|
Adjourned Meeting
May 22, 2001
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York County Board
of Supervisors was called to order at 6:03 p.m., Tuesday, May 22, 2001,
in the East Room, York Hall, by Chairman James S. Burgett.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of
Supervisors were present: Walter C. Zaremba, Sheila S. Noll, and James
S. Burgett.
Mr. Ashe and Mr. Wiggins were absent.
Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds, County Administrator;
and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WORK SESSION
REDISTRICTING PROCESS DISCUSSION
Mr. McReynolds noted the staff had developed five alternatives so
far to meet a population balance as required. He asked the Board to
review the materials provided to them and provide staff with any
suggestions/questions concerning other possible alternatives. He stated
that once the Board is comfortable with a set of alternatives, staff
could then set up a series of meetings throughout the County to make
sure every citizen has ample opportunity to provide input into the
redistricting process.
Mr. Wiggins arrived at 6:04 p.m.
Mr. Barnett spoke of the legal considerations for redistricting,
including equal population, compactness, and continuity, and race. He
stated there was an ideal figure determined for each of the districts
that was determined by taking the total population and dividing it by
five. The figures for each of the districts may be 5 percent greater or
lesser that the ideal figure.
Mr. Ashe arrived at 6:07 p.m.
Mr. Barnett also explained the need for well-defined borders for
the districts. He stated that all alternatives developed at this time
preserve the incumbents (both the Board of Supervisors and the School
Board) in their respective districts to which they were elected,
indicating this was not a requirement but was desirable. Mr. Barnett
stated it was not possible to create a minority/majority district, and
indicated there was no requirement to do so. He stated all alternative
plans retain at least one minority-influenced district.
Chairman Burgett asked if staff had taken into account the number
of registered voters in each district.
Mr. Barnett stated the requirement calls for use of total
population rather than voting-age population.
Mr. Zaremba asked when Mr. Barnett and staff proposed to bring
this topic back up for discussion. He stated he sees a need at some
point to have one or more work sessions to get at the rationale behind
the proposed changes.
Mr. McReynolds stated what staff would like to see is the Board
members review the plans, develop any questions, and individually
discuss them with staff. At that time staff will come up with additional
alternatives, if necessary, and a work session will be scheduled on the
alternatives and deciding which ones to forward to the public.
Mr. Zaremba asked what the timeframe would be.
Chairman Burgett stated the redistricting process would not be
voted on until after the November elections.
Mr. McReynolds indicated that if the Board agreed with the general
concept as presented at this time, staff would provide the Board with a
schedule as soon as possible.
Mr. Tim Cross, Principal Planner, gave a brief overview as to why
the County must go through the redistricting process. He displayed for
the Board members the changes in the population growth during the past
10 years, noting the dramatic increases in Districts 2 and 5.
Mr. J. Mark Carter, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated the
Planning staff tried to follow physical boundaries that were
recognizable and, in some cases, felt they eliminated some of the
inadequacies of the current plan. As the Board has an opportunity to
look at the alternatives and develop questions, the staff will be able
to respond much better than it did 10 years ago because of the new
mapping technology. He spoke of the public meetings that would be held,
noting the plan was to use the VDOT-type open informational meeting
rather than a public hearing-type meeting. He indicated the proposal was
to hold these meetings in at least five locations throughout the County
in order to get good coverage and meet in convenient places.
Mr. Wiggins questioned the reason that District 1 runs from the
top of the Bruton district down through Marlbank.
Mrs. Noll indicated District 1 was established in this manner to
establish a minority-influenced district.
Discussion followed on the 1990 citizen committee recommendation
for a seven-member Board of Supervisors in order to establish a
minority/majority district and Justice Department criteria for
redistricting.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (CHESAPEAKE BAY ACT)
Mr. McReynolds indicated additional language was needed in order
for the County's Comprehensive Plan to be accepted by the state
regarding the Chesapeake Bay Act. He stated that necessary amendments
had been prepared and were reviewed with the Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department (CBLAD). A public hearing is scheduled for June 5
on the amendments.
Mr. Carter provided the Board with background information on the
Chesapeake Bay Act and its requirements affecting the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The County adopted its Bay Act ordinance
requirements in September of 1990 and was one of the first in the state
to do so. In 1991 the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and it included
extensive information about environmentally sensitive areas, including
the Chesapeake Bay. The Plan was submitted to the state for its review,
and in 1993 CBLAD indicated the County's plan was in good shape except
it needed to address three things: 1) groundwater contamination sources;
2) shoreline and stream bed erosion; and 3) the issue of appropriate
density of docks and piers and public and private access points to the
water. The County was asked to address this in the next Comprehensive
Plan review process that was completed in 1999. Unfortunately, CBLAD
still did not find the County's plan consistent. Mr. Hudgins and the
Environmental and Development Services staff have been working for the
past 6-8 months to compile all the information that CBLAD requires which
is what the Board has in the materials given to them this evening. He
noted that these amendments back up things that are already being done
in the County's ordinances. Mr. Carter explained that the Board had been
given copies of three separate reports that had been compiled into one
that is a very extensive series of information on the three deficient
items. Also provided to the Board was a separate document that shows the
recommended goal and implementation strategy statements and comments to
indicate the purpose of the statement and how it relates to an ordinance
or other activity. Mr. Carter then reviewed the significant items
contained in the amendments, one being a recommendation (a policy
change) to include a requirement that mandates connection to available
public water when a well has failed.
Discussion followed regarding failed wells.
Mr. John Hudgins, Director of Environmental and Development
Services, stated he did not feel this requirement was an attempt to keep
people from digging wells.
Mr. Ashe indicated there were a number of situations in the County
where there were lanes going back great distances with lots off of the
lane. He stated this situation needed to be looked at, and he suggested
that a minimum footage be considered in determining where water is
"available."
Mr. McReynolds indicated that for sewer there were two tests: the
line is at or near the property line and improvements are within 300
feet. He stated that possibly the same tests could be used for
water.
Mr. Carter then reviewed the other changes, stating some language
had been beefed up concerning parks and recreation planning; and there
were statements to propose amendments to the erosion and sediment
control ordinance, as well as some information on a stormwater
management ordinance because of the impending Phase II of the stormwater
requirements.
Mr. Hudgins stated staff will have to apply for an NPDES permit in
July of 2003, and they were asking how it would affect homeowner
associations that have stormwater responsibilities. The County is in
good shape because of the Chesapeake Bay Act and overlays. The Drainage
Committee is also a big plus for the County. He stated there are a
number of things that the County was doing today that would lead the
County into Phase II of the Stormwater Regulations.
Mr. Wiggins stated the County does not have a lot of industrial
areas that produce a lot of contaminating runoff, and this will help the
County when Phase II is implemented.
Mr. Carter indicated the materials provided the Board this evening
will be referenced as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan.
YORKTOWN COMMONS PROPERTY INFORMATION UPDATE
Mr. McReynolds indicated staff has not been able to move as
quickly on this issue as it had hoped. The agreement with the Trustees
was just signed, and Mrs. Mathews' property was just transferred to the
Jamestown/Yorktown Foundation. No word has been received yet on the
grant applications that have been submitted. He proposed that the Board
not make decisions on the issue of the Commons property until the staff
has some certainty about the information the Board needs on which to
make a decision. He stated it would be well into the fall before staff
could provide this information.
Mrs. Noll stated the first focus should be the wharf.
Mr. McReynolds noted his agreement, but stated the timing of some
of the grant funding could change that.
Mrs. Noll asked if grant funding could be used for debt service on
the projects.
Mr. McReynolds indicated it could not. The grant money would
potentially free up funding otherwise to be used on the projects for
debt service. The grant funding cannot be used for reimbursement for
work already accomplished. He stated that staff was not ready to come to
the Board and make recommendations because they do not have a clear
picture of all the issues at this time.
Mrs. Noll stated she did not want to jeopardize the improvements
being completed by 2006.
Mr. McReynolds stated he did not feel the timeline will be
jeopardized.
Mr. Zaremba questioned the land left to the Jamestown/Yorktown
Foundation, asking how the property fits in with the County's plans.
Mr. McReynolds indicated the property includes the buildings and
improvements on the property to the left (west) of the old post office.
The County is now in a better position to talk to the Foundation about
how the property will develop.
Mr. Zaremba asked what properties were included in the term
"commons."
Mr. McReynolds stated it referred to most of what was once the
Granger property between Ballard and Buckner Streets.
Mr. Zaremba expressed his concern that there was no companion
financial plan to the Yorktown Master Plan. He asked what was the
economic return on the project, and what was the role of the Office of
Economic Development in its planning.
Mr. McReynolds explained the return will come from tourism and the
retail space to be located on the waterfront. The Office of Economic
Development was involved in the development of the Yorktown Master Plan.
He noted that the Plan was not an economic development project, but a
revitalization project, and it was never looked at that the economic
development derived from it would pay for the improvements.
Chairman Burgett stated the money that is being used for this
project has to be used for tourism purposes and is an amount that would
be very difficult to use from general tax revenues.
Mr. Zaremba indicated that perhaps the project should be looked at
as an economic development project. In other revitalized communities,
there is a return on the localities' investments.
Mr. McReynolds stated this was the type of information that the
staff was looking for from the Board. Staff also needs to start looking
at what sorts of businesses actually want to locate in Yorktown.
Mr. Wiggins spoke concerning a parking problem in Yorktown. At the
present time the businesses now located in Yorktown do not have to
furnish their own parking. All the rest of the businesses in the County
have to furnish parking. He asked that this topic be placed on the first
available work session agenda for further discussion.
Mr. McReynolds noted that given the fact that parking in Yorktown
is a key and sensitive issue, the Board might want to conduct a
comprehensive study and incorporate it with the Master Plan.
Mr. Ashe stated parking was a very broad issue. He noted his
understanding that the County was going to run curb in front of The Pub
and Water Street Landing restaurants and put in parking at the Archer
Cottage. He stated that installing the curb there would take away the
owner's ability to provide parking.
Mr. Robert S. Kraus, Director of Yorktown Revitalization, stated
that technically the parking for The Pub is not on-site but is in the
right-of-way. A new ordinance could grandfather the existing businesses.
He stated if the Board wanted to require businesses to provide parking,
it could be done through some sort of use permit in order to provide
flexibility.
Mr. Zaremba spoke of the need for parking in Yorktown this
Memorial Day weekend. He stated there was public parking in the village,
but the public did not know about it. He asked that signs be erected on
the public areas to identify parking areas to visitors.
Discussion followed on current trolley signage being used in
Yorktown.
CLOSED MEETING. At 7:25 p.m. Mr. Wiggins moved that the Board
convene in Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a)(7) of the Code
of Virginia to receive legal counsel on certain matters.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins, Ashe, Burgett
Nay: (0)
Meeting Reconvened. At 7:35 p.m. the meeting was reconvened
in open session by order of the Chair.
Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of proposed Resolution SR-1 that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT REGARDING MEETING IN CLOSED SESSION
WHEREAS, the York County 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 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the York County Board of Supervisors that such closed
meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 22nd day of May, 2001, hereby certifies that, to
the best of each member's knowledge, (1) 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 (2) only such public business matters as were identified in
the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or
considered by the York County Board of Supervisors.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Noll, Wiggins, Ashe, Zaremba, Burgett
Nay: (0)
Meeting Adjourned. At 7:36 p.m. Chairman Burgett declared
the meeting adjourned sine die.
_____________________________
_______________________________
James O. McReynolds, Clerk
James S. Burgett, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
Back to Index
|
