Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-15-2004 Regular Meeting
eoo~ 22 rti~333 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE FIFTHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR 1 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. /I Supervisor Bradshaw delivered the invocation. // Cl The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. // Chairman Clark called for approval of the agenda. County Attorney Stroman requested that a request of George Keith and Sheri Bradshaw for a waiver to allow off-site. disposal system with an easement and a Cost Plus Participation Agreement be added to New Business; that Item (F) under Public Hearings, the application of Thomas W. & Sandra S. Barlow and David and Jenine Outland be cancelled; that Item (G) under Public Hearings, the application of W. C. Sawyer be withdrawn; and, that his closed meeting item concerning the acquisition of real property pursuant to the business expansion. which was recently announced be moved to open session for discussion. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that a matter pertaining to the Franklin Fire and Rescue billing be .added under New Business. Chairman Clark requested that an item be added to the closed meeting concerning possible litigation arising out of a claim against the County. Supervisor Wright requested an item be added under New Business concerning the Darden's Store dumpster site. l 840 22 ~AC'~~4 Supervisor Wright moved that the Boazd approve the ~ agenda, as amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (S-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. Sherri Bush, Director of Emergency Communications, accepted a Resolution to Proclaim- the Week of April 11 Through April 17, 2004 as Isle of Wight County Public Safety Telecommunicators Week, which was adopted by the Board at its April 1, 2004 meeting. She introduced Diane Jones and Tracy Pierce, employees in the E-911 Communications Center. `' ~- // Chairman Clark indicated the Consent Agenda included the following items: A. DEQ/Public Notice for March 22, 2004 and'April S, 2004 B. Actions/Isle of Wight County Board of Zoning Appeals/Meeting of April S, 2004 j G Board of Zoning Appeals/2003 Annual Report D. By-Laws of the Isle of Wight County Social Services Board E. Virginia Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) F. Resolution to Accept and .Appropriate Funds From the Department of Criminal Justice Services and Funds From the Public .School Division for the .School Resource Officer Grant Program G. Resolution to Approve CDBG Jamestown/Camptown Program Income Funds for the Dry Well Replacement Program F H. Resolution to A ro riate Revenue Sharin Funds from the PP P g . General Fund Reserve Fund Balance I. .Compliance Evaluation of the County's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Program J. Boykin's Tavern Event/Reenactors on April 1?-18, 2004 i 2 ,. ~i [] BOOll 2~ r„~:33J K. March 1, 2004 Joint Meeting Between the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Zoning Appeals L. March 18, 2004 Regular Meeting Minutes M. March 25, 2004 Budget Work Session Minutes Chairman Clark inquired if there were any items for removal. Supervisor MacManus requested that Item (E), Virginia Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), and Item (I), Compliance Evaluation pf the County's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Program, on the Consent Agenda be removed for further discussion. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that Item (G), Resolution to Approve CDBG Jamestown/Camptown Program Income Funds for the Dry Well Replacement Program, on the Consent .Agenda be removed for further discussion. Supervisor Wright moved the Board remove Items (E), (G) and (I) and adopt the remaining items listed on the Consent Agenda. 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. Regarding. Item (E), Virginia Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Supervisor MacManus inquired if the nine (9) residential properties to be purchased for $662,000 at Burwells Bay would become County-owned property if the grant is approved. Donald T. Robertson, Assistant County Administrator, advised that the properties would consist of limited beachfront property and would be County-owned with the limitation that there will no longer be any insurable structures on these .properties. He suggested that the small .beach area could potentially be used for recreational use by the community with picnic tables. He advised that the grant is based on a voluntary process of the property owners.. He stated these property owners have expressed an interest to .the County; however, the County is not committed as it could make an offer to the property owners that is declined by them. He stated there are four (4) properties for elevation, nine (9) residential structures, one (1) seasonal residential structure .and one (1) commercial structure, for a total of eleven (11) properties for acquisition. He advised that all property owners have been advised that the acquisition process is not ashort-term process and could take up to several years. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that he be provided a GIS map of the properties. He noted that the funds .for the local match are not included in the FY04-OS budget. He requested that staff ensure that it communicate with 3 ;BOON 22 ~A~:•.~•~6 citizens that the elevation level may change should there be a re-evaluation of the change in flood elevations. Supervisor MacManus moved that .the Board approve Item (E) and direct .staff to prepare an analysis of funds that should be included in FY04/OS for consideration by the Board at its May meeting. Staff is also to provide a map of the lots under discussion. The .motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and C Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Regarding Item (I), Compliance Evaluation of the County's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Program, Supervisor MacManus inquired if the March 11, 2002 suggestions made by CBLAD to improve implementation of the Act. and regulations have been addressed by staff. Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning and Zoning, advised that the septic tank. pump-out program has not been addressed as it is regulated by the Health Department and there is an issue of record keeping on their side that has limited staff's ability to implement apump-out program. Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board direct staff to follow-up with CBLAD on the septic tank pump-out. program to show that staff is continuing to make efforts to address their recommendations. 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 requested additional information on Item (G), Resolution to Approve CDBG Jamestown/Camptown .Program Income Funds for the Dry Well Replacement Program. Anne F. Seward, Director of Budget and Finance, stated the income derived from this grant is proposed to be utilized for the dry well replacement program. She noted that there is approximately $120,000 currently in this fund. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE CDBG JAMESTOWN/CAMPTOWN PROGRAM INCOME FUNDS FOR THE DRY WELL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia has approved the County's participation in the Dry Well Replacement Program funded by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development;, and; 4 rI Qoo~ 22 ~h:337 WHEREAS, the CDBG Jamestown/Camptown Program Income funds in the amount of one thousand five hundred twenty one dollars ($1,521) need to be appropriated to the appropriate line items in the FY. 03-04 Operating Budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight that CDBG Jamestown/Camptown Program Income funds in the amount of one thousand five hundred twenty one dollars ($1,521) be appropriated to the .appropriate line items in the FY 03-04 Operating Budget of the County of Isle of Wight. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the County of Isle of Wight is authorized to make the appropriate accounting adjustments and to do all things necessary to give this resolution effect. 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. Chairman Clark requested that a traffic study be conducted to address visibility issues at the intersection ofCedar Grove Road and Route 17. Chairman Clark noted concerns with the sewer lines on Sugar Hill Road, specifically how these sewer lines coordinate. with a curve on Sugar Hill Road. Mr. Hartley advised that he is speaking with the contractor to see if there is a possibility of shifting the road during their efforts to widen Sugar Hill Road. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired about the status of .the meeting he requested with the VDOT Resident Engineer. Mr. Hartley offered. to contact Mr. Neblett to advise that Supervisor Bradshaw is available over the next two (2) weeks to meet with him. Mr. Hartley advised Supervisor Bradshaw that Mr. Neblett has developed and completed a budget summary of projects for the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that Mr. Hartley prepare a report for the Board's consideration at its May 6, 2004.meeting reflecting the status of all Board VDOT issues. 5 90gk 22 ~A~t',,.~8. Supervisor MacManus requested Mr. Hartley to advise Mr. Neblett that the Board expects to be informed about any anticipated bridge delays before advisement is made to the media and the general public // Chairman Clark- called for Citizen's .Comments, .Michael Uzzell of Central Hill Road requested assistance in implementing. a "Neighborhood Watch" program in his community. Supervisor. Bradshaw requested staff to advise the Sheriff's Department of Mr. Uzzell's desire to start such a program in his area. -Albert Burckard of Titus. Point distributed the latest production of a tourism pamphlet .for Nike Park. He requested that the Board. not allow the :relocation of the historic Rosenwald School structure -from the Longview area of the Windsor District to the Smithfield District. // Chairman Clark called for the County Attorney's report. ~: County Attorney Stroman noted that the reason he withdrew his request for a closed meeting item regarding acquisition of real property under the # approval of the agenda was because at the time that he included this report in the .agenda, there. was concern about the progress that was being made during the acquisition of the various properties necessary for the road widening on Route 460 in connection with the Cost .Plus .expansion.- He reported that there. will be no necessity for any condemnation, and he has received fully executed contracts from all involved property owners. He noted the Board will address. the Cost Plus Participation Agreement in which one (1) .property will be acquired by' Cost Plus and not by the County.. He further noted that he anticipates to conclude those transactions in advance of the closing in the middle of May 2004. // Chairman Clark called for the County Administrator's report. Patrick J. Small, Director of Economic Development, presented a contract for engineering .services between the County and Resource International which has been reviewed and approved as to form by the County Attorney. .Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board authorize .the Chairman to execute the contract between Isle of Wight County and Resource International. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors 6 MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. County Administrator Caskey presented a Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance/Replacement Policy, which he recommended the Board approve. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve the Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance/Replacement Policy, and direct staff to proceed with a plan of implementation for review and approval 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. Mr. Hartley noted for the Board's review and comment is the site plan for the Anderson Mini Storage Warehouse, which is located in the Highway Corridor Overlay District. He stated included in the agenda is the staff report summarizing the comments of the Planning Commission, in addition to comments from a number of other agencies. Chairman Clark emphasized the importance of large evergreen plantings to disguise the view of metal buildings in the major highway corridors. Supervisor MacManus inquired if the Town of Windsor has had an opportunity to speak about the property and how it is being utilized.. Mr. Hartley replied that he was not aware if the Town of Windsor had discussed the site plan. Supervisor MacManus stated he believed it would be premature for the Board to take any action until after staff hears pack from the Town of Windsor. Supervisor MacMantis moved the Board table action on the matter until the Town of Windsor has an opportunity to provide comments to the County for incorporation at the Board's May 20, 2004 meeting. 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. Hartley presented a Water Quality Impact Assessment for .the Cost Plus World Market building expansion that is located on Windsor Boulevard in the Town of Windsor for the Board's consideration. He distributed comments provided by the Chesapeake Bay. Local Assistance .Department (CBLAD) for the Board's review. __ _.. , , x 1 BoQ~ 22 ~A~-340 :Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board appr©ve the Waster Quality Impact Assessment as presented to the Board and recommended by the Planning Commission with the understanding that all BMP's and associated subsurface pipe structures will be maintained by the property owner. 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 Old Business. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired about the status of the Carrsville Volunteer Fire Department Contract. County Administrator. Caskey noted that he believed that the contract is still. being addressed by the Department of Public Works, and that he would check on its. status and report back to the Board. // Chairman Clark called for New Business. Mr. Hartley presented the request of George Keith and Sheri Bradshaw for a waiver to allow an off-site septic system with a drain field easement. He noted that the existing properties are so small in size that there are no other septic field options available. .Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board approve the waiver to allow an off-site septic system with a drain field easement. 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. // At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board amend the order of the agenda in order to conduct the public hearings. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: Isle of Wight County Budget for Fiscal Year July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 i, f 8 t 800K ~~ r„~~~~1 County Administrator Caskey presented the current .proposed budget for FY04-OS" in the amount of $67,959,777 which represents a 2.7% increase over the current fiscal year budget without an advertised tax rate adjustment. He stated the proposed budget will require a draw down from the County's unappropriated fund balance in the amount of $524,923 in order to balance the expenditures that are currently in the .budget based on anticipated revenues. He stated the proposed budget includes $2.2 million for capital projects, in accordance with the County's adopted Capital Improvement Plan; an increase in school funding of over $2,000,000 or 4.8%; implementation of a revised Pay and Classification Plan; and, needed technology improvements. County Attorney Stroman advised that the Board cannot take action on the budget tonight ~s the Code of Virginia requires that the Board. must wait seven (7) days after the public hearing before acting on the Budget. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor. of, or in opposition to, the proposed Budget. Herb DeGroft of Mill Swamp Road spoke in favor of full funding for the Sheriff s Office. He spoke in opposition to the School Board going to paperless Board meetings. Sheriff Phelps stated he has reviewed .the recommended budget and feels it will enable him to provide additional services that are drastically needed by going to a mandatory overtime schedule this year. He thanked staff for their efforts to ensure that the Sheriff's Office provides safety and security to the citizens of the County. Chairman Clark closed .the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board consider the FY04-05 Operating Budget at its May 6, 2004 meeting. The motion .was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors. MacManus, Bradty, 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: Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, in the Maximum Principal Amount of $23,870,000 Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the Resolution. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition, to the proposed Resolution. 9 sooty 2' ~~~r~42 Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $23,870,000 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10(b) of Article VII of the Constitution of Virginia and Section 15.2-2639 (formerly Section 15.1- 227.40) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Code"}, Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), has elected by affirmative vote of the qualified voters of the County, to be treated as a city for the purpose of issuing its bonds. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. It is determined to be necessary and. expedient for the County to finance, in part, the acquisition, construction and equipping of a new middle school (the "Project"), to borrow money for such purpose and to issue the County's general obligation public improvement bonds therefor. 2. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, there are authorized to be issued general obligation public improvement bonds of the County in the maximum .principal amount of $23,870,000 to provide funds to finance, in part, the cost of the Project. 3. The, bonds shall bear such date or dates, mature at such time or times not exceeding 40 years from their dates, bear interest. at such rate or rates, be in such denominations and form, be executed in such manner and be sold at such time or times and. in such. manner as the Board may hereafter provide by appropriate resolution or resolutions. 4. The bonds shall. be general obligations of the County for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on which its full faith and credit shall be irrevocably pledged. 5. The Clerk of the Board, in collaboration .with the County Attorney, is authorized and directed to see to the immediate filing of a certified copy of this resolution in the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County, Virginia. 10 1 1 ,~ Ll aooa 22 ~~~~-~43 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: Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of General Obligation, School and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2004, of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, in a Principal Amount not to Exceed $36,255,000, Providing for the Form, Details and Payment Thereof, and Providing for .the Refunding of Certain General Obligation School Bonds and General Obligation Water and Sewer Bonds of the County Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the Resolution. No one appeared to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed Resolution. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL AND REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES OF 2004, OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN A PRINCIPAL. AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $36,255,000, PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS AND GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER AND SEWER BONDS OF THE COUNTY WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10(b) of Article VII of the Constitution of Virginia and Section 15.2-263.9 (formerly Section 15.1- 227.40) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), has elected by affirmative vote of the qualified voters of the County, to be treated as a city for the purpose of issuing its bonds; WHEREAS, the issuance of general obligation school bonds of the County in the maximum principal amount of $23,870,000 was authorized by a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") on April 15, 2004, to provide funds to finance, in part, the acquisition,. construction and equipping of a new middle school (the "Project"); WHEREAS, on June 1, 1995, the County issued its $8,100,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series of 1995 (the "1995 Bonds"); 11 eoa~ 22 rh~:34 WHEREAS, on December 9, 1997, the County issued its $14,250,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Bonds, Series of 1997A (the "1997A Bonds"); WHEREAS, on December 9, 1997, the County issued its $5,800,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series of 1997B (the "1997B Bonds"); WHEREAS, the County Administration, in consultation with Public Financial Management, the County's financial advisor (the "Financial Advisor"), has determined that the County can effect considerable savings by issuing general obligation refunding bonds to refund .some or all of (a) the outstanding 1995 Bonds maturing on July 1, 2008 through 2013, in the aggregate principal amount of $4,400,000 (the "Refunded 1995 Bonds"), (b) the outstanding 1997A Bonds maturing on December 1, 2010 through.2017, in the aggregate principal amount of $5,115,000 (the "Refunded 1997A Bonds"), and (c) the outstanding 1997B Bonds maturing on December 1, 201.0 through 2017, in the aggregate principal amount of $2,870,000 (the "Refunded 1997B Bonds" and, together with the. Refunded 1995 Bonds and the Refunded 1997A Bonds, the "Refunded Bonds"), and to pay the costs of advance refunding the Refunded Bonds and of issuing the refunding bonds; and, WHEREAS, the County's administration and the Financial .Advisor have recommended to the Board that the County issue and sell a single issue of general obligation school and refunding bonds in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $36,255,000; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. Issuance of Bonds. There shall be issued and sold, pursuant. to the Constitution and: statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance-Act of 1991, general obligation school and. refunding bonds of the County in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $36,255,000 (the "Bonds"), as follows: (a) a maximum of $23,870,000 to provide funds to .finance the Project, (b) a maximum of $12,385,000. toprovide funds to refund the Refunded Bonds, including funds to pay principal of and premium and interest on the Refunded Bonds when due and (c) to pay the costs incurred in connection with refunding the Refunded Bonds and issuing the Bonds. 2. Bond Details. The Bonds shall be designated "General Obligation School and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2004," or such other designation as shall be determined by the County Administrator, shall be in registered form, shall be dated such date as determined by the County Administrator, shall be in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof, and shall be numbered R-1 upward. Subject to Section 8, the i~ 12 sooK 22 ~;.,~.-345 issuance and sale of the Bonds are authorized on terms as shall be satisfactory to the County Administrator; provided, however, that the Bonds (a) shall have a "true" or "Canadian" interest cost not to exceed 7.00% (taking into account any original. issue discount or premium), (b) shall be sold to the purchaser at a price not less than 99.5% of the principal amount thereof (excluding any original issue discount), and (c) shall mature or be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemptions in annual installments beginning no later than December 31, 2005, and ending no later than December 3l, 2004. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable annually and interest on the Bonds shall be payable semiannually on dates determined by the County Administrator. Each Bond shall bear interest at such rate as shall be determined at the time of sale, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, and payable semiannually on dates determined by the County Administrator. Principal shall be payable to the registered owners upon surrender of Bonds as they become due at the office of the Registrar (as hereinafter defined). Interest shall be payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their addresses as they .appear on the registration books kept by the Registrar on a date prior to each interest payment .date that shall be determined by the County Administrator (the "Record Date"). Principal and interest shall be .payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Initially, one Bond certificate for each maturity of the Bonds shall be issued to and registered in the name of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), or its nominee. The County has heretofore entered into a Blanket Letter of Representations relating to a book-entry system to be maintained by DTC with respect to the Bonds. "Securities Depository" shall mean DTC or any other securities depository for the Bonds appointed pursuant to this Section. In the event .that (a) the Securities Depository determines not to continue to act as the securities depository for the Bonds by giving notice to the Registrar, and the County discharges its responsibilities hereunder, or (b) the County in its sole discretion determines (I) to select a new Securities Depository, then its chief financial officer shall, at the direction of the County, attempt to locate another qualified securities depository to serve as Securities Depository and authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the new Securities Depository or its nominee, or authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the beneficial owners or to the Securities Depository participants on behalf of beneficial owners substantially in the form provided for in Section 5; provided, however, that such form shall provide for interest on the Bonds to be payable (A) from the date of. the Bonds if they are authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, or (B) otherwise from the interest payment date. that is or immediately precedes the date on which the bonds are authenticated {unless payment of interest thereon is in default, in which case interest on such. Bonds shall be payable from the date to which I3 +BUOIt 22 ~a~-34b interest has beery .paid), In delivering certified Bonds, the chief financial officer shall be entitled to rely on the records of the Securities Depository as to the beneficial .owners or the records of the Securities Depository participants acting on behalf of beneficial owners. Such certified Bonds will then be registrable, transferable and exchangeable as set forth in Section 7. So long as there is a Securities Depository for the Bonds (1) it or its nominee. shall be the registered owner of the Bonds, (2) notwithstanding anything to the contrary.. in this Resolution, determinations pf persons entitled to payment of principal and interest, transfers. of ownership and exchanges and receipt of notices shall be the responsibility of the Securities Depository and shall be effected pursuant to rules and procedures established by such Securities Depository, (3) the Registrar and the County shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing. the records maintained by the Securities Depository, its participants or persons. acting through such participants, (4) .references in this Resolution to registered owners of the Bonds shall mean such Securities Depository or its .nominee and shall not mean the beneficial. owners of the bonds and (5) in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this .Resolution and the provisions of the above-referenced Blanket Letter of Representations such provisions of the Blanket Letter of Representations, except to the extent set forth in this paragraph and the next preceding paragraph, shall control. 3. Redemption Provisions. The .Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the County on or-after dates, if any, determined by the County Administrator, in whole. or in part at any time, at a redemption price not to exceed 102% of the principal. amount of Bonds to be redeemed, together with any interest accrued and unpaid to the redemption date. Any term bonds may be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption upon: terms determined. by the County Administrator. If less than all of the Bonds are called for redemption, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the County's chief financial officer in such manner as the chief financial officer may .determine to be in the best interest of the County. If less than alI the Bonds of a particular maturity are. called for redemption, the Bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by the Securities Depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book-entry system is discontinued, shall be selected- by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each. Bond shall be considered as representing that number of Bonds that is obtained, by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. The County shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying.. the Bonds or portions .thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight express i~ 14 BooK 22 ~H.:~47 delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption-date, to the registered owner of the Bonds. The County shall not be responsible for mailing notice of redemption to anyone other than DTC or another. qualified Securities Depository or its nominee unless no qualified Securities Depository is the registered owner of the Bonds. If no qualif ed Securities Depository is the registered owner of the Bonds, notice of redemption shall be mailed to the registered owners of the Bonds. If a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a .new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion thereof will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender thereof. 4. Execution and Authentication. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile .signature of the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, shall be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board and the Board's seal shall be affixed thereto or a facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided, however, that if both of.such signatures are facsimiles, no Bond shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or employee of the Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon. 5. Bond Form. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the . officers signing the Bonds, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bonds. 6. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds.. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, the Board shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all locally taxable property in the County sufficient to pay when due the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. 7. Registration, Transfer and Owners of Bonds. SunTrust Bank, Richmond Virginia, is appointed paying agent and registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). The Registrar shall maintain registration books for the registration and registration of transfers of Bonds. Upon presentation and surrender of any Bonds at the corporate trust office of the Registrar, together with an assignment duly executed by the registered owner or his duly authorized attorney or legal representative in such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar, the County shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate, if required by Section 4, and deliver in exchange, a new Bond or Bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized denominations, of the same form and maturity,. bearing interest at the same rate, and registered in names as requested by the then registered. owner or his duly authorized attorney or legal representative. Any such exchange shall be 15 at the expense of the County, except that the Registrar may charge the person requesting such exchange ..the amount of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect thereto The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest and the exercise of all other .rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the, person shown as owner on the registration books on the Record Date. 8. Sale of Bonds. The Board approves the following terms of the sale of the Bonds. The Bonds .shall be sold by competitive bid in a principal amount to be determined by the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, and subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph 1, and the County Administrator shall receive bids for the Bonds and award the Bonds to the bidder providing the lowest "true" or "Canadian" interest cost, subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph 2. Following the sale of the. Bonds, the County Administrator shall file a certificate with the Clerk of the Board setting forth the final terms of the Bonds. The actions of the County Administrator in selling the Bonds shall be Eonclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds shall be necessary on the part of the Board. 9. Notice of Sale. The County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, is authorized and directed to take all proper steps to have prepared and distributed, in accordance with standard practices of municipal securities, a notice of sale to advertise the Bonds for sale.. Such notice of sale shall be I a form that is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution and as the County Administrator may consider to be in the best interest of the County, 10. Off cial Statement.. A draft of a Preliminary Official Statement describing the Bonds, copies. of which have been provided to the members of the ..Board, is approved as the form of the Preliminary Official Statement by which the Bonds will be offered for sale, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, may consider appropriate. -After the Bonds have been sold, -the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, shall make such completions, omissions, insertions and changes in the Preliminary Official Statement not ' inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable to complete it as a final Official Statement, execution thereof by the County Administrator to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes. The County shall arrange for the delivery to the purchaser. of the Bonds of a reasonable number of copies of the final Official Statement, within seven business days after the Bonds have been sold, for delivery to each potential investor requesting a copy of the Official Statement and to each person to whom such purchaser initially sell Bonds. 16 1 u Boob 22 !~h~~r~49 11. Official Statement Deemed Final The County Administrator is authorized, on behalf of the County, to deem the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form, each to be final as of its date within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 ("Rule 15c2-12") of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), except for the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of certain pricing and other information permitted. to be omitted pursuant to Rule 15c2-12. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form shall be conclusive evidence that each has been deemed final as of its date by the County, except for the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of such pricing and other information permitted to be omitted. pursuant. to Rule 15c2- 12. 12. Preparation and Delivery of Bands.. After bids have been received and the Bonds have been awarded, the Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to take all proper steps to have the: Bonds prepared and executed in accordance with their terms and to deliver the Bonds to .the purchaser thereof upon payment therefor. 13. Bond Insurance. The Board has determined that it may be advisable to obtain municipal bond insurance to ensure a favorable rating such that payment of principal and interest on the Bonds will result in an overall interest cost savings to the County. The County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, is authorized and. directed to take appropriate steps to determine whether a policy of municipal bond insurance is in the best interest of the County and, if so, to make arrangements for such insurance. The purchase of a policy of municipal bond insurance shall constitute conclusive evidence of the determination of the County Administrator that such policy is in the best interest of the County. 14. Escrow Deposit Agreement. The County Administrator is . authorized and directed to execute an escrow deposit agreement (the "Escrow Agreement") between the County and an escrow agent to be appointed by the City Manager (the "Escrow Agent"). The Escrow Agreement shall be in such final form as approved by the County Administrator, in collaboration with the County Attorney and the County's bond counsel, the execution thereof. by the County Administrator to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of the Escrow Agreement.. The Escrow Agreement shall provide for ~ the irrevocable deposit of a portion of the Bond proceeds in an escrow fund which shall be sufficient, when invested in noncallable, direct obligations of the United States Government (the "government Obligations"), to provide for payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Refunded Bonds; provided, however, that such Bond proceeds shall be invested in such manner-that none of the Bonds will be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue .Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations issued pursuant thereto (the "Code"). The Escrow Agent is authorized and directed if requested by the County Administrator to execute ..the final subscription. form for the purchase of the Government Obligations. 15. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. Either the County Treasurer or the Director of Budget and Finance is authorized and directed (a) to provide for the delivery of the refunding portion of the Bond proceeds to the Escrow Agent for deposit in the escrow fund, established by the Escrow Agreement, in an amount that will be sufficient, together with the interest thereon when invested as provided in the. Escrow Agreement, (I) to pay when due the interest on -the Refunded Bonds to the first date on which they may be redeemed at the option of the County and (ii) to 'pay upon the earlier of maturity or redemption the principal of the Refunded Bonds, plus any interest accrued and unpaid to such redemption date, plus the applicable redemption premium, and (b) to provide for the deposit of the remaining proceeds of the Bonds in a special account to be .used to pay the costs of refunding the Refunded Bonds and issuing the. Bonds. Either the County Treasurer or the Director of Budget and Finance is further authorized and directed to take all such further action as may be necessary or desirable in connection with the payment and refunding of the Refunded Bonds. 16. Redemption of Refunded Bonds. The County Administrator is authorized and directed. to determine which, if any, 1995. Bonds, 1997A Bonds and 1997B Bonds shall constitute the Refunded Bonds. The refunded maturities of the 1995 Bonds are specifically and irrevocably called for redemption on July 1, 2005. The refunded maturities of the 1997A Bonds and the 1997B Bonds are specifically and irrevocably called for redemption on December 1, 2007. The Escrow Agreement shall provide for notice of redemption to be given in accordance with the resolutions providing for the issuance of the Refunded .Bonds to the registered owners of the Refunded Bonds. 17. Arbitrage Covenants. (a) The County represents that. there have not been issued, and covenants that there will not be issued, any obligations that will be treated as part of the same issue of obligations as the Bonds within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-1A(c). (b) The County covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the -Code, or otherwise cause interest on the Bonds to be includable in the gross income of the foregoing, the County shall comply with -any provision of law which may require the :County at any time to rebate to the United States any. part of the earnings derived from the investment of the .gross proceeds of the Bonds, unless the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not required to prevent interest on the Bonds from being includable in the gross income of the registered owners thereof under existing law. The County shall pay any such required.rebate from its legally available funds. i ~~ 1 18 eoo~ 22 ~.~~:~51 18. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Elections. Such officers of the County as may be requested are authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds in order to show that such expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code, and any elections such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States for purposes of complying with Section 148 of the Code. Such certificate and elections shall be in such form as may be requested by bond counsel for the County. 19. Limitation on Private Use. The County covenants that it shall not permit the proceeds of the Bonds or the facilities financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds to be used in any .manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities financed or refinanced with such proceeds being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities financed or refinanced with such proceeds being used with respect to any output facility (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such covenants need not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Bonds from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing laws, the County need not comply with such covenants. 20. .Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a continuing disclosure agreement (the "Continuing Disclosure Agreement") setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary to assist the purchasers of the Bonds Disclosure Agreement shall be substantially in .the form of the draft which has been provided to members of the Board, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes that are not inconsistent with this Resolution. 21. SNAP Investment .Authorization. The Board has heretofore received and reviewed the Information Statement (the "Information Statement") describing the State Non-Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") and the Contract Respecting the State Non-Arbitrage Program . (the "Contract"), -and the Board authorizes .the County Administrator to utilize SNAP in .connection with the investment of the non-refunding proceeds of the Bonds if the County Administrator determines such investment to be in the best interest of the County. The Board acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of 19 eoo~ 22 r~~c?52 Virginia is not; and shall .not be, in any way liable to the .County in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the Contract. 22. Other Actions. All other actions of .officers of the County in conformity with the .purposes .and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds are approved and confirmed. The officers of the County are authorized and directed to execute .and deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all such further action as may be considered necessary or desirable in connection with the ,issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. 23. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith. are repealed. 24. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 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. e Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: The request of the Carrsville Volunteer Fire Department to hold the .Third Annual "Shrimp Feast" on Saturday, May 8, 2004 from 3:00 p.m. until, 10:00 p.m. at the Carrsville Volunteer .Fire Department (Station 20) which is located at 6201 Carrsville Highway, Carrsville, in the Carrsville Election District. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed request. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve .the request as presented and recommended by the. Planning .Commission. 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: I The application of Bishop Walter F. Sullivan and Robert J. Frank for an amendment to the .Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change the Land Use Designation of approximately 6.4 acres of land from Suburban Estate to Business & Employment Growth. The property is i~ 20 BooK 22 >h~:353 located on the south side of Brewer's Neck Boulevard (Route 258) east of Benn's Church Boulevard (Route 10} intersection, Carrollton, in the Newport Election District. County Attorney Stroman advised that he had a conflict of interest in this matter because his wife is employed by the Bishop of Richmond. He requested Ms. Riggleman, the Assistant County Attorney, sit in for him during the public hearing. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the application. . Jonathan Frank, the applicant, requested that the Board approve his application. Patrick J. Small, Director of Economic Development, spoke in favor of the application noting that the change in the Comprehensive Plan would be in keeping with raising the property's value.. He noted that changing the property's zoning to commercial would be the highest and best use and is consistent with the uses currently in the Benn's Church corridor. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board approve the. application of Bishop Walter F. Sullivan and Robert J. Frank. 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 The application of Robert J. Frank to amend the Master Plan of the Benn's Church Development, thirty-three (33) acres of land zoned Conditional General .Commercial, to include mini-warehousing/self storage and office/retail as conditioned. The property is located on the south side of Brewer's Neck Boulevard (Route 258) east of the Benn's Church Boulevard (Route 10) intersection, Carrollton, in the Newport Election District. Mr. Hartley distributed revised proffers submitted by the applicant, Mr. Frank, that were recommended by staff, and which clarify some of the. confusion with the proffers that were previously .submitted. He stated the applicant is agreeing to eliminate the master plan as a proffer from the 1987 proffers and only proffering the plan for the hotel improvements and that any further improvements, including the mini-warehouse building and medical office building, will require additional amendments to those .proffered conditions. He stated also being proffered is the exterior appearance and 21 ~eao~ 22 ~K~3~4 conformity with the plan book being prepazed for. the Bend's Church corridor. He stated that the Planning Commission, at its March meeting, did recommend denial of this application with one (1) abstention with the primary concern with the. Bend's Church plan process. He stated the Planning Commission did not have access to a complete copy of that document when they acted on the application in March of 2004. Chairman Clark .noted that the Planning Commission has not had the opportunity to review the revised proffers submitted .tonight. He stated he would prefer that the Planning Commission have the chance to discuss them. Supervisor MacManus referred to proffer #4 which stipulates that there will be conformance with the Benn's Church plan book which has not been officially reviewed or adopted by the .Board. He noted that the revised proffers allude to a future action of the Board, and he has a concern because one (1) of .the concepts being discussed for the Benn's Church corridor is a realignment of the road structure which would radically change what is being considered for this area. County Attorney .Stroman noted that the proffer, as worded, is a willingness on the part of the applicant to subscribe to that plan before it is finally in place. Supervisor MacManus stated if the plan .comes back with a restructuring of the roads, the applicant would be required to meet the new layout by those proffers. County Attorney Stroman advised that should. the Board, elect to approve the application tonight and not refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, it would be his legal interpretation of this proffer that the ~ applicant is agreeable to complying with the road realignment, even if it is changed from the .current plan. For the reasons mentioned by Supervisor MacManus, this proffer has some significance. ,:. f Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the application. Jonathan Frank, the- applicant, noted that the Planning Commission is concerned .that any changes to the current master plan for his thirty-three (33) acres may conflict with the new Bend's .Church plan book. He stated it appears that the offices are possibly in the way of a future alignment of Brewer's Neck Boulevard to Benn's Church Boulevard and, as a result, he is currently withdrawing his offer to build certain offices until a proper location is established. He stated that, as requested by staff, he will be submitting the self storage facilities separately for review. Mr. Small noted that he had spoken in opposition at the Planning Commission meeting on the basin of the entire master plan. He stated he had 1 D 22 tl eoo~ 22 ~M~,355 indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that he would support a scaled-down project that included. the hotel expansion and the possible addition of a restaurant. He noted returning the application to the Planning Commission would provide him an opportunity to review the new proposal. Supervisor Wright concurred that the amended application should be returned to the Planning Commission for their input and recommendation to the Board. Chairman Clark noted that when significant changes are made in .the proffers from those. reviewed by the Planning Commission, hewould prefer they be reviewed by the Planning Commission before the Board acts upon an application. County Attorney Stroman noted that the proffers submitted to him were previously submitted to Mr. Hartley and would be considered to be submitted in a timely fashion prior to the public hearing. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board refer the .application to the Planning Commission to consider the. amendments made by the applicant and for their recommendation to 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. Chairman Clark noted .that the County Attorney had requested that the following application for public hearing be cancelled under Approval of the Agenda section. The application of Thomas W. & Sandra ~. Barlow and David and Jenine Outland for an exception to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance Section 4002.B.2.(a) to specifically to allow encroachment down to 60 feet into the one hundred (100) foot. Resource Protection. Area Buffer for the construction of asingle-family residence. The property, containing .93 acre of land, is located on the south side of Morgart's Beach Road (Route 673) and east of Boykins Lane, in the Hardy Election District.- Supervisor Wright moved that the Board cancel the public hearing on the application. 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 cautioned Mr. Hartley that the Board did not want any of these types of applications expedited in the future and that he be 23 80Ok 22ra ~..~~~ directed to inquire of the Board what they want him to do in these types of situations. ' Chairman Clark noted that the applicant had requested that the following application set for public hearing be withdrawn. 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 Wright moved that the Board accept the request of the applicant to withdraw the application. 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: The application of Carter R. Clements for a change in zoning classification from RAC to Conditional Rural Residential of approximately 7.5 acres of land located on the east side of Antioch Road (Route 657) north of West Blackwater Road (Route 603) in the Windsor Election District. The purpose of the application is for 4 single-family residential lots. Mr. Hartley :advised. that the Board that it was brought to his attention today by the Treasurer that there is an issue with unpaid real estate taxes on .this property. He noted that the County Attorney had advised him today that the County's ordinance requires that the real estate taxes are paid before obtaining a permit; however, no language exists in the current ordinance which prohibits an application for rezoning. He stated the back taxes on this property are in the approximate amount of $6,000 over a period of the last three (3) years. He recommended that the Board continue with conducting a public hearing, but table the matter until such time as the real estate tax issue is resolved. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the application. Durwood Scott, real estate broker representing the applicant, stated he was .not aware. of the back taxes until just prior to the public hearing. He further stated that Mr. Clements has just recently been advised that there are back taxes owed on the property as he was under the impression that certain attorneys were addressing the tax matter. He stated Mr. Clements is requesting the rezoning in order to address the tax and other debt he has in respect to his farm.. He recommended. that the Board could approve the u 1 24 eoo~ 22 ~h~:357 1 application with the condition that the plat would not be approved until the taxes have been paid. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. In response to a question as to whether the Board could place a condition. upon the rezoning that stipulates the approval of the application is contingent upon the taxes being paid upon the first lot being sold, County Attorney Stroman expressed concern that this is not a condition that directly relates to the zoning. He stated that the State enabling statute does allow the County to adopt an ordinance. that would allow the Board to defer an application where there are unpaid property. taxes on it, but he would prefer for the Board to .table the application for thirty (30) days to allow Mr. Clements to address the tax matter and bring the matter back to the Board at its second. meeting in May, 2004. Supervisor Bradshaw noted that Mr. Clements has been a member of the community his entire life and he would like to provide Mr. Clements the opportunity to be able to pay the back taxes by allowing him the opportunity to sell one (1) of the lots. Supervisor MacManus inquired if there could be further subdivision of the lots under discussion. Mr. Scott noted that this is the maximum number of lots that could be created from this parcel. Mr. Hartley verified that other than a family member transfer, the parcel could not be subdivided. Chairman Clark directed that Mr. Hartley and staff are to advise applicants that the Board would request that applicants proffer that they will not allow any family member transfers in the future. Chairman Clark inquired if the applicant would be willing to proffer that the back taxes would paid- from the sale of the first lot and that there would be no family member transfers in the future. Mr. Clements agreed to amend his proffers to address Chairman I Clark's concerns. County Attorney Stroman indicated it would be useful if Mr. Clements would reference in the ,proffers the fact that there would be a note for the $20,000 ($5,000 per lot) .bearing interest and a deed of trust on each one (1) of the lots to secure the payment of the proffers. 25 eoo~ 22 Yacc~58 Chairman Clark moved the Board table the application, and direct staff to advertise the matter for the Board's May 6, 2004 meeting at 5:00 p.m. to incorporate new proffers that there be no further subdivision of the lots (to include family member exceptions), that the taxes are to be paid from the sale of the. first lot, and that the proffers will be tied to a deed of trust. 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, and the motion was adopted unanimously (5-0), that the Board amend the order of the public hearings, per the request of the County Attorney. Chairman Clark called. for a public hearing on the following: "Amendments to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance," consisting of Section 6 of the Isle of Wight County Code Mr. Hartley noted that the proposed Ordinance includes amendments suggested and encouraged by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. He stated that the County does not require this Ordinance to be considered by the Planning Commission. i . Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the application. No one appeared and spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board send the Ordinance to the Planning Commission for their review and comments back to 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. Supervisor Bradshaw moved that .the Board continue with the regular order of the agenda with respect to public hearings. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: The application of GEM Big Bethel, LLC for a change in zoning classification from C-LI to Conditional General Commercial of 5.326 acres of land known as Parcel. 1 A of the Shirley T. Holland Industrial Park located on the south side of Windsor Boulevard (Route 460) in the 26 eooa 22 rA~'J~i7 Windsor Election District. The purpose of the application is for commercial uses as conditioned. 1 Mr. Hartley advised that prior to the opening of the public hearing he distributed a list of revised proffers submitted. by the applicant and owner. He noted Item (5) was made at the request of staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing last Tuesday which states that the zoning is contingent upon the purchase of the property in Shirley T. Holland Industrial Park by Cost Plus. He noted the Item (6) results from the request of the Planning Commission that an aerator be installed in the basin on the property. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application by a vote of nine (9) members in favor, no members against and one (1) abstention. Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the application. Michael Culpepper, attorney for the applicant, advised that Cost Plus is desirous of purchasing the adjoining property in order to double the size of its current facility. He stated the approval of this rezoning is good for the County because of the unique characteristics of this parcel. He stated an industrial use is inappropriate for this parcel as it may not be marketable. He stated by rezoning the parcel, the use is less intense, while enhancing the quality of the property and providing Cost Plus with a complimentary use as a neighbor. He stated the Town of Windsor Planning .Commission has voiced concerns primarily that aconvenience/store fueling station might end up on this parcel. He stated this concern is not well founded because this is already a permitted use under the current zoning. He stated the Town of Windsor is also concerned with its entranceway into the town; however, typically someone who is seeking to improve its entranceway would want a less-intense use classification- for that property. It is somewhat unusual that the Town of Windsor would prefer Industrial zoning over general commercial zoning. He stated approval of the rezoning will allow the tax base of the County to be enhanced. Arthur Klein, a consultant with Cost Plus, advised that Cost Plus is on the threshold of investing $50,000,000 in the County in terms of acquiring the existing facility and doubling its size. He stated the outparcel, if rezoned from industrial to commercial, would benefit Cost Plus' employees; enhance the value of its real estate; and, be esthetically .pleasing. He requested the Board approve the rezoning. Kevin Humphrey, Architect for Cost Plus, advised that he was contacted by the owner to advise what could be built on the small existing outparcel :using .the existing zoning. He stated that he generated a drawing depicting a fuel station, which was only an example, .and which has caused the Town of Windsor concern. He requested that the, Board approve the rezoning because it allows the owner to develop less-intense uses. 27 r BQON 22 ~A~'36O Doug Ellis, Ellis-Gibson Development Group, stated that Cost Plus doubling the' size of its facility is due to the County's leadership and Ellis- Gibson Development Group partnering with economic development. He stated Ellis-Gibson Development Group is eager to make more investments in the County and excited about what the County is doing on nearby land in terms of improving it for industry. He pledged to the Board that Ellis-Gibson Development Group will develop on the outparcel in the manner that Cost Plus was developed. Mr. Small noted that this property is owned by Ellis-Gibson Development Group, and no longer by the Industrial Development Authority, as part of the ~ original development. He stated he is in support of the rezoning of this property from Industrial to Commercial. He noted a commercial facility that would service the employees of Cost Plus would be much more attractive and beneficial for the local economy. He stated the County's industrial districts. are designed to have commercial applications within them and to support those industrial developments. He stated the assessment on this parcel is approaching $500,000, and when you. consider Industrial development Authority selling industrial acreage in the back, fully .improved with utilities to the property line for $25,000 an acre, it will be very difficult for Mr. Ellis to realize that kind of money .back out of that piece of property; however, a commercial application might pay that amount. He stated no one has done a better job of protecting the gateways to the towns and the County and the Route 460 corridor headed towards the City of Suffolk is a vital commercial corridor which. will experience more development pressure in the future. He stated he would hope that .,any objections to this rezoning are not based on limitations to commerce and trade and not based on the County's right to develop commercial. opportunities outside of the boundaries of any of its towns. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board: ,. Supervisor MacManus noted that potential uses have not been I addressed. Mr. Small stated the intent is to get the zoning changed vo that marketing efforts can commence. He stated that once the parcel is rezoned, the applicant will begin actively marketing the property and staff will begin referring potential clients. Chairman Clark noted that commercial zoning contains a wide range of uses and he would be interested in knowing what is intended for this parcel Supervisor. MacManus stated a commercial use would be the best use for this parcel; .however, he would like to know how this parcel will be used 28 BON NN ~h:~°J V J. as it is unusual for the Board to approve a blank slate of options to any piece of property. Mr. Hartley noted. the proffers list prohibited uses, and the report from staff contains a list of uses that would be permitted. Mr. Small stated from. a commercial standpoint, he would anticipate the Board will see a small strip shopping center containing a deli, dry cleaner, and businesses that would feed. off the facility of 350' employees and 200 trucks a day. Mayor Crocker, Town of Windsor, noted that the Windsor Town Council is concerned that if a fueling station is located on the parcel that can sell cheaper gas, it will effect the businesses located within the Town that sell gas. He requested that the Board only favor the types of businesses that would not affect the businesses in the Town of Windsor. Supervisor. MacManus inquired if the uses .cited in the report are the limitations for the use of the property. Mr. Hartley noted that staff has attempted to make a comprehensive, but not all inclusive list, to identify uses that are acceptable for the property. Supervisor MacManus concurred with the applicant that General Commercial use is the best use for the property and he is comfortable with the list of restrictive uses. He noted that on some of the uses, the applicant must come back to the Board for a Conditional Use Permit, but regardless of any of the uses, the applicant must come back to the Board because of the Highway Corridor Overlay District. County Attorney Stroman commented that for those uses that require a Conditional Use Permit, which .includes the gas .station that is subject of debate tonight, the Board has broad flexibility to impose conditions when the application comes back. This differs from a rezoning. He stated that Item (C) of the ordinance does reference consideration of orderly growth for the community and fiscal impact. He stated the Board would not only have the right, but the duty, to consider those factors if a user came back to -the Board to construct a gas station and the right to impose reasonable conditions. Supervisor MacManus assured Mayor Crocker that the Board will be work with the. Town of Windsor to ensure that the product is complimentary to the Town. Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve the application, as conditioned. 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. 29 600 ~ 22r,;~f.,~V~ Chairman Clark called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Abandon Dominion Way Chairman Clark called for persons to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the application. Bill Harrison, attorney with Williams Mullen, requested that the Board approve the Ordinance which .will benefit the County.., , He noted .that originally the road was .intended to service the entire industrial park, but because Cost Plus has contracted with the IndustrialDevelopment Authority to buy the. entire park and the existing parcel 2(A) from Ellis-Gibson, there is no need for-the road to be a public street. He stated Cost Plus will take over the maintenance of the .road, and .the parties will agree to a reciprocal easement agreement governing its use to benefit the parcel just rezoned by the Board and the remaining acres of the park which .will be developed by Cost Plus. Chairman Clark closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Wright moved the Board approve the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS DOMINION WAY. AND LOCATED IN THE SHIRLEY T. HOLLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK, WINDSOR, VIRIGII~IIA :~ WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County has supported the. efforts of the Isle of Wight County Industrial Development Authority in its efforts to develop the Shirley T. Holland Industrial Park located on Route 460 east of the Town of Windsor; and WHEREAS, the Shirley T. Holland Industrial Park was originally designed and platted to accommodate multiple parcels to be served by a public road access road, subsequently named Dominion Way; and, WHEREAS, the anticipated development of the said Industrial Park will now contain two separately owned parcels, which will preclude addition of Dominion Way into the Virginia Department of Transportation system of public roads for maintenance and is otherwise no longer necessary for public • use; and, j WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia in Section 15.2-2006 allows for the vacation of public rights-of--way, after proper public notice .and public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia that the public right- 30 li .. eaoN 22 ~ti~363 of-way known as Dominion Way, as more fully described .below, shall be ' vacated and discontinued as a public right-of--way without any further necessity for establishing an appointed commission: That portion of public right-of--way shown as "Access Road" on a plat titled "Plat Showing a Resudivision of Parcels 1 and 2 of Shirley T. Holland Industrial Park" containing 1.848 acres and 0.071 acres and dedicated to Isle of Wight County and recorded in Clerk of Circuit Court Office in Plat Cabinet 2, Slide 84, Page 3 on April 19, 2001. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors that the vacation shall be made expressly contingent on and subject to the purchase by Cost Plus, Inc. of all additional properties in the Shirley T. Holland Commerce Park as set forth in the purchase agreement between Cost Plus, Inc. and the Industrial Development Authority of Isle of Wight County, Virginia. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors that the ownership and maintenance of this road shall revert to the adjoining property owners of record equally, subject to the rights of owners of any public utility installations which have been previously erected therein. (State law authority: § 15.2-2006) 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 that the Board take a ten (10) minute recess and return to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Chairman Clark called for the continuation of New Business. County Attorney Stroman presented a Cost Plus Participation Agreement which he and the Director of Economic Development recommend that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute. He noted the change in the Agreement relates to property owned by Ms. Fronz which will be acquired by Cost Plus. Chairman Clark moved the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Cost Plus Participation Agreement on behalf of the County. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, 31 Book ~ 22 rh~~364 Bradshaw, Wright and Clark voting in .favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw noted that the County Administrator had received an invoice from. the City of Franklin with respect to fire .and rescue billing. He noted that the City of Franklin. is apparently not honoring the gentlemen's agreement discussed during a meeting in October of 2002. .Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board direct staff not to pay any bills associated with .fire and rescue "with the .City of Franklin; that staff inform the City of Franklin that the County will not pay any bills .until a contractual agreement is developed; and, that the County Attorney Stroman be directed to meet with the City of Franklin's attorney to develop a contractual agreement based on the October 2002 meeting that both localities originally agreed .upon. 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 Wright expressed concern with the amount of white goods that have not been removed from the Carroll Bridge dumpster site. County Administrator Caskey offered to have the Director of Public Works provide the Board with a report at its May 6, 2004 meeting. #< t 1 Supervisor Bradshaw requested staff to advise the attendants at the various dumpster sites that they are supposed to be assisting. the elderly/disabled citizens with the removal of trash from their vehicles. // County Attorney Stroman requested a closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711.A.7 of the Freedom of Information Act pertaining 'to probable litigation for a claim against the County. and a matter under. Section 2.2-3711.A.7 concerning advice of counsel in connection with an actual litigation arising out of a County lease. Supervisor.. Bradshaw moved that 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 a motion. Chairman Clark moved that 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. 32 n aoo~ 22 .,.~:~ ~~i Supervisor Bradshaw moved that 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 NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0 Supervisor MacManus moved that the Board amend its agenda in order to consider an appointment. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Supervisor Bradby moved that the Board appoint Bobbie Zepp to serve on the Events Committee. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Supervisor Bradshaw moved that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the termination of the lease for the. James and Clarence Falk property, also known as the Johnson farm. 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. // 33 0 5~~~ ~~ f'~u~~VV At 9:30 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board continue its meeting until Friday, April 23, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. at the International Paper site for the purpose of having a luncheon and touring the facility. The motion was adopted unanimously (5=0). Stan D. Clark, Chairman s i } _ . tl t 1 t. ~ .. c 1 6 1 34