October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -1-

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 07, 2014, AT 7:00 P.M., IN THE COLONIAL COURTHOUSE, 6504 MAIN STREET, GLOUCESTER, VIRGINIA:

I. Call To Order and Roll Call

Mr. Orth called the meeting to order and Ms. Garton took roll call. THERE WERE PRESENT: Robert J. Orth, Chair

Ashley C. Chriscoe, Vice Chair Phillip N. Bazzani

Christopher A. Hutson Andrew James, Jr. John C. Meyer, Jr.

Michael R. Winebarger

THERE WERE ABSENT: None

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Edwin “Ted” Wilmot, County Attorney

Brenda G. Garton, County Administrator

II. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

Pastor Mike Jackson of Bethel Baptist Church gave an invocation and then all in

attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

III. Approval of the Minutes - September 2 and September 16, 2014

Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to approve the minutes from the

September 2 and September 16, 2014, meetings as presented. The motion carried and

was approved by the following voice vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr.

Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

IV. Adoption of the Agenda

Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to adopt the agenda. The motion

carried and was approved by the following voice vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr.

Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

V. Approval of the Consent Agenda

Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to approve the consent agenda.

The motion carried and the following consent agenda items were approved by the

following voice vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr.

Meyer, and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

A. Designation of Voting Credentials for the Virginia Association of

Counties 2014 Annual Business Meeting - Brenda G. Garton - County Administrator

The Annual Business Meeting for VACo will be held on Tuesday, November 11,

2014, at The Homestead. In order to be certified to vote, a Voting Credentials Form

must be submitted by November 1, 2014. Given that Board Vice Chair Ashley

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -2-

Chriscoe is attending the VACo Conference, normal practice would be to appoint him

as the Voting Delegate. Mr. Chriscoe was nominated as the voting delegate and Ms.

Garton was nominated as the alternate.

B. Request from Virginia Health Department to execute Statement of

Agreement for FY 2015 - Brenda G. Garton - County Administrator

A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGINIA HEALTH DEPARTMENT

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors wishes to enter into a Statement of Agreement for the period July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 as outlined in

Virginia Code 32.1-31; and

WHEREAS, the Statement of Agreement specifies the services to be provided as

required by law as well as the provisions the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors requires under local ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Statement of Agreement requires a local payment for the cooperative budget of $411,319, which was included in the fiscal year 2015 Gloucester

County budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Administrator be, and

hereby is, authorized to execute a Statement of Agreement with the Virginia Department of Health (VHD) as outlined in Virginia Code 32.1-31.

C. Resolution to Recognize the 100th Anniversary of Cooperative

Extension - Krista Gustafson - 4-H Agent

RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION

WHEREAS, The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 established the Cooperative Extension

Service, a state-by-state national network of extension educators who extend the

university-based research and knowledge to the people in the counties; and

WHEREAS, the Cooperative Extension System is a nationwide educational network that is a collaboration of federal, state and local governments and Virginia Tech and Virginia State University , the state’s land-grant universities; and

WHEREAS, the mission of the Cooperative Extension System is to disseminate

research-based information on topics as varied as nutrition and health, youth

development, agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, small business and personal finance. Every U.S. state and territory has a central state Extension office at

its land-grant universities and county offices staffed by professionals; and

WHEREAS, Cooperative Extension of Gloucester County, serves its residents

through faculty and staff providing educational programs and research to meet the needs of the county; and

WHEREAS, for 100 years, the Smith-Lever Act has stimulated innovative

research and vital educational programs for youth and adults through progressive

information delivery systems that improved lives and shaped a nation; and

WHEREAS, Cooperative Extension educational programs in the areas of Family

and Consumer Sciences, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 4-H Youth Development, and Community Viability have benefitted more than 1000 producers, businesses,

families and youth annually in Gloucester County.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -3-

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors, that this Board, on behalf of the citizens of Gloucester County, recognizes the 100th Anniversary of the Smith-Lever Act that established Cooperative Extension.

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that we honor and thank all the faculty and staff, past, present and future, of Virginia Cooperative Extension of Gloucester County, who

serve residents of all ages and backgrounds and that all residents continue to grow in awareness and support, and reap the benefits of the programs and services provided by Virginia Cooperative Extension of Gloucester County. D. Resolution Proclaiming October 5 - 11, 2014 as National 4-H Week

- Krista Gustafson - 4-H Agent

NATIONAL 4-H WEEK

OCTOBER 5-11, 2014

WHEREAS, 4-H is a community where young people learn leadership, citizenship and life skills; and

WHEREAS, 4-H is one of the largest youth development organizations in Gloucester County, with over 1000 youth involved in 4-H; and

WHEREAS, 4-H as part of the Virginia Cooperative Extension System is a program where youth learn citizenship, leadership, and life skills in partnership with

caring adult volunteers; and

WHEREAS, 4-H has been helping youth and adults learn, grow and work

together for more than one hundred years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors, does hereby proclaim October 5-11, 2014 as NATIONAL 4-H WEEK IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY and urges the people of this community to take advantage of

the opportunity to become more aware of this special program which gives youth the chance to learn together and on their own as part of Gloucester County 4-H and to join us in recognizing the unique partnership between our county and the Land Grant

university system that includes both Virginia Tech and Virginia State University. E. Decision on Additional Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 -

Brenda G. Garton - County Administrator

A RESOLUTION MAKING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 2014-2015

WHEREAS, The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors finds it necessary to

provide additional appropriations for fiscal year 2014-2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that the following appropriations be, and the same hereby are, made for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 for the functions or purposes indicated:

F. Community Planning Month Resolution - Anne Ducey-Ortiz, AICP - Planning and Zoning Director

COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH

Account Description Revenue Expenses

Capital Fund

State Grants 98,714

Division Security 98,714

Award of State Grant

98,714$ 98,714$

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -4-

WHEREAS, change is constant and affects all cities, towns, suburbs, counties, boroughs, townships, rural areas, and other places; and

WHEREAS, community planning and plans can help manage this change in a way that provides better choices for how people work and live; and

WHEREAS, community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be

meaningfully involved in making choices that determine the future of their community;

and

WHEREAS, the full benefits of planning requires public officials and citizens who understand, support, and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation; and

WHEREAS, the month of October is designated as National Community Planning Month throughout the United States of America and its territories, and

WHEREAS, the month of October has been recognized by Governor Terry McAuliffe in the Commonwealth of Virginia as Community Planning Month; and

WHEREAS, the celebration of National Community Planning Month gives the

Gloucester County Board of Supervisors the opportunity to publicly recognize the

participation and dedication of the members of the Planning Commission, steering committees, and other citizen planners who have contributed their time and expertise to

the improvement of the County of Gloucester; and

WHEREAS, we recognize the many valuable contributions made by professional

community and regional planners for the County of Gloucester and extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to public service by these professionals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the month of October 2014 is hereby designated as Community Planning Month in the County of Gloucester in conjunction

with the celebration of National Community Planning Month.

VI. Citizens' Comment Period - (Speakers should provide 10 copies of handouts if any)

MARCIA MICKLE – YORK DISTRICT

Ms. Mickle addressed the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the County. She

expressed her concern that she could not obtain definitive information on the number

of properties purchased through the program, and the costs paid for the properties.

She stated that there is a cemetery on one of the properties that she is no longer able

to access because the culvert was removed. She asked who is tracking the money

received from the program, and stated she did not feel it was advantageous for the

County. She concluded that she felt the current assessment on a property with the

house removed is too high.

HOWARD MOWRY – GLOUCESTER POINT

Mr. Mowry stated that the Parks and Recreation Department does not have

revenue sufficient to meet its expenditures. He noted that each park should have a

separate budget line to show its revenue and expenditures as combining the park

operations leaves too much unknown. He stated that as revenues are down by 1.5%,

the Board should direct a 2% reduction in the current budget. He noted that an

updated value of one penny on the real estate rate should be provided including the

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -5-

new assessment projection. He concluded that VDOT (Virginia Department of

Transportation) should install solar night lights at the most dangerous intersections in

the County.

NATHAN BROWN – WARE DISTRICT

Mr. Brown noted that the information in the financial report shows an

unassigned fund balance of $18 million. He recommended that the Board take a hard

look at the capital needs for the communication equipment before they decide where to

spend that money. He noted that there are three payments left on the lease and if it is

a capital lease, it may be paid off early resulting in a savings of $1 million in interest.

DON MITCHELL – YORK DISTRICT

Mr. Mitchell discussed the issues in Mathews County regarding their Floodplain

ordinance. He stated that government cannot infringe on citizens’ rights. He

expressed concern over statements made at an earlier Board meeting regarding the

ability of citizens to make decisions regarding their property.

VII. Scheduled Presentations A. Presentation on National 4-H Week - Krista Gustafson - 4-H Agent

and Monet Wilson - Student

Ms. Gustafson stated that Ms. Wilson is a senior member of 4-H, and had been

elected to serve as an ambassador for the Southeast District. She introduced Ms.

Wilson.

Ms. Wilson stated she was one of the Southeast Ambassadors and thanked the

Board for its support of 4-H. She advised that 4-H is a community of young people

across America who are learning leadership, citizenship and life skills by their

participation in 4-H. She stated that there are different types of 4-H clubs, including

horse and livestock clubs. She reviewed many of the opportunities in 4-H, including

state cabinet, National 4-H Congress, Virginia All Stars, and the international

exchange program. She thanked the Board for allowing her to be at the meeting.

B. Community Planning Month Activities - Anne Ducey-Ortiz, AICP -

Planning and Zoning Director

Ms. Ducey-Ortiz reviewed that October is Community Planning Month. She

stated that the Planning and Zoning Department had partnered with the Parks and

Recreation Department, the EDA (Economic Development Authority), and the Library

to plan some activities for the month. She reviewed that Gloucester has participated

in Community Planning Month for the last six years. She stated that this year they

are using a weekly flyer and are instituting a community ambassador challenge. She

advised that the challenge is to visit eight sites in the County, return a form to the

Planning office, and a weekly raffle will be held from those entries. She reviewed the

themes for each week, and concluded that the goal is to encourage visits to the website

so citizens can learn more about planning.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -6-

VIII. Regular Agenda A. Application for the Establishment of No Discharge Zones in Sarah

Creek and Perrin River - Phil Olekszyk - Go Green Gloucester Advisory Committee Member

Mr. Olekszyk stated that he was a member of the Go Green Gloucester Advisory

Committee. He introduced Ms. Christine Tomlinson from VIMS (Virginia Institute of

Marine Science) who would be available to answer questions.

Mr. Olekszyk reviewed that on August 7, 2012, the Go Green committee had

received permission from the Board to develop an application to establish a No

Discharge Zone (NDZ) in the waters in and around Gloucester. He stated that the

federal Clean Water Act prohibits dumping of untreated sewage from boats anywhere

in US territorial waters, but does permit the dumping of treated sewage from Type I

and Type II marine sanitation devices within those waters, except in NDZs. He

reviewed the permitted discharge amounts for Type I and Type II devices.

Mr. Olekszyk stated the proposed tributaries for an NDZ application were Perrin

River and Sarah Creek. He reviewed that the reasons for choosing these two

waterways were that they are completely within Gloucester County’s borders, they

have sufficient pump out stations, they do not permit shell harvesting at this time,

they have low dissolved oxygen levels, and there are not enough aquatic plants to take

the bacteria out of the water. He provided aerial photos indicating the location of the

proposed NDZ boundaries on Perrin River and Sarah Creek. He then reviewed the

pros and cons of the NDZ for the stakeholders in the areas. He advised that if the

Board agrees to pursue the NDZ designation, the Go Green committee would submit

all required information and data to DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality).

DEQ would then submit the request to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)

which would hold public hearings on the application.

Board members discussed this matter further and asked questions including:

whether the Severn was considered, who does the coliform count, whether the NDZ

includes gray water, and whether more pollution is caused by water fowl.

Ms. Tomlinson stated that the Severn was much larger and only had one pump

out station; the coliform count is completed by the Division of Shellfish and

Sanitation; the NDZ addresses only sewage, not gray water; and the pollution that

enters the waterways is a combination of septic failures, wildlife and boats.

Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to approve the resolution

authorizing submission of an application for No Discharge Zones on Sarah Creek and

Perrin River. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr.

Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr.

Winebarger – yes.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NO DISCHARGE ZONES IN SARAH

CREEK AND PERRIN RIVER

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -7-

WHEREAS, at their August 7, 2012 meeting, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors authorized the Go Green Gloucester Advisory Committee, with input from the Center for Coastal Resource Management at the Virginia Institute of Marine

Science (VIMS), to develop an application for the establishment of No Discharge Zones in County rivers and creeks currently identified as having impaired water quality; and

WHEREAS, Sarah Creek and the Perrin River were selected by the Committee for

No Discharge Zone designations as the boundaries of these impaired tributaries lie

wholly within the county and are not shared by any other locality; and

WHEREAS, the Committee and staff at VIMS have completed their research, having gathered all the data required for the submission of a request for No Discharge Zone designations; and

WHEREAS, the Committee wishes to submit this data to the Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality who will forward it as an application for No

Discharge Zone designations to the Environmental Protection Agency for approval for both Sarah Creek and Perrin River.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors authorizes the Go Green Gloucester Advisory Committee to submit the

necessary data for Sarah Creek and Perrin River to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality with a request that it be forwarded to the Environmental

Protection Agency for the approval of No Discharge Zone designations for these tributaries.

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the County Administrator is authorized to execute all documents on behalf of the County that are necessary for the submission of the No Discharge Zone application.

B. Financial Condition at End of Fiscal Year 2014 - Maria Calloway - Accounting Manager

Ms. Calloway provided an overview of the County’s financial status as of the

period ending June 30, 2014. She reviewed that each year in July the County begins

closing the financial records and preparing the Comprehensive Annual Financial

Report (CAFR). She stated that the State of Virginia enacted legislation designed to

improve county financial management by providing a framework for an effective and

efficient system of budgeting, accounting and fund disbursal. She reviewed that this

code requires an audit by an independent CPA (Certified Public Accountant), and also

requires that annually, financial statements must be prepared in accordance with

generally accepted accounting principles with input from the Governmental

Accounting Standards Board, the State Auditor of Public Accounts, and the Controller

General of the United States. She then reviewed the schedule of events including the

compilation of the financial report, submission of the draft CAFR to the auditors,

preparation of management discussion and analysis, preparation of the Comparative

Cost report, and presentation of the auditor’s report to the Board of Supervisors in

December.

Ms. Calloway reviewed the General Fund results, noting that the actual

expenditures came in under budget. She stated that the budget holders are

encouraged to budget for what is necessary to complete their mission, and also

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -8-

encouraged to spend wisely. She noted that the County does not encourage a use it or

lose it atmosphere. She reviewed that the property tax collections came in over $1.2

million higher than budgeted. She noted this was due to a higher than expected value

for public service property, and higher than expected collection percentages for

personal property taxes. She reviewed other local taxes, including the Sales Tax,

Communications Sales Tax, Meals Tax, Recordation Tax, Building Permit Fees, and

Business License Tax.

Ms. Calloway reviewed that the total expenditures came in $2.1 million under

budget, and noted that no expenditures exceeded appropriations in any function. She

stated that the savings is a result of many things the County continues to do to save

citizens money. She reviewed the “Transfers to Other Funds”, providing specific

information related to the Social Services line. She also reviewed information on the

Utilities Fund and the School Construction Fund.

Ms. Calloway provided a fund balance analysis of the General Fund, stating that

it showed an unassigned balance as of June 30, 2014, of $18,273,138. She advised

that this amount is approximately 18.1% of the Fiscal Year 2015 governmental funds

budget. She stated that the Board’s Fund Balance policy requires an unassigned fund

balance for the General Fund sufficient to provide a stable financial base for the next

year. The policy requires a minimum of 10%, with a target of 12%. She cautioned

that the denominator fluctuates, and as the budget falls, the percentage increases,

and as the budget increases, the percentage falls.

Mr. Bazzani asked for a definition of unassigned fund balance.

Ms. Calloway stated that an unassigned fund balance is defined as a residual

classification for a government’s General Fund and includes spendable amounts not

included in another classification.

After further questions regarding the fund balance, Ms. Calloway continued with

additional information on actions taken on or after June 30. She reviewed the reasons

for using fund balance, the committed fund balances, and assigned fund balances.

Finally, she provided additional information on the Utility Fund.

Board members discussed the unassigned fund balance further.

Mr. Bazzani advised the Board that he would like to do a presentation on the

difference between levying taxes on a calendar year versus a fiscal year. He stated he

would like to make that presentation in November.

Mr. Meyer stated that he would like to know what the options are for the

alignment of the tax year.

Mr. Bazzani noted that a short fiscal year could be implemented from January –

June in the year the County wished to make the change, but the County would need

to come up with the revenue projections needed to cover that six month period.

Regular Agenda suspended for Public Hearings to begin at 8 p.m. XIII. Public Hearings - 8:00 p.m.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -9-

A. Public Hearing to Consider Vacation of Right-of-Way adjacent to

1352 Laurens Road - Ted Wilmot - County Attorney Mr. Wilmot reviewed that at its June 3 meeting, the Board unanimously

consented to vacate a right of way adjacent to a residential property. He stated that

after the public hearing on June 3, the Board passed an ordinance to authorize the

vacation of the right of way and imposing a 90 day deadline for the deed of vacation to

be recorded. He further stated that the deadline passed without the necessary

completion of those tasks. He noted that the reason for the deadline is to ensure that

the property owner accomplishes the tasks that are necessary so that the property is

not in limbo in perpetuity. He advised that the property owner has requested an

extension of the deadline, and for the Board to consider an ordinance to extend the

deadline it is necessary to hold another public hearing.

Mr. Orth opened the public hearing for citizen comment.

PHILIP RANSONE - LAURENS ROAD

Mr. Ransone stated he lived across the street from the property and although

the County has no use for the property, the residents do have a use. He advised that

the residents maintain the area and use it for overflow parking. He stated that this is

not property that is not being used, and requested that the Board not give this

property away.

HARRY MORRIS – ATTORNEY

Mr. Morris stated he was the attorney for the property owner requesting the

vacation. He advised that she hoped the Board would see fit to allow her to have this

property. In response to a question from Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Morris stated the property

owner requesting the vacation wanted to take care of the property, and make it more

attractive for the community. He further stated it was his understanding that she had

been taking care of it already.

PATRICK MURAWSKI – LAURENS ROAD

Mr. Murawski stated that at the time that he moved into the neighborhood he

thought this right of way was a park. He further stated that the entire neighborhood

had been treating it as a park. He noted that Mr. Hogge has been mowing the area

and picking up trash there for a number of years. He stated that he sees this area as

an asset to the neighborhood, and it is in use now. He concluded that it is a

neighborhood asset, the neighborhood has taken care of it, and he would like to see it

continue.

DON MITCHELL – YORK DISTRICT

Mr. Mitchell stated the Board may wish to have Mr. Wilmot address the issue of

constructive possession.

MARCIA MICKLE – YORK DISTRICT

Ms. Mickle stated the plats in the Board packet had already been signed, yet the

Board had not yet approved the action, and questioned why this was the case.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -10-

There being no further speakers, Mr. Orth closed the public hearing and turned

the matter over to the Board.

Mr. Wilmot stated that the plat had been prepared as a result of the Board’s

action on June 3 where the Board had unanimously approved the vacation. He

reviewed the area on the plat that the County is being asked to vacate.

Board members discussed this issue further, noting that the Board did not

realize there were others using this property.

Mr. Winebarger asked if the County had any liability exposure on the right of

way.

Mr. Wilmot stated that the County has potential liability, although likely not

significant, when it operates or owns an easement.

After further discussion, Mr. Hutson stated that although the turnout was

unfortunate for the property owner that had requested the vacation, it was a great

thing for the County. He advised that it shows that when there are issues that

concern the citizens, they need to come to the public meeting and voice their opinion,

as this is the only way the Board will know.

Mr. Wilmot clarified that if there is no interest in pursuing the matter, no motion

needed to be made.

B. Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 -

Animal Welfare and Control, Section 3-47 to add the Canton Subdivision as a Leash Law Area - Ted Wilmot - County Attorney

Mr. Wilmot reviewed that this public hearing is to consider adding Canton

Subdivision to those areas of the County covered by a leash law. He stated that in

order to add the subdivision to Gloucester County code section 3-47, the Board

needed to hold a public hearing.

Mr. Orth opened the public hearing for citizen comment.

SCOTT VARNER – PETSWORTH DISTRICT

Mr. Varner stated he was a homeowner in Canton Subdivision. He further

stated that the subdivision is fully paved, and is ideal for walking or riding a bike

except when dogs are roaming at large. He advised that his wife and daughter had

been chased multiple times, and on two occasions, the dog came into the yard and

chased them into the house. He stated that he had attempted to address the problem

with the homeowners to no avail, and noted that he thought it was astounding that

there was no County wide leash law for paved subdivisions. He noted that he believes

this is a public safety issue, and asked for the Board’s support.

DON MITCHELL – YORK DISTRICT

Mr. Mitchell stated he had no objection to the proposed leash law, but he did

object to the comment about a County wide leash law. He advised that the County

should develop some sort of a system that would allow appropriate regulation when

intense development takes place.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -11-

There being no further speakers, Mr. Orth closed the public hearing and turned

the matter over to the Board.

Mr. Bazzani stated that he would support this request; however, he wanted to

note that another issue the Board should consider is feral cats. He advised that he

has a constituent with an issue with feral cats, and there is no ordinance that protects

her.

Mr. James stated that the Canton area is in the northern part of the County,

and that the area is heavily hunted by hunters with hounds. He asked how this law

would affect hunting.

Mr. Varner stated state law governs hunting dogs, therefore, the leash law would

not affect hunting.

Mr. Winebarger moved, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adopt the ordinance to amend

Chapter 3 of the County Code. The motion carried and the following ordinance was

approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr.

Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 3 OF THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY CODE,

ARTICLE II - DOGS, DIVISION 2 - ENTITLED “DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE IN CERTAIN AREAS” BY AMENDING SECTION 3-47 TO ADD THE CANTON

SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE PETSWORTH MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, TO THOSE AREAS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION

WHEREAS, the Board has been requested to consider adding the Canton Subdivision to the list of areas where it is unlawful to allow dogs to run at large; and

WHEREAS, the County is authorized to designate areas within the County in which it is unlawful to permit dogs to run at large, pursuant to Va. Code § 3.2-6538;

and

WHEREAS, the Board has held a duly advertised public hearing concerning the

addition of the Canton Subdivision to the schedule of areas restricting dogs from running at large.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors this 7th day of October, 2014 that Chapter 3, Article II –

Dogs, Division 2 entitled “Dogs Running at Large in Certain Areas”, Section 3-47 of the Gloucester County Code be, and it hereby is, amended to add the Canton Subdivision to that section, as follows:

Sec. 3-47. Official schedule of restricted areas for dogs running at large.

(a) All property owned or leased by the County of Gloucester (all parks and

playgrounds) or the School Board of Gloucester County (all school grounds); and

(b) All property in Gloucester Sanitary District No. 1 (approximately seven

hundred fifty (750) acres covering most of the core of the courthouse village

area); and

(c) The following subdivisions/areas:

Magisterial District * Subdivision / Area Description

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -12-

Abingdon Carter’s Cove Subdivision

Crescent Run Subdivision

Sandy and Jones

Creek Subdivision Village Knoll Subdivision

All sections of the

subdivision as shown on all plats now on record in the

clerk’s office of the county circuit court and all future recorded plats of sections

of the subdivision appurtenant to the

subdivision as it exists on February 7, 2006.

Abingdon Claybank Landing Area The area and property

located and lying between Hermitage (Virginia State

Route Number 682) and the mean low water mark of the York River, being

more particularly de-scribed as: bounded on the

northeast by the center line of Hermitage Lane, as it runs from Aberdeen Creek

in a northwesterly direction to its inter-section with Clay Bank Road (Virginia

State Route Number 616); on the northwest by

the center line of Clay Bank Road, as it runs from its intersection with Hermitage

Lane in a southwesterly direction through Clay

Bank Landing to the mean low water mark of the York River; on the south-west by

the shore line of the York River at mean low water, as it meanders in a

southeasterly direction between Clay Bank

Landing and Aberdeen Creek; and on the south-east by the point where the

center line of Hermitage Lane extended intersects

the shore line at mean low water of Aberdeen Creek and the York River, the

point of beginning.

Abingdon Deer Run Area** Commencing at a point on

the centerline of State Route 619 at its intersection with

State Route 1040; thence in a westerly direction

along the centerline of Route 619 and the dirt lane which continues in a

westerly direction at the

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -13-

terminus of Route 619 a

distance of approximately one thousand three

hundred sixteen (1,316) feet to an iron pipe; thence south twenty-six (26)

degrees, forty-eight (48) minutes, forty-nine (49)

seconds east, a distance of five hundred ninety-four (594) feet to an iron pipe;

thence south twenty-five (25) degrees, thirty-four (34) minutes, twenty-two

(22) seconds east, a distance of approximately

six hundred eighty (680) feet to the center of Fox Mill Run;

thence in a generally southeasterly direction

along the center of Fox Mill Run to its confluence with Crany Creek; thence in a

generally northerly direction along the center of Crany Creek to Route

619; thence in a westerly direction along the

centerline of Route 619 to its intersection with Route 1040, the point of

beginning.

Petsworth Canton Subdivision

Foxhaven Subdivision

“The Commons” Subdivision

All sections and phases of

the subdivision as shown on all plats now on record in the clerk's office of the

county circuit court and all future recorded plats

of sections of the subdivision appurtenant to the subdivision as it

exists on October 7, 2014.

All sections of the subdivision as shown on all

plats now on record in the clerk’s office of the county circuit court and all

future recorded plats of sections of the subdivision

appurtenant to the subdivision as it exists on February 7, 2006.

All sections of the

subdivision as shown on all plats now on record in the

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -14-

clerk's office of the county

circuit court and all future recorded plats of sections

of the subdivision appurtenant to the subdivision as it exists on

July 1, 2008.

Ware Campfield Subdivision Cedar Lake Subdivision

Founders Mill Subdivision Glen Roy Estates Holly Springs Subdivision

Hunter’s Run Subdivision Meadow Brook Subdivision

Sheffield Subdivision Deer Run Area** (See Abingdon above for

description)

All sections of the

subdivision as shown on all plats now on record in the clerk’s office of the county

circuit court and all future recorded plats of sections

of the sub-division appurtenant to the subdivision as it exists on

February 7, 2006.

York Areas as described All areas of the district lying south of a boundary line starting at Cedar Bush

Creek then along Cedar Bush Road (State Route 633) to its intersection with

Hickory Fork Road (State Route 614) thence

southerly along U.S. Route #17 to Brays Point Road (State Route 636) then

southeasterly along Brays Point Road to where it

terminates at the Severn River.

Gloucester

Point

Entire District

*Magisterial District is listed to assist in locating the regulated areas only.

Redistricting may result in a subdivision or area moving to another district.

**Portions of Deer Run Subdivision are in both Abingdon and Ware Magisterial Districts.

C. Public Hearing on Proposed Lease between the County of Gloucester and Bay Aging, Inc. - Brian Lewis - Director of

Engineering

Mr. Lewis reviewed that the property in question was given to the County in

June 1986 by a property owner who wished for it to be used for the benefit of the

senior citizens in the area. He stated that since that time, the County has had an

ongoing relationship with Bay Aging, and the lease would formalize that relationship.

Mr. Orth opened the public hearing for citizen comment.

There being no speakers, Mr. Orth closed the public hearing and turned the

matter over to the Board.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -15-

Mr. Winebarger noted there was no money listed in the lease and asked if there

was a monetary feature to the lease.

Mr. Lewis stated that there was no money involved. He advised that the lease

clarifies what each party will be responsible for in relation to the property, noting that

the premises will be used exclusively for senior citizen programs.

Mr. Winebarger moved, seconded by Mr. Bazzani, to approve the proposed lease

for the Senior Center. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call

vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr.

Winebarger – yes.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER AND

BAY AGING, INC. FOR THE SENIOR CENTER AND SENIOR CENTER ANNEX

WHEREAS, the County of Gloucester acquired the two parcels of land and

buildings thereon now identified as the Senior Center (6650 Main Street) and Senior

Center Annex (6654 Main Street), located on Tax Map 32A2(2)BK K-14, 32A2(2)BK K-15, 32A2(2)BK K-16, 32A2(2)BK K-17, and 32A2(2)BK K-18, in June 1986 in a deed conveyed to the County by Hattie Maude Booker with the stipulation that it be utilized

for the elderly or senior citizens of the Northern Neck-Middle Peninsula area and that if it could not be used effectively for those purposes, be used for other charitable

purposes; and WHEREAS, the County has been leasing the Senior Center and Annex to an

agency on aging since acquisition, however, there is no formal current lease on file; and

WHEREAS, the County wishes to formalize its relationship with Bay Aging

relative to their use of the County’s Senior Center and Senior Center Annex properties

and structures; and WHEREAS, the County finds the terms of the proposed lease acceptable.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that it hereby approves the lease presented to it this day and authorizes the County Administrator to execute the lease between Bay Aging, Inc. and Gloucester County for the Senior Center and Senior Center Annex.

D. Public Hearing for an Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance as

it Pertains to the Requirement for Preliminary Plats - Anne Ducey-Ortiz, AICP - Director of Planning and Zoning

Ms. Ducey-Ortiz reviewed that the proposed code amendment is required by

recent changes to State Code. She advised that changes to state law prohibit localities

from requiring preliminary plats for subdivisions of 50 lots or fewer. She stated that

the developer can submit them, but the locality cannot require them. She explained

the current process and fees that are charged. She reviewed some of the possible

negative impacts of the changes, and the proposed changes to the County’s ordinance.

She advised that the proposed change is designed to be revenue neutral. She

concluded that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended

approval.

Mr. Orth opened the public hearing for citizen comment.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -16-

There being no speakers, Mr. Orth closed the public hearing and turned the

matter over to the Board.

Mr. Meyer asked for clarification on the revenue neutral wording.

Ms. Ducey-Ortiz reviewed that there is currently a $100 fee upon submission of

a preliminary plat, plus $10 per lot; with a fee of $100 charged for the final plat. To

keep the amendment revenue neutral, it is proposed to change the fee for a final plat

to $200 if no preliminary plat was filed.

Mr. Meyer noted that he was in favor of keeping the current fee structure.

Mr. Winebarger moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to adopt the ordinance.

Mr. Meyer moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to amend the motion to adopt the

proposed ordinance with the retention of the current fee structure. The motion to

amend carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr.

Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Orth called for a vote on the amended

motion. The motion carried and the following ordinance was approved by the following

roll call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer,

and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 15 OF THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY CODE ENTITLED “SUBDIVISIONS” BY AMENDING SECTIONS 15-52.1-

ENTITLED “SUBMISSION OF PLANS AND PROFILES.”, 15-56- ENTITLED “FEES.”,

AND 15-59- ENTITLED “PRELIMINARY PLAT.” TO COMPLY WITH A CHANGE IN STATE LAW ONLY ALLOWING LOCALITIES TO REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY

SUBDIVISION PLAT WHEN MORE THAN 50 LOTS ARE BEING CREATED, KEEP THE FEE STRUCTURE NEUTRAL FOR THE CHANGE, AND UPDATE OUTDATED LANGUAGE IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE CHANGES.

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission’s purpose is to promote orderly development and advise the governing body on ways to improve the

public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the citizens of the County as authorized pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2200 et seq.; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission was informed that a recent change to State Code section 15.2-2260 necessitated an update in the

Gloucester County Subdivision Ordinance related to the requirement of preliminary plats; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission has drafted changes to modify the Subdivision Ordinance to comply with State Code and update the

terminology in the text; and WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission has also modified the

text related to fees for plat reviews in a manner that keeps the associated fees cost-neutral with the existing process as the reviews without a preliminary plat will be as detailed as the current process, if not more so; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission prepared a draft

ordinance amendment and held a public hearing on September 4, 2014, voting 7-0 (with two absent) to forward the ordinance amendment to the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has held a duly

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -17-

advertised public hearing, and is of the opinion that public necessity, convenience,

general welfare, and good land use practice will be furthered by such an amendment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED, by the Board of

Supervisors of Gloucester County, Virginia, this 7th day of October, 2014, that the Gloucester County Code, Chapter 15, Article III – Plats and Platting, Sections 15-52.1.

Submission of plans and profiles., 15-56. Fees., and 15-59. Preliminary Plats., be amended, as follows:

Sec. 15-52.1. Submission of site development plans and profiles.

Site development plans shall be submitted for review and approval pursuant to the site plan approval procedure outlined in Chapter 15.5 of the Code. The following items shall, when necessary, be submitted to the agent after preliminary plat

approval is granted and before final plat approval is granted:.

(1) Approval by the Virginia Department of highways and Transportation (VDOT) or resident engineer residency administrator;.

(2) Approval under the soil and erosion and sediment control ordinance of the

County of Gloucester [Chapter 7.5 of the Code] and other applicable codes;.

(3) Approval by the public works director of public utilities when public water

and/or sewage is planned or approval by the Virginia Department of Health for the use of private wells and septic systems;. and

(4) Estimate of the cost of construction or improvements for any public facilities or

utilities required.

Sec. 15-56. Fees.

(a) Minor subdivisions: There shall be a charge for the examination and approval or

disapproval of every plat and plat vacation reviewed by the agent. At the time of the filing of the plat the subdivider shall deposit with the agent checks payable

to the treasurer of Gloucester County pay a fee in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per plat or fifty dollars ($50.00) per plat for vacation review exclusive of newspaper advertising costs.

(b) Major subdivisions:

(1) Preliminary plat: There shall be a charge for the examination and approval or disapproval of every preliminary plat and plat vacation reviewed by the agent. At the time of filing the preliminary plat or plat vacation, the subdivider shall

deposit with the agent checks payable to the treasurer of Gloucester County pay a fee in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per preliminary plat

plus ten dollars ($10.00) per lot, or fifty dollars ($50.00) per plat for vacation review, exclusive of newspaper advertising cost.

(2) Final plat: There shall be a charge for the examination and approval or

disapproval of every final plat reviewed by the agent. At the time of filing the final plat, the subdivider shall deposit with the agent checks payable to the treasurer of Gloucester County pay a fee in the amount of one hundred dollars

($100.00) per final plat.

Sec. 15-59. Preliminary plat.

In the case of a major subdivision proposing more than 50 lots the subdivider shall present to the agent twenty (20) copies of a preliminary plat which shall be drawn to a scale, clearly legible by the commission, a subdivision application

completed in detail and the required application fee. A preliminary plat for major

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -18-

subdivisions with 50 lots or fewer is not required but is recommended to

determine compliance with this ordinance and facilitate the development review process. Where no preliminary plat is submitted, the information required for preliminary plats shall be provided on the site development plans submitted

pursuant to 15-52.1 of this chapter. Upon meeting all submittal requirements, the plan shall be reviewed by the agent and other agencies as deemed necessary by the

agent. The agent shall prepare a composite report on the proposed subdivision to determine if it meets the requirements of this article and other applicable regulations. The report shall include review requirements by other agencies. The preliminary plat

and the agent's report shall be reviewed by the commission. The commission shall consider the plat and either grant preliminary approval or disapprove it within

seventy-five (75) days of submittal to the agent. If review by a state agency is required, the timeframe for approval shall be extended to ninety (90) days. The plat may be granted preliminary approval with conditions. The agent shall notify the applicant of

the commission's findings in writing within seven (7) days of the commission meeting. Such notice shall state any actions, changes, conditions, or additional information that shall be required to secure final approval of the subdivision. If disapproved, the

notice shall state the specific reasons for disapproval. The reasons for disapproval shall identify deficiencies in the plat which cause the disapproval by reference to

specific duly adopted ordinances, regulations, or policies and shall generally identify such modifications or corrections as will permit approval of the plat. The preliminary plat and application shall include the following information:

(1) Proposed name of subdivision, owner, subdivider, surveyor or engineer,

magisterial district, county, state, tax map parcel number, date of drawing, number of sheets, north arrow and source of meridian used for the survey, and scale.

(2) Location of proposed subdivision by an insert map at a scale of not less than two (2) inches equal one (1) mile, showing adjoining roads, their names and numbers, subdivisions, streams adjoining or running through the land and

other prominent or well know landmarks.

(3) The boundary survey or existing survey of record, provided such survey shows

a closure with an accuracy of not less than one (1) in five thousand (5,000); total acreage of the proposed subdivision and the acreage remaining in the original tract, if any; number and approximate area and frontage of all building

sites; existing buildings within the boundaries of the tract; and names of owners and their property lines within the boundaries of the tract and adjoining such boundaries.

(4) All existing, platted and proposed streets, their names, numbers and widths; existing utility or other easements, public areas and parking spaces; culverts,

drains and watercourses, their names and other pertinent data.

(5) Any grave, object, or structure marking a place of burial located on the land proposed for subdivision.

(6) The location and size in acres of any area to be dedicated for public use and the conditions of such dedication.

(7) Topography at vertical intervals of ten (10) feet unless otherwise specified by the agent. Elevation data shall be referred to United States Geological Survey Datum.

(8) If extensive changes of topography are contemplated, a plan showing the changes proposed.

(9) Proposed connections with existing sanitary sewers and existing water supply

or alternate means of sewage disposal and water supply.

(10) Provisions for collecting and discharging surface drainage and preliminary

designs of any structures that may be required.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -19-

E. Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15.5 -

Site Plans, Section 15.5-1.7 - General Requirements, Regulations, Restrictions - Garrey W. Curry, Jr., P.E. - Asst. County Administrator for Community Development

Mr. Curry stated that the Site Plan Ordinance was adopted in 1984, and section

15.5-1.7 describes certain requirements that each developer must meet. He advised

that after the Board’s discussion and modification of the HCOD (Highway Corridor

Overlay District) to the HCDD (Highway Corridor Development District), it was felt that

the site plan requirements should be modified to be more in line with the Board’s

actions on the HCDD. He reviewed the proposed amendment.

Mr. Orth opened the public hearing for public comment.

DON MITCHELL – YORK DISTRICT

Mr. Mitchell commended Mr. Curry for coming up with this modification and

encouraged the Board’s support.

There being no further speakers, Mr. Orth closed the public hearing and turned

the matter over to the Board.

Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to adopt the proposed ordinance

amendment. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr.

Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr.

Winebarger – yes.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 15.5 – SITE PLANS, SECTION 15.5-1.7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS,

REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted

amendments to the Zoning Ordinance concerning the Highway Corridor Development District (HCDD) that significantly changed the landscaping requirements for

development projects located within the defined HCDD; and

WHEREAS, landscape requirements under the previous Highway Corridor

Overlay District ordinance were more extensive than those included in the Site Plan Ordinance and therefore were the effective requirements for development; and

WHEREAS, upon adoption of the HCDD, the longstanding green area and

landscaping requirements included in Site Plan Ordinance (Chapter 15.5) once again

became germane and therefore need to be removed in order to fully implement the intent of the recently adopted HCDD; and

WHEREAS, the Board has held a duly advertised public hearing concerning amendments to Chapter 15.5.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors this 7th day of October, 2014 that Chapter 15.5, Section

15.5-1.7, of the Gloucester County Code be, and it hereby is, amended as follows:

Sec. 15.5-1.7. General requirements, regulations, restrictions.

(a) Any building or structure erected or enlarged shall comply with the

provisions of this chapter and other ordinances of the county and any applicable laws of the state.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -20-

(b) Any work or development on the site, or any right-of-way work involving

the site, including but not limited to the following, shall comply with the provisions of this chapter and other county ordinances and any applicable laws of the state: The grading or denuding of land, the installation of

utilities, the construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, as well as construction of drains and sewers, the construction of off-street parking

and the construction or erection of any improvements on the site. (c) Any building or structure shall be reasonably accessible to fire, police,

emergency, and service vehicles.

(d) The width, grade, location, alignment, and arrangement of public dedicated streets and sidewalks shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and other codes of

the county. (e) Off-street parking facilities, including commercial parking lots, shall be

reasonably accessible and shall be functional, and shall meet all requirements as set forth by the county's zoning ordinance.

(f) Off-site access points and streets to the development shall provide good

traffic circulation to and through adjacent lands by means of existing

streets and sidewalks and proposed or planned streets and sidewalks. When and where planned or existing streets and other facilities are

deemed by the agent and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, to be inadequate, the developer shall be required to build and/or improve the streets where the developer is substantially generating

the need for the required improvements. (g) Adequate approved water mains and fire hydrants shall be provided in

accordance with the County Code where such is to be served by a publicly owned water supply.

(h) Adequate provisions shall be made for the collection, retention, and

disposition of all on and off-site storm water and natural water so as to

protect other lands, structures, persons, and property. Natural drainage ways shall be used when it is reasonably practicable to do so.

(i) (1) A minimum of ten (10) per cent of the proposed area to be developed shall be designated as open green area for trees and

landscaping, with at least one-half (five (5) per cent) to be planted between the right-of-way line of the property fronting on the street and the rear of the farthest building line. When private streets serve

the property, the five (5) per cent green area shall be applied between the curb or street pavement line and the rear of the farthest

building line. Where reasonable, existing trees shall be saved and there shall be an average of one tree with a minimum two-inch trunk diameter, measured six (6) inches above ground level, on the

site for each two hundred (200) square feet of the green area. Where existing trees are removed from or no trees previously existed in the green area, the developer shall plant trees of acceptable size and

type of tree, and landscaping of the green area shall be left to the discretion of the developer.

(2) Adjacent public right-of-way green area may be included as part of

the ten (10) per cent requirement should the developer cooperate

with the county with respect to landscaping and the planting of new trees. Should other county ordinances conflict with the ten (10) per

cent requirement, the agent may allow reduction of the percentages, as required, to provide relief. During construction, trees to be saved

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -21-

shall be adequately protected from damage. Proper sight distance

shall be assured at all intersections. (3) The agent may waive a part of the five (5) per cent green area

required forward of the rear building line on the site plans for building additions and accessory buildings.

Regular Agenda resumed after Public Hearings

Mr. Orth called for a five minute recess.

After the recess, Mr. Orth announced that item D on the agenda would be heard

first, and then the agenda would resume with item C.

D. Appropriation of Tourism Reserve Funds - Carol Steele - Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism

Ms. Steele stated she was asking the Board for an appropriation from the

Tourism Reserve fund, which is a fund for special projects. She reviewed that the plan

to restore and interpret the Court Circle buildings was adopted by the Board in 2001.

She stated that the money from the County’s 4% Lodging Tax is used for Tourism

operations. She noted that any excess amount over the amount for operations is put

in a reserve fund. She reviewed the projects that have been completed using those

funds including the rehabilitation of the Clayton Building, improvements to the

Debtor’s Prison, and the start of the rehabilitation of the Roane Building. She stated

other tourism funded projects included alarm systems for the buildings, brick

evaluation, period and replica furniture, dendrochronology and others. She advised

that the next project they want to tackle is the renovation of the Courthouse Annex to

move the Visitor’s Center. She stated that due to the recent moves of County offices, it

is a good time for the move to be made. The annex will need to have an ADA

(Americans with Disabilities) ramp and restroom installed, and relocation of some

walls. She advised that the Tourism Coordinator and two part time staff will be moved

to the office space on the second floor. She stated additional projects they wish to

accomplish with this appropriation include plaster rework on the Roane Building, and

rehabilitation of the Old Jail. She concluded that Gloucester’s historic buildings are

treasures for visitors and residents, and asked for the Board’s consideration of the

appropriation.

Board members discussed this matter further and asked questions including

whether vendor quotes were obtained for the proposed work, what the statutory

requirements were regarding funding, and whether it would be possible to have a

static sign installed at the end of the County that can be changed for different events.

Ms. Steele stated that she had obtained one vendor quote that was for a broader

scope than what was needed; that the State requires that one-half of the tax, in

Gloucester’s case 2%, must be used for tourism efforts; and that she will check with

the Chamber of Commerce to work on getting a static sign that will allow for

changeable content.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -22-

Mr. Meyer noted that he believed the Board should consider taking the funding

for maintenance of County buildings out of the Capital Fund and putting it into the

operating funds.

Mr. Meyer moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to approve the appropriation of the

tourism reserve funds. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call

vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr.

Winebarger – yes.

A RESOLUTION MAKING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 2014-2015

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors finds it necessary to

provide additional appropriations for fiscal year 2014-2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that the following appropriations be, and the same hereby are, made for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 for the functions or purposes indicated:

Account Description Revenue Expenses

Capital Fund

Fund Balance - Tourism 75,000

Tourism Projects

75,000

Court Circle Buildings Rehabilitation/Renovation

Total Additional 75,000 75,000

Ms. Garton noted that a question was raised about whether the Board could

choose to use some of the Fund Balance for restoration of the buildings on the Court

Circle, and the Board could choose to do that.

C. Decision on Additional Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 - Brian

D. Lewis - Director of Engineering Mr. Lewis stated this was a request for an appropriation to bring forward

funding for projects that were begun in Fiscal Year 2014 and not completed until

Fiscal Year 2015. He stated he would speak in more detail about the office renovation

at the end. He gave an overview of the projects involved in the carryover request

including an amount to go toward two new school buses, the upgrade of the County’s

HVAC system, and the final appropriation for the communications project. He then

reviewed the funding the Board had approved in Fiscal Year 2014 for County office

building repairs and renovations. He noted the projects related to that funding

included replacing a portion of the law enforcement building roof, HVAC

improvements, moving expenses due to the relocation of staff from County Building

Three to County Building Two, remaining Building Two renovations, and renovations

to Building One related to the relocation of the Central Absentee Precinct. He advised

that in addition to the carryover amount for the continuation of this project, he is

requesting an additional appropriation of $40,000 to complete some efficiency and

security improvements in Building One.

Mr. Orth asked how much of the appropriation request is carryover funding

from the previous fiscal year.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -23-

Mr. Lewis stated that all but $40,000 is carryover funding.

Mr. Meyer stated that he has a process objection, and would like the new

appropriation to be dealt with separately from the carryover appropriation.

Board members discussed this matter further, and asked Mr. Lewis to come

back with more information on the new appropriation.

Mr. Meyer moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to approve the additional

appropriations for the carryover amounts and not the new appropriation of $40,000.

The motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr.

Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

A RESOLUTION MAKING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 2014-2015

WHEREAS, The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors finds it necessary to

provide additional appropriations for fiscal year 2014-2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that the following appropriations be, and the same hereby are, made for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 for the functions or purposes indicated:

Account Description Revenue Expenses

Capital Fund

Capital Fund Balance-Assigned for School Replacement 11,208

School Projects

11,208

Purchase school buses

Capital Fund

Excess Fund Balance-General Fund (Carry Over) 113,335

County Office Space

113,335

Continue project

Capital Fund

Excess Fund Balance-General Fund (Carry Over) 71,400

Repair Buildings

71,400

Outstanding work orders

Capital Fund

Capital Fund Balance-Committed for Future Projects 35,810

Communications Project

35,810

Outstanding work orders

$ 231,753 $ 231,753

E. Decision on a Superseding Order by Consent Required by

Previously Approved Regional Memorandum of Agreement - Garrey

W. Curry, Jr., P.E. - Asst. County Administrator for Community Development

Mr. Curry reviewed that the Board voted in February on a Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) with the other localities in the region and HRSD (Hampton Roads

Sanitation District). In the MOA the localities and HRSD agreed to change the concept

of how the region would handle sanitary sewer overflows with HRSD taking on the

responsibility of managing wet weather overflows. As a result, the EPA (Environmental

Protection Agency) modified its consent decree to HRSD, and the state Department of

Environmental Quality has now modified its consent order with the localities. The

modified consent order requires the localities to maintain their systems in a proper

and safe manner by utilizing a MOM (Management, Operations and Maintenance)

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -24-

plan. He stated that each locality must approve the modified consent order, and it is

requested to have all the localities act by the end of October.

After clarification that all the localities must agree to the same consent order,

Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to approve the superseding order by

consent. The motion carried and was approved by the following voice vote: Mr. Orth,

Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Winebarger – yes and Mr.

Bazzani - No.

A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AN ORDER BY CONSENT WITH THE STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD SUPERSEDING

THE SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT ISSUED BY THE STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) began regulatory enforcement of

the Clean Water Act and Virginia Water Control Act with the ultimate goal of mitigating and preventing sanitary sewer overflows; and

WHEREAS, the regulatory enforcement required HRSD and its constituent member localities to enter into a series of orders, listed as follows:

1. A Special Order by Consent (SOBC) issued by the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) at the behest of DEQ to the City of Norfolk (Not pertaining to

Gloucester County) on March 17, 2005; and 2. A Special Order by Consent issued by the SWCB, on September 26, 2007, at

the behest of DEQ to the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), Chesapeake, Gloucester County, Hampton, Isle of Wight, James City County,

Newport News, Norfolk Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, Williamsburg, and York County (the Localities); and

3. A Consent Decree issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at the behest of EPA to HRSD, dated February 23, 2010; and

WHEREAS, the Localities and HRSD obtained approval by EPA and DEQ for a study period to pursue the possibility of regionalizing all assets, personnel, debt and

revenues under HRSD; and WHEREAS, the study indicated that regionalization could result in over one

billion dollars in regional savings and a considerable savings to Gloucester County’s sanitary sewer users; however the study also indicated some localities’ sanitary sewer users would incur greater costs under regionalization; and

WHEREAS, the Localities and HRSD staff have reached a compromise which

allows potential regional and local savings without the consolidation of sewer systems; and

WHEREAS, the proposed resolution additionally subjects HRSD to full regulatory exposure for capacity related violations once the Regional Wet Weather

Management Plan, as defined in the 2007 Special Order by Consent, is adopted and approved; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors authorized the County Administrator on February 22, 2014 to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with other regionally affected localities and the HRSD to formalize the alternate

regional approach; and

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -25-

WHEREAS, the US EPA and the Virginia DEQ have indicated the alternate

approach identified in the MOA is acceptable, thereby necessitating the replacement of the 2005 SOBC and 2007 SOBC with a superseding Order by Consent; and

WHEREAS, by signing the MOA, Gloucester County and the other affected Localities agreed to “Support the modification of the September 26, 2007 Special Order

by Consent, as amended, between DEQ, HRSD and the Localities consistent with the changes to the Federal Consent Decree”; and

WHEREAS, representatives from each Locality, the HRSD, and DEQ have negotiated mutually acceptable language for the superseding Order by Consent, and

formal execution of the superseding Order by Consent is necessary to move forward with the alternate regional approach.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that the County Administrator is authorized to execute the superseding Order by Consent attached hereto and made a part hereof.

STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD ENFORCEMENT ACTION - ORDER BY CONSENT

ISSUED TO the cities of CHESAPEAKE, HAMPTON, NEWPORT NEWS, NORFOLK, POQUOSON, PORTSMOUTH, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA BEACH, and WILLIAMSBURG; the counties

of GLOUCESTER, ISLE OF WIGHT, and YORK; the JAMES CITY SERVICE AUTHORITY; and the town of SMITHFIELD

SECTION A: Purpose

This is a Consent Order issued under the authority of Va. Code § 62.1-44.15, between the State Water Control Board and the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and

Williamsburg; the counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, and York; the James City Service Authority; and the town of Smithfield (the “Localities” collectively or “Locality” separately) for the purpose of resolving certain violations of the State Water Control

Law and the applicable regulation and to supersede and cancel those certain Orders by Consent between the Board, the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) and

the Localities. SECTION B: Definitions

Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following words and terms

have the meaning assigned to them below: 1. “Board” means the State Water Control Board, a permanent citizens’ board of

the Commonwealth of Virginia, as described in Va. Code §§ 10.1-1184 and 62.1-44.7.

2. “Department” or “DEQ” means the Department of Environmental Quality, an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as described in Va. Code § 10.1-1183.

3. “Director” means the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, as

described in Va. Code § 10.1-1185.

4. “Discharge” means discharge of a pollutant. 9 VAC 25-31-10

5. “Discharge of a pollutant” when used with reference to the requirements of the

VPDES permit program means:

(a) Any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to surface

waters from any point source; or

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -26-

(b) Any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft which is being used as a means of

transportation.

6. “HRSD” means the Hampton Roads Sanitation District, a political subdivision created by a 1940 Act of the General Assembly of Virginia and charged with the responsibility to provide sewage treatment services for the communities in the

Hampton Roads metropolitan area. HRSD is a “person” within the meaning of Va. Code §62.1-44.3.

7. “MOM” means management, operations, and maintenance.

8. “Order” means this document, also known as a “Consent Order” or “Order by Consent,” a type of Special Order under the State Water Control Law.

9. “Pollutant” means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes,

biological materials, radioactive materials (except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC § 2011 et seq.)), heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and

agricultural waste discharged into water. 9 VAC 25-31-10

10. “Pollution” means such alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of any state waters as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters (a) harmful or detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety,

or welfare or to the health of animals, fish, or aquatic life; (b) unsuitable with reasonable treatment for use as present or possible future sources of public

water supply; or (c) unsuitable for recreational, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or other reasonable uses, provided that (i) an alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological property of state waters or a discharge or

deposit of sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes to state waters by any owner which by itself is not sufficient to cause pollution but which, in combination with such alteration of or discharge or deposit to state waters by

other owners, is sufficient to cause pollution; (ii) the discharge of untreated sewage by any owner into state waters; and (iii) contributing to the

contravention of standards of water quality duly established by the Board, are “pollution.” Va. Code § 62.1-44.3

11. “Regulation” means the VPDES Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-10 et seq.

12. “Sanitary sewer collection system” or “Facility” means those sewer assets individually owned by a Locality.

13. “Significant Defect” means a physical condition in the sanitary sewer collection system, including (i) existing or imminent structural failures, cave-ins,

and similar defects and (ii) significant sources of inflow and infiltration (including but not limited to missing and/or damaged public clean-outs, missing manhole inserts, direct storm water connections, and unsealed manhole pipe

penetrations). 14. “State Water Control Law” means Chapter 3.1 (§ 62.1-44.2 et seq.) of Title

62.1 of the Va. Code.

15. “State waters” means all water, on the surface and under the ground, wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction, including wetlands. Va. Code § 62.1-44.3

16. “STP” means sewage treatment plant.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -27-

17. “TRO” means the Tidewater Regional Office of DEQ, located in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

18. “Va. Code” means the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.

19. “VAC” means the Virginia Administrative Code. 20. “VPDES” means Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

SECTION C: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

1. HRSD owns and operates an interceptor sewer system, which includes both

gravity and force mains, and nine (9) STPs, which serve the Hampton Roads

area (HRSD System). Discharges of treated wastewater from the STPs into State waters are regulated by VPDES permits issued by the Board.

2. The Localities individually own and operate sanitary sewer collection systems which collect sewage within their individual jurisdictional boundaries and

deliver it to the HRSD System for treatment.

3. Due to pipe breaks, electrical outages, infiltration and inflow, insufficient

capacity in the collection, interceptor and treatment systems, and other factors, untreated sewage has been and is being discharged from various locations in

the individual sanitary sewer collection systems of the Localities and HRSD to various state waters in the area. The low-lying nature of the Hampton Roads region and corresponding high groundwater table, together with periodic

widespread flooding in the region's urbanized areas, are significant factors contributing to the discharge of untreated sewage.

4. Infiltration and inflow due to system age, damage by contractors working in public rights-of-way, grease, and limited root intrusion problems have

historically resulted in instances of backups, malfunction or rupture, resulting in overflows of untreated sewage from various locations in the Norfolk sanitary sewer collection system and the HRSD System.

5. Section 62.1-44.5.A of the Code and the Regulation at 9 VAC 25-31-50.A

prohibit the discharge of sewage to state waters except as authorized by a permit

issued by the Board. The Board has not issued the Localities permits authorizing said discharges of untreated sewage. Accordingly, the Board finds

that the Localities have violated Va. Code § 62.1-44.5.A and 9 VAC 25-31-50.A.

6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City of Norfolk entered into two Orders by

Consent with HRSD and the Board effective December 17, 2001 and March 17, 2005. The 2001 Consent Order comprehensively addressed sanitary sewer overflows by requiring development of collection system plans, expenditure of

$13.5 million on capital improvements and system operation, and completion of a Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey and a gravity line inspection program in the

City of Norfolk. The 2005 Consent Order required HRSD and Norfolk to, among other things, address wet weather issues in the City of Norfolk with a Long Term Control Plan requiring a minimum annual investment in sewer infrastructure.

Norfolk has invested over $100 million in the Norfolk System and is in compliance with the prior Consent Orders.

7. To address the unpermitted discharge of sewage due to wet weather

occurrences, the Board entered into an Order by Consent with HRSD and the

Localities (excluding Norfolk) effective September 26, 2007. This Order by Consent, as amended, requires that HRSD and the Localities (excluding Norfolk) jointly develop a Regional Wet Weather Management Plan (“RWWMP”) that

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -28-

identifies, quantifies, prioritizes, and proposes a schedule for implementing

regional sewer system enhancements among other things.

8. To address regional wet weather sewer capacity requirements, on February 23,

2010, HRSD, DEQ, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency entered into a Federal Consent Decree. The Federal Consent Decree requires,

among other things, that HRSD work in consultation with the Localities (excluding Norfolk) to develop a RWWMP that will ensure adequate wet weather sewer capacity in HRSD’s portion of the regional sewer system.

9. During the ongoing planning for the RWWMP, HRSD and the Localities

researched the most cost effective and practical means for development and implementation of the RWWMP. The studies resulted in unanimous support of an alternate regionalization approach whereby HRSD would take responsibility

for regional wet weather capacity. Under this approach, HRSD will assume sole responsibility for drafting, funding, and implementing the RWWMP without assuming ownership of Locality sewer system assets. The approach was

formally adopted by all the Localities and HRSD through a regional Memorandum of Agreement dated March 10, 2014. The Memorandum of

Agreement creates mutually enforceable obligations by and between HRSD and

each of the Localities to facilitate the agreed‐upon regionalization approach. The Memorandum of Agreement and HRSD’s Federal Consent Decree work in conjunction with this Order by Consent to form a coordinated regional approach

to providing and maintaining regional wet weather capacity.

10. On August 26, 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency amended the Federal Consent Decree to reflect the alternate regionalization plan specifying HRSD’s responsibility to develop, fund and implement the RWWMP.

11. As the responsibility for the RWWMP has been transferred to HRSD solely,

the RWWMP requirements and conditions contained in the Order by Consent, as amended, are no longer applicable to the Localities.

12. Proper management, operation, and maintenance of sanitary sewer infrastructure must continue to be conducted by Localities to prevent dry weather unpermitted sanitary sewer overflows and to ensure compliance with

the referenced statutory and regulatory provisions. Under their 2001 and 2005 Consent Orders, Norfolk developed a collection system (i.e. a MOM) plan, which

was accepted by DEQ and implemented. Pursuant to the 2007 Order by Consent, the Localities (excluding Norfolk) developed MOM plans for DEQ approval and implementation. This order serves to formalize the Localities’

commitment to continue to implement and follow their accepted and/or approved, individual MOM programs.

SECTION D: Agreement and Order

By virtue of the authority granted it in Va. Code § 62.1-44.15, the Board orders each Locality, and each Locality agrees from the effective date of this Order forward, to implement a MOM program designed to maintain and operate Locality-owned

collection system assets in accordance with industry-accepted practices relating to sewer inspection, evaluation and repair of Significant Defects (not scheduled to be

addressed by the RWWMP and excluding those for which HRSD is responsible pursuant to the Federal Consent Decree as amended) and that at minimum includes the parameters described in Appendix A of this Order. The MOM program must

document the MOM program elements used to manage each Locality’s sewer system and minimize unpermitted sanitary sewer overflows. The MOM program shall include

a sanitary sewer overflow response plan and quantifiable parameters for assessing program implementation. Throughout the life of the MOM program, a meaningful set of enforceable quantitative performance measures must be maintained. Performance

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -29-

assessment measures may be added, deleted, and/or modified if such revision results

in a better assessment of the performance and effectiveness of the MOM program. The Board and the Localities understand and agree that the requirements in this

Order are the individual obligations of each party named in the Order, and no party shall be liable for noncompliance of another party with the requirements of this Order.

Further the Board and the Localities understand and agree that this Order supersedes and terminates the Order by Consent issued by the Board on September 26, 2007, December 17, 2001 and March 17, 2005.

SECTION E: Administrative Provisions

1. The Board may modify, rewrite, or amend this Order with the consent of the

Localities for good cause shown by the Localities, or on its own motion pursuant

to the Administrative Process Act, Va. Code § 2.2-4000 et seq., after notice and opportunity to be heard.

2. This Order addresses and resolves all system overflows and releases from the

sewer systems owned by the Localities and known or reported to the DEQ up to

the date of execution of this Order by the Localities. This Order shall not preclude the Board or the Director from taking any action authorized by law, including but not limited to: (a) taking any action authorized by law regarding

any additional, subsequent, or subsequently discovered violations; (b) seeking subsequent remediation of the facility; or (c) taking subsequent action to enforce

the Order.

3. For purposes of this Order and subsequent actions with respect to this Order

only, the Localities admit to the jurisdictional allegations, and agree not to contest, but neither admit nor deny the findings of fact and conclusions of law

in this Order.

4. The Localities consent to venue in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond for

any civil action taken to enforce the terms of this Order.

5. The Localities declare they have received fair and due process under the

Administrative Process Act and the State Water Control Law and waive the right to any hearing or other administrative proceeding authorized or required by law

or regulation, and to any judicial review of any issue of fact or law contained herein. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the right to any administrative proceeding for, or to judicial review of, any action taken by the

Board to modify, rewrite, amend, or enforce this Order.

6. Failure by any Locality to comply with its respective individual obligations under the terms of this Order shall constitute a violation of an order of the Board by the party who fails to comply. Nothing herein shall waive the initiation of

appropriate enforcement actions or the issuance of additional orders as appropriate by the Board or the Director as a result of such violations. Nothing herein shall affect appropriate enforcement actions by any other federal, state,

or local regulatory authority. The Localities do not waive any rights or objections they may have in any enforcement action by other federal, state, or

local authorities arising out of the same or similar facts to those recited in this Order.

7. If any provision of this Order is found to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of the Order shall remain in full force and effect.

8. The Localities shall be responsible for failure to comply with their individual obligations under this Order unless compliance is made impossible by

earthquake, flood, other acts of God, war, strike, or such other unforeseeable circumstances beyond their control and not due to a lack of good faith or

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -30-

diligence on their part. The Locality claiming this defense shall demonstrate

that such circumstances were beyond its control and not due to a lack of good faith or diligence on its part. The Locality shall notify the DEQ Regional Director verbally within 24 hours and in writing within three business days when

circumstances are anticipated to occur, are occurring, or have occurred that may delay compliance or cause noncompliance with any requirement of the

Order. Such notice shall set forth:

a. the reasons for the delay or noncompliance;

b. the projected duration of any such delay or noncompliance;

c. the measures taken and to be taken to prevent or minimize such delay or

noncompliance; and

d. the timetable by which such measures will be implemented and the date

full compliance will be achieved.

9. Failure to so notify the Regional Director verbally within 24 hours and in writing

within three business days, of learning of any condition above, which the parties intend to assert will result in the impossibility of compliance, shall constitute a waiver of any claim to inability to comply with a requirement of this Order.

10. This Order is binding on the parties hereto and any successors in interest, designees and assigns, jointly and severally.

11. This Order shall become effective upon execution by both the Director or his designee and the Localities.

12. This Order shall continue in effect until:

a. The Director or his designee terminates the Order after the Localities have completed all of the requirements of the Order;

b. The Localities petition the Director or his designee to terminate the Order after they have completed all of the requirements of the Order and the

Director or his designee approves the termination of the Order; or

c. The Director or Board terminates the Order in his or its sole discretion

upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the Localities. 13. Termination of this Order, or any obligation imposed in this Order, shall not

operate to relieve each Locality from its obligation to comply with any statute, regulation, permit condition, other order, certificate, certification, standard, or

requirement otherwise applicable.

14. The undersigned representative of each Locality certifies that he or she is a responsible official authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Order

and to execute and legally bind the Locality to this document. Any documents to be submitted pursuant to this Order shall also be submitted by a responsible

official of the Locality.

15. This Order constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties

concerning settlement of the violations identified in Section C of this Order; and there are no representations, warranties, covenants, terms or conditions agreed upon between the parties other than those expressed in this Order.

By their signatures below, the Localities voluntarily agrees to the issuance of this Order.

And it is so ORDERED this day of , 2014.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -31-

Maria Nold, Regional Director

Department of Environmental Quality

APPENDIX A

MOM Program

The following are guidelines that provide the minimum components to be included in a

MOM Program:

1. Major program goals

a. Proper management, operation, and maintenance of the collections system over which you have operational control,

b. Stop/reduce and mitigate the impact of SSO in the portion of the collection system over which you have operational control,

c. Providing notification to parties with a reasonable potential for exposure to pollutants associated with SSO events.

2. Organization

a. Administrative and maintenance positions responsible for implementing measures in the MOM program, including lines of authority by organization chart or similar documents b. The chain of communication for reporting SSOs

3. Legal Authority (i.e., sewer use ordinances, service agreements or other legally binding documents)

a. List legal authority to control infiltration and connections from inflow sources b. List legal authority that requires that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed

c. List legal authority to ensure proper installation, testing, and inspection of new and rehabilitated sewers (collector lines or service laterals)

4. Measures and Activities (address applicable elements and identify the person/position responsible for each element)

a. Provide adequate maintenance facilities and equipment b. Maintenance of a map of the collection system c. Management of information and use of timely, relevant information to establish and prioritize appropriate MOM activities and identify and illustrate trend in overflows (frequency and volume) d. Routine preventive operation and maintenance activities e. Identification and prioritization of structural deficiencies and identification and Implementation of short-term and long-term rehabilitation actions to address deficiencies f. Appropriate training on a regular basis g. Equipment and replacement parts inventories including identification of critical replacement parts.

5. Design and Performance Provision

a. Requirements and standards for the installation of new sewers, pumps and other appurtenances, and rehabilitation and repair projects b. Procedures and specifications for inspecting and testing the installation of new sewers, pumps, and other appurtenances and for rehabilitation and repair projects

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -32-

6. Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications a. Monitor the implementation and, where appropriate, measure the effectiveness of each element of your MOM program b. Update program elements as appropriate based on monitoring or performance evaluations

7. Overflow Emergency Response Plan (Plan must identify measures to protect public

health and the environment) a. Ensure you are made aware of all overflow to the greatest extent possible. b. Ensure overflows are appropriately responded to, including reporting requirements c. Ensure appropriate immediate notification to the public, health agencies, and other impacted entities (i.e. water suppliers). Identify the public health and other officials who will receive immediate notification. d. Provide emergency operations

8. Communications. Communicate on the implementation and performance of the MOM program with interested parties as requested.

F. Request for Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 - Animal Welfare and Control - Ted Wilmot - County Attorney

Mr. Wilmot stated that he periodically reviews sections of the County Code, and

as a result of this review, he is recommending changes to Chapter 3, Animal Welfare

and Control. He further stated that most of the suggested modifications are relatively

minor and bring the code in line with changes to state law. He reviewed the

recommended changes. He noted that Mr. Bazzani had expressed a concern regarding

feral cats, and advised that he is not sure to what extent the County can regulate feral

cats.

Mr. Bazzani stated that the cats are living in an abandoned home and that

someone is driving in to feed the cats and then leaving them. He further stated that

cats should be controlled just like dogs.

Mr. Wilmot stated that he is not sure that it is lawful for the County to prohibit

someone from feeding the feral cats, and noted that he is not yet in a position to advise

whether it is lawful. He advised that if the County wants to pursue a regulatory

avenue regarding feral cats, it needs to be done very carefully to make it as defensible

as possible. He noted that there is a program called TNR – trap, neuter and release;

however, if the County chose to do this, it would need to fund it.

After further discussion of the particular issue of the feral cats, Ms. Garton

recommended that the Board have the Chief Animal Control Officer come to a meeting

to discuss possible options.

Mr. Wilmot concluded that the Board could choose to table this issue or set the

public hearing.

Mr. Meyer moved, seconded by Mr. Bazzani, to authorize the public hearing on

amendments to Chapter 3 of the County Code. The motion carried and was approved

by the following roll call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr.

James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -33-

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC

HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 – ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL OF THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY CODE

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors desires to set a public hearing to consider amendments to Chapter 3 – Animal Welfare and Control.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that the Clerk is directed to advertise, in a newspaper of general

circulation, a public hearing notice for a public hearing to be held in the Colonial Courthouse located at 6504 Main Street on Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 8:00

p.m., to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 3 – Animal Welfare and Control of the Gloucester County Code.

G. Discussion on Legislative Priorities for the 2015 General Assembly - Brenda G. Garton - County Administrator

Ms. Garton stated staff had prepared a proposed list of items that the Board

may wish to consider as this year’s legislative platform. She reviewed the list.

Board members discussed the time frame for adopting the legislative packet and

when the information needed to be submitted to the legislators.

Mr. Meyer asked if the Board could delay action on this item.

By consensus, Mr. Orth moved this item to the first meeting in November.

H. Board Appointments

CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMITTEE

No appointment was made to fill these vacancies at this time.

PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

No appointment was made to fill this vacancy at this time.

TOURISM COMMITTEE

No appointment was made to fill this vacancy at this time.

Mr. Winebarger advised that due to the resignation of Mr. Dame from the

Planning Commission, he would like to appoint Mr. Baldwin, who is currently on the

Planning Commission in an At-Large position, to serve the remainder of Mr. Dame’s

term as the Petsworth representative. He noted that would leave the At-Large position

open.

Mr. Wilmot stated that although the Board has previously taken action to reduce

the size of the Planning Commission, State Code seems to mandate that when

someone resigns from the Planning Commission, their position must be filled.

Mr. Winebarger moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to appoint Seth Baldwin to

the Petsworth District appointment to complete Mr. Dame’s term. The motion carried

and was approved by the following voice vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr.

Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to appoint Kenny Richardson to

complete Mr. Baldwin's term. The motion carried and was approved by the following

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -34-

voice vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer,

and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

IX. County Administrator Items

Ms. Garton stated that Ms. Ducey-Ortiz asked her to notify the Board and the

citizens that a public meeting would be held to discuss the Hazard Mitigation open

space parcels on October 14 at 7:00 p.m. at Achilles Elementary.

X. County Attorney Items

There were no County Attorney items.

XI. Boards and Commissions Reports

There were no Boards and Commissions reports.

XII. Matters Presented by the Board

Mr. Bazzani stated that he would like to discuss the information handed out by

Ms. Mickle during the citizen comment period regarding the property purchased by the

County through the Hazard Mitigation program.

Mr. Orth noted that the Hazard Mitigation program would be discussed during

the work session on October 21.

Mr. Chriscoe advised the Board that he would be attending the VACo (Virginia

Association of Counties) conference and asked the Board to let him know if there were

any legislative issues the Board would like to have added or discussed regarding the

VACo legislative program.

Mr. Hutson stated he has a constituent who is interested in having fowl at their

home, and asked Ms. Ducey-Ortiz to look at evaluating this possibility.

Mr. Orth noted the Guest program for the homeless would be sponsored again

by different churches in the County.

Mr. Meyer asked for an update on the status of the strategic planning session

and the budget analyst posting.

Ms. Garton advised she has the name of the moderator that was suggested for

the planning session, and the work is continuing on the job posting for the budget

analyst. She stated it should be posted within a week.

Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to extend the meeting past the

automatic adjournment time of 11 p.m. The motion carried and was approved by the

following roll call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James,

Mr. Meyer, Mr. Winebarger – yes.

XIV. Closed Meeting A. Claim and Litigation

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -35-

Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to enter closed meeting. The

motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr.

Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Winebarger – yes.

CLOSED MEETING RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors desires to discuss a

particular subject in Closed Meeting during the course of its meeting of October 7, 2014; and

WHEREAS, the nature of the subject is a claim and litigation (Salb, LLC v. Gloucester County) associated with a petition for relief from erroneous tax

assessments and consultation with legal counsel regarding the matter. The discussion of same in Closed Meeting is expressly permitted by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(7).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors does hereby convene in Closed Meeting for the purpose herein expressed pursuant to the legal authority herein recited.

Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to return to open meeting. The

motion carried and was approved by the following roll call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr.

Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Winebarger – yes.

RESOLUTION TO RETURN TO OPEN MEETING

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has completed its discussion in Closed Meeting, and now desires to continue its open meeting; and

WHEREAS, only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting were heard, discussed, or considered during the Closed Meeting, and the only subjects

heard, discussed, or considered in said Closed Meeting were the matters identified in the Resolution by which it was convened.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors does hereby reconvene in Open Meeting at its meeting of October 7, 2014, and certifies the matters set forth in Virginia Code Section 2.2-3712(D).

Mr. Meyer moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to approve the resolution to accept

the agreed consent order. The motion carried and was approved by the following roll

call vote: Mr. Orth, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer,

and Mr. Winebarger – yes.

RESOLUTION CONCERNING AN AGREED CONSENT ORDER PERTAINING TO A PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENTS

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2014 the Board was served with a Petition for Relief from Erroneous Assessments filed by SALB, LLC (Case No. CL 14000199-00). The Petitioner, the County Assessor, and the Commissioner of the Revenue have agreed

upon the assessed values for the SALB, LLC property as listed in the attached Agreed Consent Order.

And, after having carefully considered the Agreed Consent Order, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that:

The Agreed Consent Order hereby disapproved; or

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -36-

The Agreed Consent Order is hereby approved. The Board directs the

County Attorney to submit the Agreed Consent Order to the Court for consideration, seeking resolution of the litigation.

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER

SALB, LLC, A Virginia Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. CL14000199-00

COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER A Political Subdivision of the

Commonwealth of Virginia Defendant.

AGREED CONSENT ORDER

THIS DAY CAME the Defendant, County of Gloucester, Virginia, by

counsel, and the Plaintiff, by counsel (together “the parties”), and upon

agreement of the parties, and representation to the Court that all matters raised

in Plaintiff’s petition have been settled, and for good cause shown,

This Court finds that the parties have agreed that the assessed value

for Plaintiff’s properties which are the subject of this suit, for tax years 2011,

2012, and 2013 are as follows:

Tax Map # RPC # Agreed Assessed Value

51A 10 C 1 22316 $ 8,000.00

51A 10 C 2 10809 $ 7,000.00

51A 10 C 3 15797 $ 7,400.00

51A 10 C 4 16797 $ 7,200.00

51A 10 C 5 18020 $ 7,100.00

51A 10 C 6 24564 $ 7,300.00

51A 10 C 7 13660 $ 7,100.00

51A 10 C 8 12436 $ 6,800.00

51A 10 C 9 19698 $ 7,200.00

51A 10 C 10 23788 $ 7,300.00

51A 10 C 11 12115 $ 10,000.00

51A 10 C 12 12654 $ 6,600.00

51A 10 C 13 14848 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 13 A 33032 $ 392,800.00

51A 10 C 13 B 42733 $ 48,800.00

51A 10 C 14 31052 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 15 25784 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 16 23148 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 17 22163 $ 8,200.00

X

October 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors Meeting -37-

51A 10 C 18 29469 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 19 16219 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 20 18614 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 21 17369 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 22 33647 $ 8,200.00

51A 10 C 23 21506 $ 7,700.00

and that said assessed values are appropriate and consistent with Virginia law.

Accordingly, it is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED that:

(1) The agreed upon values listed above shall be the real estate

assessments for the respective properties for the tax years 2011, 2012,

and 2013, and each subsequent tax year until the next general

reassessment, absent new construction or some other change which by

statute affects that value; and

(2) All allegations or relief sought by Plaintiff beyond the correction

of the assessment of the properties, including any request for damages,

or injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, but excluding any refund of real

estate taxes which were paid on prior assessments which exceed the

fair market value as set forth in paragraph 1 of this Order and any

interest on the taxes paid as a result of the prior assessments, be

dismissed with prejudice. However, such dismissal shall not be with

prejudice as to the Plaintiff’s ability, if otherwise available to him by

law, in the future, to contest the legality, validity, or appropriateness of

the County’s real estate tax assessment methodology, or to contest

other or future real estate assessments.

There being nothing further to be adjudicated in this matter, it is

hereby stricken from the docket.

XV. Adjournment

Mr. Hutson moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to adjourn. The motion carried

and the meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m. by the following voice vote: Mr. Orth,

Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Bazzani, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Winebarger – yes.

________________________________________ Robert J. Orth, Chair

________________________________________ Brenda G. Garton, County Administrator