1

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF

MAY IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

Chairman O’Briant called the Isle of Wight County Planning Commission

meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. on May 22, 2012 at the Isle of Wight County

Courthouse, Isle of Wight, Virginia.

Present: James P. O’Briant, III, Chairman Lars S. Gordon, Vice-Chairman James B. Brown, Jr. Leah Dempsey James Ford Don G. Rosie – Arrived at 6:20 p.m. William G. Saunders, IV Nancy Guill Kurt G. Frischmann Harold U. Blythe

Absent: James W. Minton, Jr.

Also Attending: Melinda J. Goodwyn, Secretary Mark Popovich, County Attorney

Beverly H. Walkup, Director of Planning and Zoning Chairman O’Briant determined a quorum was present.

Commissioner Brown delivered the invocation.

Chairman O’Briant led in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman O’Briant called for approval of the Agenda. He stated that he

would like to add an item regarding the Commission’s July meeting date under

New Business.

Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Agenda as amended.

Commissioner Frischmann seconded the motion, which was adopted with

Commissioners O’Briant, Gordon, Brown, Dempsey, Ford, Saunders, Guill,

2

Minton, Frischmann and Blythe voting in favor of the motion; no Commissioners

voting against the motion; and Commissioners Rosie and Minton absent for the

vote (9-0).

Chairman O’Briant called for approval of the Consent Agenda.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2012 and April 10, 2012 Board of Supervisors Action List of April 19, 2012 Commissioner Blythe moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

Commissioner Ford seconded the motion, which was adopted with Commissioners

O’Briant, Gordon, Brown, Dempsey, Ford, Saunders, Guill, Minton, Frischmann

and Blythe voting in favor of the motion; no Commissioners voting against the

motion; and Commissioners Rosie and Minton absent for the vote (9-0).

Chairman O’Briant called for the Development Review Report.

No report was offered.

Chairman O’Briant called for Citizens Comments.

No citizens comments were offered.

Chairman O’Briant called for the public hearing on the following

application:

The application of Smithfield Elks Lodge No. 65, owner/applicant, to renew CUP-02-04 to allow for the construction of a Club for a meeting place to hold Elks’ functions and community activities on four (4) acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural Conservation (RAC) located on the west side of Blount’s Corner Road (Rt. 674) east of Old Stage Highway (Rt. 10) in the Hardy Election District.

Matthew Smolnik, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, stated that the

application is for the renewal of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Smithfield

Elks Lodge No. 65. Mr. Smolnik advised that in 2004 the Board of Supervisors

approved a CUP for the same organization on the same property. No development

3

activity occurred on the property in two (2) years from the issuance of the permit;

therefore, the permit became null and void. So, this application is to renew the

CUP. Mr. Smolnik stated that original conditions were submitted with the new

application but he tweaked them to bring them up to current standards with the

current County code language and requirements. The Elks Lodge currently has 12

members on their roll. They have meetings on the second and fourth Thursdays

every month from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. They are asking to construct a 4,000

square foot building and associated parking on property on Blount’s Corner Road

directly adjacent to Hardy Elementary School. He stated that the application was

sent out to numerous reviewing agencies prior to drafting the staff report. Copies

of the comments are attached in the agenda package. Mr. Smolnik stated that

Blount’s Corner Road is the collector road to get to homes to the north and east of

the site. He noted that VDOT had three (3) comments regarding the application,

but they did not find that there would be any degradation of the roadway system

based on this proposed use. Mr. Smolnik distributed to the Commissioners a copy

of the 2004 Planning Commission minutes and a copy of a handout titled “Attend

to Protect Your Interests” that was distributed to some of the homes in the area.

Referencing the handout he stated that a lot of it is factual that was pulled right off

the application. He further stated that since March 15th, one (1) citizen contacted

him about the application and no others to the best of his knowledge have been in

his office to look at the application. Regarding the statement about real estate

home values on the flyer, Mr. Smolnik stated that he went over to the

Commissioner of Revenue Office this afternoon and it was stated that the County

has not submitted any factual market analysis to come up with those numbers

stated on the flyer. Mr. Smolnik stated that the issue before the Commission

tonight is a land use issue. He further stated that the Zoning Ordinance defines this

4

organization as a club. He stated that there are ruritan clubs in Zuni, Rescue,

Carrollton, Isle of Wight, Windsor, Walters and Carrsville; an American Legion in

Smithfield; a VFW in Smithfield, a Masonic Lodge in Smithfield; and a VFW in

Carrsville, with several homes in the vicinity and some with greater density than

what is seen on Blount’s Corner Road. So, there are approximately a dozen clubs

surrounded by homes already existing in the County. Mr. Smolnik discussed the

sixteen (16) recommended conditions as referenced in the staff report.

Commissioner Rosie arrived at the meeting at 6:20 p.m.

Commissioner Guill inquired about the security being listed in two (2)

separate conditions. She stated that it seems like recommended condition numbers

5 and 8 could be combined into one (1) condition.

Mr. Smolnik noted the seven (7) criteria that the Planning Commission and

Board of Supervisors shall consider before the recommendation of approval or

granting of a CUP.

William Riddick, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the

Commission stating that Elks Lodge No. 65 is an organization with a long history.

They have been in the Town of Smithfield for over 100 years. They have owned

this property since 1987, which is the subject of the CUP. It has always been their

hope and plan to build a facility of their own. They were unable to do so between

2004 and today because of a lot of circumstances. Since that time they have sold

their building in Smithfield and they have no permanent place to meet now. This

application is to renew their original permit. It is important to consider all the

application conditions that were imposed by the Board of Supervisors upon

recommendation of the Planning Commission in 2004. But, it is more important to

understand that nothing has changed since 2004. There are no circumstances that

have changed that would give rise to the need to disapprove the permit. In other

5

words, they met the criteria in 2004 that would have permitted the Board of

Supervisors to grant the CUP. The Planning Commission as well as the Board of

Supervisors has the right to impose conditions. Obviously, that has been done.

Mr. Smolnik has pointed out that he has revised the conditions in order to bring the

application up to date. These conditions were imposed by the Board of

Supervisors in order to satisfy all the concerns. The application has not changed.

They are only asking that it be extended. Because of circumstances beyond their

control they were not able to do what they had hoped to do in the first life span of

the original permit. They are ready to proceed now. Mr. Riddick stated that Isle of

Wight is replete with similar facilities. He thinks that in almost every case they

would be seen as an asset to the community. There are other ruritan and club

houses throughout the County, and they are used for functions that benefit the

County. There is opportunity for abuse, but that is why the conditions are

imposed. There are speculative concerns to what might happen. So, there are

safeguards to make sure that the schools and the local residents are well protected.

He expressed that they think that this had a full and fair hearing in 2004. To his

knowledge, there is no change of circumstances that would give pause and a reason

to say what was decided back in 2004 is not reasonable anymore. It is entirely

reasonable. There is no basis for not approving this. Regarding security, Mr.

Riddick stated that for events not held by the Elks Lodge it would require off duty

police officers for private security.

Chairman O’Briant called for public comments.

Miles A. Blount, II, 9130 Blount’s Corner Road, addressed the Commission

stating that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application to the

Board of Supervisors in 2004. The Board in turn had a real hard time with the

application and came up with the recommended conditions subject to its approval.

6

He would think that the Commission would put these in place to help shield

residents from this type of organization moving into a residential area. The

Commission’s decision is just as much about community and its way of life as it is

about the organization’s desire to have a nice lodge. This issue came before the

Planning Commission in 1989-90 and was turned down. At that time the

governing body expressed opposition to this project. The community itself

presented to the Board of Supervisors petitions, letters, etc. with over 400 names.

The support of the Elks Lodge consisted of names from outside of the Thomas

Park, Blount’s Corner Road and Days Point areas. Even the history of this

community shows that this building is not a natural thriving facility for the area.

Mr. Blount questioned if the Elks can successfully meet the Board’s requirements

and build a facility that will satisfy the community and be profitable. His concern

is that they will be left with another vacant building. He stated that this is not a

ruritan club. They only have twelve (12) members. The first principal of a

successful business or organization is the location. This facility will be located in

the middle of a school, church and houses. He is concerned whether this

organization can build a successful facility that will fit into the moral atmosphere

of this community. People moved in the community of Thomas Park, Blount’s

Corner Road and Days Point because of the peace and quiet. The bottom line is

that the Elks have failed on numerous occasions to adequately convince them that

they can coexist. They strongly believe that this is not the proper location for a

facility of this type, and they will continue to oppose this type of facility in their

neighborhood.

Pinky Hipp, 17271 Morgart’s Beach Road, addressed the Committee stating

that there are approximately 15 to 20 homes within a ½ mile of this site. Sitting in

front of the property you can see the school behind it. She expressed that she was

7

against this the last time. The biggest problem is the value of the property. With

the recent down turn they all have lost value of their property. People are having

trouble selling right now. Who wants to be next door to an Elks Lodge, especially

when it will be rented out to the general public? That seems to be the main

purpose of a building that large. It is not just a building to have meetings in; it is

building a large building to generate income. This does not seem to be compatible

with the neighborhood and the way of life in the community. The time frame of

11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. at night affects everyone who goes to bed at 9:00 and

families with small children. Noise will be inside, but the parties spill out into the

parking lot, even when they have security. The road is too small to put in a left

turn lane. Residents will be caught in traffic coming and going. She expressed

that she would like for the Commission to consider all of this when voting on the

application.

Martha M. Gromlich, 9111 Blount’s Corner Road, addressed the

Commission stating that there is no ill will towards neighbors, members or past

members of the Smithfield Elks Lodge No. 65. The Elks should have the right to

build a club for gathering social events, rotating state conferences and such in a

totally rural location in Isle of Wight County. The club’s suitable rural location is

imperative based on the projected 300 person attendees. To address ample parking

for attendees, now they currently have 48 spaces identified as of 2004. Historical

there have been police involvements that are documented. Their hours of

operation are possibly seven (7) days a week. The Elks’ operating hours are not

conducive to neighboring working people and potential future expansion of new

neighbors with new members. However, she is opposed to the current proposed

location as the CUP does not conform to the general charter of the existing

neighborhood. As for public heart, currently trash consisting of beer bottles, soda

8

cans, fast food wrappers, cartons, plastic bags and used condoms are cleaned up

from the ditches and front yard of 9141 and 9111 Blount’s Corner Road by her

family members before cutting their grass. The County does not maintain the

ditches. An increase of 300 folk directly across the street will result in much more

trash from the wind blowing and cars entering and exiting premises. Mrs.

Gromlich stated that she and her husband recently had separate life threaten

medical incidents that requires them to rest at various times of the day and night as

do many other folks in the area. This would not be possible due to events, possibly

seven (7) days a week up to either 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m.. Not to mention the

associated physical and mental stress with the potential living conditions for them

and their animals. When working she is required to retire to bed by 9:00 p.m. and

get up a 4:00 a.m. She stated that higher noise pollution will outweigh open

screened house windows, which will be a thing of the past and not physically

prudent to a higher cost for air conditioning. Why should she be penalized and

have to keep her windows shut because 12 Elks want to build a club. Proper Isle

of Wight state of the art acoustic building codes for structure and building

materials will be costly, but all noise should be contained inside the Elks’ building

with no events held outside the building structure. Mrs. Gromlich expressed that

alcohol traditionally used and stored by the Smithfield Elks has been masked in

previous hearings and grossly overlooked, and is apparent from the records of

October 21, 2004. As stated by Mr. Blount, the Planning Commission did in fact

recommended denial of the CUP to the Board of Supervisors. She noted that Mr.

Jones stated in 2004 as quoted from the minutes “any events desiring to have

alcohol served have to be approved by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board and

such event would be held after school hours”. She stated that at the 2004 Board of

Supervisors meeting, Mr. Jones confirmed to Mr. Wright that the members do have

9

individual lockers to store their personal liquor, if it was handled as if you were

drinking in your own living room. She further stated that a major issue by the

public relative to alcohol consumption is from the private lockers by the Elks that

could be offered to others. The Elks’ property adjoins Hardy Elementary School

with the increased potential of walk through persons along the playground at all

times of the day. This was previously identified in 2004 by the past school

principal as a recurring problem and a major concern without the Elks’ building in

place. It was envisioned that young folks from the Jefferson Park would increase

the flow of walk through doing school hours. The only Elks ingress/egress is on

the main thoroughfare of Blount’s Corner Road, which is a two lane, no shoulder,

heavily traffic area for cars, tractors, horse trailers and bicycle traffic. This is the

primary entrance to every neighborhood back to the James River. There is no

shoulder or room for a right hand turn lane to enter the Elks’ property. Traveling

55 mph and coming to a complete stop due to a vehicle waiting to turn left into the

Elks is not safe at any means, no matter how experienced the driver is.

Geoffrey McFather, 17288 Day’s Point Road, addressed the Commission

stating that his family moved to Isle of Wight County 20 years ago. He stated that

it is an old and established neighborhood. He advocates for the Elks to be able to

build a facility wherever they choose to build the facility, but he does believe that

the people around them need to be heard and he appreciates the opportunity to

speak tonight. He wants to talk about businesses in residential areas. Bad

neighborhoods can be a serious problem according to the Appraisal Institute. An

unkempt yard, proximity to sex offenders or having certain commercial facilities

nearby such as a power plant, a funeral home or a civic organization, such as the

Elks, can reduce the value of surrounding homes by as much as 15 percent. Real

estate experts say that a bad neighbor is any home or business that turns people off.

10

A bad neighbor is one who has no consideration for the rest of the community. A

bad neighbor could be a business, a government entity or enterprise whose very

existence drives down an individual’s property value. Location is always been a

key factor in determining property value. Surrounding homes, businesses, and

activities will have an affect on a home’s worth. A home located in a neglected

neighborhood can depreciate regardless of the structure’s condition. The noise

from a nearby business can decrease a home’s value. Even the unsavory conduct

of the people living or frequenting that neighborhood can cause that neighborhood

to decline in value. He further stated that Blount’s Corner Road is such that two

(2) cars cannot pass each other without nearly smacking each other’s side-view

mirror. This is not an easily traveled road. People that have purchased homes in

this neighborhood have purchased them a long time ago. It is their job as

homeowners to protect and be actively engaged in efforts to enforce zoning and

local ordinances to protect housing values. The owners who have purchased

property along Blount’s Corner Road, Day’s Point Road, and other adjacent roads

have a vested interest in maintaining their property values as residential

neighborhood cohesiveness. The presence of a bona fide business, even though it

may hold itself out to be a civic organization, is still a commercial entity. History

has consistently shown that submitting the entry of a commercial business into a

residential area accelerate the decline in property value and the integrity of the

residential atmosphere. Accordingly, his family, his neighbors and others in the

neighborhood have asked him to speak on their behalf to ask that the Commission

again reject the application of the Elks to build and open their business on Blount’s

Corner Road. He noted that Mr. Riddick stated that nothing has changed, and he

would suggest that since the Commission voted this down last time, nothing has

changed.

11

Melissa Pierce, 9074 Blount’s Corner Road, addressed the Commission

stating that regarding traffic, if you put the proper signals on people will slow

down and stop. She further stated that she has seen cars passing other cars on that

road. She expressed that the noise would not be any worse than the gun sounds

that go off on Saturday mornings at the gun range. She does not see a problem

with the building being built. Ms. Pierce expressed that she thinks that it would be

an asset to the community. As far as property value going down, it just went down

from statements that were received in the mail a couple of weeks ago, and this

building has not been built yet. From her understanding, property values are

based on the fair market value. She thinks that it would be a good place for people

to have wedding receptions, anniversary receptions, etc. She does not have a

problem with it being built right next to her.

Richard Gromlich, 9111 Blount’s Corner Road, addressed the Commission

stating that he also owns property at 9141 Blount’s Corner Road. They moved to

this area because it is very unique. It is a country lifestyle and it is quiet. He stated

that Theron Blount is his neighbor and he is a super guy. He would like to see the

Elks have a lodge, but this location is not the place to put it. For obvious reasons it

does not fit in the category of RAC. The Elks is a civic club, but its primary

function, according to its history, is to have parties that involve alcohol. There are

certain noise ordinances that will be placed on this club. He thinks that the Elks

will need a lot of functions there to be able to support this building that they plan

on building. He does not think that it is going to be inexpensive. To keep the

maintenance going on it will require weekly, if not almost daily, functions there.

Even though there are acoustic requirements placed on the structure he does not

believe that will keep the sound from coming outside the building. He stated that

the ASTM 65 needs to be looked at to see if there have been some improvements

12

in acoustic requirements and specifications to prevent sound from leaving a

building. This has become an issue in other communities where night clubs have

been built. He does not know if the County has a sound ordinance which is

specified in decibels. The bottom line is that he thinks that all of this is really

going to be expensive for the Elks. He does not think that they are going to be able

to have the kind of functions that they need to support it in that area. His advice to

them would be to build a house on the property, sell it and make a profit, then build

a club somewhere else.

Theron Blount, 9074 Blount’s Corner Road, addressed the Commission

stating that his property joins the Elks property. He stated that he is just not

satisfied with all the negative talk that has been passed around. He stated that the

Elks’ noise will never get to Morgart's Beach Road, as mentioned. He stated that

he has a drying fan that he runs 24 hours a day when drying peanuts and he has not

heard anyone complain about that noise. He further stated that he carries

equipment that is 15 to 16 foot wide on that road. Mr. Blount stated that there was

a church next to his property and he could not hear them when he was inside his

house with the door closed. Buildings today are sound proofed. He stated that he

has to pick beer bottles and cans up in the field every time he goes out there to do

something. He expressed that there was a lot of negative talk before but once the

citizens found out what was going on they backed off. He hopes that the

Commission will recommend approval of the application.

Michael JoVerbeek, 17364 Day’s Point Road, addressed the Commission

stating that this will be a big asphalt parking lot in a fairly low lying area that will

probably flood the roads even more than what they have already. He is very

concerned about 150 cars being on a very narrow road. He has young kids. You

can barely pass on that road. If the Elks build a lodge out there, the road has to be

13

widened. You cannot put that kind of traffic on that road, especially when this

building is possibly going to be built just for parties. There will be alcohol abuse.

There will be drunken people on the road. He is very concerned about putting this

in a residential area. The noise inside the building can be contained, but what

about the people walking around and talking outside the building late at night when

people are trying to sleep. There are too many different issues here that just show

that this should not be built at this location. They moved out here because it was

quiet. He thinks this is the wrong place to put it.

Herman Jones, 8500 Blount’s Corner Road, addressed the Commission

stating that he has lived on the property all his life. Mr. Jones stated that the Elks

purchased the property in 1987 before a lot of the people were out there, for the

sole reason to build an Elks’ Lodge. He stated that at the time that they purchased

the property they did not need a CUP. After purchasing the property the ordinance

changed. He stated that they have been good neighbors and would like to continue

to be good neighbors. He noted that some things have happened out there and they

have not said a word. He stated that they control their business and what they have

in it. They are small because they do not just take anyone into their organization.

He hopes and prays that the Commission will recommend approval of the CUP

application.

There being no further public comments, Chairman O’Briant closed the

public hearing.

Mr. Riddick stated that he is absolute certain that everyone who has spoken

in opposition are very sincere in their beliefs. But everything that they have said is

speculation and not based on actual facts because the Elks Lodge is not there. If

you look at their history for almost a hundred years; they met in property on Wharf

Hill in Smithfield and never had a complaint. When they were in Smithfield they

14

had none of the conditions that are being proposed and they coexisted peacefully as

do ruritan clubs, the American Legions and the VFW. Most of those facilities are

in more densely populated areas than what we are talking about here, yet they

coexist and thrive to bring value and usefulness to their community, and that is

what can happen here. Lots of points have been made about property values.

Every time someone speaks about something that they do not like they come in and

say it is going to ruin their property value. There is no data that proves that. This

is a situation that is carefully crafted with conditions, and if they do not do all the

things that they are required to do, their permit will be revoked. There is great

concern and stewardship on behalf of the Elks to keep and maintain their permit so

that the can enjoy the facility that they are proposing. This is a land use issue and

this is an appropriate place to build this. It is not un-similar to countless facilities

throughout Isle of Wight County and southeast Virginia. Mr. Riddick expressed

that there are safeguards that have been worked out and approved by the Board of

Supervisors, and he will reiterate that nothing has changed since 2004. It was

deemed to be an acceptable use then and he hopes the Commission will find that it

is an acceptable use now.

Chairman O’Briant called for comments from the Commission.

Commissioner Blythe inquired of whom the Elks have rented to historically

in the past and how often.

Mr. Jones responded that they would rent it out occasionally to other groups

that wanted to rent it for weddings, anniversaries, churches, boy scouts, etc. The

Elks have special rules and regulations that they would have to go by. Usually

they would have someone who would want to rent once a month.

15

Commissioner Frischmann stated that it is a large building and a lot of

parking spaces. It seems like there must be some sort of business plan to pay for

this. Renting it just once a month does not seem like it would make sense.

Mr. Jones stated that the Elks would use it themselves to hold functions,

which would bring in revenue. He further stated that they would use revenue from

the building that they sold.

Commissioner Saunders inquired if the CUP has already lapsed.

Mr. Smolnik stated that it lapsed in 2006.

Commissioner Blythe inquired about the distance from the intersection to

the entrance of the property in question.

Mr. Smolnik responded approximately 1,300 feet.

Regarding the size of the building, Vice-Chairman Gordon inquired if there

was any other building around to compare to its size.

Mr. Smolnik stated that he believes it will be about half the size of the

Dollar General Store near Royal Farms in the Town of Smithfield.

Commissioner Ford asked for the application to be contrasted and compared

with other types of buildings such as this in the communities. He expressed that he

is having a hard time seeing where this should be treated any different than any

other type of similar facilities.

Mr. Smolnik stated that VFW Post 4411 on Beaverdam Road, which is also

defined as a club, was approved with five (5) conditions imposed on their CUP,

which is directly adjacent to residential dwellings also. Land use wise it is a club.

There are some examples in Smithfield where a club is located in a more highly

dense residential area. The VFW Post in Beaverdam may be a little bit more rural.

There are others in the community that are right on top of things, north, south, east

16

and west of the facility with a great amount of traffic going down those roads. So,

it kind of, falls in the middle.

Commissioner Dempsey stated that it is tricky though because as stated by

Mr. Riddick we are speculating. What could it be at 4000 square feet?

Commissioner Guill stated that in all the years that the Battery Park and

Rescue Ruritans have run their club she does not know of any real complaints.

They run it for wedding receptions and parties, and they are surrounded by homes.

It is a quiet neighborhood and she thinks that the Ruritans have always respected

that.

Commissioner Brown stated that the real complaint is the low laying

situation of the land and what will be taken away when they put all the cement

down.

Mr. Smolnik responded that the Zoning Ordinance requires any parking

spaces above and beyond what is required be of some kind of pervious matter.

Commissioner Brown stated because that piece of property is so low, any

type of impervious surface is going to have an impact on drainage.

Mr. Smolnik stated that would be reviewed during the site plan process.

Commissioner Guill stated that as an applicant/builder you are not allowed

to have runoff onto other people’s property.

Chairman O’Briant referenced the seven (7) criteria listed in the staff report.

He stated that the road out there has not changed either. He further stated the

amount of traffic this proposed facility might create may be the real key to the

whole issue. A facility fitting into a community is always an issue. He would

wager that the VFW in Smithfield would never get rebuilt back there if it burned

down. He would hate for a civic or ruritan organization that is trying to function,

generate funds for themselves and funds to be invested back into the community

17

and the road and drainage is still not going to get any better. He hopes they will

enter into the situation with their eyes wide open.

Mr. Riddick stated that this is common throughout the County. How is this

any different than a rural church? It is no different. It is infrequently used. It

requires people coming and going at infrequent times. It is a civic use. If he was

asking for a church, everyone would think that is a great idea. It is the fear of the

unknown. How is this any different than the last application for the VFW in

Carrsville? The fact that someone does not like it being there is not the issue. Is it

compatible with the community? Does it meet the test that has been established by

the ordinances that have been adopted by the County? He would say that the

conditions imposed on this application far exceeds conditions placed on anyone

else, and probably because there was a lot of opposition.

Commissioner Guill expressed that she is very much in favor of civic

buildings and service organizations. But, she thinks that 11:00 p.m. is really late in

a neighborhood. She stated that she would like to see that condition changed to

9:00 p.m. on week nights. She is struggling with this because it appears to be a

building rental business. One hundred and fifty spaces are a lot of spaces. With

the lack of affordable rental facilities in the County, she is afraid that this building

could be rented out a lot for larger parties. She thinks this is quite incompatible

with a quiet neighborhood. She further stated that she is struggling with criteria

#5. She does not think that a rental building equivalent to the Smithfield Center is

appropriate.

Commissioner Ford expressed that the staff report does not point out the

strengths and weaknesses.

Commissioner Dempsey expressed that what she thinks is throwing many of

them is the size of the building and the functions that will be held there.

18

Commissioner Rosie stated that every community is not the same. Every

situation is not the same. There are implications that this could be used for more

than what it would seem than simply for a club. What is also different here is that

with the VFW it was a community that was pretty much together. The community

is divided on this application.

Commissioner Blythe stated that he lives in Walters about two tenths of a

mile off the road directly across from the Ruritan Community House. Walters

have people concentrated right by the Ruritan Community House. He has seen

functions there with cars parked alongside the road. It has parking for about 60 to

70 cars. There have been some parties there on Saturday night when he could get

serenaded, but all in all it is very livable. He has even had people park on the other

side of the road in his driveway, which is a nuisance. It is part of a ruritan club

being out in a fairly rural area even though there are houses all around it. They

live with it and get along with it okay.

Vice-Chairman Gordon stated that he is struggling because they bought the

property in 1987 before a lot of people were there. He expressed that it is a big

building for twelve (12) members. It is being built for gatherings other than just

the lodge members. He stated that he has been to a lot of ruritan clubs where they

have had troop meetings, etc. They usually meet on a weeknight and usually shut

down around 9:00 p.m. He has never heard any complaints through the ruritan

clubs. He is struggling with this. If it was a small ruritan club, he wouldn’t have

any problems with this. The impression that he gets is that it is more of a

commercial venture.

Commissioner Ford expressed that a lot of speculation have been exhibited

here, because they have not seen any kind of site plans, building layout, etc. He

would venture to say that anybody who is trying to get something done would look

19

to where the middle ground is. What needs to be done to make it happen? There

have been several comments about whether or not the Elks can afford it and about

the size of the organization. We do not have any business in that. In his opinion

those things need to be left alone. We need to not paint that picture so negatively.

Commissioner Dempsey expressed that she is concerned about the size of

the building and the time.

Mr. Riddick stated that the application is for maximum plans. It is not

exactly what is going to be built. The proposal is a much more modest proposal,

but the limits on the permit were 150 spaces. They thought that was based on one

(1) vehicle for every two (2) people. The applicants are willing to reduce the size.

A more modest building would be closer to their budget. They are willing to

reduce it to 3,000 square feet, which is not an overwhelming facility. A building

that is too small is not going to be useful. One hundred and fifty parking spaces

are above what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. What they could say is the

number that is required by the current Zoning Ordinance. At the time they were

just trying to come up with something that was relevant to the number of people

that had been limited by the conditions. If size is an issue, they are trying to be

reasonable. It is not unreasonable to ask for a facility at this location. He does not

see how this is any different than anywhere else.

Commissioner Ford stated that he lives in the neighborhood and there have

been parties outside at people’s houses down in the Griffin Lane area and in the

Bill Bailey apartment area and on a given night with his windows open you can

hear the music, inside or outside. So, you are talking about a building that is not

there yet. The neighborhood is quiet when it is quiet and noisy when it is noisy

from a number of elements. If the building was not there you would still have the

quietness of the neighborhood interrupted at times.

20

Mr. Gromlich stated that this is not a church, it is an Elks lodge and they

party. This is a party organization and there is nothing wrong with that, but not in

that neighborhood. He stated that they hear the peanut dryer all summer long.

They do not mind that. It is part of the business of farming. It is a different kind

of noise from a DJ’s boom box. Occasionally the church has a party and the

neighbor has a once a year annually party, but it is an occasional thing. To support

this building the Elks are going to have to rent it out every weekend and he does

not want to be hearing the bass from some DJ’s box every weekend.

Regarding Condition No. 3, Commissioner Rosie suggested changing the

time from 11:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday.

Commissioner Ford noted the concerns stated in correspondence dated May

7, 2012 for the Division Superintendent of Schools. He stated that there have been

issues with the school’s drainfields. That is something that needs to be taken into

consideration given the problems that the County is facing with the budget.

Mr. Smolnik responded that any design of the drainfield will have to be

reviewed and approved by the Health Department.

The Commission agreed to combine recommended conditions 5, 6 and 8 into

one condition.

Mr. Riddick advised the Commission that the applicants would be

amendable to adding a condition stating that the building will not exceed 3,000

square feet.

Regarding Condition No. 14, Vice-Chairman Gordon inquired if there was

any clarification of the building being designed and constructed to meet a Sound

Transmission Class (STC) of 65 or better in accordance with the ASTM 90. Is it a

class or decibel?

Mr. Smolnik responded it is a Class.

21

Vice-Chairman Gordon inquired about how it correlates to a decibel. Chairman O’Briant called for a recess at 8:00 p.m.

Chairman O’Briant called the meeting back to order at 8:10 p.m. Referencing the Noise Control and Building Practical Guide for Architects

and Engineer 1994, Mr. Smolnik stated that STC is roughly the decibel reduction

in a noise that a partition can provide. STC 65 to 70 is often designed into walls in

luxury multi-family units, dedicated home theaters and high end hotels. Mr.

Smolnik stated that from what he can understand STC 65 appears to be quite a

defense from noise escaping a building.

Commissioner Guill moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors

denial of the application, but change recommended condition No. 3 to 10:00 p.m.

on weekdays; allow staff to reformulate recommended conditions 5, 6 and 8 into

one comprehensive condition; add a condition of a maximum square footage of

3,000 square feet for the building; and, change the word “us” to “use” in condition

No. 9.

Commissioner Guill withdrew her motion.

Commissioner Guill moved to amend the recommended conditions as

discussed to add the following: (1) change recommended condition No. 3 to 10:00

p.m. Sunday through Thursday, (2) allow staff to reformulate recommended

conditions Nos. 5, 6 and 8 into one comprehensive condition, (3) add a condition

of a maximum square footage of 3,000 square feet for the building, and (4) change

the word “us” to “use” in condition No. 9. Commissioner Blythe seconded the

motion which was adopted with Commissioners O’Briant, Gordon, Brown,

Dempsey, Rosie, Saunders, Guill, Frischmann and Blythe voting in favor of the

22

motion; Commissioner Ford voting against the motion; and Commission Minton

absent for the vote (9-1).

Commissioner Guill moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors

denial of the application. Commissioner Frischmann seconded the motion which

was defeated with Commissioners O’Briant, Gordon, Dempsey, Guill and

Frischmann voting in favor of the motion; Commissioners Brown, Ford, Rosie,

Saunders and Blythe voting against the motion; and Commissioner Minton absent

for the vote (5-5).

Commissioner Ford moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors

approval of the application as conditioned. Commissioner Blythe seconded the

motion, which was defeated with Commissioners Brown, Ford, Rosie, Saunders,

and Blythe voting in favor of the motion; Commissioners O’Briant, Gordon,

Dempsey, Guill and Frischmann voting against the motion; and Commissioner

Minton absent for the vote (5-5).

Commissioner Dempsey moved to send the application to Board of

Supervisors for their recommendation after thorough discussion of the Planning

Commission with no recommendation. Commissioner Rosie seconded the motion,

which was adopted with Commissioners O’Briant, Gordon, Dempsey, Rosie,

Saunders, Guill, Frischmann, and Blythe voting in favor of the motion;

Commissioners Brown and Ford voting against the motion; and Commissioner

Minton absent for the vote (8-2).

Commissioner Rosie left the meeting at 8:25 p.m.

Under New Business, Chairman O’Briant called for consideration of the

following:

Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments

23

Mr. Smolnik presented the proposed amendments to Article 4 and Section 9-

1004, the setbacks in the Highway Corridor Overlay District and the Newport

Development Service Overlay District, and Temporary Signs. He stated that the

recommendations stemmed from the Small Business Committee (SBC). Mr.

Smolnik stated that major revisions to Section 9-1004 were approved by the Board

of Supervisors on June 16, 2011, which allowed for the display of on-premises

business promotions, sales and services signs. At the time of their approval, the

Board of Supervisors included a 90-day grace period for the implementation of the

civil fines, which was later extended on two (2) different occasions. Staff provided

the Board of Supervisors with an update on this particular section of the Zoning

Ordinance in January of 2012, at which time the Board directed staff to re-evaluate

the requirements for temporary signs and to re-engage the SBC for feedback on the

provisions of this section of County Code.

Mr. Smolnik explained the following sections based on feedback received

from the SBC, along with the collaborative efforts of staff

• Sections 9-1004.A will allow for signs advertising an auction for the sale of real estate and/or

personal property and clarifies the permitted location of such signs.

• Section 9-1004.B will allow each principal at a construction site to display a temporary sign and

clarifies the permitted location of such signs.

• Section 9-1004.D clarifies the permitted location of special event signs.

• Section 9-1004.H will allow for sandwich board signs up to sixteen (16) square feet in size and

clarifies the ADA requirements for egress along sidewalks. Additionally, on-premises business

promotions, sales and services signs will be allowed to be displayed for thirty (30) calendar days

per business quarter. Furthermore, any business in violation of this Section shall receive two (2)

written warnings from the County prior to the issuance of civil penalties.

• Section 9-1004.I is a new section that will allow for special award signs.

Mr. Smolnik presented the proposed ordinance amendment and discussed the

following changes highlighted in red.

9-1004 Temporary Signs

The following temporary signs, excluding those listed in Section 9-1004.H below, are permitted

without a zoning permit. However, such signs shall conform to the requirements set forth below as

24

well as all other applicable requirements of this ordinance except those contained in Sections 9-

1006.

A. Real estate advertising signs. Aesthetically appealing

B. 1. On-premises signs.

a. On premises signs advertising the sale, lease, or rental of property or signs advertising an auction for the sale of real estate and/or personal property shall be limited to one (1) sign per lot per street frontage or frontage on navigable waterway.

b. Signs in residential zoning districts and residential uses in the NC, VC, and PD-MX districts shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and a maximum of four (4) feet in height.

c. Signs in Rural Agricultural Conservation zoning districts shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet in size and a maximum of six (6) feet in height.

d. Signs in commercial and industrial zoning districts shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in size and a maximum of ten (10) feet in height. The height of all signs shall represent a measurement from ground level to the top of the sign structure.

e. Such signs shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line, shall be located outside of VDOT right of way and shall be located outside of the any sight triangles related to public or private roadways, driveways, or other points of ingress or egress.

2. Off-premises signs.

a. Off-premises signs advertising the sale, lease, or rental of property shall be allowed in conjunction with a bona fide "open house" showing only and shall not be erected for more than three (3) days in a calendar week. any seven (7) day period.

b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed for the advertising of an auction for the sale of real estate and/or personal property and shall not be erected for

25

more than seven (7) days prior to the auction and shall be removed no later than one (1) day following the auction.

bc. Such signs shall be limited to four (4) sixteen (16) square feet in size and a maximum of four (4) feet in height.

cd. Such signs shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line, shall be located outside of VDOT right of way and shall be located outside of the any sight triangles related to public or private roadways, driveways, or other points of ingress or egress.

C. Construction site or development project identification signs.

1. Such signs shall not be erected prior to the issuance of a land disturbing permit for the property and shall be removed within ten (10) days after the issuance of the final occupancy permit by the Building Official.

2. One (1) project identification sign shall be permitted per construction site or development project and limited to no more than sixteen (16) square feet in size and a maximum of ten (10) feet in height.

3. In addition, in the case of multiple principals at the construction site or for the development project (e.g., owner, developer, architect, engineer, contractor, or real estate or leasing agent), each principal shall be allowed one identification sign all identification information shall be contained on one (1) additional sign, limited to no more than sixteen (16) square feet in size and a maximum of ten (10) feet in height.

4. Such signs shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line, shall be located outside of VDOT right of way and shall be located outside of the any sight triangles related to public or private roadways, driveways, or other points of ingress or egress.

D. Political campaign signs.

1. Such signs shall not be located within public rights-of-way or attached to public utility structures and shall be limited to freestanding signs not more than sixteen (16) square feet in area in residential zones and thirty-two (32) square feet in area in agricultural, commercial and industrial zones.

26

2. Such signs shall be no more than five (5) feet in height and shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property lines.

3. No sign shall be permitted to encroach into the sight triangle of any street intersection.

4. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following an election, canvass or primary.

E. Special event signs.

1. Signs indicating a special event to be located on property where the special event such as a grand opening, fair, carnival, festival or similar event, excluding business promotions, sales and services signs as outlined in Section 9-1004.H below, is to take place may be erected no more than thirty (30) days prior to the special event and shall be removed no later than forty-eight (48) hours after the special event has concluded. However, grand opening signs shall be removed no later than thirty (30) days after the first day of the grand opening.

2. No sign shall be greater than thirty-two (32) square feet in size and a maximum of ten (10) feet in height.

3. Such signs shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line, shall be located outside of VDOT right of way and shall be located outside of the any sight triangles related to public or private roadways, driveways, or other points of ingress or egress.

4. Off-premises signs for special events sponsored by non-profit, governmental or civic organizations may be permitted up to thirty-two (32) square feet.

5. Grand opening and special event signs, as defined by Section 9-1004.D, which contain or consist of pennants, balloons, ribbons, streamers, banners, spinners, strings of lights, or other similar moving or stationary devices, may also be erected in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-1004.D.1 (above).

F. Interior window or door display signs.

27

1. Signs advertising the sale or promotion of specific products, services or events may be affixed to the interior of the transparent portion of the window or door of civic, office, commercial or industrial use types.

2. Such signs, individually or collectively, shall be limited to no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the surface area of the transparent portion of the window or door to which they are attached. (7-7-05; 2-15-06; 4-18-06.)

G. Sports registration signs.

1. On-premises or off-premises signs for sports team sign-ups sponsored by non-

profit or civic organizations may be permitted up to four (4) square feet in size.

2. Such signs shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line, shall be located outside of VDOT right of way and shall be located outside of any sight triangles related to public or private roadways, driveways, or other points of ingress or egress.

3. Such signs shall be removed by sponsoring non-profit or civic organization no

later than the opening day of the sports season for which the signs are advertising, or the last day for sign-ups, whichever comes first.

H. On-premises seasonal agriculture product promotions and sales signs.

1. Signs advertising the promotion or sale of seasonal agricultural products being directly

marketed to the general public, excluding those listed in Section 9-1004.A thru Section

9-1004.F above, and Section 9-1004.H below, may be allowed as follows:

a. Seasonal agriculture product promotions and sales signs shall be limited to

agricultural businesses where:

i. All advertised products are grown or raised on the site or by the legal

business entity in charge of the farm operation; or

ii. The advertised product is a by-product, produced from a

substantial amount of the product grown or raised on the site, as

determined by the Zoning Administrator.

b. Such signs may be displayed on the parcel at which the sale is being held.

28

2. Signs not specifically listed in, and meeting the criteria of, Section 9-1004.G, shall be

prohibited for the purpose of seasonal agricultural product promotions and sales,

except in the case of a wayside stand, which is governed separately under this article.

3. Such signs shall be allowed as follows:

a. Banner signs, free-standing signs or flag signs may be permitted up to a maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet in size and six (6) feet in height, except a flag sign may be permitted up to a maximum of ten (10) feet in height.

b. One (1) sign shall be permitted per frontage of the parcel at which the sale is being held.

4. Such signs shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line, shall be

located outside of VDOT right of way and shall be located outside of the any sight

triangles related to public or private roadways, driveways, or other points of ingress or

egress.

I. On-premises business promotions, sales and services signs.

1. Signs advertising the sale or promotion of specific products or services, excluding those listed in Section 9-1004.A thru Section 9-1004.G above, may be displayed on the parcel of a legal business within the County.

2. Signs not specifically listed in, and meeting the criteria of, Section 9-1004.H, shall be prohibited for the purpose of on-premises business promotions, sales and services signs.

3. When there is only one (1) legal business in operation on a parcel, such signs, individually, shall be allowed as follows:

a. Banner signs, free-standing signs or flag signs may be permitted up to a maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet in size and six (6) feet in height, except a flag sign may be permitted up to a maximum of ten (10) feet in height. b. One (1) sign shall be permitted per parcel, outparcel or per separate, physically detached business as determined by the Zoning Administrator. c. Such signs shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line, shall be located outside of VDOT right of way and shall be

29

located outside of any sight triangles related to public or private roadways, driveways or other points of ingress or egress.

4. When there is more than one (1) legal business in operation on a parcel, such as a

shopping center or mixed use building with individual public entrances per business, signs, individually or collectively, shall be allowed as follows:

a. Banner signs may be permitted up to a maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet in size provided that they are attached to the façade of the unit for which the promotion, sale or service is located. b. Sandwich board signs may be permitted up to a maximum of ten sixteen (1016) square feet in size on the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building façade for which the promotion, sale or service is located. The sign surface area shall be calculated by using the area of only one (1) side of such sign. The height of the sign shall not exceed four eight (48) feet. Signs shall not reduce required egress less than five (5) feet on a sidewalk. c. One (1) sign shall be permitted per business.

5. The property owner, business owner, business manager or other entity acting on

behalf of the business applying for the zoning permit, shall provide details of their request on forms provided by the Zoning Administrator.

6. The property owner, business owner, business manager or other entity acting on

behalf of the business shall be required to obtain a zoning permit for each application made to the County to erect, install or display signs listed in Section 9-1004.H.

7. Such signs shall be displayed no more than a total of thirty (30) fourteen (14)

calendar days per business in a calendar quarter.

8. Any violation of this section shall be punishable by a civil penalty of $150.00 for the first offense and $350.00 for every separate offense thereafter. Each day that a violation continues following the first offense shall be deemed as a separate offense. Each business shall receive a total of two (2) written warnings from the County regarding violations of this Section prior to the issuance of civil penalties.

J. Special award signs.

1. Signs announcing a specific award given to a business or other entity may be displayed on the parcel where the business or entity is located.

2. Such signs shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line, shall be located outside of VDOT right of way and shall be located outside of the

30

any sight triangles related to public or private roadways, driveways, or other points of ingress or egress.

6-1003. Applicability A. The Highway Corridor Overlay District shall include all lands within five-hundred (500) feet

of each side of the following arterial rights-of-way, except within the Newport Development Service Overlay (NDSO) District, which is regulated by Section 6-2000.

1. United States Highway Route 58 Business, extending between the corporate

boundary of the City of Suffolk and the City of Franklin;

2. United States Highway Route 258 (outside of the NDSO);

3. United States Highway Route 460;

4. Virginia Highway Route 10 Business and Route 10 Bypass (outside of the NDSO);

5. Virginia Highway Route 32 (outside of the NDSO); and

6. Virginia Highway Route 260.

B. The boundary of the Highway Corridor Overlay District may either follow a fixed distance

as set forth in Item A. above or the defined boundaries of a natural or man-made feature as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

C. The boundary of the Highway Corridor Overlay District shall be shown on the official Isle of

Wight County zoning map and shall be delineated as a surveyed line on any property proposed for development.

Sec. 6-10034. - Affected development.

A. Review required. All proposed development activities located within the Highway Corridor Overlay District shall be reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator and the development review committee in accordance with the regulations contained herein and Part 2 [section 7-2000] of article VII (development review). Any changes shall also receive such approval before proceeding.

B. Development activity permitted within the district. There shall be no expansion or enlargement of the existing condition of the lands, uses or structures, or change in use as defined in section 5-1003, change in use, within the Highway Corridor Overlay District from the date of enactment of this article henceforth, except as provided for by this section or by other sections of this article.

C. Development activity prohibited within the district. These regulations are supplementary to the permitted uses and requirements for the appropriate underlying zoning district as contained in the Isle of Wight County Zoning Ordinance. Uses prohibited in the underlying zoning district are also prohibited in the Highway Corridor Overlay District. (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TDB.)

31

Sec. 6-10045. - Exemptions to the Highway Corridor Overlay District requirements.

A. Single-family dwellings. The construction of detached single-family dwellings on individual lots or parcels within the Highway Corridor Overlay District which are not located within a residential subdivision are exempt from this section. For the purpose of this section, a subdivision shall consist of a minimum of five (5) lots all platted at the same time. Also, construction of detached single-family dwellings on lots or parcels within a residential subdivision are exempt if the subdivision plat was legally recorded prior to adoption of this section.

B. Agricultural structures. The construction of bona fide agricultural structures required for on-premises farming operations involving the cultivation of crops or the raising and keeping of livestock and the preparation of land for cultivation of crops are exempt from this section.

C. Forestry operations. Timbering or silvicultural activities is permitted upon any lot, parcel, or tract of land located within the district except that clear cutting in any district other than lands zoned RAC, shall not occur within at least seventy (70) feet from any of the arterial rights-of-way as designated in section 6-1002.

D. Nonconforming sites developed or platted prior to November 5, 1992. Exemptions, whether partial or total, from Highway Corridor Overlay District site design provisions may be granted by the development review committee in accordance with section 7-2000 (development review) if it can be sufficiently demonstrated that such requirements will create an undue hardship upon an existing situation. In such cases, the development review committee may require, the establishment of shared parking and access easements between adjacent nonconforming properties or other consistent provisions to accomplish the purpose and intent of the district.

1. A one-time exemption may be granted by the zoning administrator for the expansion of an existing developed property to enlarge the total square footage of the principle building by not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area; however, in no case shall such an expansion exceed twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet. Any subsequent future expansion of floor area will require compliance with the standards of this district.

2. A one-time exemption may be granted by the zoning administrator for a single accessory building of no greater than five hundred (500) square feet. Any subsequent future expansion of floor area will require compliance with the standards of this district. (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TBD.)

Sec. 6-10056. - Minimum visual buffer along the corridor right-of-way.

A. A continuous minimum visual buffer of fifty (50) seventy (70) feet shall be provided between the right-of-way line of the subject arterial highway and all proposed structures, vehicular movement and parking areas.

The purpose of the minimum visual buffer is:

1. To soften the appearance of structures, vehicular movements and parking lots areas from the road;

2. To screen vehicular headlight glare on and off-site;

32

3. To lessen spillover light from on-site lighting;

4. To retain the naturally occurring buffer vegetation for its softening effect.

B. Except in the RAC zoning district, no existing vegetation of any type, size, or origin shall be altered or removed within the minimum visual buffer unless it satisfies the requirements of section 6-1007, permitted activity in the minimum visual buffer.

C. This buffer shall be enhanced or created to meet the requirements of the development frontage zone, as specified in article VIII, where existing vegetation does not meet the development frontage zone requirements of article VIII. (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TBD.)

Sec. 6-10067. - Permitted activity in the minimum visual buffer.

A. Within the minimum visual buffer there shall be no development, clearing, grading, or construction activity with the following exceptions:

1. Roadway or driveway access to the portion of the site not in the minimum visual buffer is permitted provided that it is approximately perpendicular to the arterial public right-of-way;

2. Water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electrical, telephone, natural cable, and utility service lines may be installed below the surface of the ground at right angles provided that the natural vegetation is preserved and protected to the greatest extent practicable, and frontage zone landscaping points requirements are met. Where such existing or proposed utility easements substantially reduce the area devoted to landscaping in the buffer below the frontage zone landscaping points requirements, an additional amount of landscaping beyond the fifty (50) seventy (70) feet may be required;

3. Sidewalks, or other pedestrian and bicycle paths designed to provide continuous connection along the road corridor may be permitted, provided that they can be constructed without materially reducing the screening and visual softening capacity of the bufferyard required landscaping;

4. Signs are permitted in accordance with article IX. section 6-1011 (sign regulations in the Highway Corridor Overlay District);

5. Clearing for sight distances is permitted at the entrances and exits to any development as needed to provide for reasonable traffic safety, in accordance with accepted traffic engineering practices recommended or required by the Virginia Department of Transportation;

6. The trimming of existing limbs or branches of preserved trees is permitted, when approved by the zoning administrator.

B. The following cases anticipate those situations where the development review committee may determine that the minimum visual buffer requirements may be reduced or removed:

1. Views and vistas of existing buildings which heighten the visual experience serve as important points of spatial identification or contain value as important historical resources;

2. Views and vistas of existing natural landscape/topographical features of a particular

33

area of the district which correspond to certain high points affording panoramic views, views involving settlement clusters, views of water, tidal and nontidal wetlands, tributary streams, and other elements of the physical landscape;

3. Views and vistas to existing recreational/open space areas, whether natural or manmade, which serve to contribute to the overall visual environment. Such uses include, but are not limited to, golf courses, state or local parks, equestrian centers, and cemeteries, etc.

4. Views and vistas which give the observer an awareness of a location's inherent character related to views of farmland, pastures, and water activities, such as docks or other maritime activities.

C. Where a proposed development intends to further enhance or protect the existing visual environment, the development review committee may exempt, wholly or partially, the proposed development from the required minimum visual buffer. Examples include the following:

1. A proposed development which by virtue of the characteristics of its structures indicates innovation of design, a unique relationship with the site, represents a focal point and establishes a particular identifying element for the county;

2. A proposed development which exhibits innovative or unique uses of site landscaping, or which combines in the use of the site, open recreational areas such as described above. (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TBD.)

Sec. 6-10078. - Yard and height requirements.

A. Yard requirements.

1. The following yard requirements shall apply to any lot or parcel located along the arterial rights-of-way, as designated in section 6-1003;

a. Front yard setback: Fifty (50) feet Seventy (70) feet

b. Side yard setback: Ten (10) feet Twenty (20) feet

c. Rear yard setback Ten (10) feet Thirty (30) feet

2. All lots not located along arterial rights-of-way as designated in section 6-1003 shall follow the yard requirements of the underlying zoning district; however, no structures vehicular parking or movement areas vehicular movements or parking areas, other than to provide perpendicular access to the site, shall be permitted in the setback.

3. All corner lots along arterial rights-of-way with a corner side yard along a street other than an arterial right-of-way shall meet the front setback requirement of the underlying zoning district along the corner side not fronting the arterial. No structures, vehicular movements or parking areas vehicular parking or movement areas, other than to provide perpendicular access to the site, shall be permitted in the setback.

B. Height requirements. The maximum height of all structures shall be as permitted by the underlying zoning district(s) and subsection 5-2000.C, building height limitations. (7-7-05; TBD.)

34

Sec. 6-10089. - Access and internal circulation.

The purpose and intent of this section is to maximize the functional capacity and maintain the level of service of highways within the Highway Corridor Overlay District; to minimize the number of access points to these arterials and other public rights-of-way within the district; to promote the sharing of access and the ability to travel between sites; to provide pedestrian circulation networks among residential, commercial, office, civic and recreational areas; and to enhance safety and convenience for land uses within the district.

A. Access to arterial highways. Access from any parcel or lot having frontage along an arterial highway within the district and in existence prior to November 5, 1992, shall be permitted one (1) direct access point to said highway, unless an access plan is submitted and approved by the zoning administrator and the Virginia Department of Transportation for more than one (1) access point as provided for in subsection D. of this section.

B. Access for two (2) or more lots under singular ownership. If two (2) or more adjacent parcels are placed under one (1) common ownership and/or control, such assembly shall be permitted only one (1) direct access to the arterial highway within the district, unless an access plan is submitted to, and approved by the zoning administrator and the Virginia Department of Transportation for more than one (1) access point.

C. Access from lots or parcels not permitted direct access. Direct access to arterial highways shall be provided by one (1) or more of the following means for lots or parcels not permitted direct access to the arterial, subject to approval by the zoning administrator and the Virginia Department of Transportation:

1. Access to the site may be provided by an existing or planned public road perpendicular to the arterial highway; and/or

2. Access to the site may be provided via the internal circulation of a shopping center, an office complex, or similar group of buildings having access in accordance with an approved access plan; and no additional direct access shall be provided to the site from a public street intended to carry through traffic over and above those entrances which may exist to provide access to the shopping center, office complex, or similar group of buildings; and/or

3. Controlled access to the site may be provided by a service drive generally parallel with the arterial highway, but located behind the minimum visual buffer.yard as defined in section 6-1006.5. (minimum visual buffer along the corridor right-of-way).

4. Access to the site may be provided by the use of reverse frontage or double frontage lot layouts on parallel roads. All minimum buffersyards shall be maintained as required by section 6-1006.5. (minimum visual buffer along the corridor right-of-way).

5. Access to the site may be provided by the use of shared entrances with those established or likely to be required on adjacent sites to minimize curb-cuts or increase spacing between curb-cuts.

6. Access to the site may be provided by the use of deceleration or turning lanes where access must be from the arterial highway with sufficient capacity to avoid

35

stacking or queuing of entering vehicles on the arterial highway, in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards.

The means of access control provided shall be that which effectively minimizes creation of new intersections and new individual site access locations along the corridors and best preserves highway traffic capacity.

D. Access plan. An access plan shall be submitted and approved prior to development plan approval for those lots or parcels which will generate two hundred (200) Average Daily Trips (ADT) or more, or those proposing more than one (1) access point to an arterial highway as governed by the provisions of this section. Such access plan shall be drawn to scale, including dimensions and distances, and clearly delineate the traffic circulation system and the pedestrian and bicycle circulation system as coordinated within the development and adjacent properties including the location and width of all streets, driveways, parking aisles, entrance to parking areas, walkways and bicycle paths. The location of future transit stops shall also be shown within the access plan.

E. Traffic impact analysis. A traffic impact analysis shall be submitted to, and approved by the zoning administrator under the following circumstances:

1. Any proposed development which will generate two hundred (200) average daily trips (ADT) or more based on vehicular trip generation rates as defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers' publication, Trip Generation, or the Virginia Department of Transportation.

2. At the request of the zoning administrator, when the proposed development is expected to significantly impact the vehicular movement on the arterial highways within the district.

The traffic impact analysis shall indicate the cumulative effect of the relationship of the proposed development to traffic and road use in the immediate and surrounding area for the arterial roads and all secondary roads between the arterial roads that serve to provide access to the development.

F. Internal circulation. Sites shall be designed to achieve direct and convenient vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle connections vehicular circulation between adjacent properties and buildings in a single development project. (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TBD.)

Sec. 6-100910. - Architectural and development guidelines for all nonresidential uses.

The compatible relationship of architecture along highways within the Highway Corridor Overlay District is of critical public concern for any structures or site improvements. The purpose and intent of these architectural guidelines and development standards is not to stifle innovative architecture or development, but to assure respect for and to reduce incompatible and adverse impacts on the visual experience from the highway.

A. Architectural guidelines. The architectural design of structures and their materials and colors shall be visually harmonious with the overall appearance, history, and cultural heritage of Isle of Wight County, with natural land forms and existing vegetation. Specific consideration shall be given to compatibility with adjacent properties where such projects demonstrate the county's character. Design and architectural features will demonstrate consistency with the following provisions:

36

1. A shopping center, office complex or similar group of buildings shall be arranged in such a manner to minimize the impact of vehicle parking areas along the arterial with buildings fronting the arterial, and parking being located towards the center of the development away from the arterial. Parking in the side and rear of such sites shall be encouraged.

2. Stucco, natural wood siding, brick, stone, decorative block, cementitous siding or other materials with similar texture and appearance are considered appropriate to county character and shall be provided on all exterior elevations. Vinyl siding, flat or corrugated metal and concrete block shall not be used for exterior siding material on any building, except that vinyl siding may be used as trim material. The exterior covering material shall extend to the ground, except that when a solid brick or masonry perimeter foundation is used, exterior covering material need not extend below the top of the foundation.

3. Avoidance of long monotonous facade designs including, but not limited to, those characterized by unrelieved repetition of shape or form or by unbroken extension of line shall be avoided. Thirty percent (30%) of the square footage of the front wall area of the walls fronting on a street shall be setback or offset at least ten (10) feet from the remaining portion of the wall area fronting on a street.

4. No building facade (whether front, side or rear) will consist of architectural materials inferior in quality, appearance, or detail to any other facade of the same building. The intent of this requirement is not to preclude the use of different materials on different buildings' facades (which would be acceptable if representative of good architectural design), but rather to preclude the use of inferior materials on sides which face adjoining property and thus, might adversely impact existing or future development causing a substantial depreciation of property values.

5. Not less than sixteen percent (16%) of the total area of any facade visible from a public way (excluding work areas) shall consist of windows and doors.

6. Large work area doors or open bays shall not open toward or face the highway.

7. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment, duct work, air compressors and other fixed operating machinery shall be either screened from view or located so that such items are not visible from the highway. Utility meters, aboveground tanks, satellite dishes, antennas, etc., shall be similarly treated.

8. The exterior of the foundation walls shall be of brick or masonry construction, except when the exterior wall material extends to the ground in accordance with subsection 6-1009.A.2.

9. Colors of paints and stains shall be nature-blending with generally no more than three (3) colors per building. Semitransparent stains are recommended for application on natural wood finishes.

10. Entryways and landings visible from public areas should be covered by a roof that is an integrated and compatible component to the roof and architectural treatment of the main structure.

11. Fencing along the highway right-of-way is discouraged, but if used, such fencing

37

shall be landscaped to minimize visibility from the highway or be of a style which is harmonious with the rural, agricultural and historical character of the county. Chain link fences shall be prohibited.

B. Development standards. Proposed development within the district should provide for visual compatibility and harmony with surrounding natural land forms and vegetation; be protective of views and vistas from the arterial highways within the district; and provide continuity of site design within the proposed development. These objectives include the following standards:

1. Earth moving, fill, grading, clearing of property, and the removal of trees and vegetation shall be the minimum necessary to provide for the use. In particular, activities that could cause disruption of natural watercourses or disfiguration of natural landforms are prohibited.

2. Proposed development shall be located and configured in a visually harmonious manner with the terrain and vegetation of the parcel and surrounding parcels. Structures shall not impede scenic views from the main highway or from existing structures and the natural environment.

3. Structures shall not dominate, by excessive or inappropriate height or mass, any general development, adjacent building, or natural landscape in an incompatible manner.

4. Architectural lighting shall be recessed under roof overhangs or generated from concealed source, low level light fixtures.

5. Lighting shall be installed in accordance with article XI (outdoor lighting requirements and restrictions) and shall be arranged to shine inward so that it does not reflect onto adjacent properties or impair the safe movement of traffic.

6. Vehicular movement and parking areas requiring five (5) spaces or more shall be paved with concrete, asphalt, or other similar material. Vehicular movement and parking areas requiring less than five (5) spaces may be surfaced with gravel or other similar material but must be served by paved entrances meeting Virginia Department of Transportation standards. Concrete curb and gutter or other stormwater management structure as approved by the zoning administrator shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic.

7. Outdoor storage and display areas shall be as permitted by the underlying zoning district in the side and rear yards only, provided that all outdoor storage and display areas shall be visually screened from public rights-of-way, internal roadways, and adjacent property using the screening zone standards found in article VIII.

8. Loading areas shall be permitted only in the side or rear yards and shall be visually screened from public rights-of-way, and adjacent property using the screening zone standards found in article VIII.

9. Large trash receptacles, dumpsters and recycling bins, must be completely screened from view of the street and any adjoining lot using the screening zone standards found in article VIII.

38

10. Screening, when required, shall be installed in accordance with the screening zone standards of article VIII and shall be depicted on the landscaping plan.

11. Site development should include streetscape improvements. These improvements are considered as those architectural or functional facilities or structures that occur on-site but are not part of the building and that encourage and facilitate human interaction with the built environment. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following: decorative light fixtures, fountains, sculptures, benches and tables, planters, retaining walls, pedestrian and bicycle paths, bicycle parking structures, trash receptacles and enclosures, vendor areas, and fences. The following streetscape improvements are required:

a. A customized entrance at the entry street intersecting the arterial or collector which features a waterfall, sculpture, monument, signage, ornamental landscaping, specialty pavement, enhanced fence wall details, or boulevard median.

b. Sidewalks, or other pedestrian and bicycle paths, including picnic and rest areas, as appropriate.

These improvements shall be designed to be consistent with all requirements listed above, and shall be reviewed for aesthetic functionality and compatibility with county character.

12. To the greatest extent possible; stormwater management structures and facilities shall be placed outside of the landscaping zones identified in article VIII. When placement of stormwater management structures and facilities in a landscaping zone is demonstrated as unavoidable by the applicant, and approved by the development review committee, and is not prohibited elsewhere in this ordinance, such structure or facility shall be landscaped in a naturalized pattern utilizing native species and the landscaping points required for the area encompassed by the stormwater management structure or facility shall be disbursed throughout the remaining area of the landscaping zone.

13. Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles should be incorporated into site design to maximize public safety through effective design of buildings, parking lots and public spaces. Principles include territoriality, surveillance, and access control. (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TBD.)

Sec. 6-10101. - Reserved.

On Nov. 5, 2009, the section pertaining to sign regulations in Highway Corridor Overlay (HCO) District was deleted. Formerly that section was designated as 6-1011; however, on Aug. 20, 2009, this ordinance was amended to delete section 6-1003 causing the renumbering of the remaining sections. (7-7-05.)

Sec. 6-10112. - Reserved.

On July 21, 2009, the section pertaining to tree protection (formerly designated as 6-1012 but renumbered as 6-1011 by previous amendments) was deleted.

39

Sec. 6-10123. - Reserved.

On July 21, 2010, the section pertaining to landscaping requirements (formerly designated as 6-1013 but renumbered by previous amendments as 6-1012) was deleted.

Sec. 6-10134. - Development plan review.

A. Applicability. All development proposed in the Highway Corridor Overlay District and other applicable projects shall submit a development plan to the zoning administrator for review in accordance with section 7-2000 (development review). (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TBD.)

Sec. 6-10145. - Exceptions.

A. A request for an exception to the requirements of the Highway Corridor Overlay District shall be made in writing to the zoning administrator for consideration by the development review committee in accordance with section 7-2000 (development review). The request shall be accompanied by those documents determined by the zoning administrator to be necessary for the development review committee's consideration of the request.

B. The development review committee in formulating a decision shall consider the following:

1. Such exception shall be no less beneficial to the residents or occupants of the development, as well as neighboring property, that would be obtained under the applicable regulation;

2. That the exception is reasonable because of the high level of design and construction that will be incorporated in the development;

3. That the exception will result in design and construction that is in accordance with accepted engineering and building standards.

C. Applicants shall be informed in writing of the outcomes of the development review committee and the process for appeal to the board of supervisors; in accordance with section 7-2000 (development review) should the request be denied. The board of supervisors, following a recommendation by the planning commission shall direct its determination and findings to the zoning administrator and the applicant in writing not more than five (5) working days after taking action.

D. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision of the board of supervisors may present to the circuit court of the County of Isle of Wight a petition specifying the grounds on which aggrieved within thirty (30) days after the final decision of the board of supervisors. Costs shall not be allowed against the board of supervisors, unless it shall appear to the court that it acted in bad faith or with malice in making the decision appealed therefrom. (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TBD.)

Sec. 6-2005. - Minimum visual buffer along the rights-of-way of arterial highways within the district.

A. A continuous minimum visual buffer of fifty (50) seventy (70) feet shall be provided between the right-of-way line of the subject arterial highway and all proposed structures, vehicular movements and parking areas. For purposes of this section, arterial highways within

40

the district shall be:

1. United States Highway Route 17;

2. United States Highway Route 10;

3. Unites States Highway Route 32 and 258.

B. The purpose of the minimum visual buffer is:

1. To soften the appearance of structures, vehicular movements and parking lots areas from the road;

2. To screen vehicular headlight glare on- and off-site;

3. To lessen spillover light from on-site lighting;

4. To retain the naturally occurring buffer vegetation intact for its softening effect.

C. Except in the RAC zoning district, no existing vegetation of any type, size, or origin shall be altered or removed within the minimum visual buffer unless it satisfies the requirements of section 6-2006, permitted activity in the minimum visual buffer.

D. This buffer shall be enhanced or created, where such vegetation does not sufficiently satisfy the standards set forth in article VIII for the development frontage zone. (7-7-05; TBD.)

Sec. 6-2006. - Permitted activity in the minimum visual buffer.

A. Within the minimum visual buffer there shall be no development, clearing, grading, or construction activity with the following exceptions:

1. Roadway or driveway access to the portion of the site not in the minimum visual buffer is permitted to the portion of the site not in the minimum visual buffer is permitted provided that it is approximately perpendicular to the arterial public right-of-way;

2. Water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electrical, telephone, natural cable, and utility service lines may be installed below the surface of the ground at right angles, provided that the natural vegetation is preserved and protected to the greatest extent practicable, and frontage zone landscaping points requirements are met;

3. Sidewalks, pedestrian pathways and bicycle paths designed to provide continuous connection along the road corridor may be permitted, provided that they can be constructed without materially reducing the screening and visual softening capacity of the bufferyard required landscaping;

4. Signs are permitted in accordance with article IX;

5. Clearing for sight distances is permitted at the entrances and exits to any development as needed to provide for reasonable traffic safety, in accordance with accepted traffic engineering practices recommended or required by the Virginia Department of Transportation;

6. The trimming of existing limbs or branches of preserved trees is permitted when

41

approved by the zoning administrator;

7. When, in the opinion of the zoning administrator, the addition of plantings and earthen berms or masonry walls would better achieve the purposes of this district in lieu of the landscaping requirements of the frontage zone. retaining existing vegetation landscape option IV of section 8-1006 (landscaping grid) shall be utilized.

B. The following cases anticipate those situations where the development review committee may determine that the minimum visual buffer requirements may be reduced or removed:

1. Views and vistas of existing buildings which heighten the visual experience serve as important points of spatial identification or contain value as important historical resources;

2. Views and vistas of existing natural landscape/topographical features of a particular area of the district which correspond to certain high points affording panoramic views, views involving existing patterns of development, views of water, tidal and nontidal wetlands, tributary streams, and other elements of the physical landscape;

3. Views and vistas to existing recreational/open space areas, whether natural or manmade, which serve to contribute to the overall visual environment. Such uses include, but are not limited to, golf courses, state or local parks, equestrian centers, cemeteries;

4. Views and vistas which give the observer an awareness of a location's inherent character related to views of farmland, pastures, and water activities, such as docks or other maritime activities.

C. Where a proposed development intends to further enhance or protect the existing visual environment, the development review committee may exempt, wholly or partially, the proposed development from the required minimum visual buffer. Examples include the following:

1. A proposed development, which by virtue of the characteristics of its structures indicates innovation of design, a unique relationship with the site, represents a focal point and establishes a particular identifying element for the county;

2. A proposed development which exhibits innovative or unique uses of site landscaping, or which combines in the use of the site, open recreational areas such as described above (7-7-05; 8-20-09; TBD.)

Sec. 6-2007. - Yard and height requirements.

A. Yard requirements.

1. All parcels in the Newport Development Service Overlay District along arterial highways, as designated in section 6-2005, minimum visual buffer along the rights-of-way of arterial highways, within the district, shall comply with the following setbacks:

a. Front yard setback: Fifty (50) Seventy (70) feet

b. Side yard setback: Ten (10) Twenty (20) feet

c. Rear yard setback: Ten (10) Thirty (30) feet

2. All lots not located along arterial highways, as designated in section 6-2005, minimum

42

visual buffer along the rights-of-way of arterial highways within the district, shall follow the yard requirements as designated by the underlying zoning district; however, no structures, vehicle parking or vehicular movement areas vehicular movements or parking areas other than to provide perpendicular access to the site, shall be permitted in the setback.

3. All corner lots along arterial rights-of-way with a corner side yard along a street other than an arterial right-of-way shall meet the front setback requirement of the underlying zoning district along the corner side not fronting the arterial. No structures, vehicular movements or parking areas vehicle parking or movement areas, other than to provide perpendicular access to the site, shall be permitted in the setback.

B. Height requirements. The maximum height of all structures shall be as permitted by the underlying zoning district(s). (7-7-05; 2-13-07; TBD.)

Regarding Temporary Signs, Commissioner Blythe inquired if VDOT or the

County enforces signs that are in VDOT’s right-of-way.

Mr. Smolnik responded that he does not know, but he believes that some

municipalities have an agreement with VDOT. He further stated that there was

legislation that was just approved in Richmond.

County Attorney Popovich stated that the legislation is an attempt to

formulize a provision that states that the locality can enter into a formal agreement

with the VDOT secretary and impose restrictions on putting signs in the right-of-

way.

Commissioner Blythe inquired if “sports registration signs” really need to be

written into the ordinance.

Mr. Smolnik stated that it has never been enforced in this County. Staff

wanted to be proactive and allow it. A lot of the municipalities that he polled did

not allow sports sign-up signs.

Commissioner Dempsey left the meeting at 8:35 p.m.

Commissioner Guill stated that what bothers her most is that some of these

things were public hearings and were sent to the Small Business Committee (SBC),

but they either, through lack of response or proactively saying that it looks fine,

was forwarded to BOS with a recommendation from the Planning Commission and

43

the Board held its public hearings. Now it comes back with changes; especially the

temporary signs again after all those attempts to involve the public. It basically

gets changed because of one (1) person.

Commissioner Blythe stated that the penalty was the biggest opposition that

he had, and he simply thinks it is very anti-business.

Commissioner Guill stated that the penalty was put in place because there

are some business owners who play the game all the time.

Commissioner Ford inquired if this proposed amendment would rectify the

situation with the bright colored sign that is still out there.

Mr. Smolnik stated that they thought that they had a good ordinance back in

June. He further stated that only three (3) citizens spoke during the public hearing

and there was very little input at all the public meetings. When you put it out there

and don’t get public feedback it is hard to gauge whether or not it works. It was

only after it was enacted when they received several complaints and issues. It is

very difficult to figure out what they need if you do not hear from them.

Vice-Chairman Gordon expressed that he is concerned about an 8 foot

sandwich sign on a sidewalk. He stated that an eight (8) foot by two (2) foot sign

is very unstable.

Commissioner Saunders stated that the width should be a factor of its height.

If you are going to have a four (4) foot maximum height he could see a two (2)

foot maximum width. The sign stability is a factor. The height has to be a ratio to

the width. He further stated that he thinks that the majority of signs that are being

used on the sidewalks are within the four (4) foot height and two (2) foot width.

Chairman O’Briant expressed that he thinks that is reasonable.

Mr. Smolnik stated that initially it was four (4) by two and half (2.5) feet.

44

Commissioner Frischmann expressed that he thinks that they should go back

to that.

Mr. Smolnik stated that he could make that change.

Vice-Chairman Gordon stated that it should be clarified whether it is private

or public property.

Vice-Chairman Gordon left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

Commissioner Guill inquired about displaying signs for 30 days.

Mr. Smolnik stated that staff drafted and proposed ten (10) days per calendar

month to the SBC. They said it was too much and backed it down to 14 days,

which got approved. Now, some of the same business owners are rethinking it.

So, they are thinking about 30 days a quarter, 120 days a year. It is less than what

staff was initially proposing.

Mr. Smolnik reiterated the following changes as discussed: change the

sandwich board sign height from eight (8) feet to four (4) feet, and research public

versus private property.

Regarding Yard and Height requirements, Commissioner Saunders

expressed that he thinks the reduction to 50 feet from 70 feet is good.

Commission Guill stated that she worries a little bit about the ten (10) foot

buffer. It is much more common around here that commercial is along the frontage

and neighborhoods are in the back, so reducing the rear yard just makes it closer to

the neighborhoods.

Ms. Walkup stated that the Comprehensive Plan and the Development

Service Districts (DSDs)are really promoting Traditional Neighborhood Designs

(TNDs). They don’t separate the residential from the commercial facilities.

Basically, everything is in walking distance and there is no separation. The

residential and commercial is coexisting, just like a town center. So, they have

45

used that same logic and applied it here. She advised that staff can go back and

look at the residential adjacent to commercial. Staff could look at putting language

in such as “existing residential development”.

Commissioner Blythe moved to advertise the proposed ordinance

amendment with the noted corrections for public hearing at the Commission’s

regular June meeting. Commissioner Ford seconded the motion, which was

adopted with Commissioners O’Briant, Brown, Ford, Saunders, Guill Frischmann

and Blythe voting in favor of the motion; no Commissioners voting against the

motion; and Commissioners Gordon, Dempsey, Rosie, and Minton absent for the

vote (7-0).

Also, under New Business, Chairman O’Briant directed staff to included

rescheduling the regular July meeting date as an item on the Planning

Commission’s June agenda.

There being no further business, Chairman O’Briant adjourned the meeting

at 9:30 p.m.

Adopted this _______day of ___________________2012.

______________________________Chairman, Isle of Wight County Planning Commission

Attest:__________________________ Melinda J. Goodwyn, Secretary