|
Meeting Convened. A Regular Meeting of the York County Board of
Supervisors was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 4, 2002, in
the Board Room, York Hall, by Chairman Donald E. Wiggins. Attendance. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were
present: Walter C. Zaremba, Sheila S. Noll, Donald E. Wiggins, James S.
Burgett, and Thomas G. Shepperd.
Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds, County Administrator;
and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
Invocation. Miss Tara Smiddy, York County Youth Commission, gave the
Invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. Mr.
Shepperd led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATIONS
CLEAN BUSINESS AWARDS
Ms. Laurie Halperin, Beautification/Recycling Coordinator, provided
the Board with a video presentation depicting the Clean Business Award
recipients, and Chairman Wiggins and Mr. Richard Wallsom, Chairman of
the York County Beautification Committee, presented the Clean Business
Award plaque for the second quarter of 2002 to a representative of Wilco-Hess,
1724 George Washington Memorial Highway, Lower County recipient. Not
able to be present were representatives of the Holiday Inn 1776 (Upper
County) and Service Masters (Middle County).
YORK COUNTY YOUTH COMMISSION
Mr. Ryan Touhill, Chairman of the 2001-2002 Youth Commission, made
the Commission's final report for the year, speaking about the recent
"Right Choices for Youth" program. He thanked Mr. Smethurst
and Mr. Burgett for their support to the commissioners during the year,
and he thanked his fellow commissioners for working hard to make the
year successful.
Chairman Wiggins commended Mr. Touhill on his leadership of the
Commission during the year, and he provided some background on the Youth
Commission and its mission. He then read aloud Resolution R02-94
commending the 2001-2002 Youth Commission, and he and Mr. Burgett
presented the outgoing commissioners with bound and sealed copies and
wished them much success in their future endeavors.
Chairman Wiggins and Mr. Burgett then welcomed and introduced the
members of the 2002-2003 Youth Commission and presented them with York
County pins.
CITIZENS COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Bobby Horne, 310 Allen Harris Drive, spoke of a news article
concerning activities relating to the Fort Eustis Boulevard extension
project. He stated he had not read anything from the County about the
project, and it was his understanding that the Board was going to keep
the area residents of Settlers Crossing notified of any activity
relating to the extension. He spoke of how the project was supposed to
alleviate a volume of traffic from Route 17, but stated he did not see
that happening. He stated he did not see the need for four lanes of
traffic between Route 17 and Old York-Hampton Highway when the remainder
was to remain two lanes.
Dr. Steven W. Doremus, 402 Allen Harris Drive, also spoke concerning
the Fort Eustis Boulevard extension and VDOT not properly addressing the
issues of safety, environmental protection, project design, and funding.
He stated the extension will have a great impact on the neighborhoods it
will go through, and he asked the Board to continue reviewing the
project and oppose the current resolution until VDOT has adequately
addressed all the concerns.
Ms. E. Jay Evans, 6052 Mooretown Road, asked the Board not to include
the school buses in the proposed ordinance before the Board this evening
concerning commercial vehicle parking. She explained how the entire
community benefits from having the services of the school buses when
located at the drivers' homes. She indicated the bus drivers have
practiced area evacuation procedures since the area is in the Surry
alert area, and explained the positive impact it has having the buses
ready to go in case of inclement weather to pick up school children and
get them home. Ms. Evans also noted that the buses are the only mode of
transportation some of the bus drivers have to get back and forth to
work, stating they are from one-car families. She also noted that all
other surrounding localities allow their drivers to take their buses
home.
COUNTY ATTORNEY REPORTS AND REQUESTS
Mr. Barnett had no report to make at this time.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS AND REQUESTS
Mr. McReynolds indicated the Board had been provided with draft
copies of two letters to VDOT on which staff needed direction, one to
endorse the Six-Year Plan and the other concerning improvements to
Lakeside Drive. He stated if there were no objections, the Chairman
would be asked to sign the letters so staff could forward them to VDOT.
By consensus the Chairman was requested to sign the subject letters.
Mr. McReynolds then reminded the Board of its upcoming work sessions
on June 11 and June 25. He indicated he would be out of the office
attending the Government Finance Officers Association conference June
13-17.
MATTERS PRESENTED BY THE BOARD
Mrs. Noll mentioned that York County has a relay team for Relay for
Life, and there are a lot of people who will walk on Friday and Saturday
evening in the program. She invited citizens to come out to cheer on
York County's team. She then noted that the YMCA had a fund-raiser this
past Saturday evening at which she and Chairman Wiggins were present.
She stated she was glad to see so much community enthusiasm for the
project. Mrs. Noll then spoke concerning the FAMIS program which covers
children who slip through the crack in the health system. She indicated
individuals interested in contacting the organization should call
873-2647. Mrs. Noll also noted she attended a NASA Support Team meeting,
stating the team was commended for raising the awareness for the need
for research and development in the aeronautical field.
Mr. Burgett noted the Tabb Library has its new sign, and he expressed
his hope that everyone would go by and see it soon. He thanked Bob
Peters, General Services, for his work from the very start in getting
the sign built and erected. He then noted he was beginning to notice
graffiti again, and stated he has talked with the County's crime
prevention officer about the reoccurrence. He asked the citizens to call
and report any violations to the Sheriff's Office.
Mr. Shepperd provided the Board with information on his latest tour
of County facilities, indicating this trip he visited Environmental and
Development Services' Solid Waste, Recycling, and Mosquito Control
functions.
Mr. Zaremba spoke of an editorial in the Daily Press on May 29
concerning York County's economic development, stating he felt strongly
about its inaccurate content. He responded to the editor stating York
County's staff had worked with Williamsburg's counterparts as well as
with Lowes and WalMart to temper the standard designs to make them more
architecturally pleasing and in line with the historical nature of the
area. He suggested to the editor that if the editorial was intended to
bash York County, he should take a ride west on Richmond Road from the
historic area and explain what it was that York County should have
chosen to emulate. Mr. Zaremba stated the article did have a positive
note in that it got people to think about what the community should look
like. He stated the issue of development has no easy answers, but the
citizens must stay involved.
Chairman Wiggins indicated he also chose to respond to the editorial
Mr. Zaremba spoke of, stating the piece was totally inaccurate and
misleading. He indicated the County provides services that everyone has
become accustomed to, and sound economic development in areas designated
as such is imperative to keeping the tax rate down and insuring that the
services are provided.
Meeting Recessed. At 8:04 p.m. Chairman Wiggins declared a short
recess.
Meeting Reconvened. At 8:14 p.m. the meeting was reconvened in open
session by order of the Chair.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING RESTRICTIONS
Mr. J. Mark Carter, Planning and Zoning Manager, made a presentation
on proposed Ordinance No. 02-8 to amend various sections of Chapter 15
of the York County Code regarding the parking of certain commercial
vehicles. He explained that VDOT has reviewed the proposed ordinance and
will recommend its approval to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. He
then summarized the provisions of the proposed ordinance, including the
statement of intent, the classifications of vehicles to be regulated,
the designation of areas in which the ordinance will be enforced,
exceptions, and enforcement. Mr. Carter stated it was a very narrow list
of developments included in the enforcement area, and VDOT has suggested
that it be done this way based on specific complaints from individual
neighborhoods that wish to be included in the covered areas. He stated
that staff recommends the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 02-8, but
indicated there were additional neighborhoods that had come forward and
wished to be included. He suggested that the Board adopt the current
ordinance, and he asked them to consider scheduling another ordinance to
include additional areas at the Board's June 25 work session for and
finalize it for a July 16 public hearing. He also suggested that the
Board consider semi-annual review of the ordinance for the purpose of
considering additional requests by neighborhoods to be covered by the
ordinance.
Mr. Burgett indicated the County would be responsible for putting up
"towing enforced" signs that will put more bite in the
ordinance. He stated he wanted to make it very clear that the
enforcement applies only to vehicles parked in residential areas covered
by the ordinance.
Discussion followed concerning the availability of appropriate
parking areas in the County for commercial vehicles.
Mr. Shepperd stressed that the ordinance did not address parking on
private property.
Mr. Zaremba asked what was the criteria to be met for a subdivision
to be included on the list.
Mr. Carter indicated on this initial ordinance staff relied on the
individuals who contacted staff or code enforcement with a complaint.
Other criteria might include density of development and potential safety
impacts and other impacts on a particular neighborhood.
Discussion followed on criteria to be established for subdivision
inclusion in the ordinance, as well as criteria for one to be removed
from the ordinance. Also discussed were exceptions to the ordinance.
Chairman Wiggins then called to order a public hearing on proposed
Ordinance No. 02-8 which was duly advertised as required by law and is
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 15, YORK COUNTY
CODE, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, RELATIVE TO STOPPING, STANDING AND
PARKING OF CERTAIN CLASSIFICATIONS OF VEHICLES
Mr. Frank Mayhew, 103 Resolution Drive, spoke in opposition to
commercial vehicles being allowed to park in certain residential areas.
He talked about the accidents in York Crossing because of the current
situation with parked commercial vehicles, stating the problem causes a
negative impact on property values.
Mr. Steven Zuchowicz, 201 Choisy Crescent, stated there are areas
where the homeowners' associations can choose whether or not they wish
to allow commercial vehicles to park on its private roads. The ordinance
in question only speaks to public roads. He stated he understood the
argument of the school system, but there needs to be some regulation for
the parking of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods. He
asked that the Board approve the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Richard M. Hixson, Deputy Superintendent of York County Schools
for Operations, provided the Board with statistics on the numbers of
school buses in the County and the number of drivers who take buses home
with them. He stated the proposed ordinance would impact 13 drivers, and
the school system planned to generate additional parking in the
Plantation Acres area for about eight more spaces; but this is the last
area where this can be done. As the ordinance evolves and more areas are
added, parking for the buses will have to be found. Mr. Hixson stated
his major concern was the ability of the school system to recruit bus
drivers.
Ms. Barbara Call, 114 Pine Street, stated she was a bus driver who
trained all the new bus drivers in York County. She spoke of the single
parents who use the buses to get to and from work. She stated she saw no
real problem with parking the school buses on the streets in residential
areas as long as it is safe. She asked the Board to reconsider adopting
the ordinance and consider the school bus drivers' point of view.
Mr. Michael Amundson, 109 Haverstraw Court, spoke of why he felt the
County needed an ordinance to prohibit the parking of commercial and
large vehicles in residential neighborhoods. He stated they have an
environmental impact which decreases the standard of living and creates
an unsafe atmosphere for the residents. He indicated it also decreased
the appearance of the community where the vehicles are parked. Mr.
Amundson commended Mr. Burgett for advocating the ordinance, and he
urged the Board to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-8.
Ms. Marcy Jack, 112 Baldric Place, stated having buses parked at the
drivers' residences is very beneficial in times of an emergency, and she
did not see it as a major issue. Ms. Jack stated it would wind up
costing a lot of tax dollars to find other places to park the buses, and
she felt it was a good idea to continue allowing the bus drivers to keep
them at their homes.
Ms. Ellen C. Wirt, 210 Fishneck Landing Road, thanked the Board and
staff for the hard work on the proposed ordinance. She stated the school
buses are a problem, and it is a health and safety issue for the
communities housing the buses. She indicated she was assured that there
was enough talent in the school system to come up with a better
alternative than has been suggested at this time.
Ms. Colleen Brogan, 124 Barn Swallow Ridge, stated the commercial
vehicle parking issue has been a concern for the residents of Grafton
Woods for some time. She stated they consider the parking of commercial
vehicles a detriment to the neighborhood. Ms. Brogan noted that Chairman
Wiggins had indicated the Board would consider adding areas to the
restriction, and she asked that Grafton Woods be included in the next
consideration. She then displayed photographs to the Board depicting
conditions with commercial vehicle parking in the Grafton Woods
subdivision.
Ms. Nancy Brendle, 107 Mt. Vernon Drive, stated she has lived in
Plantation Acres for 34 years, and there have been school buses parked
in that neighborhood for at least that many years. She stated no one
complains about the school buses being parked in residential areas as
long as they have children in school. She encouraged the Board members
to visit the bus garage and listen to the problems the bus drivers have
transporting the children to school each day. She stated the bus drivers
are doing everything they can to get the children back and forth to
school safely, and she asked the Board members to consider the bus
drivers before making a decision on the ordinance.
Mr. Ralph G. Marshall, Jr., 111 Goosley Road, asked what the
commercial drivers will do with their vehicles if they can't park them
in front of their homes. He noted that some individuals cited safety
issues with the children playing and getting hurt because of the buses,
and he stated he felt the parents should not let their children play in
the street in the first place. He asked the Board not to adopt the
proposed ordinance.
Mr. Kevin Hogg, 305 Mastin Avenue, indicated his neighborhood is
included in the ordinance, and there might be only one or two people in
the neighborhood who have complained about school buses and trucks being
parked. He stated he had permission to park his truck and trailer on
Route 17 from an owner of a commercial property, and he was ordered to
move it unless he was renting space. He stated he no longer has the
truck, but he was concerned about the County taking control of the
neighborhood streets. Mr. Hogg stated he felt the areas should have been
selected based on the majority wishes of the homeowners' associations.
Mr. Ralph Marshall, Sr., 111 Goosley Road, indicated his son parks
his truck on his property on a second lot, and he doesn't see where it
is a hazard or an eyesore to the community. He asked the Board to
reconsider the ordinance.
There being no one else present who wished to speak concerning the
subject ordinance, Chairman Wiggins closed the public hearing.
Mr. Burgett agreed that criteria needs to be developed for areas to
be included in the ordinance. He suggested that staff draft it based on
the same types of criteria used for a water project. He stated there
weren't many subdivisions included in the proposed ordinance, and it
will affect only 13 school bus drivers. Mr. Burgett stated he felt it
was a much needed ordinance, and the Board and staff can work out
solutions for the concerns addressed.
Mr. Shepperd stated there have been problems at times with some dump
trucks in his district, but they were worked out through Code
Enforcement. He stated it is an issue of community involvement. As
communities grow and people make investments in their properties,
attitudes change. Mr. Shepperd stated his three areas of concern were
aesthetics of the homes, education impacts, and business impacts. He
stated no one was against school buses, but the Board is very concerned.
He stated the County has a responsibility to find places on which to
park school buses and recruit needed school bus drivers. Businesses have
a responsibility to find a place to park their vehicles other than at
the homes of their employees. Mr. Shepperd also agreed that criteria
needs to be developed by which to include or remove neighborhoods in the
restriction.
Mrs. Noll stated the ordinance only affects areas that have requested
the Board to do something about the commercial vehicle parking in their
neighborhoods. She suggested that criteria include a majority of the
residents in a particular neighborhood or subdivision requesting to
either be added or removed from the restriction. She also suggested that
review of the ordinance be on a yearly basis rather than semi-annual.
Mrs. Noll stated the Board of Supervisors has responsibilities to the
citizens, and the School Board has responsibilities to the school bus
drivers.
Mr. Zaremba indicated he appreciated the citizen input on this issue.
He stated the Board has a responsibility to make these kinds of
decisions, and the members have listened to all sides of the issue. The
Board's decision should fall with where the weight of the issues falls.
He stated it was not a perfect ordinance, but it was a good first step.
Chairman Wiggins agreed it was the consensus of the Board to set some
criteria for adding or deleting neighborhoods in the future, and he
stated the Board needed to do something for the neighborhoods and
subdivisions that request the prohibition of commercial vehicles being
parked in their areas.
Mr. Burgett then moved the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 02-8
that reads:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 15, YORK COUNTY
CODE, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, RELATIVE TO STOPPING, STANDING AND
PARKING OF CERTAIN CLASSIFICATIONS OF VEHICLES
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has determined that the
parking of large vehicles along residentially oriented streets, other
than for temporary periods to allow deliveries, may present safety
hazards for other vehicles and for pedestrians, may create noise that
disrupts the peace and tranquility of residential areas, and may
contribute to premature failure of road surfaces designed to accommodate
primarily passenger vehicles; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 46.2-1222 of the Code of Virginia, York
County and certain other jurisdictions are authorized, subject to the
approval of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, to adopt an ordinance
that restricts or prohibits parking on any part of the secondary system
of highways within their respective boundaries and which provides for
the classification of vehicles for the purpose of these restrictions and
prohibitions; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this 4th day of June, 2002, that the following sections of
Chapter 15, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, York County Code, be and they
are hereby amended as follows:
***
Sec. 15-43. Uncontested payment of parking citation penalties;
certification of contest of citation.
(a) Every person receiving a citation from a law-enforcement officer
that he has violated a provision of this Code regulating parking may
waive his right to appear and be tried for the offense set forth in the
citation. Such waiver shall be effective upon voluntary payment of ten
dollars ($10.00) to the county treasurer's office, within five (5) days
after receipt of the citation, or upon voluntarily placing ten dollars
($10.00) in a reply mail envelope and mailing it to the county
treasurer's office, so that it is postmarked within forty-eight (48)
hours after receipt of the citation; provided, however, that any
citation for a violation of section 15-47.1 with respect to parking in a
space reserved for persons with disabilities or for a violation of
section 15-48(c) with respect to the parking of certain classes of
vehicles in areas zoned for residential use shall require a voluntary
payment of fifty dollars ($50.00) to effectuate the aforesaid waiver.
(b) All uncontested parking citations paid under this section shall
be accounted for by the county treasurer. The contest, by any person, of
a parking citation shall be certified, in writing, upon an appropriate
form, to the general district court by the county treasurer.
(c) Whenever a reply mail envelope is used for transmitting cash,
check, draft or money order by mail to the county treasurer's office
pursuant to the provisions of this section, the responsibility for
receipt of the cash, check, draft or money order by the treasurer shall
be that of the registered owner of the vehicle on which the citation was
placed.
***
Sec. 15-48. Parking prohibited or restricted in specified places.
***
(c) Parking of certain classifications of vehicles in certain
designated areas
(1) Statement of Intent: The purpose of the following regulations is
to define certain classifications of vehicles and to identify those
areas where it is necessary to prohibit the parking of such classified
vehicles in order to enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety, protect
and preserve the public investment in such streets that are designed
primarily for residentially-related traffic, and to protect and preserve
the character of residential areas.
(2) Classification of Vehicles: For the purposes of this subsection,
the classification of vehicles shall be as follows:
a. Commercial Vehicle:
1. Any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of ten thousand (10,000)
pounds or more, or a length of 21 feet or more, including trailers or
other attachments;
2. Any vehicle, regardless of size, used in the transportation of
hazardous materials as defined in section 103 of the federal Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (49 C.F.R. Part 172, Subpart F);
3. Any heavy construction equipment, whether located on the street or
on a truck, trailer or semi-trailer;
4. Any solid waste collection vehicle, tractor truck or tractor
truck/semi-trailer or tractor/truck combination, dump truck, concrete
mixer truck, or towing or recovery vehicle;
5. Any trailer, semi-trailer or other vehicle in which food or
beverages are stored or sold
b. Passenger Carrying Vehicle
1. Any vehicle designed to carry sixteen (16) or more passengers,
including the driver.
2. Any vehicle licensed by this Commonwealth for use as a common or
contract carrier or as a limousine.
c. Recreational Vehicle
A device, whether or not self-propelled, designed or used for
transporting persons or property for or in connection with recreation,
as distinguished from mere transportation, having a gross vehicle weight
of ten thousand (10,000) pounds or more, or a length of 21 feet or more,
including trailers or other attachments, and including such things as
motor homes, travel trailers, campers, boats and boat trailers.
(3) Designation of Specific Vehicle Classifications and Areas Subject
to Restriction
No person shall park any commercial vehicle, passenger-carrying
vehicle, or recreational vehicle (all as defined herein) on any road,
highway or street within the state secondary system of highways in any
of those areas or subdivisions in the County as described below. In the
case of subdivisions, the areas governed by this subsection shall be
those areas commonly known by the names listed below and designated on
the plats of subdivision recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit
court of the county. Such restrictions shall have no application to any
privately owned street, or any street owned by a property owners
association within the listed areas. In the event a street serves as the
dividing line between a residential and commercial zoning district, the
parking restrictions shall apply only on the residentially-zoned side of
the street.
a. Skimino Farms subdivision, all sections.
b. Greensprings vicinity being further described as the area bounded
by Bypass Road on the south, Waller Mill Road on the west, Carrs Hill
Road on the north, and Route 132 on the east.
c. Penniman Road/Government Road/Hubbard Lane vicinity being further
described as the area bounded by Government Road and Penniman Road on
the south and southwest, the Williamsburg city line on the west and
northwest, the Colonial Parkway on the north, and Interstate 64 on the
northeast and southeast, includ-ing, but not limited to, all sections of
the Queenswood, Charleston Heights, Springfield Terrace, Nelson Park,
York Terrace, Magruder Woods, Bruton Glen, Penniman East, Penniman
Woods, Queens Creek Estates, and Middletown Farms subdivisions.
d. Carver Gardens
e. Yorktown, being further described as the area bounded by the York
River on the northeast, the United States Coast Guard Reserve Train-ing
Center on the east, Route 238 and the Colonial Parkway on the southwest,
and York-town Creek on the west.
f. York Crossing.
g. Glen Laurel
h. Yorkshire Park
i. Heritage Hamlet
j. Plantation Acres
k. Bethany Terrace
(4) Procedures for Consideration and Establishment of Classifications
and Area Designations:
As directed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, in accordance
with Section 46.2-1222 of the Code of Virginia, the provisions of
subsection (c) of this section shall have been initially established and
may be amended only in accordance with the following procedures:
a. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors (all
of which are broadcast on the County's government access channel) the
Board will announce its intention to consider the adoption of an
ordinance defining certain classifications of vehicles and regulating
and restricting the parking of such vehicles along certain streets in
the County. The Board's announcement will include an invitation for
citizens to suggest residential streets and/or residential subdivisions
to be included in such proposed restrictions.
b. Subsequent to the public announcement of its intention to consider
such an ordinance, the Board will direct the County Administrator to
prepare a recommendation concerning the classification of vehicles and a
listing of streets proposed as candidates for establishment of parking
restrictions. The proposed ordinance shall be presented to the Board for
preliminary review and such adjustments as the Board deems appropriate.
c. The determination of streets and areas to be subject to such
parking restrictions shall be based on characteristics including, but
not necessarily limited to:
1. location within a residential zoning classification. If the
centerline of the subject street is a zoning district boundary line, the
parking restriction shall apply only on the residentially -zoned side;
2. density of development, with primary focus on residential
subdivisions with a typical lot size of acre or less;
3. predominant lot width and street frontage characteristics, with
primary focus on subdivision settings where typical lot widths are 150
feet or less;
4. location-specific safety issues including, but not limited to,
considerations of traffic volumes, street surface width, sight distance,
and use characteristics;
5. documentation or determination of inappropriate parking of
classified vehicles or the potential for such parking to occur.
d. Subsequent to this preliminary review and consideration, the Board
will determine whether the ordinance should be formally considered and,
if so, it shall be advertised for public hearing by the Board in
accordance with the advertisement and public notice requirements for
County Code amendments, as set forth in the Code of Virginia. In
addition to the standard legal advertisements, the Board's intention to
consider such restrictions will be advertised on the County's government
access cable channel and through such other media opportunities as the
Board and County Administrator determine appropriate.
e. Concurrently with the advertisement of the proposed ordinance for
public hearing, the Board will transmit a copy of the proposal to the
Virginia Department of Transportation Resident Engineer. The County
staff will coordinate with the Resident Engineer to ensure communication
of any VDOT concerns or considerations to the Board for its review.
Among other considerations, the Resident Engineer will be asked to
review the potential for such restrictions to shift commercial vehicle
parking to Primary routes or to other portions of Secondary routes where
more serious traffic safety problems might be created.
f. At the prescribed date and time, the Board will conduct the
advertised public hearing and consider the comments received and other
considerations and factors the Board deemed appropriate. The Board will
then, at that or a subsequent meeting, adopt, adopt with amendment, or
reject the proposed ordinance.
g. Any ordinance adopted by the Board shall be subject to approval by
the Commonwealth Transportation Board and it shall not become effective
until such approval is given. Subsequent to the initial adoption and
approval of such an ordinance pertaining to classification of vehicles
and designation of restricted areas, the Board may consider and adopt
amendments to add or delete classifications, streets or areas in
accordance with the procedures set out above and subject to approval by
the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
h. Subsequent to approval of the ordinance by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board, the County shall be responsible for the
fabrication and posting of all such signs as are necessary to inform the
public of the restrictions that apply to the subject streets. The County
shall be responsible for the initial installation and subsequent
maintenance of such signs and the prompt repair, removal and / or
replacement of any signs that are damaged or destroyed.
(d) Application. The prohibitions and restrictions set forth in this
section shall have no application when a vehicle is parked or stopped in
compliance with the order of a law enforcement officer or a traffic
control device, or during a permitted period of time in
officially-designated parking areas, or in case of vehicular breakdown,
or in an emergency which renders it necessary. Moreover, the
prohibitions and restrictions contained in subsection (c) of this
section shall have no application to any vehicle while such vehicle is
in actual use for loading or unloading or while actually engaged in the
provision of goods or services.
(e) Posting of signs. The county administrator shall cause "No
Parking" and "1-Hour Parking" signs to be posted in the
subject areas. Such signs shall comply with all applicable standards and
specifications as set forth in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) and the specifications that the County intends to use
shall be coordinated with and approved by the Resident Engineer prior to
fabrication. The County shall secure such permits as may be necessary
for its personnel to work within and install the signs in VDOT
rights-of-way.
(f) Application of sections 15-43 through 15-45. The provisions of
sections 15-43, 15-44 and 15-45 of this Code shall apply in the
enforcement of this section.
(g) Penalty for violation. Any person who violates any provision of
this section shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and punished as
provided in section 15-2 of this Code.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Zaremba, Noll, Burgett, Shepperd, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
APPLICATION NO. YVA-13-02, DEBBIE AND ROGERS HAMILTON
Mr. Carter made a brief presentation on Application No. YVA-13-02,
requesting a special use permit to establish a bed and breakfast
establishment in an existing single-family detached home located at 114
Church Street in historic Yorktown. The Planning Commission considered
the application and forwarded it to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation of approval, and staff recommended approval of the
application through the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-112.
A very brief discussion took place concerning the number of rooms
and/or the number of guests which could be housed as allowed by the use
permit.
Chairman Wiggins called to order a public hearing on Application No.
YVA-13-02 which was duly advertised as required by law. Proposed
Resolution R02-112 is entitled:
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BED AND BREAKFAST
INN AT 114 CHURCH STREET
Mr. Rogers Hamilton, the applicant, indicated he was present to
answer any questions the Board might have concerning his application.
There being no one else present who wished to speak concerning the
subject application, Chairman Wiggins closed the public hearing.
Mr. Zaremba moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-112 that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BED AND BREAKFAST
INN AT 114 CHURCH STREET
WHEREAS, Debbie and Rogers Hamilton have submitted Application No.
YVA-13-02, pursuant to Section 24.1-327(b)(4) of the York County Zoning
Ordinance, to establish a bed and breakfast inn within an existing
single-family detached dwelling on a 0.25-acre parcel of land located at
114 Church Street and further identified as Assessor's Parcel No.
18-1-29A; and
WHEREAS, said application has been forwarded to the York County
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable procedure; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of this
application; and
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has conducted a duly
advertised public hearing on this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered the public comments and
Planning Commission recommendation with respect to this application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 4th day of June, 2002, that Application No.
YVA-13-02 be, and it is hereby, approved to authorize the establishment
of a bed and breakfast inn within an existing single-family detached
dwelling on a 0.25-acre parcel of land located at 114 Church Street and
further identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 18-1-29A, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This approval shall authorize the establishment of a bed and
breakfast inn within a single-family detached dwelling on property
located at 114 Church Street and further identified as Assessor's Parcel
No. 18-1-29A. Rental of rooms shall be limited to overnight guests as
opposed to long-term boarders. The owner's living quarters in the
principal dwelling shall be the only dwelling unit permitted on the
property.
2. The owners/operators of the bed and breakfast establishment shall
reside on the premises and maintain the property primarily as a
single-family residence with the bed and breakfast operation
constituting an accessory use.
3. A site plan and building plans, prepared in accordance with
Article V of the York County Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Statewide
Building Code shall be submitted to and approved by the York County
Department of Environmental and Development Services prior to the
establishment of the bed and breakfast operation. The plan shall
describe the interior of the building in sufficient detail to determine
compliance with parking, health, and building code requirements. In
addition, all existing and proposed off-street parking areas shall be
identified and installed according to specifications outlined in Article
VI of the York County Zoning Ordinance. No off-site parking provisions
shall be permitted.
4. One (1) freestanding, non-illuminated sign, not to exceed four (4)
square feet in area, shall be permitted to identify the use.
5. The maximum occupancy of the bed and breakfast, not including the
owners/operators or the children of registered guests, shall be four (4)
adult guests if operated as a two-bedroom facility, six (6) adult guests
if operated as a three-bedroom facility, or eight (8) adult guests if
operated as a four-bedroom facility.
6. Retail sales on the premises shall not be permitted.
7. The bed and breakfast inn shall be operated in conformance with
the performance standards set forth in Section 24.1-409 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
8. In accordance with Section 24.1-115(b)(7) of the York County
Zoning Ordinance, a certified copy of the resolution authorizing this
special use permit shall be recorded at the expense of the applicant in
the name of the property owner as grantor in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Noll, Burgett, Shepperd, Zaremba, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
APPLICATION NO. UP-595-02, K. DALE MOORE
Mr. Carter made a presentation on Application No. UP-595-02
requesting a special use permit to authorize a 125-foot freestanding
monopole communications tower within a flagpole structure located at
3010 Big Bethel Road. The Planning Commission considered the application
and forwarded it to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of
approval, and staff recommended approval of the application through the
adoption of proposed Resolution R02-113.
Mr. Shepperd questioned the color white being used for the flag pole.
Mr. Carter indicated this was the staff's and the applicant's
recommendation. The only change would be if the FAA requirements were
otherwise. He noted there was also a stipulation in the use permit which
requires approval of the Board if there is any major change in the
painting scheme.
Mr. Shepperd asked about the applicant being able to fly the Virginia
state flag.
Mr. Carter indicated the proposal is to limit the permit to flying
the American flag.
Mr. Shepperd stated it was his experience that the ropes that raise
and lower the flags on these poles at times flap and cause a lot of
noise. He asked if the applicant would be required to keep this from
happening or if the ropes would be internal.
Mr. Carter noted he could not answer that question.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Zaremba suggested that the word "only" be added to the
end of condition No. 5 regarding the flying of the American flag during
daylight hours.
Chairman Wiggins called to order a public hearing on Application No.
UP-595-02 which was duly advertised as required by law. Proposed
Resolution R02-113 is entitled:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A 125-FOOT
SELF-SUPPORTING MONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS FLAGPOLE TOWER AT 3010 BIG
BETHEL ROAD
Mr. Dale Moore, the applicant, indicated the other color he looked at
was a polished aluminum. He indicated he would be happy to answer any
other questions.
Mrs. Noll reiterated Mr. Shepperd's concern about the possibility of
the pole's ropes flapping and causing a great deal of noise.
Mr. Moore stated he was not sure, but he thought the ropes were
contained within the pole. He stated if the ropes make a great deal of
noise, he would do something to correct it because he didn't want to
anger his neighbors or negatively affect his business.
There being no one else present who wished to speak concerning the
subject application, Chairman Wiggins closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-113(R) that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A 125-FOOT
SELF-SUPPORTING MONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS FLAGPOLE TOWER AT 3010 BIG
BETHEL ROAD
WHEREAS, K. Dale Moore has submitted Application No. UP-595-02, which
requests a special use permit pursuant to Section 24.1-306 (Category 17,
No. 7) of the York County Zoning Ordinance to authorize construction of
a 125-foot freestanding monopole communications tower with associated
equipment on the parcel located at 3010 Big Bethel Road (Route 600) and
further identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 24 (60)-28; and
WHEREAS, said application has been referred to the York County
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable procedure; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of this
application; and
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has conducted a duly
advertised public hearing on this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered the public comments and
Planning Commission recommendation with respect to this application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 4th day of June, 2002, that Application No.
UP-595-02 be, and it is hereby, approved to authorize construction of a
125-foot freestanding monopole communications tower/flagpole on a
2.34-acre parcel of land located at 3010 Big Bethel Road (Route 600) and
further identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 24 (60)-28, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This use permit shall authorize the construction of a freestanding
monopole communications tower/flagpole on a 2.34-acre parcel of land
located at 3010 Big Bethel Road (Route 600) and further identified as
Assessor's Parcel No. 24 (60)-28.
2. The height of the flagpole/tower shall not exceed 125 feet.
3. A site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Article
V of the York County Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted to and approved
by the County prior to commencement of land clearing or any construction
activity on the subject property. Except as modified herein, said plan
shall be substantially in conformance with the sketch plan submitted by
the applicant a copy of which is located in the application files for
this request maintained by the York County Department of Environmental
and Development Services. As part of the site plan submittal, the
applicant shall prepare a frequency intermodulation study to determine
the impact on current communication transmissions for the York County
Departments of Fire and Life Safety and General Services, Sheriff's
Office, School Division, and the Intrac Sewer Telemetry System. Should
any equipment associated with this facility at any time during the
operation of the tower be found by the County to cause interference with
County communications, the applicant shall be responsible for the
elimination of said interference within twenty-four (24) hours of
receipt of notice from the County.
4. Construction and operation of the tower shall be in conformance
with the performance standards set forth in Sections 24.1-493 and
24.1-494 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. No flag other than a single Flag of the United States shall be
flown from the tower/flagpole. Said flag shall be flown continuously
during daylight hours only. Corporate logo emblem flags shall be
expressly prohibited.
6. Illumination of the flag shall not be permitted.
7. The applicant shall submit to the County a statement from a
registered engineer certifying that NIER (nonionizing electromagnetic
radiation) emitted from the tower does not result in a ground level
exposure at any point outside such facility that exceeds the maximum
applicable exposure standards established by any regulatory agency of
the U.S. Government or the American National Standards Institute.
8. A report from a registered structural or civil engineer shall be
submitted indicating tower height and design, structure installation,
and total anticipated capacity of the structure (including number and
types of users that the structure can accommodate). These data shall
satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed tower conforms to all
structural requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building Code and shall
set out whether the tower will meet the structural requirement of
EIA-222E, "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and
Antenna Supporting Structures."
9. Advertising and signage on the tower/flagpole shall be expressly
prohibited, except for warning signs associated with the operation of
the tower or its equipment.
10. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit written
statements from the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal
Communications Commission, and any other review authority with
jurisdiction over the tower, stating that the proposed tower complies
with regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt
from those regulations.
11. All ground-mounted equipment associated with the tower/flagpole
shall be located inside or, if located outside, shall be screened from
view utilizing evergreen planting material deemed acceptable to the
County. Any building addition necessary to house the equipment shall be
depicted on the above-referenced site plan and shall match the façade
and building materials of the existing buildings on the site.
12. If at any time use of the communications tower ceases, the owner
of the subject property on which the tower is located shall dismantle
and remove it within six (6) months after ceasing to use it, unless:
(1) A binding lease agreement or letter of intent with another
wireless com-munications provider has been executed in which case an
additional six (6) months shall be granted. If a letter of intent is
provided, the execution date for a binding lease agreement shall not
extend more than (12) months beyond the time the use of the tower
ceases, or
(2) The County requests, in writing, that the tower be reserved for
County use.
13. Accessory facilities shall not include offices, vehicle storage,
or outdoor storage unless permitted by the district regulations.
14. Evidence shall be provided within ninety (90) days upon of
receipt of a building permit that the Virginia State Corporation
Commission has been notified that a communication facility has been
constructed or the use permit shall be considered null and void.
15. The equipment building and associated equipment shall be
completely enclosed by a security fence to the satisfaction of the
County.
16. The communication tower shall be white in color. Should Federal
Aviation Administration requirements dictate special markings, tower
lighting shall be used in lieu of multi-color painting. If painting is
required, a tower maintenance plan shall be submitted and approved by
the County.
17. No microwave dishes, conical shaped antennae, or other dish shall
be permitted on the tower. No antenna arrays of any kind shall be
located on or visible from the outside of the tower.
18. The communications tower shall be structurally designed to
accommodate no fewer than two (2) wireless users capable of supporting
either PCS or cellular antenna arrays. If space is available, the County
shall have the right of first refusal for leasing a space on the tower
to place an antenna in support of operations consistent with the
County's Department of Fire and Life Safety.
19. Significant modifications to a previously approved communications
tower as determined by the Zoning Administrator shall require that a new
use permit application be submitted for review in accordance with the
provisions of this section. Modifications can be administratively
approved if the Zoning Administrator determines the modification to be
minor.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Burgett, Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
APPLICATION NO. UP-596-02, ELIZABETH ROBINSON
Mr. Carter made a brief presentation on Application No. UP-596-02
requesting a special use permit to authorize a beauty shop as a home
occupation within a single-family detached dwelling located at 521
Waller Mill Road. The Planning Commission considered the application and
forwarded it to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of
approval, and staff recommended approval of the application through the
adoption of proposed Resolution R02-114.
Chairman Wiggins called to order a public hearing on Application No.
UP-596-02 which was duly advertised as required by law. Proposed
Resolution R02-114 is entitled:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A BEAUTY
SHOP AS A HOME OCCUPATION AT 521 WALLER MILL ROAD
Mrs. Elizabeth Robinson, the applicant, stated it was just a small
business, maybe one or two clients a day. She asked the Board to act
favorably on the application.
There being no one else present who wished to speak concerning the
subject application, Chairman Wiggins closed the public hearing.
Mr. Zaremba then moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-114
that reads:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A BEAUTY
SHOP AS A HOME OCCUPATION AT 521 WALLER MILL ROAD
WHEREAS, Elizabeth Robinson has submitted Application No. UP-596-02
requesting a special use permit, pursuant to Section 24.1-283(b) of the
York County Zoning Ordinance, to authorize a beauty shop as a home
occupation within a single-family detached dwelling on a 0.68-acre
parcel of land located at 521 Waller Mill Road and further identified as
Assessor's Parcel No. 6-1-2A; and
WHEREAS, said application has been forwarded to the York County
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable procedure; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of this
application; and
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has conducted a duly
advertised public hearing on this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered the public comments and
Planning Commission recommendation with respect to this application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 4th day of June, 2002, that Application No.
UP-596-02 be, and it is hereby, approved to authorize a special use
permit, pursuant to Section 24.1-283(b) of the York County Zoning
Ordinance, to establish a beauty shop as a home occupation within a
single-family detached dwelling on a 0.68-acre parcel of land located at
521 Waller Mill Road and further identified as Assessor's Parcel No.
6-1-2A, subject to the following conditions:
1. This use permit shall authorize the establishment of a one
(1)-chair beauty shop as a home occupation within a single-family
detached dwelling on a 0.68-acre parcel of land located at 521 Waller
Mill Road and further identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 6-1-2A.
2. The conduct of such home occupation shall be limited to an area
within the existing home not to exceed 150 square feet.
3. The home occupation shall be conducted in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 24.1-281 and 24.1-283(b) of the York County
Zoning Ordinance, except as modified herein.
4. No person other than individuals residing on the premises shall be
engaged on the premises in the home occupation.
5. The days and hours of operation shall be limited to Tuesday
through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and Saturday from 8:30 AM to 1:00
PM.
6. No more than one (1) customer at any one time shall be served
within the applicant's home.
7. Retail sales on the premises shall be limited to incidental sales
of shampoo and other hair care products.
8. No signs or other forms of on-premises advertisement or business
identification visible from outside the home shall be permitted.
9. In accordance with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum of
one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided on the premises to
accommodate customers. This space shall be in addition to the two (2)
spaces that are otherwise required for the single-family residence.
10. In accordance with Section 24.1-115(b)(7) of the York County
Zoning Ordinance, a certified copy of the resolution authorizing this
special use permit shall be recorded at the expense of the applicant in
the name of the property owner as grantor in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Burgett, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
APPLICATION NO. UP-597-02, JOHN E. WRAY TRUST
Mr. Carter made a brief presentation on Application No. UP-597-02
requesting a special use permit to authorize a forestry operation to be
conducted on approximately 30.1 acres located on the east side of
Mooretown Road approximately 3,300 feet south of its intersection with
Airport Road. The Planning Commission considered the application and
forwarded it to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of
approval, and staff recommended approval of the application through the
adoption of proposed Resolution R02-115.
Mr. Shepperd asked how consideration for this proposal differs if the
property were left wooded and someone came in and wanted to erect a
building on it.
Mr. Carter stated the forestry permit allows property to be timbered
without having to go through the site plan development process.
Chairman Wiggins noted there is also a larger buffer required with
forestry.
Discussion followed concerning background on why forestry buffers are
larger than developed property.
Mr. Shepperd asked what consideration had been given to transporting
the logs in and out of the site.
Mr. Carter stated there was no restriction to how they enter or exit
the site because as the trucks move up Mooretown Road, they will be in a
light industrial area.
Mr. Zaremba indicated Mr. Carter had coordinated this application
with Williamsburg and James City County to be a good neighbor, but only
received comments from James City County. He asked if Mr. Carter had
heard from Williamsburg.
Mr. Carter stated he did not know if staff had talked with anyone in
Williamsburg. He stated Williamsburg will be getting a copy of the
watershed impact analysis to review.
Mr. Zaremba asked if it would be possible to restrict the trucks
existing the site to go north to Lightfoot and I-64.
Mr. Barnett indicated he felt that would be a reasonable condition.
Mr. Zaremba asked the Board to consider amending the permit to
require a northbound exit from the site. He also asked if the
dilapidated building currently on the site was going to be removed.
Mr. Carter stated it wasn't a part of the application proposal, but
staff was hoping it would be removed when the property was made ready
for commercial marketing.
Mrs. Noll agreed that it was a good idea to restrict the flow of the
trucks exiting from the site.
Mr. Carter suggested that the proposed resolution be amended to add a
new paragraph 11 requiring that trucks leave the site turning right to
travel northbound on Mooretown Road toward I-64.
Chairman Wiggins then called to order a public hearing on Application
No. UP-597-02 which was duly advertised as required by law. Proposed
Resolution R02-115 is entitled:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A FORESTRY
OPERATION ON MOORETOWN ROAD (ROUTE 603)
Mr. Chuck Carlisle, representing the Wray Trust, indicated the
applicant has agreed to remove the building that is currently on the
property. He assured the Board the trucks leaving the property would be
turning north on Mooretown Road to get to I-64.
There being no one else present who wished to speak concerning the
subject application, Chairman Wiggins closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-115(R) that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A FORESTRY
OPERATION ON MOORETOWN ROAD (ROUTE 603)
WHEREAS, the John E. Wray III Trust has submitted Application No.
UP-597-02 to request a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 24.1-306
(category 2, number 10) of the Zoning Ordinance, to authorize a forestry
operation to be conducted on approximately 30.1 acres located on the
east side of Mooretown Road (Route 603) approximately 3,300 feet south
of its intersection with Airport Road (Route 645) and further identified
as Assessor's Parcel No. 5-44, 5-45, and 5-46; and
WHEREAS, said application has been forwarded to the York County
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable procedure; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of this
application; and
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has conducted a duly
advertised public hearing on this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered the public comments and
Planning Commission recommendation with respect to this application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 4th day of June, 2002, that Application No.
UP-597-02 be, and it is hereby, approved to authorize a forestry
operation to be conducted on approximately 30.1 acres located on the
east side of Mooretown Road (Route 603) approximately 3,300 feet south
of its intersection with Airport Road (Route 645) and further identified
as Assessor's Parcel No. 5-44, 5-45, and 5-46 subject to the following
conditions:
1. This special use permit shall authorize a forestry operation to be
conducted on approximately 30.1 acres located on the east side of
Mooretown Road (Route 603) approximately 3,300 feet south of its
intersection with Airport Road (Route 645) and further identified as
Assessor's Parcel No. 5-44, 5-45, and 5-46.
2. All activities shall comply with Sections 24.1-419, Standards for
Forestry Operations, and 24.1-376, Watershed Management and Protection
Area Overlay District, of the York County Zoning Ordinance.
3. All harvest activities shall be in accordance with the forest
management plan titled "Forest Management Plan for Wray Brothers,
Inc. York County, Virginia," submitted by Charles Rady Harmon,
Consulting Forester, Timber Marketing & Management, Inc., and dated
February 1, 2001, except as modified herein. A revised forest management
plan incorporating the conditions of this use permit shall be submitted
to the Zoning Administrator and the Virginia Department of Forestry for
approval prior to the commencement of the forestry operation.
4. An impact study prepared in accordance with the provisions of
Section 24.1- 376(f) of the York County Zoning Ordinance shall be
submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the
commencement of any harvesting activity on the property.
5. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 10 of the York County Code, Erosion and
Sediment Control, shall be submitted to and approved by the County prior
to the commencement of any harvesting activity on the property.
6. All forestry activities on the site shall be conducted in
accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Virginia Department of
Forestry's Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality in
Virginia Technical Guide (3rd Edition).
7. All areas of bare soil resulting from the harvest shall be
stabilized through revegetation in accordance with the guidelines set
forth in the Virginia Department of Forestry's Forestry Best Management
Practices for Water Quality in Virginia Technical Guide (3rd Edition).
This revegetation shall immediately follow the conclusion of harvest
activity on the property.
8. Archaeological Site No. 44YO389 as identified by the study
entitled Resource Protection Planning Revisited: James City County, York
County, and City of Williamsburg, prepared by the Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation's Department of Archaeological Research, shall be left in an
undisturbed state. No timber harvesting shall be permitted in the area
of this site unless and until a Phase I archaeological study has been
completed in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section
24.1-374(d) and submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review.
9. All buffers required herein shall be clearly painted rather than
marked with the more common "flagging" technique.
10. All harvested timber, logs, tree branches, limbs, dead and
damaged trees, and associated debris shall be removed from the site upon
completion of the timber harvest.
11. Logging trucks exiting the site shall be prohibited from turning
left onto Mooretown Road.
12. In accordance with Section 24.1-115(b)(7) of the York County
Zoning Ordinance, a certified copy of the resolution authorizing this
special use permit shall be recorded at the expense of the applicant in
the name of the property owner as grantor in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Zaremba, Noll, Burgett, Shepperd, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
FORT EUSTIS BOULEVARD EXTENSION
Mr. Carter made a presentation on proposed Resolution R02-108(R) to
request the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia
Department of Transportation to adjust the scope of the Fort Eustis
Boulevard Extension Project. He discussed the concerns of the railroad
with the proposed at-grade crossing, and stated it looks like the
railroad may require a grade-separated crossing. He explained the
alternative proposal for eliminating the current crossing at Wolftrap
Road. Mr. Carter stated there are questions that need to be investigated
further, but staff feels it would be advantageous to get on with the
segment of the project lying between Route 17 and Old York-Hampton
Highway. VDOT is looking at splitting the project into two phases; and
if this happens, there is no reason why the first phase of Route 17 to
Old York-Hampton Highway can't go forward. He stated the section would
open up better access to York River Commerce Park and other land in the
area available for economic development. Mr. Carter then addressed the
issue of whether or not the portion from Old York-Hampton Highway to
Goodwin Neck Road should be two or four lanes. Staff does not believe a
four-lane facility would be necessary, and it would assist in the
railroad crossing issue which could be under study while the first phase
is being constructed. Mr. Carter also noted that the Fort Eustis
Boulevard project from Route 17 to Jefferson Avenue has not been
canceled-it has been moved back to the "development" stage,
but no construction funds have been programmed as yet. He stated there
are some environmental issues dealing with the project, and VDOT is
prepared to deal with them and take appropriate mitigative measures.
Discussion followed on the length of time the extension project in
York County has been planned and the number of meetings and hearings
that have been held on the subject to inform the citizens of the
project.
Mr. Zaremba noted his concern that staff now feels the Old
York-Hampton Highway to Goodwin Neck Road portion of the project no
longer needs to be four lanes and the way that conclusion was being
articulated in the proposed resolution to VDOT. He asked Mr. Carter to
clarify the meaning of the resolution.
Mr. Carter noted the project has been shown for years on the County's
long-range plan as well as the Hampton Roads Planning District
Commission Regional Plan and in concept in the State's long-range plans.
It was staff's understanding all along that the extension would be
initially built as a two-lane road on a four-lane right-of-way, knowing
that ultimately it might need to grow into a four-lane highway. Staff
was surprised when VDOT came up with the plan for four lanes. VDOT
explained it had made it four lanes so it could get all the comments
ultimately on the four-lane facility once rather than going through the
process twice. Staff also had the opportunity to complete a very
detailed analysis of the County's ultimate build-out population as well
a look at future economic development opportunities which resulted in
the opinion that was expressed in the staff memorandum that the road
should operate satisfactorily as a two-lane facility.
Chairman Wiggins asked Mr. Carter how long this project has been in
the works.
Mr. Carter indicated the project was first referenced in the 1960s.
Mr. Burgett moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-108(R) that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ADJUST THE SCOPE OF THE FORT
EUSTIS BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT (ROUTE 1050)
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation recently conducted
a design public hearing for a proposed project to extend Fort Eustis
Boulevard to a connection with Goodwin Neck Road (Project
#1050-099-180/Federal Project: STP-5403(429)); and
WHEREAS, as a result of comments and considerations raised at and
subsequent to the public hearing, it has become apparent that the
project scope and design will need to be adjusted to accommodate the
proposed crossing of the CSX rail spur; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the Board of Supervisors has determined that
the proposed four-lane cross-section for the segment of the project
between Old York-Hampton Highway and Goodwin Neck Road will likely
provide greater capacity than is necessary to serve all future growth
and development that can reasonably be projected for the subject
corridor; and
WHEREAS, as a result of this analysis of growth potential, the Board
is of the opinion, subject to VDOT's concurrence with the growth and
traffic projections, that the project design should be adjusted to
provide for an ultimate cross-section of two lanes on a two-lane
right-of-way for the segment between Route 634 (Old York-Hampton
Highway) and Route 173 (Goodwin Neck Road); and
WHEREAS, the Board is also of the opinion that the project scope
should be adjusted to include elimination of the current Wolftrap Road
crossing and construction of a new connection between Hornsbyville Road
and Fort Eustis Boulevard extended, or to provide for a grade-separated
crossing of the CSX railroad spur, subject to resolving design and
funding issues; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that adjusting the scope to consider
closing the Wolftrap Road crossing or a grade-separated railroad
crossing will require additional design/engineering time as well as
additional project funding; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide time to address and resolve design and
funding issues, but to avoid delays in providing improved access to the
primary economic development area to be served by this project, the
Board is of the opinion that the proposed 4-lane segment between Route
17 and Route 634 should be designated and pursued as a first phase while
additional design efforts continue on the above-described segment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors, this the 4th day of June, 2002, that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation be,
and they are hereby, respectfully requested to amend the scope of
Project #1050-099-180 (Fort Eustis Boulevard Extension) to accomplish
the following:
· Split the project into two segments with Phase I (top priority)
being the four-lane segment between Route 17 and Route 634 and Phase II
being the segment between Route 634 and Route 173;
· Proceed as expeditiously as possible to acquire right-of-way for
and to construct the Phase I segment between Route 17 and Route 634;
· Adjust the project design to a two-lane cross-section on a
two-lane right-of-way for the segment between Route 634 and Route 173,
subject to VDOT's concurrence with the growth and traffic projections
for the area;
· Consider adjusting the project design to provide for closing
Wolftrap Road at the existing rail crossing and a new road connection
between Hornsbyville Road and Fort Eustis Boulevard extended, or to
provide a grade-separated crossing of the CSX railroad spur;
· Develop revised cost estimates based on the revised cross-section
and the Wolftrap Road closure or grade-separated crossing alternatives
and assist the County in identifying and pursuing supplementary funding
to accommodate any additional costs for Phase II of the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator be, and he is
hereby, authorized to convey the Board's position to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation and
to take such other actions as he deems appropriate to urge consideration
of the County's position and to communicate the County's position with
officials at the regional and state level.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Noll, Burgett, Shepperd, Zaremba, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mrs. Noll moved that the Consent Calendar be approved as submitted,
Item Nos. 7, 8, and 9, respectively.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Burgett, Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
Thereupon, the following minutes were approved and resolutions
adopted:
Item No. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the May 7, 2002, Regular Meeting of the York County
Board of Supervisors were approved.
Item No. 8. COLONIAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD: Resolution
R02-89
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT WITH THE COLONIAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD
WHEREAS, Sections 53.1-180 et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia provides
for the establishment of community criminal justice boards to enable
participating jurisdictions to develop, establish and maintain community
based corrections programs; and
WHEREAS, changes to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
Colonial Community Criminal Justice Board have been made to reflect
amendments to the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for member jurisdictions of this regional
board to designate a fiscal agent; and
WHEREAS, James City County has long served in that capacity and is
willing to continue doing so;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 4th day of June, 2002, that the County
Administrator be, and he is hereby authorized to execute the revised
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Colonial Community Criminal
Justice Board.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Board of Supervisors is in agreement with
the designation of James City County as fiscal agent for the Colonial
Community Criminal Justice Board.
Item No. 9. PUBLIC SEWER EXTENSION AGREEMENT-CREEKSIDE LANDING:
Resolution R02-104
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE AN EXTENSION OF THE COUNTY'S SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS CREEKSIDE LANDING, AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY PUBLIC SEWER EXTENSION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Mid-Atlantic Holdings, L.L.C. has requested that the County
enter into a public sewer extension agreement pursuant to § 18.1-53 (b)
of the York County Code to serve a new 265 single-family residential
development; and
WHEREAS, the plan for the proposed project has been reviewed by the
County; and
WHEREAS, prior to final approval of these plans and the initiation of
any construction activity, it is necessary that a determination be made
as to whether the Board will authorize the extension of the public sewer
facilities of the County to serve the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that sufficient capacity exists in
the County's existing sewer system to serve the proposed development, or
will exist when the facilities proposed by the developer are
constructed; and
WHEREAS, the connection fees for this development will be calculated
in accordance with the terms of Chapter 18.1 of the York County Code
upon final development plan approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this 4th day of June, 2002, that the Board approves the
extension of the County's public sewer system to serve the proposed
development, Creekside Landing, and that the County Administrator be,
and he hereby is, authorized to execute a public sewer extension
agreement with Mid-Atlantic Holdings, L.L.C. for the proposed extension;
such agreement to be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
NEW BUSINESS
DIRT STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: KAY LANE
Mr. McReynolds made a brief presentation on proposed Resolution
R02-90 to proceed with the relocation of above-ground utilities and
authorize dedication to VDOT of rights-of-way and easements for property
along Kay Lane in preparation for subsequent improvements. He asked that
the Board consider one amendment-substitute the word
"dedicate" for the current word "transfer" in the
title and NOW, THEREFORE, portions of the resolution.
Mrs. Noll then moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-90(R)
that reads:
A RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED WITH
RELOCATION OF ABOVE-GROUND UTILITIES AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DEDICATION TO
THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND
EASEMENTS FOR PROPERTY ALONG KAY LANE IN PREPARATION FOR SUBSEQUENT
IMPROVEMENT OF KAY LANE UNDER THE RURAL ADDITIONS PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has established the "Dirt
Street Program" to upgrade unimproved streets to the extent
necessary for acceptance by VDOT into the state secondary road system,
and
WHEREAS, Kay Lane has been selected as an unimproved street that
could be improved under this program; and
WHEREAS, VDOT has agreed to fully fund street improvements for Kay
Lane, minus utility work, for an amount not to exceed $148,593, to
enable acceptance into the State Secondary Road System; and
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors wishes to authorize the
County Administrator to take certain actions including relocation of
utilities and transfer of right-of-ways and easements to VDOT in order
to have VDOT accept this road into the state secondary road system;
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the York County Board of Supervisors,
this 4th day of June, 2002, that the County Administrator be and is
hereby authorized to dedicate rights-of-way and easements associated
with Kay Lane to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $40,000, be, and is hereby, appropriated
from the "Dirt Street" account of the Capital Improvements
Fund to accomplish power pole relocation necessary to complete
improvements to Kay Lane.
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator be, and he
is hereby, authorized to do all things necessary associated with the
implementation of this project, without further action by this Board,
provided that the cost of said purchases shall not exceed funds
available for this project.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Burgett, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
CLOSED MEETING. At 10:48 p.m. Mr. Zaremba moved that the meeting be
convened in Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(a)(1) of the
Code of Virginia pertaining to appointments to Boards and Commissions;
Section 2.1-3711(a)(3) pertaining to the acquisition of public property
for a public purpose.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Zaremba, Noll, Burgett, Shepperd, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
Meeting Reconvened. At 11:15 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 MEETING
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 2.2-3711.1 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 4th day of June, 2002, 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, Burgett, Shepperd, Zaremba, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
APPOINTMENT TO THE YORK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Burgett moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-121 that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO THE YORK COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISION
WHEREAS, the term of Robert E. Beil, Jr., Planning Commissioner for
Election District 4, will expire on June 30, 2002; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Beil has served two full terms on the Commission and,
therefore, is ineligible for reappointment; and
WHEREAS, the Board has been requested to make an appointment to fill
the seat to be vacated by Mr. Beil;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this 4th day of June, 2002, that it appoints the following
individual to the Planning Commission to serve a term to begin July 1,
2002, and expire June 30, 2006:
Nicholas F. Barba
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Burgett, Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
APPOINTMENTS TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF YORK COUNTY
Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-119 that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT TWO MEMBERS TO THE YORK COUNTY INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2002, the terms of Alex G. Llorente and A.
Travis Quesenberry on the York County Industrial Development Authority
will expire;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 4th day of June, 2002, that both Alex G. Llorente
and A. Travis Quesenberry be, and they are hereby, reappointed to the
York County Industrial Development Authority for a term of four years,
such term to begin July 1, 2002, and expire June 30, 2006.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Burgett, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
APPOINTMENT TO THE PENINSULA ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM POLICY
BOARD
Mr. Burgett moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R02-120 that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT YORK COUNTY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
PENINSULA ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM POLICY BOARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this the 4th
day of June, 2002, that Julia Allaman be, and she is hereby, reappointed
as York County's representative on the Peninsula Alcohol Safety Action
Program Policy Board for a term of three years, such term to begin July
1, 2002, and expire June 30, 2005.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Zaremba, Noll, Burgett, Shepperd, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
Meeting Adjourned. At 11:19 p.m. Mr. Zaremba moved that the meeting
be adjourned to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 11, 2002, in the East Room,
York Hall, for the purpose of conducting a work session.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Noll, Burgett, Shepperd, Zaremba, Wiggins
Nay: (0)
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
James O. McReynolds, Clerk Donald E. Wiggins, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors York County Board of Supervisors
|
