Loading...
02-20-2003 Regular Meetingn 9en~.. jy~ ter. .. ~V1 _ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE, OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTIETH. DAY OF FEBRUARY IN -THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND THREE - PRESENT: Richard K: MacManus, Chairman Stan D. Clark, Vice-Chairman Phillip A. Bradshaw . Henry H. Bradby Robert C. Claud, Sr. ...Also Attending: Jacob P. Stroman, IV, County. Attorney ' W. Douglas Casket', County Administrator Donald T. Robertson, Assistant _ County Administrator/Director of - Human Resources Carey H. Mi11s, Recording Secretary .: Chairman MacManus caned the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. I/ Supervisor Claud delivered the invocation. // The Pledge: of Allegiance was conducted. // - Chairman MacManus called for approval of the agenda. Supervisor Claud moved the Board approve the Agenda: The motion was. adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting- in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.. l/ - Chairman MacManus indicated the Consent Agenda: (Item 2) included the,following items: r A. Actions of the Isle of Wi t Coun Plannin Commission ~ tY 8 Meeting of February 11, 2403 B. ` DEQ/Public Notices C, .The- request of .Isle of Wight Materials ,Company, Inc. and Benn's Church Ice. Cream Parlor o replace a 4' by 16' panel in _ - _ - 1 - ~ 'd. :~} 1 -, ~- _ . an existing cabinet on the .building at 14526 Benn's Church Boulevard, Smithfield, in the St. Luke's Historic District. D. Western Tidewater HOME .Consortium. Agreement E. Resolution to Accept. and Appropriate Funding from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles F. Boykin's Tavern Lecture Series G. Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collection Monthly Report H. January 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes Chairman MacManus asked if there were any items for removal. Supervisor Clark moved the Board remove Items (C), (E) and (F) of the Consent .Agenda and approve all remaining items. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, .Bradshaw,. Clark and Claud .voting in favor of the motion, and no .Supervisors voting against the motion.- a Regarding. Item (C) on the Consent Agenda, the request of .Isle of Wight Materials Company, Inc. and Benn's Church Ice Cream Parlor to replace a 4' by 16' .panel in an existing .cabinet on the building at .:14526 Benn's Church Boulevard, Smithfield, in the St. Luke's. Historic District, Supervisor MacManus expressed his concern with. continuing to approve large signs in the Highway Corridor. Overlay District that he does not believe are in compliance with the appropriate appearance for that community. Supervisor Clark suggested that a representative from the Historical Architectural Committee -could be invited to a future meeting to advise the Board on the criteria by which this Committee arrived at its decision. Supervisor Claud stated if this were a new or ,renovated. building, he would not be in favor of approving it, but it is an existing building and the frame is now empty, and the Board recently approved- another sign with the condition that applied to that sole business. Supervisor Clark stated there are. three (3) existing signs that are not compatible to one other and the Board might. wish to explore how all these signs-could be brought into compliance.. Chairman MacManus .stated he would not be able to support this . request as this sign is a separate sign. Supervisor Bradshaw reminded the Board that it had previously requested that the Director of Planning and Zoning develop a sign ordinance. 2 n eob~ 21 ~~-463 for the Board ~to consider in the interim, rather than waiting on the revisions of the Zoning Ordinance to be complete...He requested Mr. Hartley provide .the Board with the status of the destroyed sign in that same area.- Mr. Hartley stated .that he recalled that. the sign ordinance-was to be addressed during the- rewrite. of the Zoning Ordinance.- He stated that any sign destroyed beyond 50% of its replacement value can not a be replaced unless it is in compliance with today's standards. He stated he has alerted the County's enforcement officer to keep an eye on that location. Supervisor Claud: moved the Board approve Item (C j on the Consent Agenda concerning the .request of Isle of :Wight Materials ..Company, Inc. and Benn's Church Ice Cream Parlor to replace. a 4' by 16' .panel in an existing cabinet- on the building at 14526 Benn's Church Boulevard,- Smithfield, in the St. Luke's. Historic District, .for this -sole business only. The`motion was adopted by a vote. of (4-I) with Supervisors Bradby, Clark, Bradshaw and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and Supervisor MacManus voting .against the. motion.. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board direct Mr. Hartley to .provide the -Board with a .brief presentation next month on the County's sign ordinance and how it is applied. The motion was adopted: by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.. With respect to Item (E) on the Consent Agenda entitled Resolution to Accept and .Appropriate Funding from the Virginia .Department of Motor Vehicles,: Supervisor Clark inquired if these funds are made available to .private,. non-profit sterilization programs. County Administrator Casket' advised these funds are being sent to the Isle of Wight County Humane Society,. as has been _done historically by the County. , Supervisor Clark moved the Board adopt Item.. (E) on the Consent t Agenda entitled Resolution to .Accept and Appropriate Funding from, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with .Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. With respect to Item (F) .on the Consent A ends concernin the g g Boykin's Tavern Lecture Series, Chairman MacManus expressed a :concern with the. charging of a nominal fee to have'citizens attend. He recommended the Board allocate funding from the County's-contingency fund.to cover this fee. covered, thus allowing citizens the opportunity to donate money for Boykin's Tavern,-but attending the lecture series free of charge. He inquired if 5150 would be sufficient to cover the fee anticipated with the lectwes. 3 ~* eQil~ Fri ~w^~~V~ Diane W. Howard, Director of Tourism, stated 5150 would not cover. the cost, but the committee members themselves had intended to donate their own personal funds to cover the cost of small ads in the local. newspapers, with the remaining costs being addressed under the Tourism budget. Supervisor Clark moved the Board approve Item (F) on the Conse~tt Agenda concerning the Boykin's .Tavern Lecture Series.' The motion was adopted by a vote of (S-0) with Supervisors MaeManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, :Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against-the motion.. Chairman MacManus moved the .Board authorize an allocation of $250 from the' Contingency Fund to cover the fee for the advertising costs associated with the Boykin's Tavern Lecture Series. The motion .was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in .favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman MacManus called for Transportation Matters. . County Attorney Stroman noted the Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County to Designate Duck Town Road, Route 648, as a Rural Rustic Road and the Resolution of the. Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County to .Designate .Sandy Ridge Drive, Route 601, as a Rural Rustic Road should be amended in paragraph four (4) to delete "that exceeds" and insert "between fifty (50) and five hundred (500)." Supervisor Claud moved the Board adopt the following Resolution, as amended by the County Attorney in paragraph four (4) to delete "that exceeds" and insert "between fifty (50) and five hundred (500)": RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY TO DESIGNATE DUCK TOWN ROAD, ROUTE 648, AS A RURAL RUSTIC ROAD L WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise § 33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hardsurfacing of certain roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, VDOT has expressed a willingness. to adopt this. concept on a pilot .basis until .the program is fully implemented to assist in developing and defining the guidelines to be .used for the program; and be 4 801( . 21 %~^'~s~ ' evaluated.. by VDOT -with regard. to safety;. resident concerns, and environmental .issues; and WHEREAS, the .Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of, Transportation concurs with this designation, and WHEREAS, Duck Town.Road, Route 648, is located in slow-density development area, and"has a traffic count between 50 and S00' vehicles-per. - day, and WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of any pending development- that. willaffect the existing traffic on this road; and WHEREAS, .Duck Town Road, Route 648, traverses an area known ' for its relaxed .ambiance and should be considered for designation as a Rural Rustic Road, and WHEREAS, Duck,Town Road, Route 648, is included in the six- ear I Y improvement plan for Secondary .Roads. of the State System of Highways for - Isle of Wight County, Virginia: ..NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by he Board of .Supervisors. of .Isle of Wight County; Virginia, we hereby designate Duck Town Road, Route 648, a Rural Rustic Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this-road be hard surfaced and,. to the fullest. extent prudent; be improved within the ex~stmg -right of way and ditch lines to preserve as .much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, -side slopes and rural rustic character along this road. in their .current state. " BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board endeavors `to preserve the - - rural character of this road as it pertains to development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,: thata certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department.- of Transportation.. _ The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) vith Supervisors- MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud.. voting in favor of the • motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion:. ...Supervisor Claud moved the Board adopt the following Resolution, as `amended. by -the. C©unty Attorney in paragraph four (4) to delete -"that exceeds" and insert "bettween fifty (50) and five hwndred X500)": 5 5 _ _ __ _~_:_ - _.___-_____ .a ____._. ~ .~ r ^ eoo~ 21-a~-4fifi RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY TO DESIGNATE SANDY RIDGE DRIVE, ROUTE 601, AS A RURAL RUSTIC ROAD WHEREAS, during. the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise § 33.1-70.1 ofthe Code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hardsurfacing of certain roads deemed to qualify .for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, VDOT has expressed a willingness to adopt .this concept on a pilot basis until the program is fully implemented. to assist in developing and defining the guidelines to be used for the program; and be evaluated by VDOT .with regard to safety, resident concerns, and environmental issues;. and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation concurs with this designation, and WHEREAS, .Sandy Ridge Drive, Route 601, is located iti a low density development area, and has a traffic count between 50 and 500 vehicles per day, and WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of any pending development .that will affect the existing traffic on this road, and WHEREAS, Sandy Ridge Drive, Route 601, traverses an area known for its relaxed ambiance and should be considered for designation as a Rural Rustic Road, and WHEREAS, Sandy Ridge Drive, Route 601, is included in the six-year improvement plan for Secondary Roads of the-State System, of Highways for Isle of Wight County, Virginia: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of ..Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, we hereby designate Sandy Ridge Drive, Route 601, a:Rural Rustic Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced .and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved. within, the existing right of way and ditch lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes and rural rustic character along this road in their current state. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board endeavors to preserve the rural character of this road as it pertains to development. 6 i __.w BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,. that a certified copy of this. resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for- .the Virginia :Department of Transportation. The motion. was adopted by a vote of (S-0) with Supervisors.. MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark .and Claud voting. in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting.. against the. motion a Mr. Randolph- referred to a -letter received from :Bryant .Porter, Engineering Tech, VDOT, in response to:his letter-dated December 9, 2002 to the VDOT Resident: Engineer, advising that VDOT has determined. that the need. for installing curve warning signs is warranted on Bowling Green Road: He stated with respect to Firetower Road- .(Route 644),. that VDOT . would be installing pavement :markings from Tar Road (Route 645} to, Beale Place (Route 646). Supervisor Bradby requested that Mr. Randolph continue to pursue. having Firetower Road stripped to Route 258:. Mr. Randolph noted that. staff' would .have for the Board's consideration at its March 10, 2003 meeting, a draft Six-Year Plan for Secondary Roads` and a Letter of Intent for participating in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY03-04. Supervisor .Bradshaw requested that Mr. Randolph contact -Michael Uzzle of Central Hill and request that he provide him with the location of the - missing :school bus stop sign that VDOT can not locate, and then -..advise VDOT accordingly. Supervisor Clark reminded Mr. Randolph of his previous request that staff contact the VDOT Resident Engineer with respect to Merritt Cove to discuss the road surface issue (stormwater drainage); VDOT maintenance of the ditches parallel to the ,road and right-of-way; the issue- of the lanes on -Route 17; -and, that Mr. Neblett be advised that he be prepared to :.address these issues at his next quarterly presentation to the Board Supervisor Clark requested staff advise VDOT that the ditch on the right side: of Battery Parka Road. needs to be re-ditched -all the :way to the curve at the cemetery at Battery. Park... County.. Administrator Casket' noted -that he had passed along Supervisors Clark's concern to the VDOT Resident Engineer the previous day:. . ii Chairman MacManus called for Citizens Comments. .. 7 . _ _ .. _:. _ : __ _ - - __ :_ _ -- _._ __ - _ . ~:_ _-- - r i i 800u ~~ !MV'~UC7 Henry Bell of Raynor Road advised that portions of Raynor Road contain potholes and the ditch beside his property is in need of cleaning. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that Mr. Randolph follow up with Mr. Bell on his concerns. Sandy Schlaudecker requested that statistics be included in County water bills specifying the amountof garbage that is recycled and not buried in the. landfill. She further requested the Board take action to include in its ordinance a certain number of yards that a firearm may be fired in proximity. to buildings and/or roads. Supervisor Clark moved the Board direct the County Attorney to prepare a memorandum for the Board's consideration informing them of .their options with respect to the discharge of firearms in. close proximity to populated areas and/or residences. The :motion was adopted by a vote of (5- 0)-with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Kory Forrest, Brittany Brown and Kristina Steiger presented the Mission Statement and functions of the Youth Services Advisory Board. Nancy Guill, on behalf of the Isle of Wight Citizens Association, requested the .Board appoint a committee of citizens and staff to begin. ' discussions relative to growth issues in the County. David Barclay, on behalf of the Isle of Wight Citizens Association, informed the Board about existing conditions. at the Carrollton. Convenience Center. He noted that the. center is ,becoming increasingly less convenient to use; that trash and recycling dumpsters are in need of .more frequent emptying; and, ~ that the recycling. dumpsters are of poor design with openings that are too high and do not accommodate gallon milk jugs and. ' laundry detergent jugs. Chairman MacM3nus moved that the Board direct the Public Works Director to develop a plan to address the concerns expressed with respect to the Carrollton Convenience Center. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5- 0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, .and no Supervisors voting against the motion.. ..Supervisor Clark requested the Public Works Director advise Mr. Barclay. of the date he intends to .address the Board on the issue of-the Carrollton Convenience Center so that he can. -plan on attending that meeting. Supervisor Clark noted that he had been .advised by Bill Carter of Rescue that the bridge construction. underway at Jones Creek was originally to raise the roadway at his residence by two (2) feet, but was changed first to 8 six (6) feet,- then to eleven. (11) feet. He .noted, if factual, the Rescue landowners .have been misinformed by VDOT, and the roadway elevation issue may have impacted the Board's decision to approve this project. County Administrator Caskey informed Supervisor. Clark° that he had already addressed the issue with the VDOT Resident Engineer and, s~ awaiting a response back from him on this. matter. // Chairman MacManus called for the County Attorney's .report. County Attorney Stroman noted that he would be requesting a closed meeting. under Section 2.2-3711.A.7 concerning consultation with legal counsel. regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel on the proposed non-exclusive cable -franchise agreement between Isle of Wight County and Wavelength Technologies, LLC, which is included on the agenda under Old Business. County Attorney Stroman noted that. he has- .drafted proposed amendments to the County's. Sewer Ordinance, which is included in the agenda under Public Hearings. .County.-Attorney Stroman noted that the agenda includes a` public hearing on the County's proposed donation. of real property to the .Windsor Athletic Association, as required by the Code of Virginia. He further noted that he had additional copies of the plat for the press at the public. hearing. // Chairman MacManus called for the County Administrator's report. County Administrator Casket' stated responsive to the Board's request, ..contained in the agenda is information concerning a Grants Writer position for the. Board's consideration. Supervisor Claud recommended. that it may be -best if staff first . surveys surrounding. counties- to .determine if they .have grant writer positions; how these positions are utilized; how such a position can be utilized in this county; and, provide back to the Board a report: of staffs findings.. He stated he specifically wanted to know if these localities receive more grants, and their success rates, as a result of having this positon..- Chairman- MacManus recommended that -the school system be included in the potential position of grant writer. Supervisor Claud moved that the Board direct staff to provide the Board with a a~it~ ne/be f t .analysis and contact the County's school s;`rsternt rn 6001 ~~ r~w ~ / 0 and the surrounding counties such as Prince George, York, Southampton and Gloucester, to determine if they have these positions ,and what is involved in administering ..these grants, before the .Board proceeds. with authorizing staff to advertise a grants: writer position. Specifically, do these. localities. receive more grants and their success rates. -The motion was adopted by a vote of {5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting. against the motion. Supervisor Claud further moved .that the Board direct the County Administrator to evaluate the possibility _of the .Director of Emergency .Services making application for fire and rescue grants, and if the Director of Emergency Services does not have the capability of applying for such grants, that he provide the Board with what needs to be done in order for him to be able to apply for such grants. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0} with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman MacManus called for Old Business. A. Proposed Nonexclusive Cable Franchise Agreement between Isle of Wight County and Wavelength Technologies, LLC (Tabled January 16, 2003}. County Attorney Stroman requested. a closed session. under Section 2.2-3711.A.7 concerning consultation with Legal counsel regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel Supervisor Bradshaw moved that Item (A) listed under Old Business follow Item 10, Closed Session, on the Agenda. The motion was adopted by a vote of (S-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting. in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. . B. The application of Mollie G. Turner .Family Limited .Partnership and Bay Sand Company, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to amend .the operation plan of the "Mollie G. Turner Borrow Pit" to increase excavation from thirty. (30) to forty-three (43) acres and extend the life of the permit for five (5) additional years. Said borrow pit is located on the west side of Turner -Drive (Route 644) adjacent to 14182 Turner Drive, Smithfield, in :the Windsor Election District. (Tabled December 19, 2002). Mc. Hartley noted the Board had tabled the application to allow input to be received from the school system and the Town of Smithfield. He stated that included in the .agenda -are letters .from the County's Director of 10 .., eoo~ X21 ~h-471 Economic Development, Superintendent of Schools and Town of Smithfield advising that it is not: taking an ofFicial position at this time. Jeff Gandy, Attorney, noted that the applicant is hoping for a Spring start-up date -for the pit. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board table the application of :Mollie G. Turner Family Limited Partnership and Bay Sand Company, Inc. until the March 20, 2003 meeting to allow.-the Smithfeld Town Council to take an official position on the application:. The motion. was adopted by a` vote of (5- 0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion... C. Approval of the Permit Application for Phase ~ II of the Stormwater Management Program Requirements of DEQ. Mr: Hadley stated the only change deals .with. illicit discharge and .potential elimination aspects of the programs whereby they are staggered throughout the f ve (5) year period. Supervisor Claud moved the Board approve staffs recommendation to approve the text to the permit application and authorize the County Administrator to sign the necessary .documents to complete the VPDES Permit Application to DEQ in order to comply with the requirements as a .Phase II community under the Clean Water Act, subject to the review of the County Attorney, The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and` Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting agamst the motion. County, Administrator Casket' distributed a draft letter dated February 20, 2003 signed by him and addressed to the Honorable J. Randy Forbes in follow up to his request for information on - :the County's ,priorities .for primarytransportation improvements projects.. Supervisor Bradshaw requested' that .the Blackwater ~ Bridge, joining the County and the City of Suffolk, be added to the list. Chairman, MacManus requested that County. Administrator Casket' include in the letter to Congressman Forbes .that the County endorses the widening of South Church Street in the Town of Smithfield. He further - requested Mr. Casket' contact the Smithfield Town, Manager to find ouL if there are any additional..priorities that should. be added. He requested that - staff inquire if the Josiah Parker site is an applicable transportation issue as an historic site. Supervisor Clark moved the Board authorize the County Administrator to .forward .the letter to .Congressman Forbes on behalf of the Board: and include the Blackwater Bridge that joins the County and the City of Il s . soar 2# -r~472 Franldin; that. the County endorses the widening of -South Church Street. located in the Town. of Smithfield and that he contact the Smithfield Town Manager to see if there are any additional priorities; and, inquire if the Josiah Parker site is an .applicable transportation .issue as an historic site. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and. no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor. Clark requested that the Director. of Planning and Zoning investigate and .report back to the Board the status of the dilapidated- home located off Bayview Drive and Sugar Hill Road. // At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board amend the regular order of the agenda in order to conduct the public hearings. -The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Chairman MacManus called for a public hearing on the following ' A. The application of Earl H. Batiste to amend Conditional Suburban Estate zoning of nine (9) acres of land located on the south side of Sugar Hill Road (Route 661) east of Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17) in the Newport Election District. The purpose of the application is for a residential subdivision of no more than nine (9) lots, as conditioned. r Mr. Hartley noted that staff had received revised proffers from .those submitted, at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated the, applicant is now proffering no .more than nine (9) lots; a cash proffer of $6,895. for each lot; that. all the lots will be served by public sewer. and water, agreed to dedicate additional right-of--way so that an improvement can be made to the first curve on Sugar Hill Road without acquiring additional .right-of-way; and, ,that the project- will be initiated within five (5) years of the date of the rezoning or that it will .revert back. to the proffers. County Attorney Stroman stated he has begun, but not completed, the legal research applicable to the proffers issue. He recommended that the Boardcontinue to conduct-the .public hearing, but table it at its conclusion to allow him additional time to complete the research and make a report to the .Board at_its March 20, 2003 meeting. He noted that this is agreeable with the applicant. Chairman MacManus called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed application. 12 ,. _ , 800 21 -;:~r47~ Mark Fisher, .resident of Smithfield, stated Mr. Batiste has shown him the proposed development and it appears to be an appropriate development for the County. Earl H. Batiste, applicant, requested the Board approve his application and presented a letter of support. Chairman MacManus .closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board.. .Supervisor Bradshaw: stated he could not support the application . because the County does. not yet have adequate public facilities in-place to support additional rezonings of any lot size. Supervisor Claud noted- the development is located in the Development Service District and all requirements of the County have.-been met. Chairman MacManus stated the applicant. is offering full cash proffers, as well as road improvements to the right-of way on Sugar-Hill Road. He noted that the- proffer of a sunset clause may be ,the first in the State of Virginia. Supervisor Bradby voiced. no concerns with the application and noted that he would await the County Attorney's comments at the- Board's March 20, 2003 meeting. Supervisor. Clark moved the. Board -table the application of Earl H. Batiste, as recommended by the County Attorney, to allow him additional time. to complete his legal research .and make a report to the Board at its March, 20, 2003 meeting. The .motion was adopted by a vote of (4-1) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the .motion, and Supervisor Bradshaw voting against the motion.. Chairman MacManus called for a public hearing on the following: B. The application of Alphso Davis to amend Conditional General Commercial zoning of .78 acres of land to include as a permitted use tire sales and repair, as conditioned. Said property is located at 13060 Scott's Factory Road, Smithfield, in the Windsor j Election District. Mr. Hartley .stated for the Board's consideration are .amended ; conditions dated December 2?, 2002; October 4, 2002; and, original proffers dated November 9, 1995, as contained in the agenda.. He stated . staff requested legal counsel for. the. applicant to consolidate -all proffers at .the Planning Commission meeting. ;, I3 eaox 21.,,.474 Chairman MacManus called for persons to speak in favor oly' or in opposition to, the proposed application. Alphso Davis, the. applicant, requested the Board approve his application.. .Chairman MacManus closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Chairman MacManus inquired ,why there were three (3) dissenting votes by members of the Planning Commission. - Mr. Hartley stated the original motion .was (7-2) to recommend denial of the application to the Board He stated he believes there was. continuing - sympathy for the residents who expressed concerns about the noise and the character of a tire shop in that neighborhood. Supervisor Claud stated .concerns were voiced about noise, but the applicant is now proffering that all work will be performed inside -the building, and he is also limiting his hours of operation. .Supervisor Claud moved the Board approve the application of Alphso Davis, to include all of the proffers. The motion was. adopted by a vote of (S- 0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and. no Supervisors voting against the motion. - Supervisor Clark-requested that staff forward a copy of the proffers to those citizens who had expressed concerns previously. .Chairman MacManus called for a public hearing on the following: The` application of Carson, and Margaret Whitley (Carson Whitley Estate) for a change in zoning classification from RAC to Conditional: Suburban Estate, 2.768 acres of land located on Green Oaks Lane, south of Carrsville Highway (Route. 58} in the Carrsviile Election District. The purpose of the application is for- one single-family residential lot. Mr. Hartley stated staff had received from the applicant written proffers prior to the public hearing.. He stated he has suggested to .the applicants that. their application be returned, in modif ed form, to the Planning Commission to add the 19.3 acres to the rezoning so that conditions could also be placed on that property. He stated this is agreeable with the applicants. County Attorney Stroman stated that the proffers received by staff relate to 19.3 acres, and the application being considered by the Board is only to rezone 2.7 acres. He stated that law stipulates that proffers extend to 14 R eooK ~ 21 N :475 .properties that are the subject of the application- and,- therefore, the applicants should amend their application to include the entire. ,parcel that will allow the Board to accept the proffers.; He stated because- it is a substantive- amendment, it is necessary to return the application to the Planning Commission; however, because this is of a technical nature, he .does not believe it necessary for the applicants to pay a new fee. Supervisor- Bradshaw moved the .Board direct staff to send the application to the Planning Commission for public hearing at its March, Z0A3 meeting as an amended application; that .staff present the amended application o the Board at its March 20, 2003 meeting; and, that staff be authorized to advertise ..the .Board public hearing- before the Planning Commission public hearing is held. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5- 0) with Supervisors. MacManus, Bradby,. Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman MacManus called for apublic hearing on the following: The application of Branch P. and Bonnie B. Lawson,. owners, and Sasser Construction Company, applicant, for an exception to the , Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance- Section 5002 c (2), specifically to allow encroachment down to fifty- (SO) feet into the one hundred (100) foot Resource. Protection Area Buffer. The property is located in the subdivision of Gatling Pointe, lot I2 on Water Pointe Lane. The purpose of the application is for the construction of a single-family residence. Chairman MacManus called for persons to speak in -favor of, or in . opposition to, the proposed application. William Riddick, Attorney for the applicant, stated the lot was platted prior to the adoption of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance in ~` _1989. He stated a revised site plan was submitted at the Planning `` Commission meeting changing the location of the BMP structures in response to staff's initial comments. He stated the lot consists of approximately -one (1) acre that is very narrow; confined by a ravine; and, fronts on a wetland area: He stated: with the imposition .of a 100-foot buffer, the lot is not buildable. He stated the Board previously approved four (4) similar applications since changing -its regulations to the :requirement that these applications come before the Board for consideration. He stated since . . the establishment of the Gatling P©inte Subdivision, heestimates-there have been. thirty-two (32) lots upon which homes have been built between the fifty (5) foot-and 100 foot lines. He stated prior to. the recent change. in .policy of this Board, these applications were done administratively. He . .stated the. proposed improvements does not exc~d sixteen percent (16%) impervious cover and a Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance DepaRment .has reviewed the site plan and advised .that because the property was platted prior to the enactment of he Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area designation ~' IS ~, ~ee~ 23, =~ ~~47s in management regulations and the County's implementing ordinance, the principal residential structure is allowed.. He stated CBLAD further advised that the water quality calculations for. this project were prepared correctly, - and as the BMPs both encroach into the fifty (SO) of the RPA buffer, CBLAD recommends they be repositioned and. reoriented to move .them out of this part of the buffer as there appears to be .space to do so, which has been addressed by the revised site plane submitted to the Planning Commission and upon which they took action. He stated. he'would like to bring to the. attention of the Board the Attorney General's opinion. issued in 1989 on vested rights. .County Attorney Stroman stated the Attorney General's opinion referenced by Attorney. Riddick concerns language regarding whether or not.- the applicant is complying. to "the maximum extent" possible. Sharon Hart. of the Newport District stated .the application is in violation of two (2) parts of the Chesapeake. Bay .Preservation Area Ordinance as development on slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%) shall be prohibited and. because land improvements must be made around. the house to reestablish the. vegetation destroyed by .the construction of the house.. She noted there is a discrepancy in .the plat versus the color :aerial photograph with respect to the property line and. she recommended that the Board deny the application. Chairman MacManus closed the public hearing .and called for comments. from the Board. Supervisor Claud noted. the. Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department meets the requirements and the application qualifies for the three (3) restrictions the Board is -supposed to apply to applications. He stated the .Board has strong feelings about deviating from the 100-foot buffer, but based on the regulations from CBLAD, he could support the application. Supervisor Clark asked Mr. Hartley to elaborate on Mrs. Hart's reference to a discrepancy in the surveys. Mr. Hartley stated the color aerial photograph is a tax map utilized for tax purposes only and it should not be .replied upon in comparison to the survey that was prepared by a surveyor licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Supervisor Clark noted that the Board had allowed other encroachments into the 100 foot buffer, although those lots did not involve slopes. Mr. Hartley confirmed the Board approved several applications that .allowed encroachment into the 100-foot buffer. He noted CBLAD is not 16 R concerned about the slope, but if the Board were -considering. platting of new lots, then certainly slopes. would be a factor. He stated the Board is considering. a lot that was platted prior to the Chesapeake Bay. Preservation Area. Ordinance and he is not sure that the Board could apply -all of the new standards to this preexisting lot. Chairman MacManus noted this appears to be making the best of what is a bad situation, and the Board has approved other lots, as long as they stay out of the fifty. (50) foot buffer... Supervisor Claud moved the Board. approve. the application of Branch P. and Bonnie B. Lawson,. based on the Board's finding that the applicant..is complying to the maximum extent possible for the use of the land and based on the fact that all of the new standards can not be .applied to this- pre- existing lot. The motion -was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors. MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the ~~ motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motwn. Chairman MacManus called for a public hearing on the following:. ,The application of William P. & Marilyn Edwards .for aConditional - Use Permit to allow a farm employee to occupy a mobile home on approximately one hundred (100) acres of land located on Pope I Swamp Trail (Route 647) in the Hardy Election District.. Chairman MacManus called .for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to-the proposed application. No one appeared. Chairman MacManus closed the public hearing and ` called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Claud moved the Board approve the application of William P. & Marilyn Edwards, as conditioned. The motion was adopted by a vote. of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and no .Supervisors- voting against the motion. Chairman MacManus called foraa public hearing on the following: A change in Land Use I?esignation -of approximately three (3) acres of land owned by Wayne C. & .Margaret L: Cone. to Business and Employment as designated in the Windsor Development Service District Land Use Plan. Said land is located on the south side of Windsor Boulevard (Route 460) west of the realigned..Old Mill Road (Route 607), in the Windsor Election District.. 17 ,. lo~~c 21 v'~-478 Mr. Hartley stated the application involves the development of the Shirley T. Holland Industrial Park and the restriction of access t©a piece of property. He stated staff has negotiated and conveyed to Mr. Cone additional properly and the Comprehensive Ptan must be amended to allow for business employment designation.. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval (9-0) to the Board that the application be approved.- Chairman MacManus called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed applicatian. No one appeared. . Chairman MacManus closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Claud moved the Board approve the change in land use designation of approximately three (3) acres of land owned by Wayne, C & - Margaret L. Cone. The motion was adopted by a vote of (S-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud-voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman MacManus called for a public hearing on the following: Conveyance of County Owned Property to the Windsor Athletic Association County Attorney Stroman stated pursuant to the Board's action, enclosed is the plat illustrating the location of the 11.49 acres of land ` Alan S. Nogiec, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated this property is a part of property purchased to develop a central county park. He stated the Windsor Athletic Association has developed property adjacent to this. property and it would be a compliment to the County's central park, when developed.. Chairman MacManus called for persons to speak in favor of, or in .opposition to, the proposed conveyance. Bob Ballinger of Zuni requested the Board convey the property to ,the Windsor Athletic Association. He stated the additional twelve{ 12) acres would allow the Association to expand its facility to include :additional parking, batting cages and possibly another field. Chairman MacManus closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Claud moved the Board approve the conveyance of County- owned property to the Windsor Athletic Association, as conditioned and that 18 n the County Attorney be directed to proceed with the appropriate .procedure to have this conveyance accomplished. The motion. was adopted by a vote of (S-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting: in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman MacManus caked for a public hearing on the following: Revisions to "THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA ORDINANCE, APPENDIX B-1, OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE" pursuant to the changes -made in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management. Regulations adopted by the-State Chesapeake.Bay-Local Assistance Board. County Attorney Stroman announced that staff has received notice from the- Secretary of Natural Resources that the deadline originally set for March 1, 2003, has been extended to the end of theyear. He recommended the Board .proceed withahe public hearing; however, at the conclusion of the public hearing he would recommend that the :Board table. the matter to allow staff time to explore several issues that staff would. have preferred to explore . further.. .Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated the City of Suffolk is the only jurisdiction in Hampton Roads that. is moving forward at this time. He ..stated the Board, for its consideration, a rewritten Ordinance that is based upon a model provided by the Chesapeake Bay ..Local Assistance Department and modified to address some of the issues staff" dealt .with. in -the County. He stated it fias been reviewed by the Planning. Commission as originally it was going to be incorporated into the County's Zoning. Ordinance, but deleted because it was the.opinion -of both the former and current County Attorneys that it should be a separate ordinance and because of the timing.. issue. He stated he is interested in hearing the public's concerns with the proposed ordinance and he would also like an opportunity to revise the Zoning Ordinance so than any duplication can be eliminated between the zoning provisions. in this ordinance, specifically relating to -site plan reviews and other. similar provisions.. Chairman MacManus called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the ..proposed revisions to "THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA. ORDINANCE, APPENDIX B-l, OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE." Pat Clark of Carrollton' inquired. if this would be the last public hearing to address the revision. He stated. that Mr. Finderson is not able to be present tonight, and he has many questions that he would like addressed . prior to the.March 1, 2003 deadline. He stated he understands the deadline has .been extended and that where will be revisions to what the Beard is considerin torsi t. g ~ I9 t eeo~ 21-:.~~480 County Attorney Stroman stated if there ar+e substantive recommendations to the proposed revisions received, he would recommend to the Board that it conduct a second public hearing prior to adoption. He stated some of the issues that. staff would like. to further explore are -some of the issues raised by Mr. Finderson. George Hart of .the Newport District recommended that 'the public hearing on :the revisions not be blended in with public hearings on other applications. He stated he feels the matter should have been advertised as a new ordinance, rather than as a revision to the: existing ordinance, as it is a complete rewrite. He stated Section .4000, Performance Standard of RMA, paragraph B.1.B, construction footprint, which specifies that sixty percent {60%) of the total. site. should not be exceeded has been left out of the new _ ordinance. He stated Section 5001, paragraph C.3 on page 194.12 also needs to be added back in concerning development .located on .a .slope greater than fifteen percent (15%). He stated Section 4001, development criteria for the RPA, staff has developed.. sub-paragraphs and it should be rewritten to match the Chesapeake Bay Preservation -Area Ordinance which is 9DAC 10-20-30. He stated Section 4001, .paragraph B, water quality impact assessment, states a water quality impact assessment. shall. be ,required for any. proposed land disturbance, development or redevelopment within the RPA and for any other development within the. RMA when required by the Zoning Administrator because of unique characteristics of the site and contradicts what is in paragraph 4003.B.1 which states when impact assessments are required, water quality impact assessments shall be required for development which 1) disturbs any portion within fifty (50) feet of the one hundred. (.100) buffer area in the RPA. He stated-two (2) and three (3) contain different requirements for development entering into an RPA, which also contradicts the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. He stated with respect to the requirements of the.. RPA, delineation and construction, the Zoning .Administrator is allowed in many instances to waive certain restrictions, and he would recommend that waivers come before the Board and be heard by the public. Supervisor Clark requested that Mr. Hart provide a copy of .his notes to the County Administrator to have reproduced .for the Board. Wayne Melcore, owner of property within the County, noted that there are many areas of the proposed ordinance that could be .contradictory and that to be explained .more fully. He pointed out that the RMA must consist of millions of acres of land as the RMA is defined as anything in the Chesapeake ~ Bay .watershed that is not an RPA. He stated there is a provision in B.2,-page 9, which specifies existing trees two {2) inches in diameter shall be preserved outside the approved construction, and he has always considered these to be saplings> He stated removing the briers from saplings of these size causes damage to the tree. He stated this will cause a 20 R _..,. - .. song 21:~..~31 lot of problems `for staff in the future and he does believe this matter.- - deserves another public. hearing..., _ Nancy will of. Rescue requested :that.. the Board consider holding another public hearing on the proposed revisions. She recommended aat the rewrite be presented in a timely manner by staff so that they can be thoroughly reviewed and changes be incorporated without the citizens and .the Board .having to go through what it went- through. with the Comprehensive Plan.. Sharon Hart of the Newport District agreed with the comments made by her husband earlier. She.stated she strongly dsagrees,withthe provisions.- i to allow the Planning and Zoning Administrator to. `approve exceptions, variances and. delineations to the RPA. She stated it references areas less than 5,000 square feet, which is a large area, and she .believes it should come before the Board. She stated an amendment was previously adopted that any exceptions and variances would come ; before aE Planning Commission and the Board for a public hearing and she .would .not recommend retreating from is practice. She stated the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance will take precedence over the County's Zoning Ordinance and she would like to have ample time for public comment and rewrites.. She stated with respect to -highly erodible and highly permeable soils. were left out of the definitions. and should be .included. Chairman MacManus closed the public hearing and called for comments from. the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended the Board hold a .Town Meeting .prior to June' 1, 2003 at the Smithfield High `School and Windsor High School to allow the citizens an opportunity to comment .and provide their .input. He inquired if CBLAD reviewed the :revisions prior to the public hearing tonight. Mr. Hartley stated CBI.AD has not. reviewed the: revisions because it reviews-ordinances after adoption, not before. Supervisor :.Bradshaw stated regardless of past- history, he would. recommend that staff, after the town meetings are held, send the revisions to CBLAD for review, then send them to the Planning Commission for a public hearing before the matter comes. before the Board. for a public hearing. Supervisor Clark recommended the Board hold a work session prior to the Board's first meeting in May, 2003, with the Director of Planning and Zoning to review,. line by line, all substantive- changes so that the Board has a clear understanding of the ramifications of the revisions. He stated this Board has been clear in the pasta about having a complete review process:: of airy request for encroachment over .the 100 feet buffer, and he has already found an exception to than in the proposed: revision. He stated the proposed 21: .. eoa~ 21 ~~~-482 revision is a complete and total rewrite of the Ordinance, and he believes the Board needs. to spend some time discussing it. Supervisor Claud concurred the Board needs to spend time discussing the Ordinance and additional public hearings .held, once the draft is prepared. Chairman MacManus concurred that the Board .should hold an additional public hearing as there are substantial :changes being proposed. He suggested that the town meetings. recommended by Supervisor Bradshaw be conducted before. May, 2003 so that the Board can receive input from the citizens, He requested. Mr. Hartley provide the Board with a copy of the ordinance adopted by the City of Suffolk, noting this. would be a valuable tool for the Board to consider, as well as the comparison of what the changes are. Supervisor Clark inquired if the Planning Commission reviewed-the ordinance,. line by line. Mr. Hartley -noted the .Planning spent approximately three (3} ,hours at a work session reviewing and making revisions. Chairman MacManus inquired if staff created the revisions or did staff borrow another community's that was acceptable by CBLAD. Mr. Hartley replied the ordinance is a model ordinance, but there was an attempt by staff to consolidate sections .into single narratives. He stated he believes there are some misunderstandings present that he has not had an opportunity to discuss with the Board... He requested staff be given the opportunity to hear the concerns of citizens so that when the forum is held he has an idea of how to address the concerns to everyone's satisfaction. He stated the proposed ordinance will be extremely difficult to administer and anything that. can be :drafted that will be easier. to understand by both the citizenand the developer, the better it will be. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that a representative from the CBLAD staff be invited to attend the proposed work session to address specific questions from citizens. ..Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board table consideration of the revisions to THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION .AREA ORDINANCE, APPENDIX B-1, OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE and direct staff to come back at the Board's March 10, 2003. meeting with a schedule for the Board to adequately address the public comments and. formally educate the Board and that staff invite a member. of CBLAD to be in attendance at a proposed work session. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) .with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark -and 22 - r . 90~~ 21.;,.483 Claud voting in .favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman MacManus called for a public hearing on the following:. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14, Sewage- and_ Sewage Disposal,- Article I. In General; and Article III: Connection Charges W. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Director of Public Utilities, stated pursuant to the Board's direction, the proposed Ordinance daces a cap on the sewer - connect fee square footage provision at $1'50,000. He stated there are also minor revisions to add "institutional," "commercial," and "institutional" provisions on ninety (90) day connection fees. Supervisor Bradshaw recommended for consistency purposes that 14- 20, Subsection. (B), include "institutional." Chairman MacManus called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. No one appeared. Chairman MacManus closed the .public hearing and called for . ..comments from staff. Supervisor Clark moved the Board adopt the :following Ordinance as amended under 14-20, 'Subsection (B), residential, commercial, institutional or industrial: AN ORDIIVANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL, ARTICLE III, CONNECTION CHARGES TO PUT A MAXIMUM ON COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OFFICE INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC. BUILDINGS CONNNECTION FEES WHEREAS,. the Board of Supervisors of .Isle of Wight County,. ..Virginia, adopted an Ordinance .providing for .rates and regulations on sewer usage, Chapter 14, of the Isle of Wight County Code on January 16, 1997; and Wi=AREAS, the Ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors defines "equivalent dwelling unit" to 'include multiresidential, .commercial, industrial and institutional connectors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems-that the definition should . be amended to include only multiiesidential connectors, and 23 - S, -eeeK 21 >«~-484 WHEREAS, the Ordinance adopted by the Beard- of Supervisors provided for connection fees for certaincommercial businesses of $0.33 per square foot per gross floor area; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems that said connection fee should have a maximum total fee of $150,000.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE Tf AND IT IS I-IEItEBV ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, that Chapter 14, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Article III, Connection Charges, Section 14- 20 (d) be amended to read as follows: ArticleIII. Connection Charges, Sec. 14-20. Charges generally. (a) Prior to the connection of any premises, building or ~; dwelling unit to a county sewer. system, the applicant shall pay a connection fee based on-.the size of water meter service. Except as ,provided herein, the following connection fees shall apply: Water Meter Size Connection Fee 5/8 inch $ 4,000.00 3/4 inch ~ $ 4,800.00 1 inch $ 6,400.00 1-%Z inch $ 9,200.00 2 inch $1 b,000.00 When the meter size of the connection exceeds the sizes set forth above, the applicant shall be required to pay a connection fee as determined by the county. (b) When application for service, including payment of fees, -for existing single family residential, commercial industrial or institutional services is made within ninety days after receipt of official connection notice, .the connection fees due will be .reduced to one-third of he amounts in subsection (a} of this section.. (c) Deleted. (d) For a meter serving one unit or serving more than one unit, the connection fee-shall be: Type Fee Single-family, duplexes, houses, Connection fee .apartments, condominiums, (a} for fast mobile home parks, etc. dwelling unit plus 24 eoeic ~ ;r~~~ $3,200. for each additional dwelling unit. Hotel, motel, travel. trailer complex, Connection fee Hospital, nursing home, etc. (a) plus number of units as defined by the department of public utilities divided by 5 x $3,200.00 Commercial, businesses, office, Connection .fee Industrial, institutional, public (a)-plus $0.33 per Buildings and all others. gross. square foot and all others. of floor area, with a maximum total -fee of 5150,000. (e) Any premises, building or dwelling unit to be connected. directly to the HRSD system, prior to .sewer service becoming available, .shall pay :one-half of the applicable county connection fee prior to :connection to the HRSD system. (f~ Any premises, building or dwelling unit to be connected to the county sewer system shall pay in addition to the county ; connection. fee,. the applicable. Hampton Roads Sanitation District or Smithfield or Franklin fee. which may from time to-time be adjusted by-these entities. (g) It is the intent of this section that a connection. fee be paid on a per unit basis whether each unit is individually metered or a master meter is installed for more than one unit. , (h) In those situations in which the premises, building or dwelling unit is served by either an unmetered water service provided. by the county or by a privately ovmed water- system, the sewer connection fee shall be based on the equivalent water meter size that would. be required to serve -such premises,: building or dwelling unite Such determination of equivalent meter size shall be made by the department of public utilities.. 25 - ; • ,. .~~®~ 21.~~P48~ (i) If the .payment of a connection fee is required by the provisions of this article,.then no building permitor other similar permit shall be issued by the county until the required connection fee is paid in full Q) N© connection fee shall be required when connection is to be made to an eadsting lateral previously used by another building when no work is required by 'the c©unty to ready said lateral for connection.. The motion was adapted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in -favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board return to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Chairman MacManus called for New Business. County Administrator Casket' referenced information received from Jesse Todd, Jr., Editor of The Daily Press, dated :February 19, 2003 with respect to theformation of a forum on growth in the County. Supervisor Clark moved .that the Board authorize the County to become a sponsor, which would require no .financial obligation on the part of the County, in coordination with the Isle of Wight Citizens Association, of ~a forum scheduled for March 31, 2003 at The. Smithfield Center. The.. motion was. adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor' of -the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Claud noted that he had.- received a call from a citizen regarding .his cattle-being killed by wild dogs and requested the County .Attorney to research the matter to determine if there is a provision in the animal control chapter of the Code of Yirgi»ia concerning the killing of livestock; whether or not compensation can be received by the livestock owner; and, that. such report be presented back to the Board. County Attorney Stroman noted that he .would .contact the affected citizen directly once he prepares the-.information to avoid any possible time deadlines. Supervisor Bradshaw requested staff review the current needs of citizens countywide with respect to recycling concerns. 26 County Administrator Caskey noted that he -has requested SPSA .provide input on similar programs administered by other jurisdictions within the region with respect to expansion of their recycling efforts. Supervisor Clark referred to a memorandum dated February 13, .2003 "from the Director of .Planning and Zoning to the Board regarding the DEQ Notice of Violations at -Eagle harbor and Founders Pointe. He quested. what the County could do in this regard... Mr. Hartley stated the County has nd jurisdictions over the wetlands or enforcement of the wetlandspermits,.hut the County does .have soil and. erosion controls. He stated the main vi-olations pertain to flagging. and. the work being .done on the wetlands in connection with .utility work. Supervisor Bradshaw noted. he recalls profl'ers being ofl'ered to the County that all federal.-and state regulations would be followed which would give the County authority to oversee the. development. Mr. Hartley noted he would research Supervisor Bradshaw's comments. He stated that DEQ did not notify the County, of its actions and -staff had, to solicit copies of all- violation. letters... He stated DEQ did meet with the developer yesterday on all the violations, which resulted in an understanding that all of these items will be addressed -or the developers will be penalized. Chairman MacManus .moved that the Board direct staff to review the original proffers and come back with an action plan to ensure. full compliance. with the wetlands/soil and erosion issues; advise the Board how staff is working with State agencies to ensure that this community meets- the obligations and. expectations of the Board; and,. that staff advise. the. Board -what additional resources are needed to enforce. compliance. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in -favor of the: motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.: Supervisor Clark "requested staff to be aggressive in checking land disturbances at Founder's Pointe for compliance and advise the Board accordingly. Chairman MacManus requested the County Administrator, working with - the schools, libraries, and the Events Committee, .revive its past attempts to honor the County's volunteers and develop a plan on how this could be accomplished on an annual .basis and that the .Events Committee present a recommendation to the Board on how .best to recognize. such volunteers. He suggested that funds to accomplish this effort. could be taken. .from the County's contingency. funds. ,~ 27 R n \ \. ~:. -__ soon 21 y~~438 County Administrator Caskey noted that Volunteer. Recognition Week is normally held in the month of April. // County Attorney Stroman requested a closed meeting under Section 2.2-3711.A.7 concerning. consultation with legal counsel briefings by staff members pertaining to actual or probable litigation where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body; under Section 2.2-3711.A.7 concerning consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal .advice by such counsel; and, under Section 2.2-3711.A.1 concerning a personnel matter. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board take a five (5) minute. break before .entering closed session for the reasons stated. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark .and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and_ no Supervisors voting against the motion.. .Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board return to open session. The t motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion, and. no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Claud moved the Board adopt the following resolution: CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened a closed 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, Section 2.2-3712.D of .the Code of Virginia .requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted inconformity. with Virginia law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors. hereby certifies that, to the best of each membets knowledge, O only public business matters .lawfully .exempted from -open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution .applies, and (ii) only such public business .matters as were. identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. .VOTE L 2$ w eoo~ . 21~ ~~~~489 AYFS: MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clazk and Claud NAYS: 0 - ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0 !/ .Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board. approve the County- Attorney's request for an amendment to the agenda. to .address matters relating. to the County's fluoride compliance standards. with the State Department of Health. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors -MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, .:Clark and Claud: voting in favor. of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Claud moved the Board authorize staff to move forward with revisions to the Fluoride Consent Order that were previously approved . by this -Board to address the following issues: 1) to ensure that-the Orders are consistent with the County's ability to perform the obligations that it can not perform after the drilling of the test well,. and (2 that the Board address -the issues set forth in the City of Suft'olk draft compliance order .relating to issues that .the County may have to address if the test wells come back. with readings. between 3.5 mmg and 4 mmg. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claude voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the. motion. !/ Chairman MacManus called for consideration . of the proposed .nonexclusive Cable Franchise Agreement'between Isle of Wight County and Wavelength Technologies, LLC which was tabled by the Board at its January 16, 2003 meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw stated he still had concerns regarding the .County's legal requirements -with respect to the level playing field... He requested :the County .Attorney provide his comments, to the .Board on this issue. - County Attorney Stroman stated the Board .had previously. requested that he legally research the level playing field statute, Section 15.2-2108 of the. Code of Virginia which has a requirement that the governing body not grant overlapping franchises on terms that are more favorable or less burdensome than-those. with the existing .franchise.. He .stated with respect to the comments .made at the public heanng regarding terntonal issues, currently Charter Communications has a franchise that is in certain -areas of the County and Charter must expand under certain conditions.. He stated the ~, 29 ~, • poor 21:~„f4~0 proposed franchise agreement with Wavelength. would include only certain specified areas. He stated the issue is really whether or not there is some burden that is imposed on Charter that is not imposed on Wavelength. He stated he believes there is a burden, not related to the geographic area, but to the obligation to .expand.. He stated under Section 4.1-6 of the County's ordinance, .Charter is required to expand service where economically and technically feasible. He stated the requirement in the franchise specifies that where there is a contiguous area with a density of no -less than thirty-f ve (35) homes per Linear mile, Charter-has made representation, in writing, that: it will expand when density is at a lower level.: He stated it is his, legal opinion that. if an obligation to expand is contained in one (1) contract, .but not in the other contract, that makes the former contract (Charter} more burdensome. than the latter (Wavelength). He stated, without such. a parallel provision, the proposed franchise agreement would violate Section 15.2- 2108.C. He stated with respect to the issue raised concerning "redlining," federal. law does contain a provision prohibiting "redlining" or "targeting" of cable .service to high-income individuals at the expense of low-income individuals. He stated that while. he does have a concern that the proposed franchise agreement does seem to target high density and relatively. high- income areas and neglects relatively. tow income areas within-the County, he is not yet prepared to say it is a violation of federal law. He stated with respect to compliance of the County's ordinance, Section 4.1-3b provides that the Board should approve the legal character, financial, technical .and other qualifications of the licensee of such license, including adequacy. and feasibility of the licensee's construction arrangements. He stated it is his judgement based on the .evaluation of the facts, that this section of the ordinance has not been satisfied. He stated the franchisee is asking to do business with the :County with the potential to cause. some disruption to the County's citizens if it is not successful. He stated the franchisee has submitted two (2) pages of financial data which are sketchy at best and he believes the County's ordinance requires adequate. financial data that would assure the franchisee has the financial ability to carry out its obligations under. the franchise agreement. He stated he believes the Board. would be well within its rights in denying the franchise on the basis the information presented to the Board .concerning the .adequacy and .feasibility of the licensee's construction arrangements- which were skeletal, and the technical aspects of the presentation which were perfunctory. Supervisor Clark moved the Board deny the franchise and incorporate the following remarks by the County Attorney as the Board's reason for denying the franchise: "With .respect- to the level playing field statute, Section 15.2-2108 of .the Code of Yirgi»ia has ;a requirement that the governing body not grant overlapping franchises on terms that are more. favorable or less burdensome than those with the existing franchise. Regarding the comments made at the public hearing regarding territorial issues, currently Charter Communications has a franchise that. is in certain areas of the County and Charter must expand under certain conditions. He stated the proposed franchise agreement with Wavelength would include 30 . :v , sae« 21 ~.~-4~1 . ~ . :only certain specified areas. He stated the- issue is really whether or not there is some burden than is .imposed on Charter that is not:.imposed. on Wavelength.. He stated he believes there is a burden, not related to the geographic area, but to theobligation to expand: He stated under Section 4.1-6 of the County's ordinance; Charter is required to expand service where economically and technically. feasible. He stated -the requirement in the franchise specfes that where there is a contiguous area- with a density of no ' less than thirty-five (35) homes per linear mile,` Charter has made representation, in writing, that it will expand when density is at a lower level. He stated it is his legal opinion that if 'an obligation to expand ~is contained in one (1) contract, but not- in the other contract,. that makes the former contract (Charter) more burdensome than. the latter (Wavelength). He stated,.. without such a parallel provision, the proposed franchise 1 agreement would violate Section 15.2-2108.C. He stated with respect to the issue raised concerning "redlining," federal law does :.contain a provision prohibiting: "redlining" or "targeting" of .cable service to high-income individuals at the expense of low-income individuals.: He stated that while he does have a concern that the proposed franchise.. agreement does. seem to target high density and relatively fiigh-income areas and neglects relatively . ~ low income areas within the County, he is not yet `prepared to say it is a violation of federal law... ,He stated .with respect to .compliance of .the County's ordinance, Section 4.1-3b provides that he Board should approve the legal character, .financial,. technical and other qualifications of the licensee of such license, including adequacy and feasibility of the licensee's . construction arrangements. He stated it is his judgement based on the evaluation of the facts, that: this section of: the .ordinance has not -`been satisfied. He stated the franchisee is asking to do business with the County with the potential to cause some disruption to the County's citizens. if it is , not successful. He stated the franchisee has submitted two (2) pages of financial data which are sketchy at best and- he. believes the County's ordinance requires adequate .financial data that would assure .the franchisee has the financial ability to ..carry out its. obligations under he franchise agreement. He stated he believes the Board would be well .within its rights in denying the franchise on the basis. the. information. presented to the .Board concerning the adequacy .and feasibility of the licensee's construction arrangements which. were skeletal, and .the technical aspects of the .presentation which were perfunctory." The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with .Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion,, and na Supervisors voting against. the motion. // At .9:05 a.m., ..Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board adjourn. its meeting. The motiomwas adopted unanimously (5-0). ~~~,,,,,,,~~rt.._ ._.,., Richard K. MacManus, Chairman w. 31 ~,