Regular Meeting – July 28, 2010
Regular Meeting, Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 7:00 p.m. Government Center, Verona, VA.
PRESENT: Gerald W. Garber, Chairman
Jeremy L. Shifflett, Vice-Chairman
David R. Beyeler
Wendell L. Coleman
Larry C. Howdyshell
Tracy C. Pyles, Jr.
Nancy Taylor Sorrells
Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney
Timmy Fitzgerald, Director of Community Development
Becky Earhart, Senior Planner
Jennifer M. Whetzel, Director of Finance
John C. McGehee, Assistant County Administrator
Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator
Rita R. Austin, CMC, Executive Secretary
VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Augusta County Board of Supervisors held on Wednesday, July 28, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., at the Government Center, Verona, Virginia, and in the 235th year of the Commonwealth….
Chairman Garber welcomed the citizens present and reminded them to remove their hats and turn off their cell phones.
McKinsey Harris, of T.V. 3, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Wendell L. Coleman, Supervisor for the Wayne District, delivered invocation.
DEERFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER LAND TRUSTEES – PUBLIC USE OVERLAY
The Board considered a request to add the Public Use Overlay Zoning Designation to approximately 4.9 acres owned by the Deerfield Community Center Land Trustees located on the west side of Marble Valley Road (Route 600) approximately 0.1 of a mile south of the intersection with Deerfield Valley Road (Route 629) in Deerfield (Pastures District).
The Planning Commission recommends approval with proffers.
Becky Earhart, Senior Planner, displayed the property outlined in pink and advised that the applicant submitted the following proffer:
1. Additional permitted uses of the property will be limited to:
a. Community centers and similar facilities b. Library c. Carnivals, circuses, fairs, festivals, revivals, animal shows, exhibitions, and similar special events not permitted under 25-21 of this Chapter.
d. Meeting places and offices of civic clubs, fraternities, lodges and other organizations e. Active and passive recreational facilities, including picnic shelters, gazebos, basketball court (unlighted), and walking trails.
The property is zoned General Agriculture and will remain zoned General Agriculture.
The Public Use Overlay allows the applicant to do certain things without having to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for an amendment to their Special Use Permit.
Currently, this property is a County facility (Library and Park in Deerfield) where they are operating under a Special Use Permit. The Public Use Overlay allows them more flexibility.
This property is in a Community Development Area and is designated as a Rural Community.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
DEERFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER LAND TRUSTEES – PUBLIC USE OVERLAY
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Pyles thanked Mr. Smith from the Deerfield Ruritan Club for being present and asked if he had any comments.
Mr. Ron Smith, President of the Deerfield Ruritan Club, advised that the property has been used for many things for the community. Currently, it is providing employment for six people. Mr. Smith was available to answer questions.
Mr. Coleman, as a fellow Ruritan member, commended the Deerfield Ruritan Club for what it has done and continues to do. “It is immeasurable the kinds of contributions that organizations like you are a member of that continue to make our communities a place to raise a family and to work. Thank you.” Mr. Pyles moved, seconded by Mr. Coleman, that the Board adopt the following ordinance with proffers:
A request to add the Public Use Overlay Zoning Designation to approximately 4.9 acres owned by the Deerfield Community Center Land Trustees located on the west side of Marble Valley Road (Route 600) approximately 0.1 of a mile south of the intersection with Deerfield Valley Road (Route 629) in Deerfield in Pastures District.
AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 25 “Zoning” of the Code of Augusta County, Virginia.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Board of Supervisors to amend the Augusta County Zoning Maps, WHEREAS, the Augusta County Planning Commission, after a public hearing, has made their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has conducted a public hearing, WHEREAS, both the Commission and Board public hearings have been properly advertised and all public notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia properly completed, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the application, the Planning Commission recommendation and the comments presented at the public hearing; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors that the Augusta County Zoning Maps be amended as follows:
Parcel number 19B on tax map number 40 containing approximately 4.9 acres is changed to add the Public Use Overlay with the following proffer:
2. Additional permitted uses of the property will be limited to:
a. Community centers and similar facilities b. Library c. Carnivals, circuses, fairs, festivals, revivals, animal shows, exhibitions, and similar special events not permitted under 25-21 of this Chapter.
d. Meeting places and offices of civic clubs, fraternities, lodges and other organizations
DEERFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER LAND TRUSTEES – PUBLIC USE OVERLAY
e. Active and passive recreational facilities, including picnic shelters, gazebos, basketball court (unlighted), and walking trails.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The Board considered an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of Augusta County by adding “Further processing of meat products for human consumption, provided that, on the premises, no livestock, fish or poultry are killed” to the list of Permitted Uses in the General Industrial zoning district. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
Ms. Earhart advised that this amendment will be added to the list of Permitted Uses in the General Industrial zoning district.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Mr. Shifflett, that the Board adopt the following ordinance:
An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of Augusta County by adding “Further processing of meat products for human consumption: to the list of Permitted Uses in the General Industrial zoning district.
§ 25-382. Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted within General Industrial Districts without Administrative or Special Use Permit:
A. Any manufacturing use except those listed in § 25-384.
B. Assembly, fabrication, processing, or packaging of products including the except animal product processing plants further processing of meat products for human consumption, provided that, on the premises, no livestock, fish or poultry are killed.
C. Machine work shops, including, but not necessarily limited to: tool and die, welding, and sheet metal shops.
D. Printing service establishments, publishing plants and offices, and lithographing shops.
E. Research, experimental testing or development activities.
F. Postal service, including overnight courier collection and overnight mail distribution facilities.
G. Religious institutions.
H. Wholesale businesses, warehouses, distribution centers or freight and truck terminals, including public utility offices, shops and storage yards. Note: Mini-warehouses for public use are permitted only by Administrative Permit.
I. Active and passive recreational facilities.
J. Travel plazas and truck stops. (Ord. 11/23/99, eff. 1/1/2000) K. Sawmills.
L. Feed, grain, and fertilizer sales, storage, and handling facilities.
M. Batching plants for asphalt, cement, or concrete.
(Ord. 11/26/02; effective 1/1/03) Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The Board considered an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of Augusta County by adding “Wood processing businesses” to the list of Special Use Permit uses in the General Business zoning district and establishing performance standards to be considered when approving such a permit. Standards include, but are not limited to, such provisions as, the minimum lot size for a wood processing business shall be 10 acres and all buildings, and structures and operations will be setback at least one hundred feet (100’) from all property lines. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
Ms. Earhart advised that this amendment would be limited to firewood production permitted by Special Use Permit. Seven different criteria have been established that would be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine if the use could be utilized on the site:
1. The minimum lot size for a wood processing business shall be 10 acres.
2. All buildings, structures and operations will be setback at least one hundred feet (100’) from all property lines unless the board of zoning appeals determines that greater setbacks are necessary to adequately protect neighboring properties from noise, light, dust, odor, fumes and vibrations.
3. Traffic generated by the proposed project will be compatible with the roads serving the site and other traffic utilizing said roads; and 4. If within sight of an Interstate Highway, the view from the Interstate Highway is made as pleasant and inviting as possible giving consideration to the value of scenic surroundings to residents, tourists and commercial development.
5. A site plan is filed meeting the requirements of division J article LXVII “Site Plan Review”, approved and followed which clearly delineates the areas intended for outdoor storage and complies with the requirements of this chapter; and 6. Outdoor storage areas will not interfere with convenient, easily accessible parking for the public. Areas delineated on the site plan for parking or aisleways may not be used for outdoor storage; and 7. Outdoor storage areas will be proportionately appropriate in size and scope to the nature of the business.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
Joseph Williams, of Williams Brothers Tree and Lawn Service, thanked the Board for its consideration and noted that it would improve their business to be able to recycle a by- product of their business on 14 acres. It provides jobs to local residents during the off- season and keeps waste down at the Landfill. It also provides Augusta County residents with heat and will allow Williams Brothers to be in full compliance with the County ordinance.
There being no other speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Sorrells moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board adopt the following ordinance:
An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of Augusta County by adding “Wood processing businesses” to the list of Special Use Permit uses in the General Business zoning district and establishing performance standards to be considered when approving such a permit.
§ 25-304. Uses permitted by Special Use Permit.
The uses listed in this section shall be permitted within General Business Districts only upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the provisions of article LVIII of division I of this chapter.
(ADDING NEW SCTION)
L. Wood processing businesses.
Wood processing businesses, limited to firewood production may be permitted by Special Use Permit provided:
1. The minimum lot size for a wood processing business shall be 10 acres.
2. All buildings, structures and operations will be setback at least one hundred feet (100’) from all property lines unless the board of zoning appeals determines that greater setbacks are necessary to adequately protect neighboring properties from noise, light, dust, odor, fumes and vibrations.
3. Traffic generated by the proposed project will be compatible with the roads serving the site and other traffic utilizing said roads; and 4. If within sight of an Interstate Highway, the view from the Interstate Highway is made as pleasant and inviting as possible giving consideration to the value of scenic surroundings to residents, tourists and commercial development.
5. A site plan is filed meeting the requirements of division J article LXVII “Site Plan Review”, approved and followed which clearly delineates the areas intended for outdoor storage and complies with the requirements of this chapter; and 6. Outdoor storage areas will not interfere with convenient, easily accessible parking for the public. Areas delineated on the site plan for parking or aisleways may not be used for outdoor storage; and 7. Outdoor storage areas will be proportionately appropriate in size and scope to the nature of the business.
Mr. Beyeler noted that Dennis Burnett, Economic Development Director, had worked on all three of these projects and stated, “These are some of the benefits of having him on board.” Chairman Garber expressed that he hoped that these actions would lead to a few more jobs. “We have tried to be flexible. It is difficult, when you write ordinances, to have something that doesn’t help you in one spot and hurts you somewhere else. I can tell you the goal is to try to continue to make this user-friendly so people can put people to work.” Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
Edward Carter expressed concern of fireworks policy and asked for clarification of enforcement. Chairman Garber advised that a reply could not be given tonight, but Mr. Carter would be given an explanation.
Mr. Pyles mentioned that Mr. Coleman had questioned fireworks a few weeks ago and that Mr. Rosenberg, former County Attorney, had done some research. He understood that there was a code in the State and that the County did not do anything. It was not being enforced (possibly because of lack of manpower). He felt that Mr. Carter needed a clarification.
LICENSE TAX FOR WINERIES – ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The Board considered authorization for public hearing for ordinance to amend Section 12-81 of the Augusta County Code to adjust the license tax for wineries based on a change in the State Code.
Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney, advised that the Commissioner of Revenue has asked that the Board consider an amendment to the Business License taxes that are charged at various activities to bring them in compliance with the State Code, specifically, the State wanted to encourage the growth of wineries in the Commonwealth and has reduced the maximum license fee that can be charged to a winery or a farm winery from $1,000 to $50. The other change that the Commissioner requested was an increase from $20 to $25 per annum the license fee for retail on-premises beer license for hotels, restaurants or club; and for each retail off-premises beer license. A question was asked at Monday’s Staff Briefing as to why that was added. The Commissioner of Revenue informed Mr. Morgan that this particular ordinance has always matched what was the maximum permitted by the State Code and the State Code had increased that amount.
Mr. Beyeler opposed raising fees at this time.
Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Mr. Shifflett, that the Board authorize staff to advertise for public hearing and strike the $25 and leave it at $20.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
SHENANDOAH VALLEY SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING
The Board considered bids for the removal, disposal and installation of five rooftop HVAC units located at the Shenandoah Valley Social Services Building.
Funding Source: Building & Grounds Account #80000-8198 $74,330
SHENANDOAH VALLEY SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING
John C. McGehee, Assistant County Administrator, advised that ten bids were received for five rooftop HVAC units that serve the Social Services Building. High bid was $134,350; low bid was $74,330 from Ronnie Ritchie. Mr. McGehee recommended the Board to accept the low bid. He noted that the existing units are approximately 18 years old and are experiencing problems with them. The building depreciation account (#70- 80000-8198) will be the funding source.
Mr. Coleman moved, seconded by Ms. Sorrells, that the Board award the bid to Ronnie Ritchie Service Co., Inc. in an amount not to exceed $74,330.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
RIVERHEADS BULK WATER SYSTEM
The Board considered funding for purchase and installation of system per ACSA report.
Funding Source: Riverheads Infrastructure Account #80000-8015-54 $78,000 Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator, reported that this had been discussed at the Staff Briefing on Monday. The project breakdown is Equipment – $38,325; Site Preparation – $40,000, totaling $78,325. The Board previously approved, on September 23, 2009, $5,000 for this project. This will be done by the current builder for the Riverheads Fire Station.
Ms. Sorrells said this would be a great service to the citizens in the Riverheads District.
Ms. Sorrells moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board approve the request.
Mr. Howdyshell added that the Service Authority will maintain the service but will not be responsible for replacing the unit. Ms. Sorrells added that the electric bill will be run through the Fire-Rescue Station.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT
The Board considered authorization for public hearing for the addition of a Planned Commerce District to the Zoning Ordinance.
Timmy Fitzgerald, Director of Community Development, reported that a presentation was given at the Staff Briefing on Monday sharing with the Board what the benefits of adding a Planned Commerce District would be and how some flexibility could be added to encourage development of property. Modifications requested by the Board were distributed to the Board.
Becky Earhart, Senior Planner, reviewed the modifications with the Board. The Board had asked for the sales, lease, repair, service, or storage of vehicles category to be moved from the prohibited uses action to being permitted on sites with buildings that are in existence at the time the ordinance is adopted. If it is specifically identified on the Concept Plan as a potential use, when the Concept Plan is approved as part of the rezoning, the following criteria would be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. The business and anticipated enlargements thereof will be appropriate for the area in which it is to be located; and 2. A site plan meeting the requirements of division J article LXVII “Site Plan Review”, is filed, approved and followed which clearly delineates the areas intended for the sales, repair, service, or storage of vehicles, tractors, trucks or boats; and 3. Display and storage areas for the vehicles, tractors, trucks or boats are set back at least twenty-five feet (25’) from the edge of pavement of any adjoining roads, and in no case shall a display area be within the right-of-way of any road.
Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the ability of the Board of Zoning Appeals to require larger setbacks or appropriate screening when necessary to adequately protect neighboring properties; and 4. Outside display or outside storage of junk or inoperable vehicles, tractors, trucks, or boats is prohibited; and 5. There is an adequate plan for protection from fire and other hazards.
Ms. Earhart stated that this addition would be included in the draft ordinance.
Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Ms. Sorrells, that the Board authorize staff to advertise the ordinance for public hearing for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings in August.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2009 BILL –
RESOLUTION
The Board considered resolution opposing the Mandatory Collective Bargaining Legislation.
Mr. McGehee read the resolution on a matter that is currently under consideration by the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Coleman moved, seconded by Ms. Sorrells, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the United States Congress is considering the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 (House Bill 413 and Senate Bill 1611); and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation mandates state and local governments to enter into collective bargaining agreements with their Public Safety employees and more specifically it provides minimum collective bargaining standards for state and local Police, Firefighters and Emergency Medical personnel ; and WHEREAS, this proposed legislation sets aside approximately 75 years of legal precedent that was established by the National Labor Relations Act of 1934 (Taft Hartley). That act specifically exempts state and local governments from coverage; and
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2009 BILL –
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Virginia has already given Emergency Services employees in state and local governments additional and enhanced benefits which include retirement, workman’s compensation with certain health conditions, and the Firefighters Bill of Rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, let it be resolved the meeting on July 28, 2010, in regular session, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors, hereby strongly opposes the enactment of House Bill 413 and/or Senate Bill 1611 – the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009.
BE IT STILL FUTHER RESOLVED, that the Augusta County Board of Supervisors believes the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 would place an undue administrative and financial burden on all localities and states in the nation, at a time when these government entities are facing unprecedented budget demands due to the economy.
BE IT STILL FUTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Honorable Congressman Robert Goodlatte, the Honorable Senator James Webb, and the Honorable Senator Mark Warner and spread upon the minutes of the Augusta County Board of Supervisors.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
STAGGERED TERM PETITION DRIVE
The Board considered request of Supervisor Pyles to have County Attorney review petition wording/format.
David Karaffa, from Waynesboro, discussed two items:
1. Waiver Request: David Karaffa asked why a waiver request was being made.
Mr. Fitzgerald displayed the property and advised that the request for the waiver is to leave the tree-line in place and not remove and replace it with a different type of buffer. There is a site plan in Community Development for a development of a daycare operation facility. Mr. Beyeler added that this was out on Route 340 near the tennis courts.
2. Staggered Term Petition Drive: He felt that it would be reasonable to get advice from the County Attorney as to the format of the petition.
Chairman Garber made the following statement:
Before we take that up, I have had some discussions with the County Attorney. We’ve had some other discussions with other people. I don’t think it is quite as simple as it first seems.
Every member of this Board certainly can go to the County Attorney when we’re asking procedurally how we’re going to approach something. The real issue is in this case, which side of the vote this was on. I know that I asked questions prior to this issue coming up. I asked for a timeline, a list of which things we were going to consider, what-not—those were all listed. If you recall, I asked for those and I was also on the losing end of that vote. But the real issue here, now, is do we pass this vote on whether or not the County Attorney should be representing this issue. We have asked that question outside of this building.
Mr. Morgan reported:
There was concern Monday of the majority having spoken on this issue of the County Attorney being asked to give legal advice on a minority position as to the legality of the petition that Mr. Pyles wants to circulate. Not being exceedingly comfortable with an answer one way or the other, I did take the time today to contact the Virginia State Bar Ethics Hotline and talked to the attorneys there and have been advised that it would not be ethical for me to give legal advice to the minority opinion now that the majority of the Board has spoken even though it was a very narrow majority and I did discuss that with the attorney.
Mr. Pyles made the following statement:
That’s an opinion and this shouldn’t be an agenda item. This should have just been allowed.
What I was asking here was not about what this Board voted on. This Board only voted on whether or not to have a public hearing to consider an ordinance. They did not vote on whether or not I should be allowed to do a petition. This is about the ability of a Supervisor to do his job to what Mr. Karaffa said was the ‘work of my station’. Doing a lot of thinking of things and Ms. Sorrells brought up when she was opposing hearing the public, she referenced Edmond Burke. When you start talking about writers of democracy and philosophy and how we came to be where we are, you’re kind of in my wheel-house. The Edmond Burke letter to Parliament in 1766 is something I gave to all Board members my first year on the Board to say this is how I believe government ought to be done. This is what my stand will be. What Ms. Sorrells took from that is not fully thought out. I’ve got it here. I read a lot of stuff. I care about process. I care about what I’m doing. What Burke was trying to say was you cannot be run over by the majority. You have a responsibility to hear. What he said, when Ms. Sorrells says ‘We don’t need to hear from the public,’ he says, ‘Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in a strict union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.
Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unlimited attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions to theirs. And above all and ever, in all cases, to purview their own interests to them.’ He is saying that you ought to at least listen to them. And then, he goes on to say, ‘But once you have had that reasonable discussion, it is up to you to carry it the way you want. My worthy colleague says, ‘His will ought to be subservient to your if that be all the things innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours without question, ought to be the superior. But government and legislation on matters of reason and judgment and not of inclination. What sort of reason is that in which the determination proceeds the discussion in which one set of men deliberate and another decide?’ What kind of reason is it that which is settled before the discussion? We were going to have a public hearing where we could have a discussion, where we could hear the arguments and then decide. He was about you decide after you hear. You don’t decide before you hear. But, mainly, he is talking about you cannot just give into the majority. You have to do what you believe is right.
But the person, I think, is greater on point with this is Alexis de Tocqueville. His work Democracy in America – we study it in Political Science; you study it in Government. He said a lot of things. What he saw, when he came here, he’s a French nobleman . . . When he came here and reviewed American Democracy, he pointed out a concern, which he called the tyranny of majority where the majority of the people, who are the society, could make it tempting for everyone to jump on his bandwagon or suffer ostracism . You could go along or they are going to take care of you. What he writes further, ‘In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion. With whom these barriers are where he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond that. Not that he is in danger of an “auto-da-fe” (a public act of penance) but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever and since he has offended the only authority, which is able to open it, every sort of compensation, even that of a celebrity, is refused to him. Before publishing his opinion, he imagined that he held them in common with others, but no sooner has he declared them, than he was loudly censored by his opponents while those who think like him, without having the courage to speak out, abandoned him in silence. He yields at length overcome by the daily effort which he has to make and subsides into silence as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.
There are a lot of people who speak to me and say, ‘Don’t use my name’. There are people in this building who come to me and talk about not getting pay raises and think they have no one to look out for them, but this Board seems to have a lot of money for other things. There are people from Fire and Rescue who have come and complained about the Riverheads things, how that agency is treated differently and what they are up against and where their funding hasn’t come from but they say, ‘Don’t use my name.’ If they don’t think that. . . the way this Board has penalized me is easy for them to see how small this Board can become if you don’t roll over for you; if you don’t get in line.
Most of these things I have taken quietly, but there has been lots of little cuts and pricks that have been given to me from this Board and I will just go over some of them here and now so you will know what we’re talking about. On March 16, 2006, I was to be appointed to the Service Authority. Mr. Beyeler opposed appointing a Board member, he said, to serve with the Service Authority. So he abstained from voting.
Fast forward four years later when Mr. Garber wishes to be on the Service Authority, and guess what, Mr. Beyeler, immediately seconded by Mr. Shifflett, that the Board appoint Mr. Howdyshell and then later Mr. Garber to the Board. So if he wanted to say he was opposed to me, he ought to have said it. I see a lot of changes in how people approach things. They are not principles; they’re the majority rule.
Here we have . . . This was January 2007. This is Chairman Sorrells: ‘I also want to thank Mr. Pyles for suggesting our Chair rotation just after the 2003 elections that brought us together on this Board. In an e-mail he wrote, ‘Something that has hurt the Board of Supervisors for the past 8 years has been the process of naming a Chairman/woman.
This doesn’t have to be if we rotate the position. The positives far outweigh the negatives in my estimation.’ He went on to suggest the chair & vice chair rotation that has carried us through to this, our final year together. It was a good suggestion in 2003 and remains good today. Thank you Mr. Pyles.’ Fast forward to the next year, when I’m Vice-Chairman and I meet with Ms. Sorrells to say, ‘Are you still with rotation?’ Ms. Sorrells said, ‘Well, no, not for you this year, but if you get in line, we’ll consider you in the future.’ If I get in line. Do you remember saying that, Ms. Sorrells?
Ms. Sorrells’ response:
I did not say that. I said if you act appropriately.
Mr. Pyles statement:
So she said you get in line. But there it is. The Chairmanship was going to be either an award or a punishment. You either get in line or you get out. Ms. Sorrells did not have such a pleasant year the year before she was elected. Many members of this Board, that were on the Board then, were very upset with how Ms. Sorrells went through the rezoning for the attempts for Toyota feeling like she was letting information out, conspiring with Ms. Hamilton, attending the meetings, a lot of people were upset with her and didn’t think she acted appropriately. Mr. Coleman was Chairman at that time and it seemed to me he expressed that he was trying to keep things under lid that he had talked to the Governor and he had talked to other people. We were just doing our due diligence, but people still put Ms. Sorrells in. So, what they’re saying, whether I act appropriately, if I acted appropriately in line with what Ms. Sorrells sees is appropriate, than I could get in line. I didn’t think how Ms. Sorrells worked that year was appropriate, but we still put her in, but there was a different condition for me.
I was prohibited, as we said, from speaking on Crescent Development. That’s never happened to anybody before. You’ve got Mr. Smith here from the Deerfield Community Center. We were having a rough and tumble budget meeting. We were talking about travel expenses; we were talking about SPCA; and I incurred the wrath of Mr. Beyeler and others and it was taken out on the Deerfield community. We had ten community centers that were receiving funding. One community center got cut. All the others got raised. Deerfield was cut from $3,000 to $1,250. All the others were raised to $1,250. That’s their penalty for having me go against the majority. Then, that day, this Board will remember that, I sat alone trying to eat my lunch, when Mr. Beyeler came roaring up to me, came up to me; I stood up and he would not leave my presence. He was blistering me about the travel expenses and I asked him to please go away; please go away; please go away. He would not leave my presence, although, I was separated from the rest. I had to leave the cafeteria without eating my lunch because of his bullying antics. There wasn’t anybody from the Board say he shouldn’t act like that; we’re sorry about that; sorry you missed your lunch; nobody brought me a cookie, I don’t expect it. But, you know, that’s what happened.
We had, last year, a thing came up for the Boys and Girls Club end of the year.
Some people wanted to help them out. It’s a service group, does a good thing. Few of them wanted it donated; fine by me, but they got to where Mr. Howdyshell asked, ‘Well, we got this many on it, why don’t we share it from Infrastructure?’ Mr. Coffield said, ‘We’ve never done that; that’s only Parks and Rec.’ And I said, ‘Don’t take my Infrastructure money, I really have things I need to do with Infrastructure money.’ Only time any member of this Board ever had Infrastructure money taken from their account against their will. They did that to me.
Pastures Rural Rustic Roads came up just a couple of months ago. Mr. Beyeler would not vote for Rural Rustic Roads in the Pastures District. He said that money ought to go to the Riverheads Fire Station. Has that ever been done before? Somebody not vote for Rural Rustic Roads?
E-mail information—I found out later that members of this Board were asking to be advised of all my e-mails, what I was asking for, what I was trying to do. You know, if you want to know what I’m doing, I’ll copy people on anything. I don’t care about it, but it’s just that smallness I don’t think they’ve done that to anyone else.
Central Shenandoah Planning Commission—14 years I was on the Commission.
Every year I was on the Executive Board. Every year I was elected to the office. I was the sitting Chairman at that time. Sitting Chairman, we had just gone through the change of a Director, our second change in the matter of three years. We were getting through it; we were hiring some good people; we were changing some things and bringing it up. I was an asset for the staff of that Board. I’m the first person that was ever not reappointed to a Commission Board member who wanted to stay on. That’s a different treatment for me than for other people.
Mr. Beyeler thought I was asking for too much information both on a Fire and Rescue and then Freedom of Information. He said that if it’s going to be a Freedom of Information request, that I needed to pay for it. I never said that I wouldn’t, but I asked it of Ms. Shrewsbury. She is required to tell me. The Freedom of Information Act says that if it is going to cost more than $200, you must tell the person first so they can make the decision whether they wanted to go forward with it or not. Instead of asking me to pay for it to say I was going to do that, she sent out, said it cost this much, and didn’t say anything about paying for it. Mr. Beyeler said, ‘Well, you know, he needs to pay for it’. Well, you know one of the things . . . all I was trying to do was get something that should have been simple. If it cost $200, it is from the lack of a good computer organization because you ought to be able to print last year’s bills and this year’s bills next to one another. She said she had to through all that sort of stuff to make it happen.
Then comes this thing about attorney work. I have had attorneys do things for me— things that this Board said no for before. The changing of fireworks and we said, no, we wouldn’t do it. I was asking a question about that.
I had Mr. Plunkett prepare for me a form that he did called “Voluntary Taxation”. The Access Group, from Waynesboro, I went over and met with them, and they said, ‘We’re not paying enough taxes in Augusta County’. And they said that our taxes are embarrassingly low, and I kept hearing that because they wanted our taxes raised so they could have the school. I had Mr. Plunkett say, ‘Okay, give me this thing.’ And so if somebody came to me and said their taxes weren’t high enough, I was going to give them that and tell them to fill in the amount they need to pay. I didn’t get many takers on that.
I’ve been elected by, you know, my district. I have to have . . . and there’s an expectation I would have, of certain amount of resources available to me that they can’t just be for the few. They can’t be, as de Tocqueville said, ‘The tyranny of the majority’. But this Board has done that before.
I brought it up during the reassessment campaign. This book, also, has the Constitution in it, you know. Amendment 1, the first one of our Bill of Rights, says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion prohibiting the fee exercise thereof, infringing the freedom of speech, of the press, or the right of the people, to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. It’s a big deal in this country to be able to have a petition. That’s what our founding fathers said and we seemed to believe that they had a pretty good handle on things. But what good is it to have a right and so many barriers are put in that you can’t freely exercise it? We told the people, who wanted to put out the petition on reassessment, can’t use the County building—that’s off limits; you can’t use the Library—that’s off limits; you go to the Clerk of Court—says it’s going to cost you all this money—six figures of dollars. Ms. Shrewsbury put up a big number.
That’s not what they had in mind about a petition. You gotta be able to do it. The same things were done in the Jim Crowe era. Poll tax was the way to say you have the right to vote but it is going to cost you. You had the test of literacy test; you had other things. They, too, at that time prohibited petitions from being put in libraries. So how can we make it difficult? Then the question is, well, the Board has spoken! You know it reminds me of the Ten Commandments. The guy saying ‘So let it be written, so let it be done,’ as if that’s the final word. It’s never the final word. When Mr. Beyeler first came on the Board, he requested a TIF for Mr. Shields over at Sheetz. The vote was 4 to 3 that it wouldn’t be done. The Board had spoken! Then Ms. Sorrells met with Mr. Beyeler and low and behold the next time it came around, they changed their mind. That’s okay. Convince somebody. But you gotta to have the ability to do it. Things do change. All things will change.
I tried, as much as I could, to have this quiet. I went to the Circuit Court. I researched the law. I prepared for the Circuit Court. I gave it to them. He said I think it’s good, but you ought to have an attorney review it. All I was asked for to have him take a look at it. But I didn’t want to send it by e-mail and put him in the mix because, as we know, my e- mails are monitored so he might be told not to do it anyway or he might have to make a decision. So I brought it to the Board when there was no press here. Nobody was here.
There was Mr. Karaffa the only public member here and just said, ‘Here’s what we do, I’m going to ask him to review it.’ Not a big thing. You said, no, can’t do it. To me it is a big thing. This may be my Rosa Parks moment when I don’t want to go to the back of the bus.
And you can get your opinions or what-not. I should have equal access to staff as everyone else. I’m sorry if we have to put this to a vote and I guess we will. But the tyranny of the majority to make people conform. You’ll do it our way or you won’t be Chairman. You will get in line or you won’t be on a committee. You’ll do it right or we’ll take money from your Infrastructure; we’ll take it away from your community centers. There will be payment for what you don’t do. Now, one thing about this, de Tocqueville said the guys would become silent, you know, as if they had erred. There’s no worry about that. I won’t be silent. You guys can keep coming and I will just stand here and the public will judge whether or not you’re acting appropriately or whether I’m not.
Mr. Pyles moved, no second, that the Board authorize the County Attorney to review the petition format. This is just for the petition not whether or not to have a public hearing.
Ms. Sorrells made the following statement:
That was an interesting speech. Luckily, I do have some e-mails and things that would refute a lot of things that were said, but I do want to make a couple of comments just to address a couple of issues and then make a general statement. The discussion that we talked about about the Chair rotating, I think we’ve all seen in the last couple of weeks the problem that comes when you take something out of context, there was a big national issue of the USDA employee who was fired and rehired and that was because something was taken out of context. Just to set the record straight, I will read the entire e-mail that Mr. Pyles sent to me on November 11, 2003 in regards to the rotation of the chairmanship:
Nancy, something that has hurt the Board of Supervisors for the past 8 years has been the process of naming a Chairman/woman. This doesn’t have to be if we rotate the position. The positives far outweigh the negative in my estimation. I would hope that we could return and hold to that unless a member just is so difficult that he or she eliminates themselves. If we want to have a rotation, it would be like this. (And you did it from 2004 to 2007 having Kay Frye, Jim Bailey, Wendell Coleman, and then me with the 2007 year having Dave Beyeler as the Vice-Chair) Jim may not want it and I don’t know about you or Wendell, but I would support this down the line unless someone doesn’t want it or someone is just a Board problem with a lot of one-to-six votes. I would appreciate your thoughts.
So that is where that came from. Our meeting, when Mr. Pyles was Vice-Chair, he sent out a letter to the Board saying he did not know if we wanted to elect him or not as Chair, but if we did, then he had laid out some ideas for projects (all of which were very good projects for the County) but he asked that we respond to him about our thoughts about whether we thought he should be the Chair for the following year. I gave him the courtesy of discussion. We had a three-hour drive around in the County where we went over every vote that we differed on for the past five years at that time and then at the end, you know, I told him that I did not think his behavior for the past year, when he was on the wrong end of votes, where he accused Board members of impropriety, turned them over to the Commonwealth’s Attorney for ridiculous things, that that was appropriate for a Board member who wanted to be Chair, so that is where that was.
As far as not allowing a petition, I don’t think that, in my mind, that’s ever been the discussion. I thought about this a lot since our discussion on Monday. Certainly, we should have access to the County Attorney. He works at the pleasure of the Board. Not everything is signing a contract or working out an ordinance. There are lots of issues that we need to get his legal opinion on it and have discussions on it and we should have that right to go in and do that. That wasn’t what Mr. Pyles was asking to do. Mr. Pyles was asking to put Mr. Morgan in a position that would compromise his client/attorney standards because he was asking for him to look at something that was in direct conflict to a decision that the Board had already made. I thought about times when I had gone to the Attorney and talked over issues in the past almost seven years where I wasn’t in the majority on an issue. Mr. Pyles referenced the Megasite issue. He could have also referenced the Purchase of Development Rights issue—things that I was not in the majority of the Board about and I did discuss things with the Attorney. But what I didn’t do was . . . you know, and many people during the Megasite issue came up to me and said, ‘Why don’t you let the people speak to see if they want a Megasite or not with a referendum?’ What I did not do is create a petition for a referendum on it. I could have started a petition, as Mr. Pyles is doing. I could have done that. I could have gotten somebody else to do that. I chose not to do that, but if I had chosen to do that, I would not have taken that to the County Attorney. I would have taken that to my own attorney. That was an action that I was doing outside the Board and I have every right to do that under the Constitution and I would be exercising that right. But I would not do it in my official duties as a Board member, but as a citizen of Augusta County.
Looking at the Purchase of Development Rights, that is a good example of what governance is all about the County. I think that is where, in my opinion, Mr. Pyles is doing the greatest disservice to our citizens because I’ve learned—and it’s a big learning curve to sit up here—but in the last almost seven years, I’ve learned that good governance means we work together; we listen to each other; everybody has ideas—there are seven different opinions that come across here; no one opinion is 100% right; it’s about compromise, working together, listening to the opinions on the Board, listening to the opinions of the 70,000 people out there, and coming up with a solution that brings all those ideas together and moves us forward. I believe that every Supervisor who comes to a vote comes to it with the best interest of the County citizens in mind. We all come to it differently but we give it due diligence; we think about it and we look at it; and if we’re not on the winning end of that solution, then we move on. The PDR program, I felt very strongly that this was something that was going to move the County forward. It didn’t happen. I didn’t start a petition to get the people to vote on it. We moved on. That’s what it is about. In the time that I have been on the Board, I’ve seen most of the Board members grow, as far as compromise and talking and listening to each other, except for one—and compromise is not a word that I have seen in action from Pastures District since I’ve been on this Board. It’s been polarizing, polarizing, polarizing. That’s not good governance. Because time after time, when he’s on the losing end of a vote, he becomes vindictive. He accuses Board members of ridiculous things. He holds his own press conferences. Now, he is going out and doing a petition, which is fine; he has the right to do that. I don’t think he has the right to compromise our client/attorney relationship to do that. To me, it’s just that kind of behavior which is wrong—it should be all about compromise to make a democracy. And it has to be a majority; that’s the way democracy works. It’s not the tyranny of a majority. It’s about having a majority to make a democracy work. Democracy has to be based on the majority or it’s chaos. So, you work forward and continue to work together and you compromise and you move forward. From a local government, state government, national government, that’s how it works. If you don’t work like that, then you’re doing a disservice to the citizens of Augusta County.
Chairman Garber made the following statement:
When I said any meeting could turn interesting, I had absolutely no idea how interesting it could turn. The other thing is, I would really—I would question whether or not being a Chairman is a reward or a punishment. I’m not sure which that is. There are some days I could argue that point.
Mr. Beyeler made the following statement:
I feel like we’ve gotten off what the motion is and why we’re here tonight on this and I’m going to call for the question.
Chairman Garber clarified the motion is to allow the Attorney to review Mr. Pyles’ petition.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pyles Nays: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett and Coleman Motion failed.
WAIVERS
The Board considered waiver request for a buffer yard exemption to Section 25-308 of County Code.
Mr. Fitzgerald further explained that this Section requires buffer yards to be installed between properties zoned General Business and Single Family zoned property. The aerial indicates an existing tree-line on two sides of the property. The request is to issue a waiver for a pending site plan to allow that existing buffer yard to remain in place. There is an area, where there are not a lot of trees, the developer will be required to put some buffer in that area because it is adjoining the Single Family property. He added that, as part of the ordinance, the Board needs to approve the waiver request.
Mr. Shifflett moved, seconded by Mr. Howdyshell, that the Board approve the request.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Ms. Sorrells, that the Board approve the consent agenda as follows:
MINUTES
Approved the following minutes:
• Staff Briefing Meeting, Monday, June 21, 2010 • Joint Meeting, Tuesday, June 22, 2010 • Regular Meeting, Wednesday, June 23, 2010
CLAIMS
Approve claims paid since June 9, 2010.
STREET ADDITION
Considered Community Development’s and VDOT’s recommendations to adopt the following resolution for addition of streets into the secondary road system:
WHEREAS, that the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on August 26, 1996, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition.
WHEREAS, VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body’s resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highways.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Virginia Department of Transportation is hereby requested to add the following streets in NORTHWOOD SUBDIVISION, SECTIION 7, into the secondary road system of Augusta County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended:
Woodside Drive From: 0.04 miles east of Intersection of Marwood Lane To: Intersection of Greystone Lane Length: 0.04 miles Woodside Drive From: Intersection of Greystone Lane To: Intersection of Cedarcrest Drive Length: 0.07 miles Cedarcrest Drive From: 0.01 miles south of Intersection of Woodside Drive To: Intersection of Woodside Drive Length: 0.01 miles Cedarcrest Drive From: Intersection of Woodside Drive To: Intersection of Northwood Drive Length: 0.16 miles Cedarcrest Drive From: Intersection of Northwood Drive To: 0.03 miles north of Intersection of Northwood Drive Length: 0.03 miles Greystone Lane From: Intersection of Woodside Drive To: 0.10 miles north of Woodside Drive Length: 0.10 miles Northwood Drive From: 0.20 miles east of Pinebark Drive To: Intersection of Cedarcrest Drive Length: 0.05 miles AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 50 feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage as recorded in Plat Book 1, Instrument #070004453, Pages 250-257, recorded April 23, 2007.
OUTDOOR MUSICAL OR ENTERTAINMENT FESTIVAL
Approved application as submitted by the Middle River Church of the Brethren for the “Singspiration” outdoor event to be held on September 11 at the Middle River Church of the Brethren church grounds (Middle River District).
EMERGENCY SERVICES – ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Approved authorization for public hearing for ordinance to amend Section 2-13 of the Augusta County Code to add a new volunteer fire department.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Shifflett, Pyles, Coleman, Beyeler, Howdyshell, and Sorrells Nays: None Motion carried.
(END OF CONSENT AGENDA)
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE BOARD
The Board discussed the following issues:
Ms. Sorrells:
1. Quilt Square – Blue Ridge Parkway 75th Anniversary – Barbara Linzey, President of the Shenandoah Quilters Guild, has provided quilt square of the Augusta County seal. Asked if a formal thank-you letter could be sent.
2. Middlebrook Library Volunteer Luncheon – Mr. Shifflett and Ms. Sorrells attended. Diantha McCauley, Librarian, had provided calculations of volunteer hours (2008, $21.45 an hour) – 531 at the price of $11,389; Circulation – 10,000 books/tapes (9 items an hour); Book Sales – $400.
High speed internet available.
Mr. Shifflett: In regards to Staggered Terms item (#7-10) made the following comment:
My opinion on it is still as it was on Monday, we should be free and open to the County Attorney on opinions that involves or works with County issues and our constituents and I feel the same tonight and that is if something is brought before the County Attorney and he says that he cannot make an opinion on that, or cannot give guidance on it, then we have to respect that. It appears that is exactly what he did by calling the Bar Association and getting their opinion on it. I can’t ask the County Attorney to go against the direct opinion of the Bar Association. I think that the way it is, it needs to stay like that to where, like I say, if the County Attorney says he can give an opinion on a issue, he can; if he can’t, he can’t; and if he needs Board approval for something, I think it should still stay that. I can remember sitting in the audience out there and listening to a very disgusted Jim Bailey asking the Board, saying that he had spoken with the County Attorney, and that he needed to get Board permission, because that is what the County Attorney told him, he asked for it and he got it. I mean this is nothing new.
Mr. Howdyshell: Sangersville Towers Ruritan 50th anniversary – asked if a resolution could be considered at the next Board meeting. Special dinner will be August 14th and, hopefully, the resolution could be presented to the Club.
Mr. Pyles: Staggered Terms Petition – Asked if he could have a copy of the State Bar opinion. Mr. Morgan stated that it was a telephone conversation, but would be happy to provide the information.
Chairman Garber:
1. Friday 13th will be Mr. Beyeler’s 50th Wedding Anniversary.
2. Ordinance List – Discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing. Current list distributed to Board. Asked Board to give their input as to priority. Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned that the setback issue discussed Monday was not placed on the list. It was the consensus of the Board to place the setback ordinance requirements on the topic “Lot widths, Lot frontage, Rear Lot Widths in General Business, General Industrial and General Agriculture.” Mr. Shifflett asked about the fireworks issue. Mr. Coleman mentioned this in June and Mr. Shifflett believed that Chairman Garber referred it to the Ordinance Committee (consisting of Messrs. Shifflett and Beyeler) but did not see it on the list. Mr. Coleman referred to the time when “Ordinance Changes” began, there were issues that remained “unfinished” on the list because the consultants had asked the Board to prioritize so the staff would know how to proceed. Since then, Mr. Coleman has reminded the Board of the need to research fireworks enforcement because of letters of concern received from some of his constituents. Mr. Morgan pointed out that the Ordinance List is directly related to the Community Development Department. Fireworks would not go through their department. Ms. Earhart explained that issue would be considered “Quality of Life” issue and not directly related to the zoning ordinances. It was the consensus of the Board to direct the fireworks issue to the County Attorney. Chairman Garber mentioned that, during the Fourth of July celebration in his neighborhood, he moved his horses away from his home farm. He agreed that it is a problem but did not know the solution.
Mr. Beyeler added that because of dry conditions, there could be a problem of starting a fire.
Mr. Beyeler: Golf Carts usage in subdivisions – State Trooper has informed resident that golf carts can be used in a Residential subdivision with a speed limit of 25 m.p.h. Mr. Morgan reported that it can be used if the Board of Supervisors approves it. Mr. Beyeler asked if the Board could get some clarification from the County Attorney at the next staff briefing.
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF – NONE
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to come before the Board, Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Ms. Sorrells, the Board adjourned subject to call of the Chairman.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Garber, Beyeler, Shifflett, Pyles and Coleman Nays: None Motion carried.
Chairman County Administrator H:7-28min.10
