02-22-2000 Continued Meeting90~K 1e7 r„~:~' 74
CONTINUED MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD
OF .SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF
FEBRUARY IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND
PRESENT: Phillip A. Bradshaw, Chairman
Henry H. Bradby, Vice Chairman
Robert C. Claud, Sr:
Stan D. Clark
Richard K. MacManus
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
Carey H. Mills,. Recording Secretary
Chairman .Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. for the
purpose of conducting a work session on the Comprehensive Plan. and
related issues. of growth management.
/I
Chairman Bradshaw deviated from the regular agenda and addressed a
recent incident that had occurred with the Isle of Wight Volunteer Rescue
Squad in which there was a non-response. He recommended that
Supervisors Claud and MacManus meet .with the two (2) .respective
committees. of the Towns of Windsor and Smithfield to discuss how the
respective Towns would propose to proceed on this. issue and then meet with
the two (2) rescue squads..
Supervisor MacManus concurred with Chairman Bradshaw's
comments and invited Richard O. Childress, the County's Director of
Emergency Management to participate in the meetings.
Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the County Administrator/Director
of Human Resources, stated personnel .has been- hired for the Smithfield
Volunteer Fire Department, the Isle of Wight Rescue Volunteer Squad and
the Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department. He pointed out that daytime
coverage will not be a cure for all of the .issues. affecting fire and rescue
personnel. He stated the Board has appropriated funding to provide staffing
and such staffing is currently in place .for daytime calls. which are being
responded to.
Chairman Bradshaw moved that. the Board appoint a committee of
Supervisors Claud and MacManus, County Administrator .Caskey and
Richard O. Childress to meet with the Smithfield and Windsor Town
Council's respective emergency committees and that such meeting take
1
1
1
1
a~~~r 1~ -, .: 75
place as quickly as possible. The motion was adopted with Supervisors
MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the
motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
//
[]
Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning and Zoning, updated the
Board on the status of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's objectives
for growth management.
Chairman Bradshaw requested that the development service districts
be broken down and that existing zonings be shown on an additional set of
maps. He further requested that areas which have already been rezoned. and
are not yet developed also be laid out in map form. He stated he would like
to be able to see the existing infrastructure already in place, specifically
highly developed communities, to show the type of transportation system,
i.e., existing. roads, and whether utilities are in place. He stated he would
like information to be forwarded to the libraries and the public schools as
the Board moves down the path to adopting its planning policies.
1
Supervisor Clark stated the Board's purpose should be to gain a
handle on large residential developments that have the: potential to overload
and stress the County's facilities, i.e., schools, police, fire and rescue. He
requested that staff advise the Board of any forms of development that are
planned over the next five (5) to ten (10) years, as well as staff's
recommendation on what can be done to eliminate any additional damage
from occurring.
Supervisor Bradby requested staff' discuss the area of prof~'ers and the
Board's legal ability when rezoning.
Mr. Hartley stated the Comprehensive Plan is a process by which the
community arrives at a consensus about its future. He stated citizen
involvement is an important component of putting together a successful
Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Comprehensive Plan is a guide for staff,
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors by which decisions
are made. He stated the County is located within the Chesapeake Bay area
and is governed by requirements within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Act as to what the Comprehensive Plan is required to contain. He stated the
Comprehensive Plan is the legal foundation for growth management.
1
Responding to Chairman. Bradshaw's inquiry if the Board downzones
a block of land in a particular district,. but approves it in another district, are
there legal implications, County Attorney Crook advised that if the Board
downzones property in a service district which is zoned for development, the
Board must have a good reason as that area is earmarked .for water and
sewer services and development.
2
g'J^R ~:.7 ~"'.~ 76
Mr. Hartley stated downzoning in areas outside of the County's new
proposed development service districts is defensible if the right foundation
is laid out in the Comprehensive Plan.
Supervisor Clark inquired at what stage in the process is the
Norsworthy tract.
Mr. Hartley stated there is no development at this point and at this
time, the .tract of land is located in .the County's development service
district.
Responding to Chairman Bradshaw's .inquiry, Mr. Hartley discussed
the process by which an applicant might rezone a particular property. He
encouraged the Board to revisit the fees for rezonings.
Supervisor Claud requested staff prepare a proposal for the Board's
consideration for raising the fees for rezonings.
Mr. Hartley noted there are some instances where.the Board may not
want to charge the full. fee such as when an applicant has a hardship or other
justification.
Ms. Seward noted that each year the County's. consultant prepares an
indirect cost allocation for the County which takes into consideration the
Planning Zoning .Department. She noted that for a nominal fee she could
request a user fee study be accomplished. Ms. Seward noted she would
obtain the necessary information and come back to the Board.
Chairman Bradshaw voiced .his concern with the situation of a
property owner .whose home was completely destroyed by Hurricane Floyd:
and who did not understand that the County would not approve .his zoning
boundary plat because when the. land was .surveyed the amount of land. was
larger than advertised irr the newspapers for public hearing. He stated that
because the survey came back at 1.4 acres, but only one (l) acre was
advertised during the rezoning, the owners must now go back through the.
entire rezoning process.
Supervisor Clark stated it appears applicants do not want to pay to
have surveys completed until they know the zoning will be approved. In this
regard, he stated. if applicants estimate high in acreage, rather than low, this
problem will be eliminated. He suggested staff in the Department of
.Planning. and Zoning could discuss this aspect with citizens applying for
rezonings.
Regarding the situation discussed by Chairman Bradshaw, Mr. Hartley
advised the Board that the applicants originally intended to rezone one (l)
acre, however, when they got ready to survey the lot, they realized they
3
needed more, to get a suitable septic perk site and the lot size, in this case,
was expanded in order to get the perk site, which was not included in the
rezoning request.
County Attorney Crook explained. that something else to consider in
situations such as these is that when the property owner goes to get the
necessary financing to build. their home and a title. examination is done and
the title examiner finds one (l) acre zoned residential, but it is really 1.5
acres, the title examiner will note an objection to the zoning, which will
have to cleared up before financing can be obtained.
Chairman Bradshaw questioned whether the County is .catering to
developers or trying to work with the general public. He expressed his
frustration stating he had met with two (2) residents that were left with
nothing after Hurricane Floyd and he is concerned about their welfare as the
response he received is that they have had no support or help from the
County. He requested that a survey requirement be performed first.
Mr. Hartley stated staff is in the process of developing an
informational booklet to guide the general public through the process. He
noted he would speak further with Chairman Bradshaw regarding his
concern.
County Attorney Crook noted the previous Director of Planning and
Zoning felt it was unnecessary to make a citizen incur the expense of a
survey before the applicant's rezoning was considered by the Board, as the
rezoning could be turned down by the Board.
Supervisor MacManus recommended that .the Department of Planning
and Zoning issue a guidance document to help residents through the.
rezoning process and that the Board. review the. draft first to ensure it is
simple. enough for the general public to follow.
/I
Mr. Hartley briefed the Board on the-five (5) basic objectives which
staff follows relative to the updated Comprehensive Plan. He noted the Plan
Advisory .Committee consists of five (5) members from the Planning
Commission, one (1) from each election district, and two (2) citizens from
each election district.
Supervisor MacManus noted the slow pace of the Comprehensive
Development Plan process to date and recommended that staff speed up the
process for this critical. document.
Mr. Hartley briefed the Board on the regionally .based projections by
the .Hampton Roads Planning District Commission for population in .the
County which is projected to be 35,000 by 2020. lfe stated he believes
4
8~~ti ~.~ ~r~s ~~
these projections to be low. He stated Tony Redman of Redman/JolYnston
Associates is projecting over 40,000 by 2020 which is based upon. -the
County's .current and historical rate of growth and how this rate has
increased over the last twenty (20) years.
Mr. Redman advised the Board that if he used the population
projections of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission he would -
be -very concerned that. the County would not be adequately planning for
anticipated growth. He stated he would rather prepare the Board for more
than what will actually materialize so that the County can consider its
..infrastructure.
//
Mr. Hartley discussed the aspects. of the draft revision of goals and
objectives, as edited by the Advisory Committee, for. the Board's
information.
//
Regarding the progress of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Hartley noted
three (3) community meetings were held with the intent . to receive
comments from the public. He noted he feels strongly that the new Plan
needs to be more detailed in terms of general classifications of land use.. Mr.
Hartley briefed the Board on the proposal by the Citizens Advisory.
Committee on the various development service districts.
//
On motion of Chairman Bradshaw, which carried unanimously (5-0),
the Board took aten-minute recess. Upon returning to open session, Mr.
Redman recommended staff utilize the County's web site to place
information about the Plan as it is being processed. Mr. Redman addressed
the Board. concerning the concept of developing town. centers with higher
density of development and utilizing many of the concepts of traditional
neighborhood development.
Supervisor Clark stated Mr. Redman's concept of town centers
appears to be inviting growth in high-density communities in the Newport
District. He stated he has a problem with the designation of a large portion
of the Newport District as a service district because of this concept.
Supervisor Claud stated the alternative, if there is too much area in
any of these districts designated for residential development, is to reduce the
size of the district or change the land use within those districts.
Chairman Bradshaw noted that the County can not afford to have too
many residents move into it because the County can not keep up with the
S
90~~ 1'~ . ~ 7~
services and the Board would have to increase the tax rates that will
discourage moving into the County, which will cause residents to begin
leaving the County.
1
Mr. Hartley stated there is a trade-off with density in that the higher
the density, the more cost-effective it is. He explained that five (5) acre lots
substantially increase the cost of services to that household, i.e., fire, school.
bus transportation, to serve that single-family residence. He stated the larger
the lots, the more expensive the services.
Chairman Bradshaw stated the Board is talking quality of life verses
the size of residential development.
Mr. Redman stated another issue is the efficiency with which the land
base of the County is used. Mr. Redman stated he believes some of the
ideas need to be reconsidered based on the Board's discussion today, but if
the Board decreases the size of the service districts too much, the growth
will come out somewhere else.
Mr. Hartley stated he would provide the Board with additional
information on the cost of sprawl development.
1
Chairman Bradshaw stated. he is interested only in incremental cost,
which is the additional cost above and beyond what the County has at this
time.
Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Hartley advised that in the
Commonwealth of Virginia there is not a consistency rule in that when the
Board zones a parcel of property it does not have to be consistent with the
County's Comprehensive Plan.
County Attorney Crook stated the Comprehensive Plan is a guideline
for the Board to utilize in directing growth, that is, where high density
commercial, industrial and residential growth will be located. He stated the
Board is not bound to this Plan, but when.. the Board makes its zoning.
decisions, they are much more defensible if the decisions are in accordance
with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
1
Responding to Supervisor Bradby's comment that the individual seller
is -not selling lots for individual gain, unlike a developer, Mr. Hartley
explained the concept of the cash proffer study. He stated each lot bears the
same capital cost to serve it. He stated .that if the Board updates the cash
proffer study, staff will need to look at the difference between the developer
versus individual or single lot development versus subdivision development.
Mr. Hartley noted the information relayed by the Board today is a
major shift in direction from previous Boards. He advised that he does not
have sufficient staffto do long-range planning.
6
8^^f J.'J .' J~
Supervisor. Claud stated he would rather Mr. Hartley notify the Board
that he can not. meet a particular deadline than. know from the beginning that
a deadline will not be met. He requested Mr. Hartley be realistic to the
Board on .what can be accomplished, but. know that the .Board wants the
items expedited
Chairman Bradshaw stated the Board. is simply setting deadlines and
goals today.. He requested Mr. Hartley not advise .the Board he needs
additional staffing at this point until he has had an opportunity to review the
items and determine what they will require in the form of staffing.
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board direct staff to report back to
the Board in March on how to achieve the following items, to include a total
cost impact:
1. Comprehensive Plan: Accelerate timetable. to July, 2000 with a
draft by May, 2000. Downsize the service districts, particularly
the northern district. Provide land use details within the service
districts. Define the basis .premises again with growth. and
density.
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to provide the land use controls
needed to reflect the Comprehensive Development Plan by
December, 2001.
3. Revise the Subdivision regulations by December, 2001.
4. Comprehensive Street and Road Master Plan by December,
2002.
5. Sewer and Water Master Plan: The Director of Public Utilities
to bring back by June, 200.1.
6. Open Space and Greenway Plan by December, 2002.
7. Creation of Community Land Trust by December, 2002.
8. Capital Improvement Program by June, 2000
9. Individual Lot and Multiple Lot Cash.. Proffer Impact Fee .Study
by December, 2000.
10. Water Sewer Connection Fee Study to be presented by
December, 2000 with the: Director of Public Utilities budgeting
accordingly.
11. User Fee Study by DMG to be presented by June, 2000.
1
1
7
~~:~f 1~ -,:, 81
12. Guidance document for citizens to follow zoning process to be
placed on the web site and achieved by December, 2000.
The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby,
Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
Supervisor MacManus recommended the Board meet with the
Planning Commission in March, 2000 after the Board adopts some measures.
and communicate the Board's thoughts on growth management, as well as
the Board's expectation on what the .Board would like to see the Planning
Commission doing.
//
Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board direct the County Attorney to
advertise the Carrsville District School Board member appointment
simultaneously with the two (2) at large members at the same Board meeting
in March. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby,
Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no
Supervisors voting against the motion.
//
1
Supervisor MacManus moved the Board continue its meeting until
Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. at .the Hardy Elementary School
for the purpose of conducting a Town Meeting. The motion was adopted
unanimously (5-0).
Ph' ip A. Bradshaw, Chairman
. d
W. Doug key, Clerk
1
8