Loading...
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