|
Adjourned Meeting
May 30, 2000
6:30 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York County Board of
Supervisors was called to order at 6:35 p.m., Tuesday, May 30, 2000, in
the East Room, York Hall, by Vice Chairman James S. Burgett.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were
present: Sheila S. Noll, Donald E. Wiggins, and James S. Burgett.
Walter C. Zaremba and Melanie L. Rapp were absent.
Also in attendance were Daniel M. Stuck, County Administrator; and
James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WORK SESSION
TRUSTEES' AGREEMENT
Mr. Stuck explained the efforts of staff to have the Trustees
present at this meeting and that all of them were personally called this
morning. He stated at this point staff was not sure which members would
be present to represent the Trustees. He noted they were invited to be
present at 7:30 p.m.
Miss Rapp arrived at 6:37 p.m.
Vice Chairman Burgett and Mrs. Noll expressed their feelings that
the agreement as proposed by the Trustees was unacceptable. Mr. Burgett
indicated it was a very restrictive lease agreement.
Mrs. Noll noted there was no mention of cooperation in it between
the two bodies.
Discussion took place concerning the proposed agreement provided
by the Trustees and how to proceed with the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Vice Chairman Burgett asked for clarification that the Trustees
were the administrators of the property under its trust for the people.
Mr. Barnett stated the Trustees actually own the beach property
and hold it in trust for the people of York.
Discussion followed on the authority for and control of the
property held in trust by the Trustees. The Board members also discussed
the lack of information to be found concerning the status of funds from
the past sale of Trustees' properties.
Miss Rapp also voiced her displeasure with the Trustees' proposal,
stating she wanted the Board to start negotiations with the County's
proposal instead
Vice Chairman Burgett expressed his agreement with Miss Rapp that
the proposed document was not a place to start, and stated he felt that
was the consensus of the Board.
Mrs. Noll added her agreement, stating the property belonged to
the citizens of York County and not the five Trustees. She stated the
County has bent over backwards over the past years to work with the
Trustees, and she felt the proposed agreement was a slap in the Board's
face.
Miss Rapp stated she would like to somehow make it a win/win
situation.
Vice Chairman Burgett indicated his goal was to get the original
agreement as proposed by County staff adopted with some minor
amendments.
A brief discussion followed on the unsuccessful prior management
of the beach area by the Trustees.
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR YORKTOWN
Mr. Carter made a brief presentation concerning the development of
architectural guidelines for development in Yorktown. He explained how
the issue first came up 21 years ago and was resurrected during the
Focus on Yorktown in 1989. Guidelines were prepared by a consultant
hired in the mid 1990s and were completed about a year ago. He stated
the difference in the proposal for guidelines now versus 21 years ago is
that the County now has a proposed written set of guidelines. Mr. Carter
then described how the guidelines identify four basic areas making up
the town: the historic core; the waterfront area; the village south; and
the village west. He also reviewed ways to handle certain types of
construction under the guidelines. He noted that everything allowed in
Yorktown now under the basic zoning ordinance continues to be allowed,
and the same procedures for approval of new development by the Board
would remain in effect. Mr. Carter stated there would just be the extra
step of the architectural review board process. He then explained the
membership makeup of the 5-member, Board appointed, architectural review
board, noting that the majority of the membership, if possible, should
be from Yorktown if they have the expertise; all members must be York
County residents. Mr. Carter stated the review board must act within 60
days on applications, and the guidelines are structured for the review
board to use as a guide as to what is appropriate for Yorktown. The
appeal process goes to the Board of Supervisors, and ultimate relief is
the Circuit Court. He stated that staff feels the guidelines take into
account the varying kinds of architecture in Yorktown.
Discussion followed regarding the failure of the first proposal
for architectural guidelines for Yorktown.
Vice Chairman Burgett asked when the guidelines would be presented
to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Carter stated the Planning staff was reviewing them at present
to make sure they were ready for Board consideration.
Mr. Stuck stated the guidelines have been referred to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Carter noted the Planning staff was fine-tuning the document.
The Board will have a work session in September, and the guidelines
should have cleared the Planning Commission by that time.
Mr. Wiggins stated he was amazed to find out that there were no
guidelines currently in place and that many of the residents here were
totally opposed to them.
Discussion followed on opposition to the guidelines and
correspondence that was received from the residents' association and
whether it accurately reflected the feelings of the majority of the
residents. Discussion also took place on incentives.
Miss Rapp asked what gave the Board of Supervisors the authority
to establish an architectural review board in Yorktown.
Mr. Carter indicated there was a statute in the Code of Virginia
that gives localities authority to establish and designate an historical
district with appropriate architectural controls to be administered by
an architectural review board appointed by the governing body.
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. (Not on Agenda)
Mr. Stuck informed the Board that there was an ongoing effort to
exchange some property with the National Park Service. Staff has
received correspondence from the Superintendent containing the Park
Service's guidelines for land swaps and the property it would be
interested in exchanging for the County's Cook Road property. He
discussed the Park Service properties the County would be interested in,
with the largest one being the waterfront parcel between the Watermen's
Museum and Yorktown Creek. Another piece the County would be interested
in was the parking lot property next to the new courthouse. Mr. Stuck
explained how the swap program would work, and indicated that staff was
in the process of developing a list of properties based on information
the Park Service provided.
Meeting Recessed. At 7:27 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgett declared a short
recess.
Meeting Reconvened. At 7:32 p.m. the meeting was reconvened in
open session by order of the Vice Chair.
TRUSTEES' AGREEMENT. (Continued)
The following members of the York Town Trustees were present at
this time: Gregory Brezinski, Chairman; Edith Elliott; Paul Crockett;
and Howard Clayton.
Vice Chairman Burgett welcomed the Trustees present, indicating
the Board of Supervisors was trying to determine exactly what the
Trustees wanted from the Board in terms of a new agreement. He stated
the Trustees' proposal was asking for certain things the County cannot
provide. He noted the Yorktown project was very important to the Board,
and the Trustees' response had been disheartening.
Mr. Brezinski stated the biggest question was why the big
difference in the two agreements. He indicated the answer was a higher
level of wisdom, more information, and trying to correct problems
associated with the current agreement, as well as receiving better legal
advice. The Trustees do not actually own the property; it is owned in
trust for other people, and the Trustees have a greater responsibility
to look after the properties because the properties are held in trust.
Mr. Brezinski stated the primary objective of the Trustees' proposed
agreement was to protect the responsibilities of the Trustees to act in
the best interest of the property. He explained there have been a number
of legal issues dealing with the responsibilities of the Trustees, and
the State Code indicates they are to manage the entrusted properties for
the community fairly and honestly. The Trustees must act in person and
not by agent. He stated the Trustees' draft agreement basically assures
a certain level of participation and responsibility to its duties. Mr.
Brezinski stated the County derives a great deal of economic benefit
from the Trustees' properties, and the Trustees are asking that they be
allowed to exercise their duties as they now understand them. He
indicated the Trustees and the Board of Supervisors have not always
worked as a team, and there were times when events happened in Yorktown
and the Trustees were not notified until after the fact.
Mr. Stuck challenged Mr. Brezinski to name a specific time when
the Trustees were not informed of work by the County being performed on
the waterfront.
Mr. Brezinski cited the review of the plan for the central area
and relocation of the pier. He stated it was posted before the Trustees
knew anything about it.
Mr. Carter stated it was his recollection that when the Trustees
approved the concept the pier was in the location coming out from the
bathroom area. He stated he also recalled stating that the County was
still tinkering with the conceptual design for the downriver location.
Mr. Brezinski stated his point was that there had been a number of
times when that type of thing occurred. Many times the Trustees were
notified by citizens in town that certain things were happening.
Mrs. Noll stated the Board needed to hear specific instances.
Miss Rapp expressed her agreement with having specific instances
documented in writing. She stated she respected Mr. Brezinski's opinion;
but because she was new she did not know the history, and she would like
the specific instances in writing so she could deal with them.
Mr. Brezinski stated that along the same lines he had requested
that the Trustees receive from the Board or staff reports relative to
the comments on the Trustees' proposed agreement and was told by the
individual receiving the request that he wasn't at liberty to release
them.
Vice Chairman Burgett indicated the proposed agreement would be
the subject of a closed meeting which was why the comments were not
public information. The Board's comments would not help the Trustees
make their case. He asked the Trustees to keep in mind that he owned as
much of the beach property as anybody.
Mr. Clayton stated this was where the Trustees and the Board did
not agree. He stated Mr. Burgett owned a part of the beach only because
he was a resident of York County; as a part of the Board of Supervisors,
he owns what the County owns. Mr. Clayton stated he would like for the
Trustees and the Board to get this agreement finalized as soon as
possible; but until all parties see it through the same eyes, it would
not go forward. He stated he would approve an agreement that the
Trustees' attorney says is legal to approve.
Vice Chairman Burgett stated the County was committing taxpayers'
dollars for the benefit of everyone in the County, and he felt that the
Board and the Trustees were in agreement on that point. The Board of
Supervisors cannot turn taxpayer dollars over to the Trustees because of
its responsibility. The people want to revitalize this waterfront and
make it into something special; but before the Board can commit funding
to the project, the Board and the Trustees should be in agreement. He
stated he did not see any way this Board could abrogate its
responsibilities after investing millions of dollars on the waterfront.
Discussion followed concerning the Trustees' attempt to model
their proposed agreement with an agreement between the YMCA and the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Crockett stated the Trustees did not have the financial
ability to do anything, and must work together with the Board of
Supervisors. He stated the Trustees and the Board of Supervisors could
work together for the betterment of the town, and they shouldn't be
fighting over who is going to do what. He noted he did not want to see
anything in the agreement that would eliminate the Board of Supervisors
from the process. He stated he believed the Trustees should get an
office out of the agreement; the Trustees have many things stored in
their homes because there is no other place to store things. Mr.
Crockett also stated the Trustees should have input into how the Post
Office building will be used and input into how things were going to be
improved on the waterfront.
Mrs. Noll asked Mr. Crockett if he felt the agreement should
contain wording to the effect that the County could be found in default.
Mr. Crockett stated he did not.
Mr. Brezinski asked the Board members to give the Trustees their
feelings as to where the group needs to go and for individual Board
member input in writing.
Mr. Clayton asked if the Board could ever enter into an agreement
where it became simply a lessee of certain lands and pay rent.
Vice Chairman Burgett indicated it could.
Mr. Clayton stated he felt the Trustees were simply holders of
land, and the proposal is to lease the land to the County for what it
considers to be its value.
Vice Chairman Burgett asked if the lease money then goes into the
County's general fund.
Mr. Crockett stated it then has to go back to the Yorktown Fund.
Mr. Clayton stated that a part of the fund has to do with the
Trustees' discretion as to how the money is spent. The Trustees have
spent almost $15,000 answering an agreement which should not have been
proposed in the first place. Mr. Clayton mentioned that the interjection
of the Department of Interior into the agreement regarding the
disposition of the old post office created a problem that was not
present before. He stated the Department of Interior wants the Trustees
to underwrite a project to restore the building that would cost
$600,000.
Mr. Brezinski stated the post office agreement was a second
agreement and not the agreement under discussion at this time.
Mr. Clayton stated the problem stems from the cost of the
negotiations for the post office building.
Mr. Brezinski suggested, with the brief overview he had provided
the Board, that the Board provide the Trustees with an overview of the
County's position in response to the Trustees' proposed agreement, as
well as the Board members' individual comments, compiled into a written
response.
Mrs. Noll stated she felt the Trustees understood her position on
their proposal.
Mr. Wiggins stated the County must retain control over how the
funds are used since the Board members are the County's responsible
representatives for any lawsuits that might take place. He stated the
Board must also retain all control and responsibility for the pier.
Miss Rapp stated that as a taxpayer of York County she could not
sign the proposed agreement. She stated she preferred the County
staff's version. She noted that the citizens of York County did not
realize that this land was not the land of the people; the more people
who learn this fact, the more they will be against the Trustees'
proposal.
Mr. Crockett stated if the Trustees could have some input on the
way the building will be used, they could live with the County's
proposal.
Mrs. Noll stated she felt the citizens should have some input on
how the building will be used.
Mr. Crockett also noted he felt the Trustees should be provided
with a place to conduct their meetings.
Vice Chairman Burgett stated he could not believe anyone would
think that the Board wouldn't have the best interest of the citizens at
heart. He stated the difficulty is that the Trustees' proposal puts a
screeching halt on everything going on in Yorktown today. Mr. Burgett
acknowledged that the Trustees sought participation in the process and
that it was a fair request to a point; but the Trustees' agreement would
have to be modified a great deal or nothing further will get done on the
waterfront. He stated anything the County would make on a lease would go
directly back into the Yorktown Fund to be spent for waterfront
purposes. Mr. Burgett noted that the Board of Supervisors and the
Trustees needed to come to an agreement very soon.
Mrs. Noll indicated she had read no mention of cooperation between
the Trustees and the Board of Supervisors in the Trustees' proposal. The
document proposed by the County mentions the need for cooperation, and
the Board of Supervisors feels very strongly that it needs to be stated.
Mrs. Elliott noted that the Trustees' attorney felt very strongly
about the wording in the Trustees' proposed agreement.
Miss Rapp stated the Trustees did not necessarily have to agree
with their attorney in all instances.
Mr. Crockett stated the Trustees must have a say regarding the
usage of the property.
Mr. Brezinski suggested that the Board of Supervisors and the
Trustees meet two on two to work on the agreement.
Mrs. Noll expressed her disagreement with the suggestion, stating
all the members of the Trustees and the Board of Supervisors should meet
to work out an agreement.
Vice Chairman Burgett stated the bottom line was that if the
County was going to put money into the waterfront, the County will
control it. He also noted the Board would seek input from the Trustees.
Mr. Brezinski stated the Trustees' legal counsel had advised them
that they must be participants in the responsibilities designated to
them and be involved in the decision-making process. He stated they
could not delegate their authority to someone else.
Vice Chairman Burgett indicated the two bodies had come to an
impasse. He stated he believed something could be arranged that would
give the Trustees input, but the ultimate responsibility for anything
happening in York County stopped with the Board of Supervisors. The
interpretation of the Trustees' attorney did not match the
interpretation of the County Attorney. Something needed to be worked out
to keep the Yorktown project going, but the Board of Supervisors would
not agree to anything that would abrogate its responsibility to the
citizens of York County.
Mrs. Noll indicated the whole purpose of the two sessions of Focus
on Yorktown that were held was to sign off on the conceptual plans. It
was a community effort of which the Trustees were a part.
Discussion followed concerning the bill passed by the General
Assembly pertaining to the authority and responsibilities of the
Trustees.
Mrs. Noll asked what the Trustees found unacceptable to the
County's proposal. She stated that perhaps modifying the current
agreement would be agreeable to them.
Mr. Crockett stated he felt the Trustees needed more input in the
use of the property.
Mr. Brezinski indicated he was not sure that any of the Trustees
could agree to such a statement at this time. The Trustees had been
advised by current legal counsel that the County's proposed agreement
was not in accord with the Trustees' legal responsibilities because it
delegated all its authority and decision-making authority to the
County.
Vice Chairman Burgett stated that giving the Trustees input could
be provided, but the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Brezinski reiterated his original request for a written
response from the Board of Supervisors as to why the Trustees' proposed
agreement was unacceptable.
Vice Chairman Burgett stated he would not vote to spend any
further funding without the County having control. The proposed
agreement requires the County to give up control of the County's funds.
Mr. Barnett stated he did not feel the current proposal was legal.
Discussion followed on a way to find a compromise agreement.
After further discussion, the Board by consensus directed that the
Trustees' proposed agreement be reviewed and a draft response be
prepared for the Board's review at its work session to be held June 13
and for forwarding to the Trustees by June 16 if possible.
Meeting Adjourned. At 8:39 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgett declared the
meeting adjourned sine die.
________________________________
________________________________
Daniel M. Stuck, Clerk
Walter C. Zaremba, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
Back to Index
|
