01-07-1997 Continued Meeting80~~ 17.~ 111
CONTINUED MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HELD THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY IN THE YEAR
NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN
PRESENT: Phillip A. Bradshaw, Chairman
Henry H. Bradby, Vice Chairman
O. A. Spady
Robert C. Claud, Sr.
Malcolm T. Cofer
Also Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney
W. Douglas Casket', County Administrator .
Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the
County Administrator/Director of Human
Resources
Carey. H. Mills, Assistant Clerk
Chairman Bradshaw called the. continued meeting to order. at 2:00
p.m. and called for Old Business.
//
R. Bryan David, Director of Planning and. Zoning, stated the proposed
Zoning Ordinance provides for .lots to be created by choosing the sliding
scale option or the clustering option.
1
County Attorney Crook stated he had expressed his concerns that the
Districts as drawn on the maps did not correctly define .the areas which
would be developed because of availability of sewer and water. He had
argued at that time that.. the Development Districts boundaries included too
much farm land. that would not be developed in the near future. He stated
further that now that the Zoning Ordinance was being adopted, if the
zoning in the Development Districts were changed to higher intensity uses,
the land values would be so high that the farms could not be used for
farming and would have to be sold for development. On the other hand,
the farm land in the rest of the County, outside of the Development
Districts, would be reduced in value because of the limitations. on
development which would have a serious impact on local taxation. He
stated he had met with Mr. David who advised him that Mr. David
planned to have the new zoning maps, to be approved by the Board, to
reflect comparable zoning. to the current zoning and not to up-zone in the
Development Districts. Also, that the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed
and updated to more correctly. define. the areas of development to be
included in the Development Districts.
Supervisor Spady stated he has a problem with part of the
Agricultural Conservation District being in the Development District.
i
Supervisor Cofer stated if agricultural land, regardless of location,
stays in the development district it may be high value, but the farmer will
pay taxes based on land use value.
aa~K 17.;,.112
County Attorney Crook stated the true market value of the property
will be tremendously different under the new ordinance in the Agricultural
and Development Districts... County Attorney Crook stated under the new
ordinance -the Board will be changing how land. is valued.
County Administrator Caskey noted the County has a Capital
Improvements Program which also impacts the value of property.
Supervisor Cofer stated there are. good reasons for the difference in
valuation as to why some lands are $10,000 per acre because a property
owner does not have to dig wells, install septic tanks and pay for roads.
Supervisor Claud stated if the County is going to work on a concept
that is designating growth in certain areas of the County, then the. Board
has no choice but to do what it is proposing to do. Supervisor Claud stated
the Board is attempting to manage growth in certain areas of the County
where it hopes to have utilities in the future and obviously all land in the
County is not going to be the same value when this is done.
Supervisor Bradby stated the Board. should be fair to all citizens of the
County. Supervisor Bradby stated the Board, at their previous meeting,
approved an application which allowed three homes to be built upon. one
acre, but an applicant was recommended for denial by the Planning
Commission to the Board of Supervisors when he requested four homes be
built upon one hundred (100) acres.
Supervisor Spady asked Mr. David to elaborate on how many homes
an applicant could build on one hundred (100) acres under the proposed
Zoning Ordinance..
Mr. David stated a one hundred (100) acre tract of land, under the
sliding scale, could maximize four lots and family member transfers are not
subject to that so potentially there could be nineteen (19) lots. Regarding
Supervisor Bradby's concern, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a public
hearing on the specific. application at its next meeting. The Planning
Commission's decision in recommending denial of that .application was
because the location was in an .area of the County that is removed from
services and was not suited for any type of development or four lots. at one
time. Under the clustering option, utilizing a one hundred (100) acre tract
of land, if they. only used thirty (30) acres, and they built an internal street,
twenty (20) lots can be yielded.. The Development Service Districts will not
always remain the same, but over time, this was the best window. on twenty
(20) years for what will be suitable for the County. The County is
mandated by law to update its Comprehensive Plan and, at that time, the
Board will review the Plan to determine if it is meeting the growth needs.
Mr. David stated upon the Board taking action on the Zoning Ordinance,
he will begin the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. David stated the subdivision amendment adopted by the Board
in November provides that subdivisions for agricultural, horticultural or
silvicultural forestry purposes are exempt from the Ordinance so that a
farmer, after dividing four (4) lots, can sell or lease the remaining seventy
[l
2
BOOK 1? ~~ ~ ~ ~~
acres of a one hundred (100) acre tract. Mr. David noted the residue
acreage under the clustering option can .allow for one (1) additional
homesite, if the Board desires.
The Board indicated its approval for the residue acreage under the
clustering option to allow for one (1) additional homesite.
Supervisor Claud requested the deed restrictions provisions be deleted
under Section 38-14 of the ordinance.
Mr. David stated he has drafted language to address #his concern
which provides that any further subdivision must be in compliance with the
County's ordinances.
County. Attorney Crook noted twenty (20) acres was an exemption in
the old Subdivision Ordinance, but deleted.
Mr. David noted. twenty (20) acres was included in the original text,
however, he could not think of any advantage or disadvantage in removing
same.
Mr. David noted the Board has already taken action on some sections
of the Ordinance and such action will be incorporated into the proposed
Zoning Ordinance.
1
Supervisor Claud requested Mr. David provide the Board with an
itemized list of proposed changes prior to the next Board meeting.
Mr. David stated he will be prepared to recommend an effective date
for the ordinance to the Board at their next meeting as he will. need time for
the process of updating the zoning maps which involves public briefings
and public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors..
James Joyner of Zuni asked where the growth area was in Carrsville.
Mr. David stated the growth area extends from Carrsville, north and
south of Route 58 Business, and extends northerly halfway between Beaver
Dam Swamp Road and Carrsville Highway.
Mr. Joyner stated the County must allow some building activity in
that area of the County or it will not be able to sustain the Carrsville school
in the future.
James Cobb suggested that .agricultural land qualify for land use. Mr.
Cobb further suggested if the Board intends to raise it from ten (10) acres
that it consider fifteen (15) acres and make it equal for everyone.
f
Mr. David stated in an effort to address Mr. Cobb's concern the Board
could establish fifteen (15) acres of overall tract size and reduce the
additional forty (40) acres to thirty-five (35) acres so that a one hundred
(100) acre tract would still yield four (4) lots. In order to further subdivide,
3
eoaK 17 -~;~114
an individual would need at least thirty (30) acres of land and anything less
than that could not be further subdivided, stated Mr. David.
The Board concluded their discussion on the proposed Zoning
Ordinance.
//
Supervisor Claud moved the Board appoint. Ed Hall to the Central
Park Task Force. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
//
Regarding. a letter fax received from Delegate William K. Barlow
dated Tuesday, December 31, 1996, the Board indicated its desire to oppose
any state legislation requiring the County to close schools on Election Day.
//
E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Director of Public Utilities, stated the
Authority previously discussed developer-installed systems receiving a
discount on connection fees. Mr. Rountree distributed a comparison of
adjoining localities illustrating discounts given for developer installed
connection fees.
Supervisor Spady requested Mr. Rountree provide a report to the
Board prior to its next meeting on whether or not adjoining localities are
doing the same thing with their water systems.
//
County Administrator Caskey referred to a letter received this date
from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Fire Programs, Virginia
Fire Services Board, in response to a letter from the County in November.
County .Administrator Caskey stated the Virginia Fire Services Board has
indicated it will. proceed with the evaluation of the emergency services
provided in the County and are requesting the. County provide letters from
the various five departments agreeing to the request for the study of the
emergency services... .
Supervisor Cofer suggested the County Administrator contact the Fire
and Rescue Association to request a letter be submitted by the Association
on behalf of the various fire and rescue squads.
//
County Attorney Crook stated he has prepared an amendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance concerning the conveyance of water and sewer
systems to the Board of Supervisors -rather than the Public Service
Authority.. County Attorney Crook stated he is also proposing a change in
that the systems that were not located in the Development Service Districts
be .conveyed to the County upon request by the County only.
C
4
soon . 1 ~ ~~:~1~5
Supervisor Cofer moved the Board authorize the County Attorney
advertise the amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance for public hearings.
The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0).
//
1
Supervisor Spady suggested the Planning Commission consider
increasing the minimum lot size from 10,000 square feet.
Supervisor Claud stated single-family lot sizes are small, but he would
rather have single-family on small lots than town houses.
Mr. David stated. the R-3 District provides .for town houses under the
current Zoning Ordinance and the comparable district. under the proposed
Zoning Ordinance is .the Suburban Residential where only single family
houses can occur. Mr. David stated the intent of the Suburban Residential
District is that the density of houses should only go in the activity centers
or some other location that has the ability. to handle the high. density. Mr.
David stated under the proposed Zoning Ordinance town houses and
apartments will be under the Urban Residential District.
//
There being no further. discussion by the Board, Supervisor Cofer
moved the Board adjourn its continued meeting at 3:40 p.m. The motion
was adopted unanimously (5-0).
1
1
~~^ ~~L~
P fillip A. Bra Shaw, Chairman
5