Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care “candidate” revenue...

8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)

1/45

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF GLOUCESTER

COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2004 AT 7:00 P. M., IN

THE BOARD ROOM OF THE COLONIAL COURTHOUSE, 6504 MAIN STREET,

GLOUCESTER, VIRGINIA:

THERE WERE PRESENT:

Charles R. Allen, Jr., ChairmanJohn J. Adams, Sr., Vice ChairmanTeresa L. AltemusBurton M. BlandMichelle R. ResslerChristian D. RileeLouise D. ThebergeWilliam H. Whitley, County AdministratorDaniel M. Stuck, County Attorney

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Allen.

An invocation was offered by the Rev. Fred Reed, Groves Memorial

Presbyterian Church.

All in attendance pledged allegiance to the Flag of the United States of

America.

IN RE: APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA

Mrs. Ressler asked that the minutes of the September 21, 2004 Work Session

be removed from the Consent Agenda for a correction.

On a motion by Mr. Adams, seconded by Ms. Theberge, the following consent

agenda items were approved upon the following vote: Mrs. Ressler, yes; Ms. Altemus, yes;

Mr. Bland, yes; Ms. Theberge, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Adams, yes; Mr. Allen.

Approval of Minutes The minutes of the meeting of September 21 and

October 5, 2004 were approved with the noted correction to the September 21, 2004

minutes.

Three VDOT Resolutions Concerning Changes In Roadways Due ToConstruction On Routes 33 and 636

WHEREAS, Route 609 from the intersection of Route 33 to 0.11 miles north ofRoute 33 has been altered as shown on the plans for Project 0033-036-101, C503; and

WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Transportation has provided thisBoard with a sketch dated June 30, 1999 depicting the required changes in the SecondarySystem of State Highways, which sketch entitled Changes in the Secondary System Dueto Relocation and Construction on Route 609, Project 0033-036-101, C503 which ishereby incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, A new road now serves the same citizens as those portions of oldroad identified to be abandoned and those portions to be abandoned no longer serve a

pubic need; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:That this Board abandonsfrom the Secondary System of State Highways the portion of Route 609 identified as


2/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 2Section 1 on the aforementioned sketch, pursuant to 33.1 155 of the Code of Virginia,as amended; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That this Board requests that the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation add to the Secondary System of State Highways the portionof Route 609 identified as Section 3 on the aforementioned sketch, pursuant to 33.1 229 of the Code of Virginia, as amended; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That a certified copy of this resolution beforwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.

Second Resolution

WHEREAS, Secondary Route 647 from the intersection Route 33 to 0.12 mileswest of intersection of Route 33 appears to no longer serve public convenience warrantingits maintenance at public expense and should be discontinued as part of the SecondaryState Systems of State Highways, as shown on the plans for Project 0033-036-101,C503;

WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Transportation has provided thisBoard with a sketch dated June 30, 1999 depicting the required changes in the SecondarySystem of State Highways, which sketch entitled Changes in the Secondary System Dueto Relocation and Construction on Route 609, Project 0033-036-101,C503 incorporatedherein by reference; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That this Board concurs with the Virginia Department of Transportations intent to discontinue from the StateSecondary System of State Highways the portion of Route 647 identified as section 2 onthe aforementioned sketch, pursuant to 33.1 150 of the Code of Virginia, as amended;

and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That this Board requests that the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation add to the Secondary System of State Highways thoseportions of Route 647 identified as Section 4 on the aforementioned sketch, pursuant to33.1 229 of the Code of Virginia, as amended; and


Third Resolution

WHEREAS, Route 636 in Gloucester County has been altered as shown onthe plans for Project: 0033-059-106, C502; and

WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Transportation has provided thisBoard with a sketch dated March 23, 1999, depicting required changes in the Secondarysystem of State Highways, which sketch entitled Changes in the Secondary Systems Dueto Relocation and Construction on Route 636, Project 0636-059-106, C502 which ishereby incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, Those portions identified as to be discontinued are deemed to nolonger serve public convenience warranting maintenance at public expense and are no

longer necessary for the uses of the State Highway System; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT REOLVED: That this Board concurs with theDepartment of Transportations intent to discontinue from the Secondary System of StateHighways those portions of Route 636 identified in sections 1, 2, and 5 on theaforementioned sketch, pursuant to Section 33.1-150 of the Code of Virginia, as amended;and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That this Board requests that the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation add to the Secondary System of State Highways thoseportions of Route 636 identified in section numbers 3 and 4 o the aforementioned sketch;

and



3/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 3

A Resolution Setting The FY 2006 Budget Calendar

WHEREAS,The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors wishes to establish abudget calendar for the 2006 Fiscal Year; and

WHEREAS, The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has reviewed the

schedule recommended by the County Administrator and feel that it is appropriate; and

WHEREAS, It is the desire of the Board to have all departments follow thiscalendar.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: By the Gloucester County Board ofSupervisors that the following budget calendar is hereby approved for the 2006 FiscalYear.

1. Budget Requests Due to the Finance Department January 14, 20052. Budget Recommendation Presented to the Board of Supervisors March

15, 20053. Budget Public Hearing April 4, 20054. Budget Adoption April 19, 2005

IN RE: PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO MILITARYSERVICE MEMBERS

Mr. Allen advised that it was his great pleasure to recognize military service

personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and other combat areas.

Mr. Allen then read the following resolution of appreciation to be presented to

those military service personnel to be recognized.

WHEREAS, It has been brought to the attention of the Gloucester County Board ofSupervisors that many servicemen and women and activated members of the Reservesand the National Guard are residents of Gloucester County or have immediate family inour community;

WHEREAS, These individuals are currently serving or have served in OperationIraqi Freedom and other places of combat deployment throughout the world; and

WHEREAS, The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors wishes to acknowledgeservice personnel who have dedicated themselves to the protection and security of ourCounty and to the freedom of people everywhere; and

WHEREAS, The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors does gratefullyacknowledge that we are able to live in freedom today because of the many sacrifices thathave been, and are continuing to be made by the valiant servicemen and women of theArmed Forces, Reserves and National Guard.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: By the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that this Proclamation of Appreciation and Recognition is presented to:

__________________________________________

as a sincere expression of gratitude from a proud and appreciative country, state andcounty.

Mr. Allen read the following list of military service personnel to be recognized who

were unable to be present to receive their certificate of recognition. Those individuals

included: James K. Bell, Christopher S. Brown, Wade A. Carr, Daniel H. Davis, Juan

M. Garces, Samuel C. Gregory, James K. Huck, Scott A. Huesing, David A. Jackson,


4/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4Anthony S. Kram, Donald R. Lester, Jr., Shawn L. Marshall, Daniel K. Martin,

William Martin, Patrick S. May, Stephen J. McGinty, James D. Moore, Chad T.

Mowry, Douglas Paredes, William M. Patterson, Tony J. Peterson, Sr., Mark J. Pratt,

Michael E. Sampson, III, Michael S. Sloane, Kerry C. Sweten, John P. Walsh, Lyle D.

Ward, Jr., Michael Welborn, Joseph G. Rice, Jr., Craig L. Riedel, Gregory A. Seely,

Chad M. Taylor, Michael C. Wilkes, Reservist Karen A. Pruitt and Logan Pruitt

(mother and son) and Leovijildo Mendoza, Jr., a County Employee who is a deputy

with the Gloucester County Sheriffs Department.

Mr. Allen then presented certificates of recognition to the following military

service personnel present or a family member receiving the certificate on their behalf:

Denton J. Brandy, James T. Cooper, Bradley M. Dial, Alan T. Dunn, Barry Green, Jr.,

Stanley Hood, Sr., Brent R. Johnson, John J. MacKinney, III, Keith L. Osborne, Jr.,

C. Todd Pendleton and Adam L. Spencer.

The Board gave this group of individuals a standing ovation in recognition of

their military service with Operation Iraqi Freedom.

IN RE: RECOGNITION OF THE FORMER BUILDING OFFICIAL KEN SOMERSET

Mr. Allen presented the following resolution of appreciation to the former

Building Official, Ken Somerset.

Whereas, The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has learned that Mr.Kenneth M. Somerset has resigned his position as the Building Official for the County ofGloucester, and;

Whereas, The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors believes that Mr.Somerset performed his duties as Building Official in an outstanding manner during hiseight (8) years as the Gloucester County Building Official, and;

Whereas, During his time here, Mr. Somerset always applied the BuildingCode fairly to all and tried always to work with the public to assist them with their issuesand to explain the reason for regulations, and;

Whereas, Mr. Somerset always went out of his way to assist our citizens andthis characteristic was certainly apparent during and after Hurricane Isabel when Mr.

Somerset worked with other staff members to develop the Initial and Final DamageAssessment Reports that were critical elements in the Countys receipt of disasterassistance for our citizens, and;

Whereas, during the months after the storm, Mr. Somerset continued toassist those affected by it in a compassionate and intelligent manner, assisting them withthe many specific building code issues that were raised by the storm as well as continuingto conduct the normal business of the office, and;

Whereas, Mr. Somerset has established a positive and professional reputationfor the Building Officials Office on which the County can build in the future.

Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved: By The Gloucester County Board ofSupervisors, that the County hereby thanks Mr. Kenneth M. Somerset for his dedicated


5/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5public service to the citizens of Gloucester County while he served as the GloucesterCounty Building Official, and;

Further, Be It Resolved: By The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors,that this resolution be presented to Mr. Somerset as an expression of the Boardsappreciation for this dedicated public service.

IN RE: INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING OFFICAL PAUL KOLL

Mr. Allen advised that Ron Peaks, Director of Codes Compliance, would

introduce the new Gloucester County Building Official.

Mr. Peaks thanked Mr. Somerset for his eight years of dedicated public service

to Gloucester County as the former Building Official and advised that we were very lucky

to have him for this time.

Mr. Peaks then introduced the new Building Official, Mr. Paul Koll, who

trained under Mr. Somerset as a electrical inspector about four or five years ago. Mr.

Peaks advised that Mr. Koll is originally from New York and he was previously the Chief

Building Official in King and Queen County. Also, in addition to his duties as Chief

Building Official while in King and Queen County, he served as their Zoning Administrator

and worked with the Chesapeake Bay and Erosion & Sedimentation Control Laws as well.

Mr. Peaks noted that Mr. Koll is only one of two hundred people in the country that have

received the Master Code Official designation, which we are very proud of. Mr. Peaks

indicated that Mr. Koll would be the liaison to our Building Code Board of Appeals and

advised that we are very excited to have him work for Gloucester County as our new

Building Official.

IN RE: ANNUAL REPORTS FROM COMMUNITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ANDTHE LIBRARY

Ms. Christi Lewis, Director of Community Education and Ms. Nancy Dwoyer,

Library Director, presented their annual reports together.

Ms. Dwoyer advised that they had 5,234 volunteers hours donated by adults

and 500 hours were volunteered by teams who were doing everything from helping the

Library move to putting books on shelves.

Ms. Lewis advised that they had 584 school classroom and resource

volunteers and 1,153 special events volunteers who provided 22,732 hours of service to

Gloucester schools and 190 young people volunteered in the youth volunteer program

donating 3,496 hours.

Ms. Dwoyer advised that they circulated 121,114 books or library items in all

of their locations and in May and June they saw an increase of 71% in the new library.


6/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6Ms. Lewis advised that over 200 organizations send them information each

year for the Beehive publication which is distributed to 17,000 citizens each time it is

printed.

Ms. Dwoyer advised that they registered 1,185 patrons at the new main

library; that was an increase of 326% in two months and they had a total of 2,951 patrons

registered in the entire library.

Ms. Lewis noted that in the elementary schools enrichment programs they

served 800 students who took part in over 50 enrichment activities last year totaling 725

hours of extended service and 123 volunteers helped to provide this service free of charge

to help the students become further enriched with learning opportunities.

Ms. Dwoyer stated that they tripled their square footage at the main library

and they added 6,776 items in all categories that included DVDs, CDs, books, sound

recordings and videos for all ages in their collection.

Ms. Lewis explained that every week seven community schools are available

for the community to use free of charge and last year 300 activities were held at those

schools in the evening with 19,591 participants using the schools for over 5,000 hours of

free community use.

Ms. Dwoyer noted that they answered 12,786 reference questions in their

three library locations.

Ms. Lewis advised that the Beehive publication, their annual report to the

community and their resource directory on the internet hopefully reaches a large portion

of people.

Ms. Dwoyer advised that they signed-up approximately 15,220 hours of use

time on the library computers.

Ms. Lewis advised that last year 140 speakers or presenters shared their

interest, careers and hobbies and they planned 193 study trips for the elementary school

teachers.

Ms. Dwoyer advised that they had 438 people call their dial a story number at

the library.

Ms. Lewis noted that they registered 86 people to take the GED test with 73

people qualifying which was the best percentage they have seen passing the GED test and

unfortunately 13 did not qualify but were referred to the Adult Basic Education Program

through the Gloucester County Public Schools.


7/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7Ms. Dwoyer noted that they interlibrary loaned or borrowed 300 books from

other libraries that they did not have in their collection.

Ms. Lewis stated that 43 roadside neighborhood and waterway clean-ups were

conducted last year with the help of Ms. Delo, Clean Community Coordinator and 515

volunteers who collected over 168 cubic yards of trash.

Ms. Altemus advised that Ms. Lewis has done an excellent job in heading up

many organizations through the continuous effort to help the folks down in the Guinea

area of Gloucester County and that she and her department need to be recognized for this

effort because they are still working with these organizations.

Ms. Lewis advised that trying to bring the Citizens Assistance Committee to

the Board for recognition would be next to impossible because its so many people from

this community. Ms. Lewis further advised that she was awed by how Gloucester County

has come together and how all the assistance groups have worked together to try to put

people back in their homes. Ms. Lewis noted that it has been an honor to work with this

group.

Mr. Allen thanked Ms. Lewis and Ms. Dwoyer for the interesting presentation

of their annual reports.

IN RE: BUSINESS ASSISTANCE GRANT DOUGLAS MEREDITH, ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Mr. Meredith handed out a pamphlet to the Board on the E-Commerce

Business Assistance Grants program.

Mr. Douglas Meredith, Economic Development Authority, advised that he

wanted to brief the Board on a program that the Economic Development Authority is

implementing along with the Virginia Electronic Commerce and Technology Center of

Christopher Newport University (CNU). Mr. Meredith further advised that this project is

being called an E-Commerce Business Assistance Grant.

Mr. Meredith then gave the Board a brief background history of this project.

He indicated that in October of 1996 the Industrial Development Authority, in an effort to

assist companies and to help create marketing awareness through the use of the

worldwide web, funded an initiative that provided five businesses within the community

an opportunity to design a web site and to have an internet service provided through CNU

and the name of the organization at that time was C-VANET.


8/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8Mr. Meredith noted that the companies that participated in this program were

Coastal Bioanalysts, Marine Sonic Technologies, Riverside Walter Reed Hospital, the

Sirine Group and York River Yacht Haven. Mr. Meredith advised that in 1998 all five

protocols and designs were completed and these companies formed the Gloucester Village,

which was a part of C-VANET, as well as a part of the Gloucester website. Further, Mr.

Meredith advised that as of today, with the exception of the Sirine Group, all four of the

companies are hosted by VECTEC as their ISP.

Mr. Meredith advised that in 2000 the Industrial Development Authority

stepped back and these companies took over the initiative and took this on as an

individual commitment.

Mr. Meredith noted that recently other communities in the region, Norfolk,

Newport News, Hampton, Suffolk, as well as Gloucester, has begun to provide assistance

for this electronic business program.

Mr. Meredith advised that they are trying to provide local businesses who do

not have a website, to look at website design and development through the C-VANET

Program. They are looking at companies who have an opportunity through this program

to create new jobs, job growth and increase sales. Further, Mr. Meredith advised that

these criteria are simply guidelines.

Mr. Meredith explained that after the company is selected and they design a

website or use the on-line shopping program or the customer data base program and the

search engine optimization, any or all of those, they will fund a portion of the costs as an

incentive to help them move to use the web as a part of their business.

Mr. Meredith noted that the Economic Development Authority has

implemented this program and signed a statement of work with VECTEC.

Mr. Meredith advised that the brochure he handed out earlier was designed

in-house and VECTEC helped with the printing and this will be used to get the word out

to the businesses through the Chamber of Commerce and other avenues as well.

Mrs. Ressler asked if the County was required to provide any matching funds

on this grant?

Mr. Meredith advised that no matching funds are required by the County and

that the funds would come from the Economic Development Authority (EDA). Further,

Mr. Meredith advised that the EDA will receive some proceeds from the sale of bonds and

these proceeds will be used to fund this grant.


9/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9Mrs. Ressler asked Mr. Meredith if the grant was automatically renewable

once the grant period expires?

Mr. Meredith advised that the grant was not automatically renewable because

it is for a set period of time, but if they do not use all of the funds, they can extend the

time period under the statement of work. Further, Mr. Meredith advised that if the grant

is very successful they may come to the Board and ask the Board to supplement the

funding.

IN RE: CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY OF BOYD GWYN

Mr. Allen advised that Boyd Gwyn died this week and he was a former

Gloucester County Commissioner of Revenue who served two terms. Mr. Allen further

advised that on behalf of the County and the Board of Supervisors we extend our

condolences to his family.

IN RE: CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD

Ms. Mary Hyde Berg, Abingdon District, addressed the Board and advised

that she read in the paper that it had been suggested by a lady from VDOT that the

improvements plan for Route 17 at Gloucester Point could be eliminated and eight million

dollars ($8,000,000) saved. Ms. Berg further advised that this improvements plan was not

a very good idea and she asked the Board to take this into consideration.

Ms. Berg reminded the Board that a committee from the 350 Strategic

Planning Committee had prepared a plan that would enable local people from Gloucester

Point to get around Gloucester Point without having to get on Route 17. Ms. Berg advised

that this report was done in consultation with the Virginia Department of Transportation

(VDOT) engineers from Saluda. Ms. Berg indicated that this was a very good plan that

would respond to citizen needs.

Mr. Kent Carr, York District, advised the Board that he had spoken to

them two or three times before regarding a problem at Seabreeze Waterview Mobile Home

Park and this problem still exists.

Mr. Carr advised that septic tanks in this mobile home park have been on

pump and haul for two years.

Mr. Carr further advised that he spoke to Mr. Schultz today from the local

Health Department regarding a letter that was to be written three month ago by Duke

Price and the Health Department to the trailer park about correcting this problem or the


10/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10Health Department would take further action. Mr. Carr advised that this letter has not

been written to date.

Mr. Carr advised that since then he spoke to Delegate Harvey Morgan who

arranged a meeting for him with another Health Department Official in Richmond, Mr.

Bob Hicks. Mr. Hicks informed him that for the tanks to be put on pump and haul for an

additional year this would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Carr advised that Ms. Altemus must not have known about this because

she has been very helpful to him with this situation.

Mr. Carr noted that Mr. Schultz indicated to him that the extension of the

pump and haul permit did not have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Carr advised that he wrote the County an eighteen-page letter over a year

ago about this issue and the problem had gone on long enough and needs to be corrected.

Mr. Carr stated that he was very upset about this situation and believes this

problem should come back before the Board of Supervisors to be resolved. Mr. Carr

indicated that the Board of Supervisors approved this mobile home park back in 1970 and

indicated that if these problems arose the trailer park would be shut down.

Mr. Howard Mowery, Gloucester Point District, addressed the Board and

advised that he has had problems trying to download the online Board Package and

wanted to know if there was a way that the data could be sorted and downloaded as

needed? Mr. Mowery ask that this situation be reviewed and advised that the Department

of Information Technology had been most helpful in trying to help him through this

process.

Mr. Mowery further advised it was time for the budget process again and he

presented a spreadsheet that would be informative to the public as to how the County

budgets and expends our tax dollars. Mr. Mowery advised that the folks on social security

and many government employees only received a 2.7 percent COLA this coming year and

suggested that the upcoming budget not exceed three percent (3%) per line item.

Mr. Mowery noted that the School Board has now posted by cost code the

total funds allocated for each line item and the Board may want to do this for the schools

as well, since the codes appear to be identical for most line items. Further Mr. Mowery

noted that this document could be put online for citizens review at home.

Mr. Mowery advised that regarding improvements to Route 17 at Gloucester

Point, a light should not be placed at Farmwood Road and the Pizza Hut but at the new


11/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11Great Road and Camp Okee intersection. Mr. Mowery further advised that if another light

needs to be installed it should be placed at the intersection of Hayes Road and Route 17.

Mr. Mowery advised that regarding the increase in tolls on the bridge and the

lack of revenue has the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) attempted to lower

their debt payment by refinancing? Mr. Mowery further advised that Route 17 needs to be

placed in the National Interstate System; that would be a financial benefit to the state and

the local government for funding improvements.

C. W. Davis, York District, addressed the Board and thanked them for

asking the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to hold up the improvements to

Route 17 at Gloucester Point and address the issue of raising tolls on the Coleman Bridge.

Mr. Davis advised that he was on the Coleman Bridge last week for an hour

and twenty minutes when the bridge was stuck in the open position and VDOT could not

get it closed. Mr. Davis further advised that if the County had an emergency or

catastrophe there are only two exists leaving the County, one across the Coleman Bridge

and the other headed north. Mr. Davis suggested that a closing gate be installed before

you get on the Coleman Bridge so that traffic could be turned around if the Bridge

malfunctions and gets stuck open in order to get traffic away from the Bridge in these

situations.

IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING DRAGON RUN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT

Mr. Whitley advised that this public hearing had been advertised in

accordance with the Code of Virginia.

Mr. Allen advised that David Fuss, Director of the Dragon Run Special Area

Management Program for the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission, would

introduce the topic, brief us about the Committee and give the purpose of the public

hearing.

Mr. David Fuss handed out to the Board a copy of a letter from Margaret H.

Prue Davis, Chair of the Dragon Run Steering Committee, previously sent to the Board,

in support of adoption of the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan. Also, Mr. Fuss

delivered a copy of a letter on behalf of Andrew D. Lacatell, Director, Chesapeake Rivers

Program, The Nature Conservancy, that Mr. Lacatell wanted to be made a part of the

permanent record because he could not be in attendance this evening.


12/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 12Mr. Fuss indicated that he had a one-page summary of the Dragon Run

Watershed Management Plan and had a couple of copies of the plan as well if members of

the public wanted this information.

Mr. Fuss addressed the Board and advised that he was staff support for the

Dragon Run Steering Committee. Further, Mr. Fuss advised that the Steering Committee

is a committed group of landowners and their elected representatives that have been

meeting since 1985 to discuss issues affecting the Dragon Run. Mr. Fuss noted that there

were a number of former and current steering committee members present in the

audience this evening. Mr. Fuss advised that Mr. Allen was the current representative

from the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors and Mr. Bland preceded him in that

role, the Chair of the Dragon Run Steering Committee Ms. Prue Davis, the Vice Chair of

the Dragon Run Steering Committee, Mr. Frank Herring, Ms. DeHardit, landowner

member from Gloucester, former members: Mr. Russell Williams from King & Queen

County, Mr. Buddy Moore and Mr. Warren Milby.

Mr. Fuss advised that the Dragon Run Steering Committee was appointed by

the Board of Supervisors in Essex, Gloucester, King & Queen and Middlesex Counties and

consists of two landowners and one Supervisor from each of those counties. Further, Mr.

Fuss advised that the Committee was specifically designed to be a direct communication

between landowners and their elected representatives.

Mr. Fuss stated that in late 2000 the Steering Committee authorized staff to

secure grant funds to pursue a long-range conservation project for the Dragon Run. He

further indicated that the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan was one product of

the conservation project that began in 2002 and that this project was a partnership

between the Steering Committee and the Virginia Coastal Program with grant funding

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), therefore no local

funds have been spent.

Mr. Fuss advised that the Dragon Run Steering Committee and the Middle

Peninsula Planning District Commission recommends that Gloucester County adopt the

Watershed Management Plan as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan. He further

advised that Essex and King & Queen Counties had already adopted the plan, Middlesex

County had adopted the plan but recently changed its mind. Mr. Fuss explained that if

Gloucester adopts the plan then three out of the four counties would have adopted the


13/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 13plan and this will represent almost eighty percent (80%) of the watershed area and still

constitute a viable partnership.

Mr. Fuss advised that the idea was to blend economic and environmental

value. Mr. Fuss further advised that the economic value was presented by the traditional

land uses in the Dragon Run that are namely forestry, farming and hunting. He noted

that this land had been owned by families since the early 1600s and have been this way

for a long time. Mr. Fuss stated the environmental value is represented by fifteen (15)

rare species and five rare natural communities, forty-five (45) fish species and sixty-five

(65) macro and vertebrate species which includes bugs and fresh water mussels, etc.

Mr. Fuss explained that this plan was designed as an advisory document

much like the Countys Comprehensive Plan and that whys its being recommended to

adopt this plan as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Fuss read some passages from the Countys Comprehensive Plan to note

that this plan is consistent with whats in the Comprehensive Plan but it is more specific

to the Dragon Run.

Mr. Fuss advised that on page 19 of the Comprehensive Plan, F., Number 6,

under the Land Use Section, the objective is to encourage and support retention of the

agriculture of fishing and forestry industries. He indicated that on page 20 under the

natural resources section, A, Number 4, to cooperate and actively work with local,

regional, state and federal environmental agencies to implement safe and effective

programs and policies to protect Gloucesters natural resources. Mr. Fuss stated that on

page 24, under the economic development section, bullet number 2, the objective is to

encourage the continuation of those industries that are basic to the local economy

including agriculture, fisheries, lumber and wood products, food and kindred product.

Mr. Fuss further advised that in the new amended environmental section,

Page 70, one of the objectives is to in the implementation areas to prepare plans using

watersheds as management areas and consider impacts to watershed areas when

reviewing development proposals.

Mr. Fuss gave a brief overview of the Dragon Run Comprehensive Plan

Amendment and the process used in arriving at this document. He noted that Section 1

includes the vision that is a two-fold purpose that combines the traditional land uses and

the unique natural resources.


14/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 14Mr. Fuss advised that secondly was the planning approach with the steering

committees broad stakeholders group that ranged over a two-year period and included

the participation from thirty regular participants, half were landowners on the Dragon

Run, representing about a third of the watershed area. Further, he advised that the

Dragon Run includes ninety thousand (90,000) acres and one of those landowners is the

Nature Conservancy that submitted the comment letter in their absence.

Mr. Fuss advised that there were many difficult discussions involved in

developing the plan and those items in the Watershed Management Plan are a set of

compromises between the different perspectives that were represented by the broad

stakeholders group.

Mr. Fuss further advised that his role as staff support was to write down what

was discussed, facilitate when necessary and mediate when disagreements became

spirited.

Mr. Fuss advised that the idea was to follow-up on the memorandum of

agreement that each of the counties signed in late 2002. Further, Mr. Fuss advised that

these were recommendations to achieve the goals and objectives that were in the

Memorandum of Agreement. The agreement states that each of the signatory entities in

this Memorandum of Agreement agrees to participate in the Special Area Management

Plan to promote the distinctive treatment deserving of the Dragon Run Watershed through

the support and efforts of local government, the fostering of educational partnerships and

grassroots support and the involvement of landowners whose stewardship has served to

preserve the wonder of the Dragon Run.

Mr. Fuss further advised that the plan describes the goals and objectives that

form section three in part one of the plan. The actions in section four are the

recommendations that were going to be considered by each of the Boards which are before

you now.

Mr. Fuss advised that the section of most interest to the Planning

Commission was the land use and resource preservation section that recommends a

phased approach to setting up a Dragon Run Planning Area, and the idea was a regional

cooperation and coordination that has been the primary approach of the Steering

Committee since its formation in 1985. Mr. Fuss further advised that this plan is not a

regulatory instrument and it does not involve zoning changes, but it recommends working

together to find the best ways to preserve the Dragon Run and its resources.


15/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 15Mr. Fuss advised that in addition to land use information and

recommendations in the plan, also included is a strong focus on education and landowner

stewardship that the Steering Committee felt was a very important component.

Mr. Fuss stated that another important point of the plan was to encourage

and support sustainable economic development.

Mr. Fuss noted that part two of the plan includes supporting material,

describes responsibilities of various agencies and gives detail descriptions of the

watershed. This section also suggests resources needed for implementation and a

monitoring framework to see how well the plan is being implemented.

Mr. Fuss explained that the plan was not designed to restrict economic

activity in the watershed but to encourage development thats compatible with the

traditional land uses.

Mr. Fuss advised that some of the current activities in progress now are the

sustainable economic development study being conducted to identify areas of

opportunities for economic development activity that would support the traditional land

uses. Further, Mr. Fuss advised that a watershed education program is in progress

involving field workshops. He noted that a Dragon Run Day celebration was recently held

that was designed as a community watershed festival and was attended by three hundred

(300) people that learned about history, culture and science.

Mr. Fuss noted that the snakehead species was a popular invasive species of

today and the Dragon Run is a pristine area with rare species and the object is to assess

and/or prevent any introduction of invasive species that could destroy the native species

that currently exist.

Mr. Fuss advised that there are four important points to be noted: this is a

unique natural treasure, there is landowner concern for long-term stewardship and

preservation of traditional uses and natural resources, it is consistent with the Countys

existing policies and there was active participation by landowners, localities and

stakeholders.

Ms. Prue Davis, Chair of the Dragon Run Steering Committee and Chairman

of the Essex County Board of Supervisors, addressed the Board and advised that she was

in support of the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan. Ms. Davis indicated that its

a conservation plan and a way for the four counties to work together and she urged the

Board to adopt the plan.


16/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 16Mr. Jay Scudder, Planning Director, addressed the Board and advised that

the Planning Commissions recommendation was to deny this document because of

landowners concerns in Middlesex County. Further, Mr. Scudder advised that staff

recommended approval of this document for several reasons, one being it supported the

Comprehensive Plan and they focused on regional cooperation so you had compatible

zoning between jurisdictions in this watershed area. He noted that this document is a

comprehensive planning document and not a regulatory document in any way so it does

not establish zoning.

Mr. Allen inquired as to whether landowners had been notified.

Mr. Whitley advised that we did the required standard notification in our local

paper, the Gazette Journal, and in addition, we notified the property owners along the

Dragon Run in Gloucester County that were identified on our tax map and not everyone

within the Dragon Run Watershed.

Mr. Allen then opened the public hearing to receive public comments and

asked those who would be speaking to state their name and magisterial district, while

limiting their comments to five minutes.

The following is a letter delivered to the Board by David Fuss on behalf of

Andrew D. Lacatell, Director, Chesapeake Rivers Program, The Nature Conservancy,

which he requested be made a part of our permanent record because he was not able to

attend this public hearing.

Gloucester County Board of SupervisorsNovember 3, 2004

To the members of the Board of Supervisors, I respectfully submit these commentsregarding the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan and its adoption as an addendumto the Gloucester County Comprehensive Plan.

The Nature Conservancy currently manages approximately 3,200 acres on the mainstemDragon and its tributaries. The majority of our ownership is in King & Queen County andMiddlesex County, with smaller holdings in Essex County. We steward four miles of

frontage on the mainstem Dragon and seven miles of frontage on tributary streams. Ourmission is to help protect the Dragon by preserving working forests, working farms andthe traditional uses of the land in the Dragon; we manage our tracts for timber and leaseall our lands for hunting.

I am writing to ask that you consider the hard work, time and effort that has beeninvolved in developing the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan over the last threeyears. A great deal of credit goes to the Dragon Run Steering Committee in developing thisplan, and in this process giving the public more than 20 opportunities to be involved indeveloping a vision for the watershed. The plan that was developed captures the goals, theconcerns and values of those that participated.

The Nature Conservancy was a participant in the development of this plan, as alandowner and as an organization committed to protecting the natural resources of the


17/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 17watershed. Many other landowners also spent long evenings developing this plan. In fact,the largest landowner in the watershed was present at almost every meeting.

Last year, more than 5,000 acres changed hands in the Dragon. Many of those lands would have been converted from forest uses to non-forest uses, and many hunt clubswould have lost their ability to hunt as they have for decades, if not for the efforts of anumber of conservation organizations. The rate at which land will be transferred in the

watershed will definitely increase in the next five to seven years.

The watershed management plan will provide guidance and recommendations for the fourcounties in the watershed as the land changes hands and as the watershed changes overthe next several years. The Dragon is what it is today because of the great stewardship ofcurrent and past landowners on the Dragon. The watershed management plan isconsistent with the historical stewardship of the land, and provides only recommendationson how the Dragon can be protected in the future in the midst of growth and change.

I respectfully request that Board of Supervisors approve the Dragon Run WatershedManagement Plan as an addendum to the countys Comprehensive Plan. With your

approval, three of the four counties in the watershed will have adopted this plan. Thispartnership is another step in the continuing efforts to protect the Dragon for futuregenerations.

Andrew D. Lacatell P.O. Box 430Director 220 Water Lane, Suite 2Chesapeake Rivers Program Tappahannock, VA 22560 The Nature Conservancy (804) 443-0386

(804) 512-8738

Ms. Gloria Waller Scott, Petsworth District, addressed the Board and

advised that she is a property owner on the Dragon Run and she did not receive a notice

regarding this public hearing. Further she indicated that this was done ten years ago and

she was opposed then and she was opposed to this plan. Ms. Scott stated that she should

have been completely informed as to what the plans were for her familys property and she

was not. Further, Ms. Scott indicated that this is a violation of her rights by putting

restrictions and limitations on property owners.

Ms. Teta Kain, Petsworth District, addressed the Board and advised that

she is the President of Friends of the Dragon Run, a conservation group with

approximately 475 members, many of which reside in Gloucester County. Ms. Kain

further advised that their mission is to protect and preserve the Dragon Run and its

watershed and they support the Dragon Run Management Plan. She noted that there are

no assurances that future generations will protect the Dragon Run and this plan serves as

a guide to planners, developers, landowners and others concerned with activities along the

Dragon Run in the future. Ms. Kain urged the Board to adopt this plan.

Mrs. Betty DeHardit, Ware District, addressed the Board and advised that

she asked Mr. Allen to notify all of the property owners within the Dragon Run Watershed

Plan District and she found out that a lot of property owners were not notified. Mr. Allen

indicated to her today that only those property owners who lived on the river were notified


18/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 18and she advised that there are lots of people who dont live on the river that will be

affected by this plan.

Mrs. DeHardit advised that she and her husband, Billy DeHardit, own

approximately one hundred and eight (108) acres on the Dragon Run and have about a

mile of waterfront and the land was bought by her husbands father, which they inherited

and have owned for thirty years. Mrs. DeHardit further advised that she and her husband

are opposed to the passage of the Dragon Run Management Plan.

Mrs. DeHardit further advised that if the Board passes this plan, the law

requires that the zoning ordinance be the same, which actually changes the zoning

ordinance. Ms. DeHardit stated that we have already have the Chesapeake Bay Act

regulation. She noted that there are many, many streams along the Dragon and a lot of

wetlands, thus there is very little property that can be built on. Ms. DeHardit advised that

we also have a zoning ordinance that further limits what could be done with this land.

Mr. Jerry Horner, Educator, addressed the Board and advised that he

represents Gloucester County on the Dragon Run Steering Committee, and have spent

over thirty years conducting camping trips down the Dragon Run. Mr. Horner advised

that most of the landowners he has been associated with have been excellent stewards of

the land but he has also seen some terrible land use practices on the Dragon Run.

Mr. Horner advised that one interesting thing discovered during this process

was the large amounts of mercury located in the Dragon Run.

Mr. Horner urged the Board to adopt this plan.

Mr. Willard Smith, Petsworth District, addressed the Board and advised

that he is a landowner in Gloucester County, he had reviewed the plan, attended a couple

of the Steering Committee meetings and indicated that this plan represents progress. Mr.

Smith further advised that the folks against the plan have confused progress with

regulation and they oppose this plan because they oppose regulation. Mr. Smith stated

that this plan isnt regulation; its a plan for the counties to work cooperatively together to

preserve property rights and the traditional uses of the Dragon Run. Mr. Smith read the

mission statement of the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan: To support and

promote community-based efforts to preserve the cultural, historic and natural character

of the Dragon Run, while preserving property rights and the traditional uses within the

watershed.

Mr. Smith urged the Board to adopt this plan.


19/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 19Mr. Eric Davis, Ware District, addressed the Board and advised that he is a

landowner in Gloucester County and he supports this plan. Further, Mr. Davis advised

that joining with the other counties to protect a unique resource in the Chesapeake Bay is

an important and admirable issue for the County to be pursuing. He urged the Board to

adopt this plan.

Ms. Mary Hyde Berg, Abingdon District, addressed the Board and advised

that the Dragon Run is a local, national and world treasure that is very unique. Ms. Berg

further advised that this treasure should be preserved for future generations and its not

ours alone and we understand that it is privately owned. Ms. Berg urged the Board to

adopt this plan.

Mr. C. W. Davis, York District and a Planning Commission Member,

addressed the Board and advised that when he came back from surgery in June he looked

at the plan and recognized names listed in the plan. He then started calling some of these

folks and they did not know about the completed plan but were aware of the Steering

Committee. A group of Dragon Run landowners from Gloucester and Middlesex County

are here this evening and they came before the Planning Commission to express their

concerns. At that time, Mr. Davis asked Mr. Fuss to meet with these landowners to

discuss their concerns. At the next Planning Commission meeting he asked Mr. Fuss if he

had met with these landowners and he had not met with these concerned property

owners.

Mr. Davis explained that the Planning Commission recommended denial to

the Board of Supervisors until such time as Middlesex County and the landowners had an

opportunity to meet and address the landowner concerns.

Mr. Davis advised that he, Mr. Winebarger and Ms. Hatch attended a

Middlesex County Board of Supervisors meeting and they tabled action on this plan and

asked the same of Mr. Fuss to meet with these landowners to address their concerns.

Mr. Davis further advised that Middlesex County later rescinded their vote on

this plan because they felt that their Comprehensive Plan was extensive enough to cover

anything. Mr. Davis noted that instead of adopting a plan that the landowners do not

want, we need to review whats included in Middlesex Countys Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Davis indicated that it was mentioned that there are large amounts of

mercury located in the Dragon Run and this mercury actually comes out of the

atmosphere.


20/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 20Mr. Davis urged the Board not to adopt this plan.

Susan Lingenfelser, Abingdon District, addressed the Board and indicated

that she supports this plan.

John M. Buddy Moore, representing the Dragon Run Landowners

Association and is a resident of Middlesex County, addressed the Board and advised

that he owns land on the Dragon Run and that several members of their association are

present this evening. Mr. Moore further advised that their membership represents people

who live in Gloucester, Middlesex, King & Queen and some own land in Essex County.

Mr. Moore stated that they are in complete agreement with the Middle Peninsula Planning

District Commission that they dont want to see the Dragon Run destroyed.

Mr. Moore further advised that his association wanted him to make the Board

aware of what this plan entails and it entails more than what you have heard this evening.

Mr. Moore handed out to the Board a Dragon Run Watershed Analysis

summary.

Mr. Moore corrected a statement made by County staff and indicated that

when they appeared before the Planning Commission it was not as Middlesex County

landowners but as a group of landowners on the Dragon Run which encompassed

Gloucester, Middlesex, and King and Queen County residents.

Mr. Moore advised that Middlesex County vote to rescind their approval that

they gave in May for the very reasons he will be pointing out in this summary. Further,

Mr. Moore advised that on page 16 it stipulates that step one is to adopt the Watershed

Management Plan and on page 17 that by adopting the Watershed Management Plan, the

counties would agree to the following policies:

Recognize the overall value of maintaining the traditional rural character andforested and farmed landscape of the Dragon Run watershed

Preserve the ecological integrity of the Dragon Run watershed Acknowledge the community and economic benefits of the Dragon Run watershed:

for the production of agricultural and forest products; as a valued natural resource;for wildlife habitat; for maintaining water quality; and for scenic and aestheticvalues

Continue to fully enforce existing regulations and policies Protect forest and farmed land from fragmentation due to conversion to more

intensive development Encourage a low-density, clustered pattern of development for new residential

development in the watershed to protect open space and natural resources Seek techniques to protect open space in the watershed without infringing upon

landowner rights to maintain an economic return from their property Identify land uses that are incompatible or competitive with traditional resource-

based land uses (e. g. forestry, farming, hunting, fishing) and consider limiting themwithin the watershed

Limit rezoning to more intense uses in order to protect the rural character andintegrity of farming and forestry resources in the watershed


21/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 21 Limit extension of public utilities and central water and sewer in the watershed Explore the feasibility of limiting major residential development in the watershed by

aligning the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance with provisions in theSubdivision Ordinance that limit major subdivisions

Publish citizen stewardship materials that explain pertinent ordinances, policies,and regulations in easy-to-understand language

Mr. Moore advised that this indicates that you will agree to these conditions

and are obligated without a choice in the matter and this is exactly what they pointed out

to the Middlesex County Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Moore explained that in step 2 the plan states that each county would

create and map a specially designated Dragon Run Planning Area within its

Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moore noted that he wanted the Board to understand the

significance of these conditions and obligations as he mentioned previously.

Mr. Moore stated that on page 18 it indicates a sliding scale property tax rate

and even though they like the idea of lower taxes, they do not feel as landowners,

businessmen and responsible citizens that this is the proper time for any county to be

lowering their tax rate.

Mr. Moore advised that on page 61 it shows six responsibilities of this plan

and also shows some examples of the cost of this plan and that it is an expensive plan.

Page 63 shows that that these costs are long-term and ongoing.

Lastly, Mr. Moore advised what concerns him as a businessman is the

disclaimer used at least five times in the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan which

states: Although this data has been used by the Middle Peninsula Planning District

Commission (MPPDC), no warranty, expressed or implied is made by the MPPDC as to the

accuracy or application of the data and related materials, nor shall the fact of distribution

constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility assumed by the MPPDC in connection

therewith.

Mr. Moore advised that what they offered instead of this plan was the

Middlesex County Zoning Ordinance that costs nothing. All they had to do was to draft a

Zoning Ordinance that was restrictive enough to protect the Dragon Run and it would not

have impeded on landowners rights or anyones use of the Dragon Run.

Mr. Moore further advised that if you were to contact the national forest

service and ask what species was the most damaging to our pristine environment they

would tell you that it is the human being.


22/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 22Robin Ditch, Petsworth District, addressed the Board and advised that she

is a property owner on the Dragon Run and was opposed to this plan. She noted that as a

property owner she protects her property, as do other property owners on the Dragon

Run. Ms. Ditch further advised that from what she has seen from living on the Dragon

Run that it is all the boats that are using the Dragon, who are not property owners, that

are speeding and who are not good stewards of the land. She noted that some even run

into the sand bars on the Dragon.

Mary Helen Morgan, Chairman, Middle Peninsula Land Trust, addressed

the Board and advised that she lives in Saluda in Middlesex County. Ms. Morgan advised

that its unfortunate that thirty years ago Gloucester didnt adopt a conservation resource

husbandry district along the Dragon Run that may have addressed the concerns you now

have.

Mrs. Morgan further advised that the Dragon is a unique, historic and scenic

area. This plan is a technique to manage the precious land and watershed that borders

along Gloucester, King & Queen, Essex and Middlesex counties.

Mrs. Morgan explained that the land trust is an organization that provides an

opportunity for the landowners to place their land in conservation easements that

attached to the land by deed in perpetuity. Mrs. Morgan noted that she knows the

landowners that are concerned about this plan and they are very good people who have

been protective for generations of their Dragon Run property, as well as other properties

they own.

Mrs. Morgan explained that they are not concerned about what is happening

right now but what will happen in the future. She noted that this proposal is protective

and important but deserves the Boards thoughtful consideration.

Mr. William Ray, Petsworth District, addressed the Board and advised that

he is a research scientist and water quality is his expertise. Mr. Ray applauded the

Planning Commission for looking at a watershed approach. Mr. Ray stated that the

Dragon Run makes up six (6%) of the counties land, the Piankatank cannot be divorced

from the Dragon Run and this is a very important message. Further, he advised that the

Piankatank, just like the Dragon Run, is a special treasure to all of us.

Mr. Ray noted that efforts like the Planning Commission in moving forward

with the Dragon Run Management Plan have allowed the research community to write

grants. Mr. Ray indicated that he is on the faculty at the Virginia Institute of Marine


23/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 23Science (VIMS) and he does applied research to protect the coastal resources and their

main goal is to provide information to the coastal decision makers. Mr. Ray advised that

on the Piankatank and Dragon Run, they have one of the leading water quality monitoring

programs and every fifteen (15) minutes at three locations on the Piankatank and Dragon

Run water quality is being collected. Further, Mr. Ray advised that he has secured funds

for atmospheric deposition because mercury has been mentioned being in the Dragon

Run. They have one of two hundred and fifty (250) stations in the nation located at

Harcum which serves the Piankatank and Dragon Run and funds are available to make

this a mercury monitoring station. Mr. Ray noted that it was mentioned that mercury

comes in from the atmosphere, which is one of the larger sources, but a very small

percentage of rainfall actually lands on water because most of it lands on the watershed

and runs back in, so what is done on the land is important. Mr. Ray urged the Board to

adopt the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan.

Mr. Davis Fuss addressed the Board to clarify some statements that were

made by speakers and advised that the Steering Committee was appointed by you and the

other Boards of Supervisors to represent the landowners and the localities in discussing

how to address issues affecting the Dragon Run. Further, Mr. Fuss advised that this

Committee was made up of landowners living along the Dragon Run, who had strong

feelings about certain issues and who met quarterly, sometimes monthly to discuss these

issues. Mr. Fuss stated he just does what they tell him to do and bring issues before the

Supervisors at the Committees request.

Mr. Fuss advised that he and Ms. Davis did meet with the Landowners

Association and Ms. Webber, Chairman of the Middlesex County Board of Supervisors,

prior to their public hearing to try to understand the concerns of the Landowners

Association and tried to come to some resolution and agreement but unfortunately that

did not happen before their public hearing. Mr. Fuss explained that the Steering

Committee would continue to work with the Landowners Association to try to resolve their

concerns.

Mr. Fuss stated that there are some very good ideas in zoning ordinances and

comprehensive plans in all of the counties. The concept was to work together and select

some of the more effective and successful types of measures that might be used as a

model for the other counties. Mr. Fuss advised that it was mentioned by Middlesex


24/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 24County staff that they did have the strongest Zoning Ordinance of the four counties and

that theirs was potentially a model for the other counties to follow.

Mr. Fuss advised that it is true that there is a step type recommendation in

the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan, with the first step being to adopt the plan

but each following step involves participation from all the localities and then that

recommendation would be presented to you and each of the other Board of Supervisors to

continue to participate or could elect not to participate.

Mr. Fuss advised that the mention of the sliding scale property tax. These

items were intended as a menu of tools that are available and that could be used and you

could not employee all of these at once because some may conflict with each other.

Mr. Fuss advised that one of the points made was boating and destruction

from boating that was discussed a great deal and the plan suggests pursuing a no wake

zone in the lower end of the Dragon Run and potentially the upper Piankatank in order to

address the concerns of landowners that had problems with marsh deteriorating and

losing land due to wake from boating activity.

Mr. Fuss further advised that the data collected describing the watershed was

from various other data sources that were appropriate and pertinent to the Dragon Run.

Mr. Fuss noted that they had no control over the types of studies conducted and an

example of this is the mercury monitoring station that Mr. Ray is trying to get.

Frank Herrin, Property owner on the Dragon Run in King and Queen

County, addressed the Board and encouraged the Board to adopt the Dragon Run

Watershed Management Plan.

Eric Johnson, property owner on the Dragon Run, addressed the Board

and advised that he is a property owner in Gloucester County and urged the Board not to

burden the taxpayer with this expense because grants do run out. Further, Mr. Johnson

advised that if the Board is so concerned with water quality in this County, and really

think it has no affect, then they should adopt a water management plan for all your

waterfront and see what it does to your taxes.

Kim Marbain, Petsworth District, addressed the Board and advised that she

supports this plan and encouraged the Board to have other watershed management plans

within the County to protect the land.

Buddy Rogers, Petsworth District, addressed the Board and advised that he

is a member of the Planning Commission but was not representing the Planning


25/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 25Commission in his comments but speaking from his six years experience on the Planning

Commission. Mr. Rogers further advised that property rights come up every time you

change the Comprehensive Plan and change the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Rogers further

advised that this plan is only a guide.

Mr. Rogers indicated that it was noted that the Planning Commission

recommended denial, which was not unanimous, and the vote was for the Board to

postpone their public hearing and decision until after Middlesex had an opportunity to

meet with the concerned landowners.

There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Allen closed the public

hearing.

Mr. Bland inquired as to what would be the source of funding for the program

in the event there are no more grant monies available.

Mr. Fuss advised that they have a grant from the coastal program that

extends for two years with the possibility of another two additional years in order to

implement the plan. Mr. Fuss further advised that the actions in the plan are voluntary

and if money is not available for an item you can wait until the money can be allocated,

find another grant source, pool resources with the other counties or not pursue this action

because its not in your interest at that time.

Mr. Bland advised that this means that Gloucester County can opt out of this

plan at anytime and Mr. Fuss indicated that this was correct.

Mrs. Ressler advised that Mr. Moore brought to their attention that on page

17 it indicates that by adopting the Watershed Management Plan the counties would agree

to the following policies. Mrs. Ressler further advised that from Mr. Fusss comments it

seems that by adopting this plan, as long as it suits us and as long as we are comfortable

with it, we go along with it and when it does not fit our purpose anymore we give it up.

Mrs. Ressler stated that the commitment she sees is that if we adopt this plan we have

every intention of maintaining the plan regardless of the cost.

Mr. Fuss advised that the intention of menu of recommendations is that you

can chose to implement them as you see fit based on what you deem to be important.

Mrs. Ressler indicated that they are constantly hearing from the Planning

Commission that it does not fit our Comprehensive Plan, therefore we need to change our

ordinances. Mrs. Ressler advised that the Committee did a phenomenal job with the time


26/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 26spent and the funds that went into this plan but its a guide and shes not sure shes

ready to add another layer of enforcement.

Mr. Fuss advised that the concept was adopting the plan and then look at

how you might take the general policies and choose something more specific to adopt as a

Comprehensive Plan amendment at a later time. Mr. Fuss further advised that the idea

was to work with the other counties to develop a model Comprehensive Plan amendment

that could be modified to work with your existing Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fuss stated

that the Committee wanted to see if the counties were interested in pursuing their

recommendations and if so, then they would spend more time looking at specific

recommended changes if the County thought it was a good idea.

Ms. Altemus advised that Mr. Fuss indicated that no local dollars were

involved and on page 61 at stage one it indicates the coastal program and local

governments. Ms. Altemus asked Mr. Fuss what was expected from local governments at

stage one of the plan?

Mr. Fuss indicated that those are different possible funding sources and the

idea was to identify areas of funding resources for those actions if you chose to implement

these items.

Ms. Altemus advised that in number four under monitoring plan

implementation it indicates funding source again as the local government.

Mr. Fuss advised that the Planning Department would review how the plan is

working and if the plan is not working very well some changes may need to be made and

that would be resources that are already available to you.

Ms. Altemus asked Mr. Fuss to point out to her where in this eighty (80) plus

page document that it states that the County has an option to get out of this plan.

Mr. Jay Scudder, Planning Director, advised that its a comprehensive

planning document and there are various goals and objectives with the plan and you

chose to implement these options when the timing is right and its suits the locality

because these are recommendations.

Mr. Stuck, County Attorney, clarified that the out for the Board is that the

resolution adopts the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan as an addendum to your

Comprehensive Plan and there are no legal restrictions on the Board amending its

Comprehensive Plan at any time. Further, Mr. Stuck indicated that the Board can put


27/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 27items in or take them out at any time and the speed or the level at which you implement

these recommendations is totally at the Boards discretion.

Ms. Altemus advised that it was discussed by the Board at the September 21st

meeting as to who would be notified of the public hearing and it was discussed that the

property owners in the Dragon Run watershed would be notified and it concerns her that

a property owner had to find out about this hearing in the newspaper. Ms. Altemus noted

that it states: The plan does not change any current regulations in the County. Any

changes to the regulations based on the recommendations in the plan would be

accomplished through additional public hearings and review by the Planning Commission

and the Board of Supervisors and through ordinances adopted by the Board of

Supervisors after such review. Ms. Altemus further advised that she was concerned

because all the property owners within the watershed had not been notified.

Ms. Altemus asked Mr. Stuck, for clarification for the public, how this plan

would affect the Zoning Ordinance?

Mr. Stuck advised that proper advertisement may mean many things and

legal advertisement means something different. Mr. Stuck further advised that this

Comprehensive Plan amendment was legally advertised and whether that was proper is up

to the Board to decide. He indicated that the Board can go beyond the legal requirements

if they chose to do so.

Mr. Stuck advised that in order to create a law there are different

requirements in the code for zoning. Further, Mr. Stuck advised that any time you change

the text of the ordinance or change the regulations on a piece of property you are required

to notify individual property owners. Mr. Stuck explained that when you change

something that affects the County at large and its not specific to specific property owners

your advertisement requirement is to place the ad in the newspaper twice certain intervals

apart. Mr. Stuck indicated that Comprehensive Plan amendments never impact individual

property owners so the only legal requirement is to advertise it in the newspaper.

Ms. Theberge advised that she supported this plan at the Middle Peninsula

Planning District Commission level and the Planning Commission level. Further, Ms.

Theberge advised that there are some points she would like to make to the Board before

you make a decision on this matter. Further, Ms. Theberge advised that Mr. Rogers

brought up an important point which is that every time either Board considers any thing

the first thing you hear is that you are infringing on my property rights. She indicated


28/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 28that the County does possibly infringe on someones property rights in one form or

another in ordinance changes and Comprehensive Plan changes, but its a balancing act

between whats best for the County and possibly infringing on property rights.

Ms. Theberge wanted to remind the Board that this is not an enforcement

document; its a planning document. Further, she advised that she has been in the

County since the early 70s and when she first came to Gloucester she thought what a

rural place this was. Ms. Theberge noted that she lived near Gloucester Point and from

McDonalds at Hayes to the Courthouse at that time there was nothing but trees and

woods. Ms. Theberge advised that in the twenty-five years that she has lived here the

County has gone from an extremely rural environment to what you now see along Route

17, so the key is planning for the future. She noted that planning was not started early

enough for the Route 17 corridor and there is a great variation of development between

Gloucester Point and the upper portion of the County.

Ms. Theberge further advised the Board that they recently discussed a

regional effort regarding economic development that involved combining two planning

districts on the Peninsula and Southside of which Gloucester is a member of one. Ms.

Theberge advised that we supported economic development and she would like the Board

to think about supporting this regional cooperative environmental effort between

communities to protect the Dragon Run because this is a worthwhile effort to protect the

Dragon Run in the future.

Ms. Theberge advised that she was one of the two Chairmen of the 350

Strategic Planning Committee and was in a position very similar to Mr. Fusss. Ms.

Theberge further advised that she gave the Board an overview of that plan that was over a

hundred-page document and it was an enormous cooperative effort between the citizens of

this County. Ms. Theberge explained that this document made a tremendous number of

suggestions and only certain items were implemented over time. Ms. Theberge noted the

350 Strategic Planning document was a good planning document to refer to for future

planning.

Mr. Bland advised that we all want to protect the Dragon Run and the

landowners have for the last three or four hundred years done an excellent job of

protecting the Dragon Run, however, from his experiences on the Board things change.

Mr. Bland further advised that the gentleman that spoke who was an expert on water

quality thinks this document is a good plan. Mr. Bland noted that he does not like to tell


29/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 29people what they can do with their property and does not like to put layers of bureaucracy

on things but this is to protect the Dragon Run for the future. Mr. Bland advised that no

regulations are going to be enacted because of this plan and this will not affect anyones

livelihood.

Mr. Bland moved, seconded by Ms. Theberge, that the Dragon Run Watershed

Management Plan resolution be adopted.

Mr. Rilee advised that he has faith in the landowners and that if all four

counties cannot adopt the plan then we should not adopt it and for this reason he would

vote against its adoption.

Ms. Altemus inquired as to why the Board was not given an option to send

this back to the Planning Commission to let them enhance the Comprehensive Plan by

adding these things and coming back to the Board with suggestions?

Mr. Allen advised, in answer to Ms. Altemus question, that it was important

to have a regional approach because if one property owner on the Dragon Run can do

something that destroys another persons property then that persons effort to preserve the

Dragon Run may be lost and therefore the regional approach has merit because everyone

would be doing the same thing. Mr. Allen further advised that the plan should be

adopted as is and we can use the parts of the plan that apply to Gloucester that we wish

to use.

Mr. Allen advised that John Hancock owns a great deal of land on the Dragon

Run and they have been selling this land. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Fuss to speak to this issue

because there are development pressures coming to the Dragon Run.

Mr. Fuss advised that the Steering Committee and advisory group, which had

a number of different kind of stakeholders, were very concerned about this issue and one

of the stakeholders was the consultant forester for John Hancock Life Insurance, which at

that time owned about twenty-six thousand (26,000) of the ninety thousand (90,000)

acres in the watershed. Since then, John Hancock Life Insurance have sold about three

thousand (3,000) of those acres to the Nature Conservancy and they still have about

twenty-three thousand (23,000) acres they own in the watershed. Further, according to

their consultant forester and Andrew Lacatell with the Nature Conservancy that

mentioned this in his comments, in their negotiations, they were told that John Hancock

Life Insurance, which have recently been acquired by a company called Manulife that is

based in Canada, that they are planning to divest itself completely of their landholdings in


30/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 30the Dragon Run and potentially the Middle Peninsula within the next five (5) to seven (7)

years. Mr. Fuss noted that this was a major concern for the Steering Committee because

it represents a potential for a major landownership change that no single landowner could

acquire all at once unless they had a great deal of resources at their disposal. Mr. Fuss

advised that the Committee did feel that there was some sense of urgency in putting some

proactive things in place before these parcels are sold and you dont know who will

acquire them.

Ms. Altemus asked Mr. Fuss if the reason this plan had been put together was

to stop John Hancock Insurance from selling property?

Mr. Fuss advised that this was not the reason the plan was put together but

the Committee was concerned about the potential for change of land ownership.

Ms. Altemus advised that this was what she got from this information and

this made her very uncomfortable and Mrs. Ressler agreed with Ms. Altemus about this

information.

Ms. Theberge advised that the present landowners as everyone has indicated

were doing a wonderful job of protecting the Dragon Run but in the future there may be

some landowner changes in the Dragon Run and these people may or may not be good

stewards of the land and that was one of the reasons for implementing a planning

document of this type. Ms. Theberge further advised that what Mr. Fuss was indicating,

as she understood it, was that this would be your first example of a major landowner

considering divesting itself of a large amount of land within the next five to seven years

and at no point did he say they cannot do any thing with that land.

The following resolution to adopt the Dragon Run Watershed Management

Plan was approved upon the following vote: Mrs. Ressler, no; Ms. Altemus, no; Mr. Bland,

yes; Ms. Theberge, yes; Mr. Rilee, no; Mr. Adam; yes; Mr. Allen; yes.

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DRAGON RUN WATERSHED MANAGEMENTPLAN, DATED NOVEMBER 2003, AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE

GLOUCESTER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WHEREAS,the Dragon Run Watershed, six percent (6%) of which is located withinGloucester County, has been identified as one the most pristine waterways within theChesapeake Bay region by the Smithsonian Institute, contains rare plant and animalspecies, and provides substantial opportunities for recreational activities and a highquality of life for its residents; and

WHEREAS, the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission, advised by the

Dragon Run Steering Committee, obtained a Virginia Coastal Resource ManagementProgram grant for the development of a Dragon Run Special Area Management Plan(SAMP); and


31/45

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 31WHEREAS, the Dragon Run Steering Committee, consisting of three representatives

from each of the Counties in the watershed, one elected official and two landowners alongthe Dragon Run, formed a SAMP Advisory Group to assist in the development of theSAMP; and

WHEREAS, the SAMP Advisory Group represented a cross-section of stakeholderswithin the community including: Steering Committee members, local government elected

officials, planning staff, landowners, representatives from state agencies, farming, forestry,education, non-profit organizations and ecotourism interests; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors entered into aMemorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Middle Peninsula Planning DistrictCommission and other Counties within the Dragon Run Watershed Essex County, Kingand Queen County, and Middlesex County, in which each of the signatories agreed toparticipate in the Special Area Management Plan and to consider the recommendations ofthe Dragon Run Steering Committees SAMP Advisory Group to achieve the goals andobjectives of the Memorandum of Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Dragon Run Steering Committee working with the SAMP AdvisoryGroup developed the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan to address the goals andobjectives of the Memorandum of Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan was approved by theDragon Run Steering Committee and the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission;and

WHEREAS, one of the recommendations of the Dragon Run Watershed ManagementPlan is for all of the four Counties within the watershed to adopt the plan as an addendum

to each Countys Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, in the spirit of regional cooperation, the Counties of Middlesex, Essex,and King and Queen have adopted the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan as anaddendum to their Comprehensive Plans, and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Planning Commission held a duly advertisedpublic hearing on the proposed amendment on August 5, 2004; and

WHEREAS, based on the concerns raised at the public hearing, the PlanningCommission recommended to the Board of Supervisors denial of this amendment with the

recommendation that the Board hold off on their public hearing until after such time thatMiddlesex County and the concerned landowners have had the opportunity to meet; andWHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors took the Planning Commissions

recommendation into consideration; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held duly advertised a public hearing theproposed amendment on November 3, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds that Dragon Run Watershed is a unique area within theregion and deserves distinctive treatment and specific planning for its preservation; and

WHEREAS, the development of the Dragon Run Watershed Plan is consistent withthe Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, in that the plan includessurveys and studies of existing conditions of the Dragon Run Watershed and evaluatesexpected trends for growth; and

WHEREAS, the Dragon Run Watershed Plan is meant to guide a coordinated,adjusted and harmonious development within the Dragon Run and is intended, inaccordance with present and probable future needs and resources, to best promote thehealth, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of theinhabitants of the Dragon Run Watershed and surrounding communities, and

WHEREAS, the land use policies recommended in the Dragon Run WatershedManagement Plan, listed primarily on pages 16 through 18, are co

Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care “candidate” revenue...

Documents

Transcript of Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care “candidate” revenue...