Loading...
06-01-1998 Continued Meetingsoon •~.8 ~a^~ ~. 1 CONTINUED MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT PRESENT: Robert C. Claud, Sr., Chairman O. A. Spady, Vice-Chairman Malcolm T. Cofer Phillip A. Bradshaw Henry H. Bradby Also Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the County Administrator/Director of Human Resources Melinda Goodwyn, Acting Recording Secretary Chairman Claud called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of holding a work session to discuss the proposed Graymor application. 1 // Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning and Zoning, distributed an outline of topics for discussion, a summary of the citizens' comments, and a: summary of the status of the Norsworthy tract. Mr. Hartley explained that the. rezoning, which occurred in 1974, was done in block diagram with the balance of the property being left as open space. Mr. Hartley explained the original approval in 1974 contained an agreement that certain items between the developer and the Board would be returned to the Board which was done in 1975 and approved as an addendum to the rezoning. County Attorney Crook asked Mr. Hartley if staff had recommended to the developer that they include all the property in the new application for rezoning. Mr. Hartley replied affirmatively. 1 County Attorney Crook explained to the Board it is the County's policy that all the property be included in the conditional rezoning so that if there are conditions on the remaining property they can be enforced as conditions of the entire rezoning. Supervisor Spady requested the Board members be provided a comparison on the amount of buildable acres in the original rezoning and. those in this rezoning. Mr. Hartley noted he would provide the Board with a comparison based on the developer's calculations which will compare what was documented in 1974 in the zoning application versus the table of land the developers are proposing to 1 enoK 18 part Z develop at this time. Mr. Hartley commented that a number of individuals have stated that the proposed rezoning is located in the Development Service District which is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hartley noted that the Comprehensive Plan carries many more policies than just the Development Service Districts being the growth areas, such as developments paying their fair share of services. Mr. Hartley stated the proffered conditions offer some binding aspects in that a portion of the area is proffered to be only single family residential and that a portion of the land will be primarily owner occupied housing. Mr. Hartley noted the more information the community has, the easier it will be for the community to understand and accept what is being proposed. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Mr. Hartley provide the Board with a detailed list of what the Planning Commission was reviewing relative to a master plan. p Regarding environmental issues, Mr. Hartley noted the developer will be preparing a water .quality impact assessment and the developer has proffered that 'I such an assessment will be prepared prior to any further development. on the • ProPertY• Supervisor Bradshaw requested that Mr. Hartley provide~him with a list of unresolved issues, such as endangered species. Regarding fiscal impacts, Mr. Hartley referred to Mr. Lawson's original submittal which was included in the development plan, as well as two (2) reports prepared by Tischler and Associates. Chairman Claud noted a desire to have the consulting firm appear before the Board to discuss the fiscal impact study and answer any questions. Responding to Supervisor Bradshaw's inquiry regarding whether the Commissioner of Revenue's concerns have been addressed, Mr. Hartley noted most of his concerns were resolved during a meeting held with the development team, Tischler and County staff, however, he would make Tischler aware of any outstanding issues. Regarding Supervisor Bradshaw's inquiry of how close the County is in agreement with the developers on the fiscal impact analysis, Mr. Hartley noted there is wide disagreement at this point in time. Mr: Hartley noted the developer's original number was $4+ million over ten (10) years and Tischler's was $9 million over twenty (20) years. Mr. Hartley stated the Board could accept or reject the numbers or the Board could request Tischler rerun the numbers. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Mr. Hartley provide the Board with a list of the major issues and -the .differences between the developer and Tischler to use C7 1 2 B~~K j,V ~Q!:r 3 as a guide when Tischler appears before the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Mr. Hartley prepare a financial impact in terms of the value of the conditions, to include what the cost is above and beyond the cost to serve the development. Regarding utilities, Mr. Hartley was requested by Supervisor Spady to provide the Board with a report on the worth of the utilities, above and beyond what the County may contribute. Supervisor Cofer pointed out that by ordinance it will be a function of Graymor to run all utility lines to Graymor and, in turn, dedicate the lines (both water and sewer) and pumping station to the County. The County will also pick, up all tap fees, both water and sewer, at no expense, pointed out Supervisor Cofer. Supervisor Cofer requested E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Director of Public Utilities, provide a synopsis to the Board regarding the issue of salt water intrusion. 1 Chairman Claud inquired if the County's established connection fees could be increased and still apply to the Graymor application. ..County Attorney Crook replied "yes" if the County elected to raise the connection fees for the entire County. Chairman Claud stated the Health Department has changed its rulings and the water the County thought it would have available is not available and he would like the Director of Public. Utilities to address any impact this will this have on the application. Regarding public safety, Mr. Hartley noted the issue of fire services and the belief that a new fire station and different equipment will be necessary, as well as the need for a staffed fire station in this area. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Mr. Hartley solicit the Sheriffs comments on the proposed application. 1 Regarding the issue of schools, Mr. Hartley noted he needed to further evaluate the issue of students attending. private schools and how this affects the numbers. Mr. Hartley stated the developer has proffered that it will contribute a 24 acre parcel and convey the. property plus $50,000 for utilities or $225,000. County Attorney Crook stated the School Board's position is by letter from Dr. Jane T. York, School Superintendent, dated November 26, 1997 where they were asking for twenty-four (24) acres at a location acceptable to the School Board. The developer could reserve the right to buy back the twenty-four (24) acres site at the current market value if not used to construct a school. The School Board had a problem with the school being located in the middle of the 3 800n ~O YA;t development as originally proposed because they might want the school to be more centrally located for the area and there would not be problems with access to and from the school.. County Attorney Crook. noted Graymor made a proposal and the School Board responded and the proposal was modified, but Graymor ;never met the School Board's request entirely. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Mr. Hartley reaffirm the position of the School Board and inquire what the operational impact will be if the school projects its operating budget based on current enrollment versus the projected enrollment from Graymor and what kind of financial impact this would be. Regarding instructional programs, Supervisor Bradshaw asked Mr. Hartley to also inquire from the School Board how this amount of increase in students will impact the instructional program. Regarding roads and transportation, Mr. Hartley recommended the Board consider other means of transportation on site such as bicycle paths and sidewalks so that the County maintains the efficiency of the road network for cars. Regarding the traffic shady, Supervisor Cofer requested Mr. Hartley request a report from the two (2) consulting firms and provide the Board with same regarding the rate of growth. Regarding the impact on the County's road maintenance program, Supervisor Bradshaw asked Mr. Hartley provide an analysis on how this will impact the remaining rural portions of the County. Supervisor Bradshaw noted he would rather see the school built in low traffic areas and it would be ideal to have the school site determined prior to the development so that transportation needs could be built around the location of the school. Regarding parks and recreation, Mr, Hartley noted there will be an amenities package. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Mr. Hartley request an analysis from the Director of Parks and Recreation concerning how the proposed development will impact the County's current recreational programs. , Chairman Claud requested that the "amenities package" be more specific as to what would be contained in the package.. Regarding site design and land use, Mr. Hartley noted the sooner the commercial development comes on line the better off fiscally the County will be. Mr. Hartley recommended additional detail be provided that would address some of the concerns of citizens and staff. Chairman Claud asked what tool the County has to ensure that there is a relationship between the commercial and residential growth in this development. 4 aooK ~~ racc 5 ~~ County Attorney Crook stated the Board could request voluntary proffers. Following Supervisor Cofer's comment that the City of Hampton is committing $10,000,000 towards asuper-center, Supervisor Bradshaw requested that the Director of Economic Development prepare an analysis on the impacts of the commercial development taking place on the Peninsula. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended the Board obtain an independent counsel to address the vested rights issue and advise the Board of its options. County Attorney Crook noted the Board has had a request for independent counsel and the Board could have an independent counsel give them a report.. He would be glad to provide the Board with a written opinion citing the authorities. The Board rezoned property for residential use in 1974 that was not developed and in 1997 the Board again rezoned it for residential/commercial use. In 1997, if the Board had been of the opinion that it wanted to downzone that property because of change of conditions that would justify it, then the Board could have done so. If the Board does not let the property develop the way it is zoned, the Board is, in effect, downzoning, advised County Attorney Crook. . SupervisorBradshaw noted the Board has the following options: approve the application as presented; deny the application; approve it with specific proffers; or, rezone the property, Supervisor Bradshaw stated .the Board must look at all options available. Chairman Claud noted that while this is no reflection on the part of the County Attorney, there is a need and obligation on the part of the Board to do what the citizens have requested in the form of hiring an independent counsel. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the. Board request the County Attorney provide the Board with a list of individuals considered experts in the field for the Board's consideration. The motion was adapted as follows: Claud, Cofer, Bradby; Bradshaw and Spady voting in favor of the motion; none voting against. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended staff prepare a summary of the discussion tonight and present the Board with a time table for its consideration. // Supervisor Cofer moved the Board adjourn at 8:25 p.m. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). ~~ Robert C. Claud, Sr., Chairman W. Dou s key, Clerk 5