View
222
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That a certified copy of this resolution beforwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
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
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That a certified copy of this resolution beforwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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,
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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.
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
8/7/2019 Minutes Board of Supervisors, Gloucester, VA, on the loss of foster care candidate revenue (2004)
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
Recommended