Loading...
03-18-2004 Regular Meeting eooK 22 ~h~~267 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT: Stan D. Clark, Chairman Phillip A. Bradshaw, Vice-Chairman Henry H. Bradby Thomas J. Wright, III ° Richard K. MacManus Also Attending: Jacob P. Stroman, IV, County Attorney W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator Donald T. Robertson, Assistant County Administrator Carey Mills Storm, Recording Secretary Chairman Clark called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. // Supervisor Bradby delivered the invocation. // The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. /I Chairman Clark called for approval. of the agenda. The following amendments to the agenda were offered: County Attorney Stroman noted the Director of Economic Development is requesting an item be added under New Business concerning a~road abandonment in the business park. County Attorney Stroman noted that the Director of Budget and Finance is requesting an item be added under New Business to set a public hearing on April 15, 2004 for bond sale in connection with the construction of Smithfield Middle School. County Attorney Stroman noted the County Administrator's Office is requesting an item be added under New Business concerning an update on Burwell's Bay. County Attorney Stroman noted that the Director of Public Utilities is requesting an item be added under New Business concerning the execution of the HRSD Interest Participation Agreement. 1 eoo~ ' 22 rac:268 County Attorney Stroman requested that Item (D) under Public Hearings, the application of Isle of Wight Associates, be moved to Item (A) under Public Hearings. County Attorney Stroman requested the closed meeting consist of one (1).item to discuss potential litigation and two (2) personnel matters relating to the evaluation of the County Administrator and the County Attorney. Chairman Clark requested that the order of the Special Presentations be changed to reflect the presentation by Dr. McPherson as Item (A); the Eagle Scout presentations as Item (B); and, the presentation by .Pat Ward, Blackwater Regional Library, as Item (C). Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board approve the agenda, as amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, .Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Special Presentations. Dr. Michael McPherson, Superintendent, Isle of Wight County Public Schools, addressed the Board on the progress of the new Smithfield Middle School, scheduled to open in September 2005. He advised that all .five (5) bids received were over the approved budget. He noted that even the low bid received was over the construction budget and will require major modifications be made before construction can proceed. He noted that while school staff is in the process of identifying changes that can be made to the facility to reduce building costs, it is evident that major changes will be required that could significantly change the appearance, character and usefulness of the new facility. He noted that due to the spike in steel prices, the cost for the basic bid package came in at $130 a square foot, which translates into an approximate $2.7 million dollar increase in the required budget. He stated that this trend is expected to continue over the next $-12 months and to re-bid a project. could actually. escalate the costs. He noted that the following reductions are being considered by school staff: Reductions in technology; building downsizing; substitution of building .material types; revision of the traffic pattern and bus access route; store front design versus the original design; roof design change; removal of all landscaping with the exception of County requirements; and, reduction in the size and seating capacity of the gym. He noted school staff, in addition to the above, is also reviewing other means by which to reduce the cost. He noted a concern that the degree of reductions required to meet the budget will severely impact the functionality of the building, which. will directly impact the length of time. that. the building will serve the needs. of the students and when it will be necessary to request additional funds from the Board to expand the present 2 u t ~ 9ooK 22 r~~~269 building or build new schools. He noted that he met with the Board's Budget and Finance Committee, and the Committee has requested that the school administration identify any cost savings and to review its budget to identify any funds that could be committed to the project. He stated cost savings in the amount of $350,000 have been identified that, if implemented, will not result in a serious impact on the facility, as well as an additional $500,000 within the school budget towards the new middle school. He stated the School Board has also previously requested $5:00,000 be reappropriated to the school system from its FY03 budget, which will enable the school system to contribute $1,000,000 to offset the $2.4 million dollar shortage realized in connection with this project. He requested that the Board approve his request for the additional funding needed for the Smithfield Middle School project. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board continue with the remainder of the items listed under Special Presentations .and address this matter as Item 2 (D) under Special Presentations. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw,. Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board adopt the following Resolutions Recognizing and Congratulating the Following Individuals on Achieving the Rank of Eagle Scout: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE JAMES L. SMITH FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, James L. Smith is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop. #3 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Smith has achieved the rant: of Eagle Scout; and,, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Smith for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY. RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that James L. Smith is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE DEREK W. JOYNER FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Derek W. Joyner is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #36 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Joyner has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, 3 eoo~ 22 rM~270 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Joyner for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Derek W. Joyner is recognized and. congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. , RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE JUSTIN D. BAILEY FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Justin D. Bailey is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #37 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Bailey has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize. and congratulate Mr. Bailey for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Justin D. Bailey is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE DERRECK A. DARDEN FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK. OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Derreck A. Darden is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #3 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, i WHEREAS, Mr. Darden has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, rE fi WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Darden for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Derreck A. Darden is recognized and congratulated. for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. a RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE BENJAMIN F. WALLS FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Benjamin F. Walls is a member of Boy Scouts of f America, Troop #3 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, 4 i 1 1 BOOK 22 ~~ct271 WHEREAS, Mr. Walls has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Walls for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Benjamin F. Walls is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of .Eagle Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE WINDELL D. COX FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT - WHEREAS, Windell D. Cox is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #3 and a resident of Isle. of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Cox has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the. Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Cox for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Windell D. Cox is recognized and congratulated for achieving the -rank of Eagle Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE JONATHAN H. TOWNSEND FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Jonathan H. Townsend. is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #3 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Townsend has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors. wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Townsend far his- achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Jonathan H. Townsend is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE JONATHAN H. GWALTNEY FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT 5 800K (.~~ ~~'~i~~~ WHEREAS, Jonathan H. Gwaltney is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #7 and a resident of Isle of Wight County;.. and, WHEREAS, Mr. Gwaltney has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Gwaltney for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Jonathan H. Gwaltney is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle. ~ ~ Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE ZACHARY R. JOYNER FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Zachary R. Joyner is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #36 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Joyner has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the .Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Joyner for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the. Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Zachary R Joyner is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE NATHAN A. BURGESS FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Nathan A. Burgess is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #36 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Burgess has achieved. the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Burgess for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County. of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Nathan A. Burgess is .recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE BRADLEY C. WHITE 1 II 1 6 I I BOON 22 rAC:~ !:J FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Bradley C. White is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #7 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. White has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, .the Board of Supervisors :wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. White for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Bradley C. White is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE TIMOTHY C. BRADSHAW FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Timothy C. Bradshaw is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #37 and a resident of Isle of Wight County; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Bradshaw has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and congratulate Mr. Bradshaw for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that Timothy C. Bradshaw is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Pat Ward, Director, Blackwater Regional Library, addressed the Board on the activities and direction of the regional library system. With respect to the request of Dr. McPherscn for additional funding to build the Smithfield Middle School, Chairman Clark- noted that historically $.70 out of every $1 from the County's budget was allocated to .fund the schools. He requested that he be notified if the above figures change. Supervisor Bradshaw noted that he estimates the percentage will. increase from $.70 to $.75 based on the building of the new school. Supervisor MacManus noted the percentage will increase above $.70; however, he did not believe it would increase to $.75. 7 i I eoox 22 ~~~~274 Dr. McPherson stated school .staff has also gone to Richmond this year to solicit support for school. funding. Chairman Clark advised that the Southside Mayors and Chairs .recently met with the Governor and three (3) unsupportive Delegates. He noted that Delegates seem. to be more sensitive to getting letters from Parent Teacher ~ Associations and individual teachers. Supervisor MacManus advised Dr. McPherson that he would amend the Capital Improvements Plan .later during the public hearings to include $1.9 million in additional monies in FY06 for the Smithfield Middle School project. Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board request Dr. McPherson to provide the Board with periodic reports as the Smithfield Middle School project progresses throughout the next year. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark indicated the Consent Agenda included the following items: A. Resolution to Support the Recognition of Delegate William K. Barlow as a Friend of Agriculture B. Resolution to Submit a Grant. Proposal and. to Accept and Appropriate Virginia Tobacco Settlement Funds -from the Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation C. Strategic Plan of Action/Item 7.D.3 -Needs Analysis and Plan for County Web Site Updates D. Strategic Plan of Action/Item 7.1.1 - IT Equipment Life Cycle Policy E. Strategic Plan of Action/Item 7.1.1 -Policy. for Use of the County's PEG Channel F. Isle of Wight County Administration Building and Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department -Construction and Renovation Progress Report G. Final Subdivision Plat of Batiste Estates, Route 661, Sugar Hill Road, Newport Magisterial District 1 8 ~~ BOOK 22 r;;~'?75 H. Board of Zoning Appeals Action List of March 1, 2004 I. Planning Commission Action List of March 9, 2004 J. DEQ/Public Notice March 8, 2004 K. Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collection Monthly Report L. February 18, 2004 Community Meeting Minutes M. February 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Minutes Chairman Clark asked if there were any items for removal. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the Consent Agenda, as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) .with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion and, no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark called for Transportation Matters. Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning and Zoning, noted .that staff had sent..the Board via the mail a large. map illustrating the Route 460 Location Study Alternative Routes through Isle of Wight County. He stated the State is anxious to receive comments from the County. He stated the Windsor Town Planning Commission will consider this matter at its March 25, 2004 meeting and the Windsor Town Council will consider this matter at its meeting on April T3, 2004. He stated Alternative (A) is the preferred route and requested permission from the Board for staff to work with the Town of Windsor to prepare a resolution. for consideration at the Board's April 1, 2004 meeting stating that the County endorses Alternative (A) and opposes Alternative (E). He recommended that staff also comment on the impact this project has on the Commonwealth Cotton Gin, as well as the industrial complex located -east of the Town of Windsor, including the County's industrial park. He inquired if the Board is still desirous. of staff holding a community meeting. Supervisor Bradshaw noted he would like to discuss with Mr. Hartley some of the engineering design concerns he has with Alternative (A). He stated the southern route when it crosses the County line on the Blackwater River used to be the shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean and this area is predominantly sand... Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board direct staff to send a letter endorsing Alternative (A), and opposing the Alternative (E), for signature by 9 BOOK 22 ~~Gf276 the Chairman to lie sent to the State. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5- 0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion and, no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus further moved that the Board direct staff to send a letter encouraging the Smithfield Town Council to consider endorsing under resolution, a similar motion, to support Alternative (A) and oppose Alternative (E}. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion and, no Supervisors voting against the motion. U Chairman Clark called for Citizen's Comments. Ed Easter. addressed the Board regarding Purchase of Development ..Rights. He noted that he believes that the County does not have the funds to implement such a plan.. He noted that the increase in development at this time is .due to extremely low interest rates, but when these rates change, development will .slow down. He stated the County's ,infrastructure is unsound for large-scale developments. He urged the .Board not to put a burden on the present taxpayers, and to institute a plan to control growth. He encouraged the Board to buy the land. so that the County will. own the land and do with it what the County wants over a period of time. // Chairman Clark called for the County Attorney's report. County Attorney Stroman presented the lease agreement between the Town of Windsor and the County leasing: Robinson Park to the County for $l. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board authorize the, Chairman to execute the Lease Agreement between the Town of Windsor and Isle of Wight County leasing Robinson Park to the County. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with .Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in .favor of the motion and, no Supervisors voting against the motion. .County Attorney Stroman presented a Deed to the Commonwealth for the roadway and Recreational Access Road Fund Agreement for the Board's consideration. He requested that the Board cancel the public hearing on the matter as VDOT has had a change in procedure. - Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board cancel the public hearing on the Deed to the Commonwealth for the Roadway/Recreational Access .Road Fund Agreement. The motion was adopted. by a vote of (5-0) with 10 aoo~ 22 ~h~~?77 Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright .and Clark voting in favor of the motion and, no Supervisors voting against the motion. County Attorney Stroman indicated that he would have one (1) item for discussion during the closed meeting concerning a probable litigation matter under Section 2.2-3711.A.7 and two (2) personnel maters under Section 2.2- 3711.A.1 of the Freedom of Information Act relating to the evaluation of the. County Administrator and the County Attorney. /1 Chairman Clark called for the County Administrator's .report. County Administrator Casket' presented a Resolution to Designate April 18 -April 24, 2004 as .Volunteer Recognition Week for the Board's consideration. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE APRIL 18 -April 24, 2004 AS VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK WHEREAS, we are a nation that was founded by individuals who have dedicated their lives, energies, and resources to making this a better world for themselves, their families, and their neighbors; and, In ~L~ WHEREAS, volunteerism directly reflects the democratic principles upon which this nation was founded in that everyone, regardless of their circumstances, race, age, sex, color or creed can volunteer; and, WHEREAS, the number of individuals engaging in volunteer work and the important variety of services provided increase each year, providing challenges and fulfillment, rich rewards from helping others, improving skills, and widening one's horizons; and, WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize and to honor the numerous contributions of the many volunteers serving the County of Isle of Wight, as well as this Commonwealth of Virginia, and to join in with State and national leaders to set a special time for such recognition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that the week of April 18-April 24, 2004 be designated as Volunteer Recognition Week. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion.. 11 eaQR ~wlFd /N C.rFI~V County Administrator Caskey requested that the Board set a date for its. FY04-OS' General Operating and Capital Budget work session. ' Supervisor MacManus moved the. Board set a budget work session on the FY04-OS' General Operating and Capital Budget to hear a brief overview of the County's various departments for Thursday, March 25, 2004 from. 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. at the Windsor Community Center. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no .Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus further moved that the Board hold afollow-up work session in the Board of Supervisors Room at the Courthouse on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss the budget requests in further detail. with the Department Heads, as may be requested by the Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Donald T. Robertson, Assistant County. Administrator, presented a request from the Sheriff's Office relative to a Selective Enforcement Grant application. Chairman Clark moved the Board authorize submission of the Selective Enforcement Grant application. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting :against the motion; and, Supervisor Bradshaw absent for the vote... Beverly W. Walkup, Senior Planner, briefed the Board on the Booker T. Estates Neighborhood Planning Study. She noted that the neighborhood consists of substandard housing and is facing failing septic systems and storm drainage problems. She requested the. Board authorize staff to pursue a planning grant to initiate a proposal to the Department of Housing .and Community .Development to seek planning grant funds to study the neighborhood. She noted that upon the completion of the planning grant study, staff will prepare an application for a community improvement grant to perform water and sewer, housing and storm drainage improvements. She noted that it is a visible neighborhood and with the emphasis being placed on the Development Service District aesthetics, it is time to address this forgotten :community. Chairman Clark moved the Board authorize the County Administrator to enter into a contract with K. W. Poore, Inc. to complete Task # 1 of the proposal at a cost of $2,000 to pursue Planning Grant funding. The motion was adopted by a vote. of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 1 12 .. ~~ fl BOON 22 P,;G•,'~.. I J At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board amend the regular order of the agenda in order to conduct the public hearings. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). 1I Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: A. The application of Isle of Wight Associates, LLC for a change in zoning classification from NC-CR1, NC-CR3 and NC-A2 to Conditional Suburban Residential of approximately 406 acres of .land located on the east and west sides of Smith's- Neck Road (Route 665) north of Boundary Road and south of James River Drive in the Newport Election District. The purpose of the application is for a maximum of 380 single-family residential sites. Mr. Hartley noted that staff has met with the developer and discussed all of the issues listed on page 14 of the Board Report; however, the items listed on page 25 are the critical items that staff felt needed to be addressed by the .developer. He noted contained in the Board's agenda package following the March 10, 2004 letter. are the most .current set of proffers received by staff which consist of three (3) pages of proffers, the second page being an insert received by .staff on March 11, 2004. He noted that proffer number seven (7) refers to three (3) parcels that are owned or controlled by the applicant that are located outside the original rezoning staff refers to as "Crown Creek." Supervisor MacManus noted that he has in~ormation in front of him that contains a different date and references different types of proffers. County Attorney Stroman noted that staff has received a series of amended proffers leading up to the meeting tonight, and that he had provided to the Board a fax received today from the developer which the developer will need to explain.. Supervisor Wright commented that it is unfair and not possible for the Board to make a .good judgement on any application when additional information is presented to the Board just prior to a meeting. Chairman Clark concurred with Supervisor Wright and suggested. the Board proceed with conducting the public hearing and if the Board has further comments, they can be addressed to Mr. Hartley at that time. 13 eoo~ 22 ~A~~280 Supervisor Bradshaw inquired if the Board has a legal set of proffers . by which to consider. County Attorney Stroman advised that the County has received a set of proffers that was signed. by the developer that is valid. He stated his concern is with the redraft that included the alternatives of the developers. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed application. Robert Jones, Attorney for the developer, presented the County Attorney with the original final proffers noting that he may or may not have copies of them. County Attorney Stroman advised that these proffers were not submitted to the County prior to the commencement of the public hearing; therefore, the Board will be required to hold another public hearing to consider these proffers in order for them to be valid. Attorney Jones stated the property was previously zoned for 340 units, specifically 250 single-family dwellings and~90 townhouses, as well as a golf course. and its own sewer facilities. He stated there have been a number of .meetings with County staff and the developer has attempted to draft proffers to address any issues of concern. He stated as a result of those meetings, a number of scenarios presented. themselves and a set of proffers has been drafted consisting of three (3) alternatives. He noted the golf course and on- site water and sewer have both been removed in all three (3) alternatives. He stated option (A) is for 380 single-family homes, the .water and sewer lines would be extended from Route 17 to the development and onto a spur line on to Gatling Pointe, .and cash proffers of $6,000 per unit on the entire 380 homes. He stated Option (B) is for 380 homes, the water and sewer lines would be extended Route 17 to the development, and there would be no extension of the spur to Gatling Pointe, with cash proffers of $8,000. He stated option (C) is fore.360. single-family homes, there would be no spur to Gatling Pointe and cash proffers would be $6,000. He stated the spur and water line would be constructed upon 120 days of the approval of the zoning. request. He stated the applicant is willing to own and maintain the lines for a period often (10) years, and there would be no further taps along Smith Neck Road to that line other than the Gatling Pointe spur. He stated there will be .restrictive covenants to cover all BMPs. He stated the BMPs will not be turned over to the homeowners association until 60% of the homes are actually sold. He stated' there are restrictive covenants for the building designs. He stated there will be improvements to the Titus Creek Smith Neck Road intersection which will be completed prior to recordation of the lots. He stated there has been an overall conceptual plan submitted to the County, as well as a proffer that if any historic site is found, development will cease and the County will be allowed to inspect the site. He stated with respect to .the concern' of allowing the .water line to come down and allowing the three 1 1 14 904a 2i2j rti" ~V~, (3) parcels of land that the developers also own that adjoin this property to use the facilities, he .does not see that there is anyone else in the same position along that corridor and he does not believe he is setting a precedent, as discussed by the Planning Commission. He stated his clients are in a unique situation in that while his clients have offered three (3) options on the proffers, the Board. also has the option to deny the application and the County gets 340 new homes, no spur and no cash proffers. He stated the Board may not want the 340 homes built, but they can be built, so he believes any one (1) of the three (3) options presented is better overall for the County than the existing option. He stated he estimates that the benefit to the County via the water line extension to the development and Gatling Pointe, and the taps that the County would realize from the cash proffers and the road improvements, to be approximately $9,000,000. He stated the County may not want the water line today or even tomorrow, but at some point, it will be needed, and it will be there to serve the County. He requested the Board to approve the application. County Attorney Stroman noted that the valid proffers are contained in the Board's agenda dated March 9, 2004, which are signed and which were submitted before the commencement of the public hearing. Supervisor Bradshaw pointed .out that page two (2) of the three (3) pages is a faxed page and is not initialed. He noted that the fax is dated March 11, 2004, the letter is dated March 10, .2004: and signed March 9, 2004. Attorney Jones stated his client attempted, but failed, to submit the option proffers prior to the commencement of the public hearing.- He stated if the County would prefer to act on the valid proffers that- are contained in the agenda, this is acceptable to his client as well. Wayne Beagle, IWC Associates, stated he i~ willing to withdraw all proffers except for the ones legally received by the Board prior to the commencement of the public hearing. He stated he purchased the property approximately two (2) years ago with the intent of designing and building an upscale development. He stated the public's input has been sought at numerous public meetings and tried to show alternatives to the present zoning that will be beneficial to both the County and him. He stated under his proposal he feels he can build a superior development that offers a better use of the property, more amenities, additional infrastructure .and a higher tax base for the. County. He stated he feels the proffers offered recognize the financial impact development does have on County services. He requested the Board approve the application. Robert C. Claud,. Sr. of Windsor stated this project can and .will be developed, with or without the Board's approval, and the County can restrict the utility lines between Eagle Harbor and this project to prevent future development. He stated he .believes the project, as proposed, is better for the 15 eoo~ 22 ~A~t~82 adjoining neighbors, landowners and the County than .the project for which the land is currently zoned. He asked how the County cari .turn down $3,000,000 in utility tap. fees,. $2.2 million in cash proffers and $1.4 million to extend water and sewer lines to Gatling Pointe. He stated this eliminates the current water .quality problem that currently exists in Gatling Point with fluoride and at no up-front cost to the County. He stated it also eliminates having to negotiate water rates and sewer surcharge fees with the Town of Smithfield. He stated according to reports, the Town of Smithfield has reached capacity of its water ..system, and does the Board know what the impact will be in the future in .supply and cost to the County. He f ~ recommended that the Board take all reasonable .steps to prevent Gatling Pointe from future annexation should the Town of Smithfield decide to do so in the future. He stated providing this basic infrastructure will strengthen the County's case. He stated approximately $400,000 would be lost in County revenue if Gatling Pointe was annexed. He stated this Board would be shortsighted not to extend the water and sewer lines to Gatling Point and control the destiny- of the County because the County still needs a way to serve the 70 Battery Park water customers which are served from the j Smithfield system from Gatling Pointe. He urged the Board to approve the application. Dale Boyer, Newport District, urged the Board to deny the application tonight. He stated no proffer could be made, which would make it acceptable to violate the Development Service District (DSD) and the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the DSD and the Comprehensive Plan are tools to manage growth, and if a sewer line is allowed down Smiths. Neck Road at this time, managed growth will be forfeited.. He stated citizens are being. burdened by the property rate increases caused by the current residential growth in the Newport District. He stated the potential consequences of approving a sewer line down Smiths Neck Road will. be massive increases in the tax rate. He stated Rickman Engineering was hired to provide additional information, and Mr. Rickman dismissed the idea of discharging 100,000+ gallons per .day of highly treated .sewage into Jones Creek because of shellfish concerns. He stated his report concentrated on drip and spray irrigation and drip irrigation was discounted because of the. soils. He stated Mr. Rickman indicated spay irrigation was highly doubtful because of the soils also, but a substantially reduced development may be possible and may be very costly. He stated if IWC Associates does decide to proceed with building under the current zoning, the County can protect itself by requiring sufficient bonding, stringent building requirements for .the wastewater sewer system and other normal and customary requirements. He stated the County can ensure that all costs associated with the. sewer .system can be covered from the homeowners monthly water and sewer fees. He stated it can. be run by private contractors overseen by a County commission or board. He stated the fees could be substantial and potential buyers would be aware of this expense up-front. He stated Mr. Beagle does not want to be tied up with this kind of complication, nor does he want the up-front cost of an unprofitable golf course, which he may have to subsidize the. rest of his life. He stated he is prepared to accept 1 1 16 eoo~ 22 ~h~:2~33 this development using the current zoning rather than accept a sewer line down Smiths Neck Road, and he urged the Board to .deny the application. Pat Clark of Twin Hill Lane stated that Ruby. Munsell of Carrollton and he are opposing the rezoning because it is not in compliance with the County's Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. He stated the danger in not complying with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan is that the Board would be setting a precedent, and the Board would not be able to turn down future developers .because it has already made an exception to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Bob Kennedy of Riverpoint Trail stated if the Board approves the application and runs water and sewer down Smiths Neck Road, the existing parcels will ~be subdivided, creating a minimum of 2,500 additional lots. He stated the developers will be requesting the. Board to extend the utility lines off Smith Neck Road to Reynolds Drive and Titus Creek Road down Nike Park Road. He stated there is a potential for an additional 3,000 lots for development throughout Nike Park Road, which will double. the population of the Carrollton District. He stated the County is not prepared for this kind of growth and the demand for services that would come along with it. He requested that the Board follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the application. Maria Gardner of Smiths Neck Road .stated money is the root of all evil. She inquired if the residents on Smiths Neck Road could tap into the water and sewer line. David Willis, President of the Gatling Pointe North Community Association, stated the Association is opposed to the application because the rezoning is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the proposed proffers will be received over a period of years and he requested. - that the Board deny the application. Joe Ferguson of Dews Plantation Road stated the $6.6 million equals only 15% of a single year of the present School Board budget.. He stated. if the Board really does have to choose between two (2) bad choices, he would rather give up 15% of the .School Board budget than do something that will potentially balloon the entire County budget into the future. George Hart of Newbill Lane stated he was opposed to the application because of traffic and road concerns. He noted that the traffic study was flawed because it was based on a population growth of only 2% over the next ten (10) years; however, the population growth in the Newport District represented a 34% increase or 3.4% increase per year from 1990 to 2000. He noted that the traffic study used the Eagle Harbor projections of 1997, which are seven (7) years old. He requested that .anew traffic study be conducted to see how this development will affect the County. He noted that there are also 17 aoo~ 22 ~N~.2$4 other developments that are in the planning stages that will be using these roads and should be included in the traffic study as well. ' Sharon Hart, on behalf of the Isle of Wight Citizens Association and the Carrollton Civic League, expressed concern. of citizens with the extension of sewer lines out of the Development Service District and the lack of green space if the present zoning is changed. She stated this development, if approved, will drastically change the Newport District and will tax the County's facilities and resources heavily. She stated sewer lines along Smith Neck will not be limited to 380 units, but rather will open the door to unbridled growth in an additional area. She stated the "no tap in" stipulation is true only until the Board has a change in Board members.. She stated running a sewer line that is privately owned is a bad precedent to set as it opens the door for other developers to do it elsewhere in the County. She stated the proffers are not sufficient to pay for ongoing cost of capital improvement.. She stated when the cost of the first new school is factored in, the cost will increase approximately 7%, or be $9,416 per year. to educate each student. She stated the impact of construction should be borne by the individuals who build it, but the cost is passed on to existing taxpayers. She noted this development will be an additional burden on the Sheriffs Office. She stated the .citizens .want the Board to vote on the application tonight. a Grace Keen, of the Newport District stated the County is fast losing its vision of being a rural. community. She requested that the Board do what is right for the children and residents of the County by denying the application. Jim Style of Titus Court stated if the Board approves the application, the County will not be balanced.. He requested that the Board deny the application. Sadie Boyer of Riverpoint Farms presented a petition against the development containing 253 names.. She stated she has faith that the Board will not violate the Comprehensive Plan and that the Board will not allow thousands of new homes to be built at this time. She urged the Board to deny the application and to vote on the matter tonight. Nancy Guill, speaking on behalf of the Carrollton Civic League, stated she thought that running the water lines was not a deterrent to annexation of Gatling Pointe as the Town of Smithfield only has to show the ability to provide basic services to Gatling Pointe. She stated since the Town of Smithfield. already does this, the Town of Smithfield could do it again in the future. She stated if the County is running water to Gatling Pointe, couldn't it also be said that the Town of Smithfield is connected to this development and the Board has opened the door for the'Town of Smithfield to annex even further into the Carrollton area in the future. She stated running the sewer lines down Sugar Hill Road. was the main reason why Sugar Hill was included in the Development Service District..She inquired the next time that 18 aooK 22 ~~;~:285 the Comprehensive Plan is developed, will all of Smiths Neck Road be put into a Development Service District as well? Barry Reed of Ballard Creek Subdivision stated allowing the sewer line will limit the ability to manage growth and it will be hard to stop other developments from tying into the sewage line, thus causing over- development of the existing area. He stated residents in that area already have a difficult time getting in and out of their neighborhoods and it is yet to be seen how Eagle Harbor and Wellington Estates will impact on municipal services as these developments are not yet complete. Thomas. Finderson of Sugar Hill Road stated the proposed lots are too small given the number of houses and are located too far from the fire station. He noted it would be difficult for fire trucks to get to the development during peak traffic hours. He stated another entrance orr the east side is needed and the County currently. has inadequate public. facilities. He stated if a sewer line is developed in stages by a developer, the County will be likely to get the highest proffers. He stated with already developed sewer. lines,.. developers have little incentive to proffer. He stated the Board will have a difficult time saying no to a developer in the future when roads, sewer and water are available. He stated this intrusion outside the Development Service District undermines legitimate projects such as the one being proposed at Benns Church. He stated there are DEQ grants available for water upgrades and he would like to see the fluoride problem addressed. He requested that the Board vote to deny the application tonight. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. County Attorney Stroman stated according to the law in Virginia the Comprehensive Plan is general in nature and serves as a guide. He stated the Comprehensive Plan is the basis on which the County's Zoning Ordinance is built,. but the Board can not elevate the Comprehensive Plan to the same level as the Zoning Ordinance. He stated it would be a mistake to conclude that the Comprehensive Plan binds the Board. He stated it is very clear under the existing law that the ability to provide utility service is one (1) factor that would weigh in favor of the County resisting annexation. He stated with respect to the Chesapeake opinion, it is similar to the advice he has provided to the Board; there is not a single reported case that addresses this issue: however, the Virginia Supreme Court has not definitively ruled that the holding out doctrine applies in Virginia. He stated .the County can not predict how the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County or the Virginia Supreme Court will rule on this issue as there is an absence of legal authority. He stated the Board has a voluntary proffer #7 that would allow for connections to the sewer line outside of the .original rezoning.. He stated it is his opinion that acceptance of that proffer would seriously weaken the County's ability to defend future sewer connections. 19 eooN 22 ~~~:286 Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that the County Attorney request an opinion from the Attorney General's Office on proffer #7. County Attorney Stroman stated while it is possible to address this issue with the Attorney General's Office, the County would not receive a response in time to be of any use to the Board in deciding this issue. He stated it typically takes months or even years to .receive an opinion from the Attorney General's Office. He stated the Board could seek a verbal opinion which could be given more quickly; however, this opinion is not binding, but would give the. Board some insight into the Attorney General's thinking. on the subject. - He stated that often in the informal. opinions, the Attorney General's Office does not provide a definitive answer. He advised the Board that page 2 of the voluntary proffers was faxed to the County with the request from .the developer that it be interlineated; however, all three (3) pages contained in the agenda are the developer's intended proffers. He stated because all three (3) pages were submitted prior to the public hearing that the March 9, 2004, those proffers are the legitimate proffers.. He stated that he had surveyed his colleagues around the State and. received different opinions on the ability of other users to tap into a privately. held utilities line. Supervisor Bradshaw noted that Mr. ~Finderson pointed out there is already an established subdivision that adjoins. the property under discussion. He noted that if this subdivision requested to be able to hook on to the sewer line, the County would have little reason not to extend the sewer line to the adjoining property. County Attorney Stroman advised the Board to follow the proffers which state that there will be no additional connections allowed to the sewer line..He stated ifthe Board elects to approve this application, it should not allow any connections other than the original zoning of 1986. He stated the Board should not allow paragraph (7) which. contains parcels outside of the development. Supervisor Bradshaw stated he believes that. the adjoining subdivision that is already established would have a reason to connect to the sewer line because services are beingprovided to that point.. He stated,this development would have a stronger case because it was part of the project originally, and was subdivided earlier." County Attorney Stroman noted that the argument against this is that this is an existing zoning and the County has changed that zoning and accepted a proffer restricting it only. to that development, and the County could enforce those proffers. Supervisor MacManus inquired what County Attorney Stroman's opinion is about the legal enforceability of the .March 9, 2004 proffers presented. i, i~ County Attorney Stroman noted with respect to the. question of whether or not the cash proffers were related to onlythose newly .rezoned lots or whether it .related to all. of them, paragraph (9) addresses this in that the developer proffers cash payments of $6,000 for each of the 380 single-family dwelling units. Supervisor MacManus stated with respect o the water and sewer, Item (6) proffer of 1986, is there a timeframe that the County has to take over the system. County Attorney Stroman stated paragraph (6) of the 1986 proffers states that the system will be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications satisfactory to the Isle of Wight County Public Service Authority. He stated the Public Service Authority has since dissolved and the Board has created a Department of Public Utilities. He stated a court is likely to read that provision as allowing the successor in interest to take advantage of that proffer. He stated the County is not obligated to accept the system as the proffer states, "if accepted by the County." Supervisor MacManus addressed proffer # (18) and inquired if this is a basic obligation anyway or would the developer in the 1986 zoning be able to run over those sites without protecting them- properly. County Attorney Stroman stated. there is no absolute right to protection of discovered prehistoric and historic sites. He stated if the developer were to come upon graves, he would be legally obligated to stop. by State law. Supervisor MacManus noted, Mrs.. Hart pointed out earlier during Citizens Comments that the traffic. study contained growth rate errors. He inquired what is the obligation of the applicants to have accurate growth rate information. County Attorney Stroman stated the Board would have recourse if the developer knowingly submitted false information. He stated if the applicant recognizes that there have been errors, then ..the applicant should correct them. He stated he is only concerned with knowing misrepresentations and he would pursue legal action on behalf of the County in such a case. Supervisor MacManus inquired if it was legal to use SR zoning outside the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Service District. County Attorney Stroman noted it is legal because the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and the Board has generous discretion in deviating from the Comprehensive Plan. Supervisor MacManus inquired if it is legal to change the density factor to a higher density with SR. 21 eoo~ 22 tA~:288 County Attorney Stroman stated -the existing law :suggests that the discretion that the Boazd has in deviating from the Comprehensive Plan is such that the Boazd could accept these proffers if it so desired. He stated he does not believe. that if the Board were to accept these proffers, the Boazd could be successfully challenged on the basis of deviation from the Comprehensive -Plan because of existing case law and because this is a unique situation. in that the Board has an existing legacy zoning. Chairman Clark inquired. if the Board extends it, has the .Board weakened the Comprehensive Plan as a main management tool. County Attorney Stroman advised that the Board does have discretion to deviate. from the Comprehensive Plan; however, the more the Boazd deviates from the Comprehensive Plan, the weaker it becomes as a land use management tool.. Supervisor MacManus stated the developer chose to include Item (7) because there were concerns about the protection of any extension because of the fact that the three (3) parcels were included. He inquired the basis for the belief that there is no concern about this. Attorney Jones. stated he is of the opinion that IWC Associates owns that property as well. He stated as it is IWC Associates that is spending the funds to run the line and if there is someone out there that can show that they have put forth this effort to tie four (4) pieces of property together that perhaps they have something to show. He stated this is merely an opinion with no legal basis or precedent to stand behind his opinion. Supervisor Wright inquired from Attorney Jones that if his client purchased other property down the road from the site under consideration tonight, does he still feel he has the right to hook onto the sewer line. Attorney Tones stated "no" and that his client has proffered that those would be the only properties allowed to connect to the sewer line.: Supervisor MacManus referred to a number of .flag lots on the proposed. application. He inquired if the flat lots are supportable by the County's. ordinances or zoning. Mr. Hartley noted a flat lot is where there is a narrow strip of land that ` goes back to a lazge lot, resulting in a series of driveways that are side-by- side. He stated the current Ordinance does not address flag lots, and staff has typically not allowed them by requiring that the lot haue the required frontage on a publicly-owned and maintained road. He stated he intended to address this issue in the new Subdivision Ordinance. Supervisor MacManus inquired if the applicant can build piers on the old development. 1 1 22 a Mr. Hartley replied that the number of piers on the old development is not regulated other than what would be permitted under the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Supervisor Bradby noted that he is obligated to be responsive to the concerns of citizens. He further noted there is a petition in the agenda that contains over 200 signatures in opposition to the proposed application. He stated there are also a number of citizens present tonight that have spoken, or stood, in opposition to the proposed application. He stated the Planning Commission voted (11-0) to deny the application, and he concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. County Attorney Stroman, following a request from Supervisor Bradshaw, read the following proffers into the record, as follows: 1) that the area zoned R-1 can be subdivided into a maximum of 250 single-family lots; 2) the area zoned R-3 can be developed into a maximum of 90 townhomes; 3) the .land zoned R-3 shall have a 100 foot vegetated buffer between it and the adjacent properties under separate ownership.; 4) the area that is zoned. A-2 shall only be used for a golf course and .uses related thereto or similar recreational uses or similar accessory. uses; 5) that there will be no lots fronting onto existing State Route 665 or any lots served directly from existing State Lot 665; and 6) that the sewage treatment and water system must be designed in accordance with specifications satisfactory to the successor in interest, -the County's Department of Public Utilities, and. that it wilt be conveyed, if accepted. Supervisor Bradshaw asked Mr. Hartley if the property is buildable in its current condition, without the County running water or sewer: to that site. Mr. Hartley noted he met with representatives of the Department of Environmental. Quality and was advised that it was not a question of if a sewer system could be built to serve that property, rather it was a question of what measures would have to be taken in the design of that system to meet water quality standards. Supervisor MacManus inquired whose responsibility would it be to find water. with suitable fluoride levels if the County chooses not to accept the conveyance of the sewer and. water system. County Attorney Stroman replied that it is unknown how the developer might structure this, and they may or may not intend to transfer the system to the homeowners association. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired what position was .taken by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. 23 BONN /~IM~- ~1i~1~ h.i'J O Mr. Hartley stated that CBLAD made a comment that .there were a number of lots that needed additional study in terms of whether they were buildable and that the development was of good design in that much of the wetlands were set .aside as open space. He stated CBLAD did not feel it was a bad development layout. He noted that the. new regulations would knock out some of the lots .that were proposed in the schematic that was done with the rezoning because there was not a proffered condition of the schematic. He stated it would also knock out large areas zoned NCR-1, as shown on the boundary plat. County Attorney Stroman noted that his comments earlier to Supervisor MacManus regarding cemeteries. and historic sites were correct in terms of the Virginia law researched; however, he has not researched Federal law. Chairman Clark stated he is sensitive to the County's current budgetary situation,-.but. despite the. proffers, sewer lines and tap-on fees, there is the uncertain fate of restricting the access. to the water and sewer line. He stated he is not willing to risk what .could be between $25,000,000 and $50,000,000 in new schools for $6,000,000 to $9,000,000 in proffers. He stated there are not adequate schools, fire and rescue facilities, roads and law enforcement capacity to handle the growth that could occur from a potentially unrestricted access to the water and sewer line. Supervisor MacManus stated he did not want either development at this time, old or new, as the County is not ready for it at this point in time. He stated looking at .the old and new development, under the old proposal the County will be .faced with 250 single-family homes and 90 townhomes that will.. not be of an expensive nature, and on the new plan there will be 380 homes, which will be of a more expensive. nature. He stated there will probably be more school children under the old. plan than the new. plan. He stated under the old plan, with respect to water, they will be on a well and it is likely they will run into fluoride issues in the future. He stated it will be good for the County if it can protect its liability; however, it will be bad for the people who buy into such a development. He stated in the new development, there would be $1.2 million for the line, as well as $1.25 million for the tap-ins. He stated he did not see any benefit from the Gatling Pointe extension because he does not see it as protection. He stated. both proposals will have a lot of homes with fire and rescue problems because they are not close to the facilities. He stated the school impact will be equal under both proposals because of the cost of housing and the demographic trends. He stated there is not much of a difference from a traffic perspective. He stated there is an unknown amount of piers in the old plan and in the new plan six (6) piers are proposed. He added that the old plan included a golf. course, and both plans could result in possible destruction of historic areas. He stated there are proffers of $6,000 per home under the new plan versus zero, which is a significant impact. He stated the County Attorney has advised the Board that there is no basis to protect the water and sewer line 1 24 eooK 22 ~~~~2~.~~ going forward with three (3) parcels tied to it, and he can not go against the advice of the County Attorney in this regard. Supervisor Bradshaw stated when he came on the Board he believed that the Board needed to begin managing the growth in the County. He commended the citizens for doing research and providing information to the Board on this application, and he encouraged them to continue to be involved in local government issues. He stated this Board is responsive to the citizens of the County and the quality of life and concerns of the citizens are first and uppermost in the Board's decisions. He stated that he is not in favor of approving this application because of the County Attorney's .decision that he can not guarantee the Board that other developers cannot tie in to the water and sewer lines. He stated staff will continue to work with the developer in an effort to find a suitable way to develop this project for both parties. Supervisor Wright stated he could not support the application because of the three (3) lots, the sewer system and the advice of the County Attorney. Chairman Clark moved the Board deny the application of Isle of Wight Associates, LLC. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Clark moved the Board take a five (5) minutes recess. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Chairman Clark moved the Board return to open session. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Chairman Clark called for a public hearing cn the following: B. Isle of Wight County FY2005-09 Capital Improvements Plan as Proposed by the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak i:~ favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed application. No one appeared. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. ..Responding to Supervisor MacManus, Mrs. Seward noted that she did incorporate the additional $1.4 million into the -bond issuance line item for 25 eooM 22 ~a~~~~~2 the FY05-06. She further noted that because the .other $500,000, per the School Superintendent's. letter, did speak to the FY03 return funds that went back to the General Fund balance, and she did incorporate that amount in that .year, increasing the CIP by $1.9 million fore the. school facility in the FY05- 06 which revises. the CIP to $38,237,370 for the five (5) year period. Ms. Seward noted the- Board committed $250,000 from the FY03 balance to go to back to the School Board to help them in their operating needs this fiscal year. She explained that during the CIP Subcommittee process, the. school administration requested that rather than taking that money for operating needs that it be used at the Smithfield Middle School for interim office space. Supervisor MacManus recommended that the $250,000 for the refurbishment of the Smithfield Middle/Elementary School be placed in FY06 as a separate line item. Ms. Seward clarified that the .School Board is requesting that the County allocate $500,000 from the FY03 unspent funds, that the County allocate an additional $1.4 million in debt issuance, and .requesting that the County appropriate an additional $250,000 to go towards administration space in the Smithfield Middle School. Supervisor Wright noted that he had a problem with the School Board "finding" $500,000. Chairman Clark concurred and stated that he also has a problem with allocating funds for anything that is not absolutely essential because of the uncertain financial condition of the State. He stated if the State cutbacks continue, .and unless the Board is going to be willing to increase property taxes, the Board is going to have to start saying "no" to additional funding and the School Board is going to have to live within the 70% of the County's budget that is currently allocated to the schools. Mrs. Seward cautioned that the County has no funding formula. She stated that percentage will have to change as the community changes and fire. and rescue needs increase.. Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board revise the Isle of Wight County FY2005-09 Capital Improvements Plan and add $1.4 million for the school construction for the new Smithfield Middle School in FY06 and $500,000 in the General Fund Balance in FY06. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors 1VIacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark .voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors. voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus further moved that there be a separate new line item for the renovation for central school offices in the Smithfield Middle 26 BOON 22 r~~~:2~~J School in FY06 at $250,000. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors ~MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board adopt. the Isle of Wight County FY2005-09 Capital Improvements Plan in the amount of $38,487,370. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, .Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. With respect to the following application of W. C. Sawyer, County Attorney Stroman noted that Mr. Sawyer has requested that the application be tabled: C. The application of W. C. Sawyer for an amendment. to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Designation from Suburban Estate to Business- & Employment Growth of approximately ,72 acres of land located on the north side of Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17) west of the Omera Drive, Carrollton, in the Newport Election District. .Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve the request to re- schedulethe public hearing for the Board's April 15, 2004 meeting, with the cost of re-advertising to be borne by the applicant. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: D. The application of David L. & Debra F. Conlon for an exception to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance Section 6000. Specifically to allow encroachment down to fifty (50) feet into the one hundred (100) foot Resource Protection Area Buffer for the expansion of asingle-family residence. The property, containing 2.13 acres of land, is known as lot 7, C. L. Obrey Land, 24146 Creekview Lane, Carrollton, in the Newport Election District. Mr. Hartley emphasized that the application is an exception to permit encroachment into the RPA. He distributed a drawing illustrating the portion of the existing structure which is to be removed consisting of 198 feet. He stated he has highlighted the setbacks that apply in yellow to the existing residence. He stated what is proposed is colored in orange. He stated the net increase over what is being removed is 537 feet which is highlighted in purple. He stated that exceptions are. much like variances which deal with the issue of hardship, and a hardship that is not shared generally by other properties and one that, if approved, will not have a substantial detriment to 27 BooK 22 rti'v'?r.~4 adjacent properties. He stated there is the option to build a new structure outside of the RPA, which would require demolishing the existing structure and relocating .the new. structure outside of the RPA. which will entail adjustments to the utilities on site. He stated-for many years the County took the position it is alright to approve an application if it performs in a manner that is equivalent. to the buffer, such as the applications approved in Gatling Pointe and Eagle Harbor. He stated the new CBLAD regulations. now state that the buffer is now .the most important aspect. He stated in considering this application the Board. should first decide if there is ~ hardship, then it must perform. equivalent to the maximum buffer that can. be realized on .this piece of property. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed application. Debra F. Conlon, applicant, distributed photographs of the existing home. She noted that Mr. Hartley has provided copies of her original application, which. is now irrelevant, and she presented the Board a slide of her current footprint. She stated Mr. Hartley has not given her credit for impervious cover. She stated in her view she is backing away from the fifty (50) foot line, and Mr. Hartley's view is that she is getting closer to the water; however, she is getting further away from the fifty (50) foot line by coming out as proposed. She noted that there are ravines on either side of the lot, the concrete driveway is within the flood. plain, and she can not go behind the existing septic tank due to its location. She stated the Planning Commission voted. (7-4) to recommend against approval. She stated that she desires to build a larger home than the current 1,200 square foot home, but walkways, porches, and other impervious cover are being taken out and the new house will be two (2) stories. She stated she intends to install guttering on the home which will keep rainwater either at the same place or further back than now. She stated the existing bushes around the home will also be replaced. She stated she proposes to cut her existing lawn, .and if there are types of plantings. needed within the 0 to 50 feet buffer to increase the filtration, she will consider doing that. She stated the increase in the footprint is approximately 50% which caused at least one (1) Commissioner to state on the record that that is the reason they were voting against the application.- She stated that if the Board does not approve her application, it will be an undue hardship because the major reason she will be doing. this is so that her mother, who has stage four liver cancer, can come live with her and have a bedroom on the first floor. She stated the proposed addition contains a bedroom. and a handicapped bathroom on the first floor to accommodate her mother. She made reference to a recent case that. was before .=the Board of Zoning Appeals in which an applicant requested a variance due to an urgent need because of a family handicap, which was. reviewed as a hardship situation, both by the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals, and was approved on February 2, 2004 by a (5-0) vote. .She stated her current home is functionally obsolete. She stated she considered having living space in the basement, but it is below the flood 1 n C 28 8011 22 rMf~r/~.'~/~ plain. She stated she intends to maintain as much of the existing structure, i.e., the garage, the basement area, the septic system and the well, as possible. She stated expanding backward will require the relocation of both the septic system and well. She stated the Health Department has reviewed her plan and approved the location of the existing septic tank and well. She stated that undue hardship as reflected in Virginia case law can mean an unreasonable restriction on the use of property standing alone, and the financial impact of the property owner is a factor that should be considered, as in .Brown versus Fairfax County Board o Zoning Appeals. She stated she purchased her home in 1990; It was constructed in 1970, and she could not have anticipated at that time the need for home health care for an ill parent. She stated her request will not have any impact on any adjacent parcels and she does not have any interest in any adjacent parcel. She stated the 1,232 square foot home has three (3) very small bedrooms and the only full bath is located completely within one (1) of the bedrooms, not accessible from a hallway. She stated the previous owner created a space designed for a linen closet into a half bath with a 24-inch door, and the house is positioned incorrectly on the lot so that the back of the house faces the roadway. She noted that included in the Board's agenda is a petition signed by thirteen (13) of her neighbors in support of her application. She stated she believes she has illustrated that there is no detriment to water quality and no increase in pervious cover with the proposed guttering, infiltration trenches and planting. plan. Thomas Finderson of the Newport District stated between the flooding and 100 foot buffer lines, it has become an island. He stated the bedroom and bathroom are too small and are not handicapped accessible. He stated Mrs. Conlon has demonstrated a land use, family and financial hardship. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Wright informed Ms. Conlon tha~ she was not supposed to be cutting anything within the 100 foot RPA. Mrs. Conlon noted that she would have to come up with a planting plan. Supervisor MacManus inquired why Mrs. Conlon could not build to the left of the septic and straight up. She stated she has had trouble getting to this area .and would have to build a new driveway. She noted that it is low in that area and there is not that much space there. Supervisor Bradshaw .stated this is a valid exception .based on his evaluation of the. application. He noted .that surrounding neighbors have already done things .worse than this such as putting in bulkheads, and this applicant might not be in this position if her mother was not ill. He stated 29 x x i Y r eoo~ 22 ~~~~?~6 this is a personal hardship and the applicant has been willing to work with staff to amend the application. He stated to build the house further up the hill would require a great deal of excavation, nat to mention the cost associated to do this. He stated the applicant intends to remove concrete that is already in the buffered area and the applicant. is trying to live within the Chesapeake Bay Act. Supervisor Bradby stated he admires that the applicant wants to bring her mother to live with her during her final days, as a lot ,of families would just send her to a nursing Name. He stated he concurred with Supervisor Bradshaw and supports the application. Supervisor MacManus stated he does not see the hardship in accordance with the law. He stated he believes a design can be created .between the eleven (11) foot and sixteen (16) foot elevation that would allow the applicant to expand the house outside the 100 RPA. Supervisor Wright stated that while he sympathized with the applicant's personal hardship,. he could not support disturbing the area within the 100 foot buffer. He stated there are areas further up the lot that could be utilized for the home. Chairman Clark stated he understood and .was sympathetic with the applicant's mother, but the law is clear that if there is a buildable area outside the RPA, it is required that the area be utilized. He stated Mr. Hartley believes. there is buildable area outside the RPA. He stated .this is not a quality of life issue, and. if the Board is to be consistent with all application, he must vote to deny it. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board deny the application of David. L. and Debra F. Conlon. The motion was adopted by a vote of (3-2) with Supervisors MacManus, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and Supervisors Bradshaw and Bradby voting against the motion. I si Supervisor .Bradshaw moved the Board return to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Chairman Clark called for Old Business. The application of Tidewater Brandermill Associates and Newhall Construction for an exception to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance Section 5002 c (2). Specifically to allow encroachment of ten (10) -feet into the one hundred (100) foot Resource Protection Area Buffer for the. construction of asingle-family. residence. The property, 30 eooK 22 rti~~2~.~7 containing .69 acre of land, is known as lot 7, James. Landing of Gatling Pointe, in the Smithfield Election District. Mr. Hartley advised the Board that the applicant has withdrawn the above application. Responding to Supervisor MacManus, he advised that staff has checked on the wetlands delineation on the subject property and staff has scheduled a meeting with the Corps of Engineers and other various organizations to come to a consensus of where the boundary is on that lot. He advised that staff would be looking at three (3) lots in that area. County Attorney Stroman advised it is premature at this point until he gathers further information, but an option would be to bring this matter to the attention of the licensing agency. Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board direct staff to investigate if there is a trend with any licensed surveyors, that show a repeated performance problem, and that the County take appropriate action to contact the licensing organization within the State to suggest that, at a minimum, remedial training may be needed. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. In respect to the Brewers Creek Community Water System, Mr. Rountree distributed a Board Report in follow-up to the report contained in the agenda on Thomas Finderson's comment at the previous meeting about a DEQ permit submitted by C&P Water Company to withdraw up to 50,000 gallons of water per day. He stated he has provided background information on the application process. He noted that C&P is required through the DEQ to have a groundwater mitigation program.. He stated C&P was granted a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity by the State Corporation Commission to operate. a water system within that geographic area, which encompasses three (3} subdivisions. He stated once C&P's withdrawal exceeds 300,000 gallons per month, C&P is required by DEQ to have the withdrawal permitted. He noted that the Health Department is in the process of rewriting its regulations and that he has relayed to the Health Department the County's concerns with the lack of emergency generators and its desire to require back-up generators as permits are issued. // Chairman Clark called for New Business. Patrick J. Small, Director of Economic Development, requested the Board schedule a public hearing on April 15, 2004 to vacate the roadway and authorize Department of Planning and Zoning staff to make those applications, post the public notices and other necessary actions to have the road abandoned. 31 soq~ 22 ~as:~2~.~$ Supervisor~Bradshaw moved that the Board authorize staff to advertise for a public hearing on April 15, 2004 to vacate the affected roadway and authorize Department of Planning. and Zoning staff to make those applications, post .the public notices and other necessary actions to have the road abandoned, as requested by the Director of Economic Development. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor. of the motion, and no , Supervisors voting against the motion. Ms. Seward stated pursuant to the Board's earlier direction to authorize a public hearing for April 15, 2004 for $23,120,000 in bonds and authorize the Chairman to sign an authorization form for. the purchase of "slugs" related to .the establishment of the escrow fund for the 2004 bond issue. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board authorize a notice. for public hearing to be held on April 15, 2004 on a .proposed issuance of general obligation school construction. bonds of the County in an estimated maximum principal amount of $23,120,000, The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board authorize the .Chairman to sign an authorization form for the purchase of "slugs" related to the establishment of an escrow fund. for the 2004 bond issue. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Mr. Robertson. reported that staff is working with residents in the Burwells Bay community on clean-up efforts as a result of Hurricane Isabel. He noted .that he anticipates completion of this project by the end of this week. He advised certain areas could not be addressed due to the fact that the ground is too soft. Mr. Rountree stated that HRSD has advised the County that due to a refinancing on .their part, they are passing along a savings in .interest rate from the. current 6.5% to 3.6%, for a savings of $50,000 pec year in the bond payment for the Windsor Sewer Interceptor project. I^ Supervisor Wright moved the Board approve the HRSD Interest Participation Agreement. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with A Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw,. Wright and. Clark voting in favor of the motion, and. no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board direct staff to advise the Planning Commission on the dates that the Board Room is available so that the Commission can consider this information while it debates going to night meetings, The .motion was .adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors 32 } , eooN 22 ~h~?~:~~ MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // 1 Supervisor MacManus requested a matter be added to the closed session regarding a potential lawsuit. County Attorney Stroman indicated that he would have two (2) items for discussion during the closed meeting concerning probable litigation under Section 2.2-3711.A.7 and two (2) personnel maters under Section 2.2- 3711.A.1 of the Freedom of Information Act relating to the evaluation of the County Administrator and the County Attorney. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board enter the closed meeting for the reasons stated by the County Attorney. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board return to open session. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. ' Supervisor Bradshaw 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 in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) 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 AYES: MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and. Wright 33 eooM 22 rk:;~~UO NAYS:0 ABSENT DURING VOTE; 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0 Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board continue its meeting until Thursday, March 25, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. at the Windsor Community Center in the Town of Windsor for the purpose of discussing the budget. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-Q). ./~£--~ Stan D. Clark, Chairman W. Dougl Ca ey, Cl ,. ~~ Y I 34 ....~........~..._._,.~a..__~ _ . __ __ ~ ~i 11 1