Freedom of Information Act for discussion
on acquisition and/or use of property for public purposes, advice of counsel
and staff on potential litigation and advice of counsel on other matters
involving legal advice.
County Administrator Caskey requested an executive session pursuant
to Section 2.1-344 Al of the Freedom of Information: Act concerning
potential litigation and a personnel matter.
enoK~ ~6 PACE 186
At 9:40 p.m., Supervisor Spivey moved the .Board enter executive
session for the reasons stated by the County Attorney and .County
Administrator.. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0)
At .11:15 p.m., upon returning to open session, Vice Chairman
Bradshaw 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 Supervisors.
VOTE
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0
ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
Supervisor Spady moved the Board adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FOUR THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-SEVEN DOLLARS FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND
TO THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATIONAL
AUTHORITY FOR THE COUNTY FAIR
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight,
Virginia has approved expenditures for the County fair; and,
WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of four thousand four hundred eighty-
seven dollars ($4,48 need to be appropriated from the unappropriated
fund. balance to the County fair line item in the 199495 budget of the
43
1
1
7
BIIOK 16 PAGE 1H 1
County of Isle of Wight.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that four thousand
four hundred eighty-seven dollars ($4,487) from the unappropriated fund
balance be appropriated to the County fair line item in the 1994-95 budget
of the County of Isle of Wight.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the County.
of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate accounting
adjustments in the budget and to do all things necessary to give this
resolution effect.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-Q):
Supervisor Spady moved the Board withdraw the advertisement of the
Johnson site for use as a trash convenience center due to public. sentiment.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
//
At 11:16 p.m., there being no further business for discussion by the
Board, Vice Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board adjourn. The motion
was adopted unanimously (5-0).
~_~~~~
Malcolm T. Cofer, Ch irman
W. Dou as askey,
44