VIRGINIA:
At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Northampton,
Virginia, held in the former circuit courtroom, 16404 Courthouse Road, Eastville, Virginia, on
the 19th day of September, 2008, at 4:00 p.m.
Present:
Jeff Walker, Chairman
Richard Tankard, Vice Chairman
Laurence J. Trala
Dave Burden
H. Spencer Murray
Absent:
William A. Hughes
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Closed Session
Motion was made by Mr. Trala that the Board enter Closed Session in accordance with
Section 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended:
(A) Paragraph 1: Discussion or consideration of employment, assignment, appointment,
promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific
public officers, appointees or employees of any public body.
Appointments to Boards/Commissions
(B) Paragraph 3: Discussion or consideration of the condition, acquisition, or use of real
property for public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held property.
Hare Valley School
(C) Paragraph 5: Discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the
expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has
been made of the business’ or industry’s interest in locating or expanding its
facilities in the community.
1
(D) Paragraph 7: Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members,
consultants, or attorneys pertaining to actual or probable litigation, and consultation with
legal counsel employed or retained by the Board of Supervisors regarding specific legal
matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel.
Cheriton, Eastville and Exmore Boundary Adjustments
All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The
motion was unanimously passed.
After Closed Session, the Chairman reconvened the meeting and said that the Board had
entered the closed session for those purposes as set out in paragraphs 1,3, 5 and 7 of Section 2.13711 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. Upon being polled individually, each Board
member confirmed that these were the only matters of discussion during the closed session.
Mr. Walker offered the invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was given.
The Chairman read the following statement:
It is the intent that all persons attending meetings of this Board, regardless of
disability, shall have the opportunity to participate. Any person present that
requires any special assistance or accommodations, please let the Board know in
order that arrangements can be made.
Board & Agency Presentations:
(1) Mr. Timothy Holloway, Residency Administrator, Virginia Department of
Transportation, was absent.
(2) Mr. Rick Bowmaster, Division Superintendent, Northampton County Public Schools,
noted that the school year opened on time in spite of the on-going construction at the high school
and the placement of modular units at both elementary schools as well as the high school.
The
high school wall repair is anticipated to be completed by December 20, 2008.
School representatives have been notified that there is an additional allocation of 2006
2
QZAB bonds available in the amount of $643,405 and the School Board is requesting that the
County consider applying for these additional funds. The existing QZAB allocation, originally
dedicated to the middle school, will be transferred to projects at the elementary schools. Ms.
Nunez indicated that bond counsel does have concerns with the County increasing its debt load
at this time and we are awaiting further instructions from them.
Motion was made by Mr. Murray that the Board authorize a letter to intent to be sent at
this time for the additional 2006 QZAB allocation, but that the final decision will be made by the
Board pending further review and advice from bond counsel. All members were present with the
exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was unanimously passed.
Consent Agenda:
(3) Minutes of the meetings of August 1, 5, 7, 12 and 27, 2008.
Motion was made by Mr. Murray that the consent agenda be approved as presented. All
members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was
unanimously passed.
County Officials’ Reports:
(4) Mrs. Glenda Miller, Director of Finance, distributed the following budget
amendments and appropriations with associated explanations:
“The attached supplemental appropriations and budget amendments include an
appropriation for an allocation to the Tourism Commission for the remaining balance of the
additional 3% Transient Occupancy Tax which is dedicated for tourism purposes. The County
has established an agency fund to account for the accumulation of these funds for future needs of
the Tourism Commission in Northampton County. Recovered costs of $1,083 will be
reappropriated to the Information Technology department, and an appropriation for a purchase
order carryover for maintenance of the postage/folder/sorter machine is included.
G/L Account
Description
Debit Amount
100-9600-57085
100-0045-49000
Transfer – NC Tourism Comm.
Appropriated Fund Balance
43,525.00
43,525.00
Credit Amount
3
100-1240-55450
100-0019-42400
Office Supplies – Comp. Hardware
Recovered Costs – General
1,083.00
1,083.00
100-1201-51150
100-0045-49000
Communications – Postage
Appropriated Fund Balance
4,184.00
4,184.00
***********
Motion was made by Mr. Tankard that the budget amendments and appropriations be
approved as presented. All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted
“yes.” The motion was unanimously passed.
Mr. Tankard requested a breakdown of County fines, specifically those generated from
traffic violations/speeding tickets.
(5) Ms. Sandra Benson, Director of Planning, presented her departmental update
including activity reports for the following projects: Community Housing Committee; Zoning
Ordinance Review/Comprehensive Plan Update, Board of Zoning Appeals, and Staff & Planning
Commission Activities & Training.
(6) Ms. Katie Nunez, County Administrator, presented the following work session
agenda schedule for the Board’s information:
(i) 9/23/08: Legislative Update
(ii) 10/28.08: To be determined
(iii) 11/25/08: To be determined
The County Administrator’s bi-monthly report was presented as follows:
I.
PROJECTS:
Transfer Station: The anticipated completion of the construction of the Transfer
Station is mid-October. The concrete work took longer than expected and there
was a delay in the installation of the metal building while we obtained necessary
signatures for a third party inspection agreement, a new requirement under the
building code. Depending upon the upcoming weather events, it may delay the
construction completion date.
Once construction is completed and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued
by the building inspector and all of the requirements have been met for storm
water management, the permit documents are filed with DEQ and DEQ will come
to the site for an inspection. The documents in addition to the operations plan
4
include certification by a Professional Engineer that the project has been designed
and constructed in accordance with the regulations. Draper Aden, as our
Professional Engineer, will sign this documentation. After the DEQ inspection
and assuming that there are no comments on the permit documents, DEQ issues a
permit by rule. Depending on the regional office, this can take anywhere from 2
weeks to 6 weeks.
Therefore, we are anticipating the activation of the transfer station as early as the
beginning of November or as late as the beginning of December.
THU Renovation to Sheriff’s Office & EOC: The Temporary Housing Unit
renovation into the Sheriff’s Office and the Emergency Operations Center is
scheduled for completion beginning of next week. The scheduled move for the
Sheriff’s Office from Willow to the new facility is currently set for September 12,
2008 but may be altered based upon any weather conditions impacting our region.
The Dispatch Office is scheduled to be moved from the Regional Jail to its
permanent home in the new Sheriff’s Office at the end of the month.
Delinquent Tax Auction: On August 19, 2008, our attorney held an auction on
sixteen properties. Ten properties received bids in sufficient amounts to cover the
outstanding tax liability and the legal and advertising fees for those properties.
Six properties did not receive sufficient bids to cover some or all of the expenses,
including tax liabilities. If these six bids are accepted, the tax liability loss is
$4,330.06; the legal fees incurred and paid by the County already which we
would lose repayment is $5,009.51; and the remaining fees and advertising
expense owed is $4,840. I am seeking direction from the Board if you would like
to accept the bids on these six properties in light of the insufficient bid price to
cover expenses and tax liabilities.
The Board agreed to further discuss this matter at its September work session
pending additional information to be received from the delinquent tax attorney.
Bike Path Project: A meeting was held on August 21, 2008 with representatives
from ANPDC as our grant administrator, Fish & Wildlife, VDOT and CBBT to
discuss the bike path project. As you may recall, the County has received two
grant awards (2007 & 2008) from the VDOT Enhancement Program totaling
approximately $142,000 and Fish & Wildlife has received funds for this project in
their budget. The original plan of the project was to combine our funds with Fish
& Wildlife funds to tackle the first phase of the project with Fish & Wildlife
utilizing their funds to handle engineering, permitting and legal and the County
funds used for construction of Phase I.
The original plan is still on track; however, Fish & Wildlife have received
additional funds that have enabled them to complete the engineering for all of
Phase II as well and to construct Phase II, jointly with the Phase I scope of work.
Additionally, the proposed small parking area described at your meeting in July
5
for Latimer Siding was inaccurate; the actual location for this small parking area
will be at Cedar Grove, which is the end terminus of the Phase II scope.
One of the issues raised during the meeting was overall responsibility for the
maintenance of the bike path at completion of the project. We will need to
discuss this further with Fish & Wildlife to draft an agreement on this matter.
II.
MEETINGS
September 17, 2008: Department of Corrections Meeting to resolve three items
on Regional Jail Project. Attending: Katie Nunez, County Attorney Bruce Jones,
Clerk of Works Jim Chapman, and Sheriff Jack Robbins.
III.
GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
IV.
OTHER
Willis Wharf Wildlife Observation Platform Dedication: A dedication and
official opening of the Willis Wharf Wildlife Observation Platform is scheduled
for Friday, September 19, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. at the Willis Wharf Marina. This
project was done in cooperation with the County, the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program.
Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day: The annual Household Hazardous
Waste Collection Day is scheduled for September 20, 2008 from 10:00 a.m. –
2:00 p.m. at the parking lot adjacent to the County Maintenance Shop in Eastville
(across from the old Courthouse).
Items to be collected include leftover garden chemicals, poisons, repellants,
degreasers, fuels (gasoline and kerosene) fungicides, wood preservatives, paint
products, wood stain, paint thinner, paint remover, driveway sealers, epoxy,
rodent poison, asbestos, and other hazardous waste. No commercial or industrial
waste, car batteries, tires, motor oil, ammunition, flares, explosives, medical
waste, biological waste, radioactive waste, medicines, PCBs, smoke detectors,
freon, propane tanks, or empty containers of any kind will be accepted.
Department of Historic Resources – State Historical Marker: VA Dept. of
Historic Resources is sponsoring a state Historical Highway Marker for
Accomack Indians with the proposed location of the marker near Eastville on
Route 13. The proposed text (attached) is scheduled to be presented to the Board
of Historic Resources on September 18, 2008.
**************
At 6:00 p.m., the Chairman recessed for the supper break.
At 7:00 p.m., the Chairman reconvened the meeting.
6
Citizen Information Period:
Mr. Bob Bisker of Franktown and a member of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
questioned several items of recreational interest including comments provided for the
Comprehensive Plan, grant funds received by the County for use at Indiantown Park, outsourcing
of the recreation function of the county and the need to hire a recreation director.
Mr. Robert Richardson of Seaview distributed copies of Code of Virginia Section 15.22204 which requires advertising for proposed zoning changes. He contended that adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance in December 2000 did not meet the advertising criteria and that all setbacks
should be suspended until such time as proper notification can take place.
Public Hearings:
The Chairman called to order the following public hearing:
(7) Special Use permit 08-07 NHCO: Vera Williams has applied to locate a single-wide mobile
home to be used as an accessory living unit on property zoned CD-R1 Community DevelopmentSingle-Family Residential, located at 9062 Sample Court. The property contains 0.74 acres of
land and is described as being parcel 7 of Tax Map 21B, double circle 1.
The Chairman asked if there were any present desiring to speak.
Ms. Sandra Benson, Director of Planning, noted that the Planning Commission was
recommending approval of the petition subject to the condition that the mobile home placement
will not be permanent.
The applicant, Ms. Williams, as well as her next-door neighbor and sister, Ms. Emma
Rozelle, noted that the mobile home would be a home for their ill aunt. They requested that the
Board give favorable consideration to their petition.
Mr. Robert Richardson spoke in favor of the application.
There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Mr. Tankard that Special Use Permit 08-07 be approved as
7
presented in keeping with Planning Commission recommendation and staff report, with the
following conditions:
1. That the special use permit be valid only for the lifetime of the aunt in question; and
2. That the serial number of the mobile home VAFLY19A547; and
3. That the special use permit does not convey to any other individual
All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was
unanimously passed.
The Chairman called to order the following public hearing:
(8) Special Use Permit 08-08 NHCO: John & Amy Nottingham have applied to sell local
seafood and vegetables/produce, other seafood and vegetable products, local arts and crafts, and
prepared foods including sandwiches at their grader shed/produce stand located 20220 Lankford
Highway just north of Cheriton. The property, zoned A-1 Agricultural, contains 6.12 acres of
land and is further described as being parcel 16C of Tax Map 76, double circle A.
The Chairman asked if there were any present desiring to speak.
Ms. Benson indicated that the Planning Commission was recommending approval,
allowing sales to the extent provided in the zoning ordinance.
Mrs. Amy Nottingham, the applicant, spoke in favor of the petition and asked for the
Board’s approval.
Mr. Bill Parr also spoke in support, encouraging the Board to support local businesses.
Mr. Robert Richardson spoke in favor of the petition.
There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Murray read the following comments:
Remarks to the Northampton Board of Supervisors
By H. Spencer Murray
September 9, 2008
Re: Special Use Permit 08-08 John and Amy Nottingham
Mr. Chairman:
8
The Nottinghams are a young couple who didn’t leave the Shore but stayed to raise a family and start a
business. Anyone who has ever borrowed money and started a business knows that you may have to
adjust your business plan. They realized that when you sell a bag of clams the customer may also want to
also buy Old Bay to season it. Current zoning, without a special use permit, sends the customer to Food
Lion for that.
When I visited the Nottingham business on numerous occasions, I saw local license plates as well as
license plates from NJ, NY, PA & DE. But, the Nottingham could not sell Blue Crab Bay Products, an
Eastern Shore success story, sold everywhere else. I noticed artwork from local arts for sale with their
cards and studio information, but the Nottinghams cannot sell them without a SUP.
The Nottinghams were grading and selling their own clams and were buying seafood from local
watermen along with produce from their own and local farms, but could only sell their own products
without a SUP.
Eventually, the Nottinghams hope to open a small sandwich shop as a further offering to their customers.
They know they must comply with VDOT and VA Department of Health requirements if they do so.
Over a period of only a few months the Nottinghams have collected over 100 signatures of local and
transit customers asking to “save our store”. They are enclosed in each Board member’s packet.
As Ms. Benson and the Planning Commission noted, these restrictions will be lifted in the Revised
Zoning Ordinance in the coming months. If not, I will not support it.
Our Comp Plan promotes Agriculture and Aquaculture, the uniqueness of the Eastern Shore and
encourages job creating, tax paying, small businesses. How can we not approve the Nottingham’s SUP,
allowing them the full rights to be granted under the Zoning Ordinance revision, as a step towards
showing them and the public that this Board really does “get it” when it comes to business and economic
development? It’s more than being just business friendly, it is the kind of community we want and the
public is ahead of us.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that these remarks be included in the record and I move for approval of the Special
Use Permit as applied for with the following conditions:
1. SUP is non-transferable
2. SUP is valid for two years and subject to compliance review
3. The Nottingham will be allowed all rights and privileges under the upcoming revised zoning
ordinance.
/s/ H. Spencer Murray
Supervisor, District 4
****************
Upon clarification by Mr. Tankard that condition #3 above was a “footnote” rather than a
condition which the Board could impose, motion was restated by Mr. Murray that the Board
9
approve the subject petition in keeping with Planning Commission recommendation and staff
report, allowing sales to the maximum extent for which there is provision in the zoning
ordinance, with the following conditions:
1. That the special use permit be non-transferable; and
2. That the special use permit be valid for two years and subject to compliance review.
All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was
unanimously passed.
Chairman Walker called to order the following public hearing as follows:
(9) Subdivision Text Amendment 08-02 NHCO: The Northampton County Board of
Supervisors, under a motion of intent, proposes to amend the Northampton County Subdivision
Ordinance by adopting new text to be known as §156.013 Exception: Where the subdivider can
show that a provision of these standards in cases of unusual situations or when strict adherence to
the general regulations would result in substantial injustice or unnecessary hardship, and where,
because of topographical or other conditions peculiar to the site, in the opinion of the subdivision
agent, a departure may be made without destroying the intent of such provision, the administrator
may authorize an exception. Any exception shall be authorized in writing and shall state the
reasons why the exception was granted. If an applicant is aggrieved by the subdivision agent’s
decision, he may appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors. Appeals of the subdivision
agent’s decision for purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be to the Board of Supervisors
and not the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). If an applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the
Board of Supervisors, he may appeal that decision to the Northampton County Circuit Court, as
provided by the code of Virginia §15.2-2259.
The Chairman asked if there were any present desiring to speak.
Ms. Benson indicated that the Planning Commission was recommending approval of
substitute language as proposed by staff, noting that while staff believes that there are
circumstances when the granting of an exception would be reasonable, staff is concerned that the
proposed amendment does not offer any guidance to the subdivision agent as to what constitutes
an “unusual situation,” “substantial injustice,” or “unnecessary hardship,” nor does it provide any
criteria for the review and decision by the agent. As framed, it does not provide a method for the
governing body to review the agent’s decision, a deficiency which may be of particular concern
10
with respect to public improvements that may be affected. Accordingly, staff offers the
following language for consideration:
§156.013 Exceptions: Upon application to the subdivision agent, with copies of such
application provided to the Board of Supervisors (the Board) and adjoining landowners, if
a subdivider can establish that due to an unusual situation on his property, or that strict
adherence to the general subdivision regulations would result in substantial injustice or
unnecessary hardship, the subdivision agent may grant an exception to applicable
subdivision regulations, so long as (i) the exception does not pertain to public
improvements and (ii) the granting of the exception would not be contrary to the purpose
of the underlying regulation. An “unusual situation” must be one that is based upon the
shape, topography, or other physical characteristic of the property to be subdivided. An
injustice and/or hardship must be one that denies the landowner his ability to develop his
property. Exception requests involving public improvements may be granted only with
the concurrence of the Board of Supervisors after public notice consistent with
Virginia Code Section 15.2-2204 and upon a finding by the Board that the granting of the
exception would not be contrary to the purpose of the underlying regulation.
Any exception must be authorized in writing and shall state the reasons why the
exception was granted. If an applicant, adjoining landowner, or other party (including
any governmental body, commission, agency or official) is aggrieved by the subdivision
agent’s decision to approve or deny an exception request, the aggrieved party may
challenge the decision by filing an application to the Board of Supervisors for a de novo
review of the denial or granting of the exception. The application must be filed within 21
days of the decision and shall state all grounds upon which the challenging party
contends that he is aggrieved. On its own motion, the Board also may conduct a de
novo review of a decision granting or denying an exception. De novo reviews of the
subdivision agent’s decision regarding subdivision exceptions shall be by the Board and
not the Board of Zoning Appeals. If a party is aggrieved by a decision of the Board of
Supervisors, he may appeal that decision to the Northampton County Circuit Court.
Mr. Robert Richardson spoke in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Lee Church, a property owner in the Bloomington Estate Subdivision, said that he
still does not have an answer as to whether he can subdivide his property which was purchased
some years ago.
There being no further speakers, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Motion was made by Mr. Burden that action on the proposed amendment be tabled and
that it be sent back to the Planning Commission for further work when the Commission
11
considers the entire ordinance in the near future. All members were present with the exception
of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was unanimously passed.
The Chairman called to order the following public hearing:
(10) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 08-01. The draft text amendments include
amending Part I, Section 2 (The Land Use Plan) to:
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide and accomplish the coordinated, adjusted, and
harmonious development of the County which will, in accordance with present and probable
future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience,
prosperity and general welfare of the County’s inhabitants. The proposed Plan amendments are
in furtherance of the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and are consistent with
good zoning practice.
The draft text amendments include Amending Part I, Section 2 (The Land Use Plan) to:






Add Martin Siding/Reedtown to the list of designated Villages.
Recognize Bayview as an Existing Planned Rural Village.
Revise the description of the Existing Subdivision settlement type.
Add Downings Beach to the list of designated Existing Cottage Communities.
Revise the descriptions of the Town Edge settlement type and how town edges are
defined and designated.
Recognize and acknowledge that certain existing land uses, such as Kiptopeke
Condominiums, are already located in Conservation Areas and recommend that their
zoning recognize their existing status.
The draft amendments also propose a revised Future Land Use Map (or “FLUM”) (a copy of the
draft FLUM is included as part of this public notice) that is based on distinct Settlement Types for
designated rural and development areas. Proposed changes to the existing FLUM (a copy of which
is included as part of this public notice) include:

Adding the following Hamlets: Birdsnest West, Cherrystone, and Kiptopeke.

Modifying the boundaries of Sylvan Scene Hamlet and renaming it to Prospect Hill.

Modifying the boundaries of the following Hamlets: Birdsnest, Cedar Grove, Cobb
Station, Fairgrounds, Franktown, Magotha, Pat Town, and Weirwood.

Changing the designation of Martin Siding/Reedtown from Hamlet to Village.

Removing the following from the Existing Subdivision District: Downings Beach,
Nassawadox Point, Johnson Point, Creekview, Holly Bluff, Wellington Neck (Riverside Lane),
Birdsnest West, Hungar’s Beach, and Yeardley.

Adding the following to Existing Cottage Community: Downings Beach.

Modifying the boundaries of the following Existing Cottage Communities: Smith Beach,
Silver Beach.

Modifying the boundaries of the following Existing Subdivisions: Highland Heights,
Miles Wharf, Clearview, Johnson’s Cove, Silver Beach East, areas of Chesawadox and
12
Hideaway Cove, Feland Estates, Hunter’s Cove, Peacefuls, Shooting Point, Gull Point, area off
Denwood including Bayly’s Neck Farm and Church Creek Point, Vaucluse, 3 subdivisions north
of Prospect Hill Hamlet (Wilkins Woods, Terry Woods, Walden), Deerfield, Wilsonia Neck
(Solitude Trail), Wilsonia, Greenbriar Farm, Bay Harbour, The Meadows, Tower Hill, Kings
Creek Landing, Arlington, Kiptopeke Estates.

Adding the following Existing Subdivisions: Rolling Meadows, Idyll Creek, Saltworks
Manor, Nassawadox Estates, Silver Plain Farm, Wellington River Woods, Church Creek Estates,
Westerhouse Woods, Hungars Point, Waverly, Saddlebrook Estates, Seaside Estates, Kendall
Grove Yard, Kendall Grove Estates, Selma Farm, Cherrydale, Mrs. Pauline Scott Subdivision,
The Landings, Eastville Commons, Custis Farm, Hoffler Estates, Cobb Station Estates, Cross
Bay, Long Family Subdivision, Cherrystone Village, The Kings Meadows, Townfield Meadows,
Townfield Acres, Chawanook, Cheriton Crossing, Bloomington Estates, Oyster Cape, Pine
Grove, Cheriton East, Sunnyside Estates, Seabreeze Estates, Wilson Acres, Woodland Meadows,
Rock, Narrow Channel Farm, Cape Charles Estates, Seaview Commons, Apple Grove Farm,
Bender’s Lane, Rat Hall Farm, The Preserve on Old Plantation, Mockhorn Estates, Plantation
Acres, Seaside Preserve, Dalby Farm Estates, Warren Farm, Sadie Acres, Plantation Estates, The
Chateaux of Lake Allure, The Dixon Farm, Latimer Shoal Estates, Subdivision at the end of
Mackatouces Point Road, Subdivision off Saltworks Road, Subdivision off James Wharf Road,
Subdivision off Broadwater Road, Subdivision off Brickhouse Road, Subdivisions off Giddens
Road, Subdivision off Bayside Road near Bridgetown, Subdivision off Courthouse Road
(between Courthouse and Rt. 13), Subdivision off Jarvis Road, Subdivision off Savage Neck
Road, Subdivision off Narrow Channel, Subdivision off Parsons Circle, Subdivisions off
Riverside Farm, Subdivision off Seaside Road near Wise Point.

Modifying the Town Edge boundaries for the towns of Exmore, Nassawadox, Eastville,
Cheriton, and Cape Charles.

Modifying the boundaries of the following Villages: Hare Valley, Bayview, Capeville,
Cheapside, and Townsend.

Modifying lands designated as Conservation Areas by the removal of potentially
developable private property under easement, with the exception of lands known to be
undevelopable.
The Board of Supervisors may adopt text and/or map amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as
proposed in the draft amendments (in whole or in part), as recommended by the Planning
Commission (in whole or in part), or it may adopt other revisions.
The Chairman asked if there were any present desiring to speak.
Ms. Benson and Mr. Peter Stith, Long-Range Planner, offered the Planning
Commissions’ recommendations and the following powerpoint presentation:
13
Northampton County
2006 Comprehensive Plan Update
Proposed Amendments
to the Land Use Plan and
Future Land Use Map
for September 9, 2008
Public Hearing
History of Plan Update
• Citizen Survey – Fall 2004; results
published April 2005
• Public Input Workshops – 7 during SeptOct 2005; Growth Summit Nov. 29, 2005
• Vision & Land Use Plan (including
Future Land Use Map or FLUM) adopted
July 2006
14
History cont…
• Environment & Natural Resources,
Community Facilities & Services, and
Transportation Plans adopted October
2006
• January 2007 – public hearing on
several proposed text & FLUM
amendments
• February 2007 – text amendments
adopted
More History
• March 26, 2007 – amended FLUM
adopted
• February 2008 – Revised Housing Plan
adopted
Revised Economic Development Plan
being drafted – public hearings
November 2008
15
Relationship Between
Comprehensive Plan/Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) and
Zoning Ordinance/Zoning
Map
SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE
ZONING
ORDINANCE
OTHER
ORDINANCES
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS
16
Technical Requirements for Comprehensive Plan
 Virginia Code: “The comprehensive plan shall be made with
the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated,
adjusted and harmonious development of the territory…”
 Virginia Code: “The comprehensive plan shall recommend
methods of implementation and shall include a current map
of the area covered by the comprehensive plan…”
 The Virginia Code Cites the Zoning Ordinance as one of the
Available Tools for Implementing the Comprehensive Plan
Technical Requirements for Comprehensive Plan (cont’d)
 Analysis: The County Must Analyze Trends and Issues - but
Specifics Are Not Set Forth in the Code.
 Review period: Mandated review every five years.
 Note: Virginia Code Allows for Counties to Plan for Areas
within Towns and for Towns to Plan for Adjacent
Unincorporated Areas; however, such Plans are not
considered to be the Comprehensive Plans for those Area
unless Adopted by the Governing Body that Governs that
Area.
 Zoning: A Zoning Ordinance Should be Based Upon the
Comprehensive Plan; Board has Some Latitude as to
Precisely How Strong the Linkage is (but the stronger the
better)
17
The Comprehensive Planning & Zoning Process
Key Linkages Between the Plan and Ordinances
The Comprehensive Plan:
 Is General in Nature
 Is a Policy Document (not a law)
The Zoning Ordinance:
 Is Very Specific in Nature
 Has the force of Law
Proposed Plan Amendments
• Results of Planning Commission
consideration of January 2007 public
hearing comments and continued work
on proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments
18
Existing Subdivision
Kiptopeke Condos
Adopted
Kiptopeke Condos
Proposed
19
Exmore Town Edge Adopted
Exmore Town Edge Proposed
20
Nassawadox Town Edge Adopted
Nassawadox Town Edge Proposed
21
Eastville Town Edge Adopted
Eastville Town Edge Proposed
22
Cheriton Town Edge Adopted
Cheriton Town Edge Proposed
23
Cape Charles Town Edge Adopted
Cape Charles Town Edge Proposed
24
Conservations Areas Adopted
Conservation Areas Proposed
25
Conservation Area
Adopted
Smith Beach, Phase II
Adopted
Conservation Area
Proposed
Smith Beach, Phase II
Proposed
26
Downing’s Beach Adopted
Fig Tree Adopted
Downing’s Beach Proposed
Fig Tree Proposed
Designate 12 lots known as Fig Tree as Existing Cottage Community
27
S.C.H. Davis Property
Adopted
Micor Property Adopted
S.C.H. Davis Property
Proposed
Micor Property Proposed
28
Adopted Map
March 26, 2007
Proposed Map
September 3, 2008
*********
Rev. Debbie Lee Bryant, Pastor of Shorter’s Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church
presented the following written comments:
September 9, 2008
To the Planning Commission of Northampton County, Virginia:
To the Board of Supervisors of Northampton County, Virginia:
My name is Rev. Debbie Lee Bryant, M.Div., Pastor, of Shorter’s Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church,
10228 Bayside Road, Bridgetown, Virginia 23405. Shorter’s Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church was
founded at its current site in 1866 in Bridgetown, the oldest village on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, continuously
inhabited since the 1660’s. I am President of the Historical Bridgetown Community Association and we want to
preserve the historical significance of Bridgetown and plan to get an historical marker for the village of Bridgetown
and for Shorter’s Chapel. We want the churches to be “By-Right”, not with a “Special Use Permit”.
We, at Shorter’s Chapel A.M.E. Church have had several community meetings in August, to include the
communities of Bridgetown; Trehernville; Birdsnest; and Sylvan Scene. All have or have formed community
associations. We would like the following changes to be Proposed Future Land Use Map and note that we have met
with Ms. Sandra Benson, Planning Director for Northampton County:
1). The community of Bridgetown wants Hamlet status, where houses currently are, and Shorter’s Chapel A.M.E.
Church is located, not agricultural. Bridgetown is an historical area and we want to preserve the history, not destroy
it. Petitions are attached, where there are no signatures, we are contacting the property owners now and ask you to
give us more time to contact them…some of those properties are vacant and another is owned by a gentleman who
lives in York County.
29
2). The community of Trehernville wants Village 1 status, not Village 2. Petition signatures for that are coming.
3). The community of Birdsnest wants the Hamlet enlarged, in the original map, not land taken away for residential
and turned into agricultural. Petitions are attached and we can get more signatures, if needed.
4). The community of Sylvan Scene wants to keep their identity in this historical area for Blacks, and maintain the
name of Sylvan Scene, instead of modifying the boundaries, renaming it Prospect Hill. They are highly against that!
They also want Village 1 instead of Village 2.
5). We want all current properties in these areas “grandfathered in” to their current use.
/s/ Rev. Debbie Lee Bryant
*************
Ms. Margaret Chandler read the following comments:
To the Board of Supervisors of Northampton County, Virginia
My name is Margaret Chandler, and I live at 8514 Sylvan Scene Drive, in Trehernville. I’m the President of the
Concerned Citizens of Sylvan Scene Drive. We have had community meetings in August, and want the following
changes to the proposed future Land use map.
1. The community of Trehernville wants Village 1 status. No status 2.
2. The community of Sylvan Scene Drive, wants to keep their identity in this historical area for Blacks, and
maintain the name of Sylvan Scene Drive, in the land use map, instead of modifying the boundaries and renaming it
Prospect Hill.
3. The community of Sylvan Scene Drive wants to keep Sylvan Scene Drive the same way it is now, not divided,
into sections East and West.
Some of the residents of Sylvan Scene and Trehernville are here tonight. Please stand. Thank you.
*************
Mr. Tom Noonan requested that the Board consider Downings Beach/Fig Tree areas of
the County as noted above.
Mr. Dimitri Plionis made the following comments:
Remarks
To the Board of Supervisors of Northampton County
On behalf of the Board of
Hungar’s Beach Private Road Association
Dimitri Plionis
September 9, 2008
Good evening,
30
My name is Dimitri Plionis and I am the President of Hungar’s Beach Private Road Association. I have been
directed by the Association’s Board to make these remarks.
Last Wednesday I appeared in front of the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed downzoning of Hungar’s
Beach from Existing Rural Subdivision to the Agriculture District. Most of you were present, so I will not repeat
that statement; but for the sake of those not present, I will summarize our position.
Hungar’s Beach is a community that was established more than 40 years ago. It is a single-use, residential
subdivision, consisting of 28 lots, located on the water, and it is served by a private road built by the developer and
now maintained by the community. We understand that the reason for the proposed downzoning is a rule adopted in
the last couple of months that stipulates that a subdivision be defined as a residential division of six or more lots
“deeded or platted together”.
We oppose the proposed downzoning on the following grounds:
1. Applying the rule to a community that was created m ore than 40 years ago, when development was defined as
selling a lot or two every couple of years, is, on its face, unreasonable and arbitrary.
2. Hungar’s Beach was intended as a residential community from its inception and has effectively been a
subdivision for more than 40 years, a fact that is faithfully reflected in the definition of Existing Rural Subdivision
and its current designation as such in the currently adopted land use map.
3. Downzoning will render our community vulnerable to activities incompatible with its character and development.
We are especially concerned about the prospect that domestic livestock would be permitted in our lots.
We suggested as a reasonable compromise that Hungar’s Beach be grandfathered from the strict application of the
newly adopted rule. Our suggestion was rejected by the Planning Commission.
We wish to appeal to you the decision of the Planning Commission that retroactively and unreasonably overturns a
long-standing situation. We recognize that the County needs some kind of criterion for recognizing a subdivision.
However, let us also recognize that the newly adopted rule is not in any way endowed with unique or inalienable
qualities. As Ms. Benson’s memo of May 14 indicates, it was simply one of several options considered, and our
community’s proposed downzoning is merely the incidental, or arguably accidental, result of the selection of that
particular rule. Other rules considered would have left us unaffected.
We have been told that changing the rule at this time would inordinately delay the process of adopting a much
needed comprehensive plan that fosters responsible growth and development in the County. We recognize that this
has been a difficult issue for the Commission and that they have worked hard to devise a solution; so, if the rule
must be retained, then we feel that we must be grandfathered. There are arguably situations when the retroactive
application of a rule without exceptions may be justified. But those situations must, for the sake of fairness, be
limited to those that are of absolutely vital importance. We submit hat not granting an exception in this case does not
serve a critically vital interest; it merely serves to reinforce the technical validity of a particular rule formation. We
have been told that making an exception would give rise to claims by a multitude of other communities, currently in
the Agriculture District, to be upzoned to an Existing Subdivision status. Our response is that we are already an
Existing Subdivision and they are not. That surely has to have legal precedence.
If neither of the above options are, in your considerate judgment, feasible, then we would like to seek some other
kind of relief (such as modifying the zoning ordinance for situations such as ours) so that we don’t end up with
someone setting up a domestic livestock operation (say, a bunch of chickens and a pig) in our midst, which would be
allowed by right should we be downzoned as proposed (as currently provided in the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII,
Section L, paragraph 2, and definition 3(b)). By-the-way, this ordinance fails to protect the Bay from livestock
runoff which is potentially a bigger pollution contributor than certain other activities currently prohibited.
Thank you.
************
31
Mr. James Sims, Vice President of the Birdsnest Concerned Citizens group, referenced
the requests already stated in Rev. Bryant’s comments as numbers 3 and 5.
Mr. John Chubb questioned the proposed status of existing subdivisions Hungar’s Beach,
Yeardley, and Greenbriar Farms and noted that the Future Land Use Map does not recognize
what is only the ground today. He asked the Board to carefully consider the proposed
modifications.
Ms. Debbie Campbell spoke with regard to the Silver Beach community, noting that all
of the lots are not consistently sized as proposed in a “cottage” setting.
Mrs. Cela Burge asked that Phase II Smith Beach be named an “Existing Subdivision”.
She also questioned the Shepard Davis subdivision which meets the standards at this time.
Mr. Robert Richardson encouraged the Board to send the Comprehensive Plan back to
the Planning Commission for further review.
Mr. Bill Parr said that the proposed Comprehensive Plan demonstrates anti-growth
policies and asked for its rejection. He urged the Board to include commercial growth areas
along U. S. Route 13.
Mr. Scott Sims asked the Board to leave the Sylvan Scene Hamlet as drawn and named.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Following much discussion by the Board, motion was made by Mr. Tankard that the
Board take the following actions:
Approve draft text amendments to Part I, Section 2 (The Land Use Plan) to:



Recognize Bayview as an Existing Planned Rural Village.
Revise the description of the Existing Subdivision settlement type.
Revise the descriptions of the Town Edge settlement type and how town edges are
defined and designated.
32

Recognize and acknowledge that certain existing land uses, such as Kiptopeke
Condominiums, are already located in Conservation Areas and recommend that their
zoning recognize their existing status.
Approve changes to the existing Future Land Use Map by:

Adding the following Hamlets: Birdsnest West, Cherrystone, and Kiptopeke.

Modifying the boundaries of the following Hamlets: Birdsnest, Cedar Grove, Cobb
Station, Fairgrounds, Franktown, Magotha, Pat Town, and Weirwood.

Removing the following from the Existing Subdivision District: Downings Beach,
Nassawadox Point, Johnson Point, Creekview, Holly Bluff, Wellington Neck (Riverside Lane),
Birdsnest West, Hungar’s Beach, and Yeardley.

Modifying the boundaries of the following Existing Subdivisions: Highland Heights,
Miles Wharf, Clearview, Johnson’s Cove, Silver Beach East, areas of Chesawadox and
Hideaway Cove, Feland Estates, Hunter’s Cove, Peacefuls, Shooting Point, Gull Point, area off
Denwood including Bayly’s Neck Farm and Church Creek Point, Vaucluse, 3 subdivisions north
of Prospect Hill Hamlet (Wilkins Woods, Terry Woods, Walden), Deerfield, Wilsonia Neck
(Solitude Trail), Wilsonia, Greenbriar Farm, Bay Harbour, The Meadows, Tower Hill, Kings
Creek Landing, Arlington, Kiptopeke Estates.

Adding the following Existing Subdivisions: Rolling Meadows, Idyll Creek, Saltworks
Manor, Nassawadox Estates, Silver Plain Farm, Wellington River Woods, Church Creek Estates,
Westerhouse Woods, Hungars Point, Waverly, Saddlebrook Estates, Seaside Estates, Kendall
Grove Yard, Kendall Grove Estates, Selma Farm, Cherrydale, Mrs. Pauline Scott Subdivision,
The Landings, Eastville Commons, Custis Farm, Hoffler Estates, Cobb Station Estates, Cross
Bay, Long Family Subdivision, Cherrystone Village, The Kings Meadows, Townfield Meadows,
Townfield Acres, Chawanook, Cheriton Crossing, Bloomington Estates, Oyster Cape, Pine
Grove, Cheriton East, Sunnyside Estates, Seabreeze Estates, Wilson Acres, Woodland Meadows,
Rock, Narrow Channel Farm, Cape Charles Estates, Seaview Commons, Apple Grove Farm,
Bender’s Lane, Rat Hall Farm, The Preserve on Old Plantation, Mockhorn Estates, Plantation
Acres, Seaside Preserve, Dalby Farm Estates, Warren Farm, Sadie Acres, Plantation Estates, The
Chateaux of Lake Allure, The Dixon Farm, Latimer Shoal Estates, Subdivision at the end of
Mackatouces Point Road, Subdivision off Saltworks Road, Subdivision off James Wharf Road,
Subdivision off Broadwater Road, Subdivision off Brickhouse Road, Subdivisions off Giddens
Road, Subdivision off Bayside Road near Bridgetown, Subdivision off Courthouse Road
(between Courthouse and Rt. 13), Subdivision off Jarvis Road, Subdivision off Savage Neck
Road, Subdivision off Narrow Channel, Subdivision off Parsons Circle, Subdivisions off
Riverside Farm, Subdivision off Seaside Road near Wise Point.

Modifying the Town Edge boundaries for the towns of Exmore, Nassawadox, Eastville,
Cheriton, and Cape Charles.
33

Modifying the boundaries of the following Villages: Hare Valley, Bayview, Capeville
and Townsend.

Modifying lands designated as Conservation Areas by the removal of potentially
developable private property under easement, with the exception of lands known to be
undevelopable.
All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was
unanimously passed.
For clarification purposes, motion was made by Mr. Tankard that the Board table action
on the following items:
Relative to the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (Part 1, Section 2 [The Land Use
Plan]):
Add Martin Siding/Reedtown to the list of designated villages
Add Downings Beach to the list of designated Existing Cottage Communities
Relative to the Future Land Use Map:
Modify the boundaries of Sylvan Scene Hamlet and renaming it to Prospect Hill.
Changing the designation of Martin Siding/Reedtown from Hamlet to Village
Adding the following to Existing Cottage Community: Downings Beach
Modify the boundaries of the following Existing Cottage Communities: Smith Beach, Silver
Beach
Modify the boundaries of the following Village: Cheapside
Future Land Use Map Additional Items Which Will Require Another Public Hearing:
Designate Smith Beach, Phase II, as Existing Subdivision rather than Existing Cottage
Community
Designate a portion of the area known as Downings Beach, specifically eight (8)
numbered lots shown on a subdivision plat recorded January 22, 1976, one of which was
subsequently resubdivided, as Existing Subdivision rather than Existing Cottage Community and
designate the remaining lots along the bayfront as Rural/Agricultural
34
Designate the twelve (12) lots commonly known as “Fig Tree” as Existing Cottage Community
Designate a subdivision done by S.H.C. Davis north of Butler’s Bluff as Rural/Agricultural
rather than Existing Subdivision
Include all of a certain parcel owned by Micor, Corp. in Cheapside Village (a portion is already
designated “Village”)
All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was
unanimously passed.
It was the consensus of the Board to meet in the next few days to finalize action on the
tabled items.
Motion was made by Mr. Murray that the Board:
1. Request the Planning Commission to give the Board of Supervisors a review of Use
Regulations for Zoning Districts (Article 7), dealing with setbacks for Domestic Livestock
Husbandry. (While there is an expectation that many lots will be developed as residential, a
review of the zoning ordinance draft prior to the public hearings is desired to assure protection.)
2. Request the Planning Commission, subject to legal review and other considerations, to
consider in the revised Zoning Ordinance the ability to create a Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District that can be historic or cultural. Such an overlay district should offer protection
to neighborhoods that wish to preserve specific elements and characteristics of their community.
All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was
unanimously passed.
Tabled Item:
(11) Action on Recommendation for Route 13 Median Closures
Noting that the report from the Agriculture Committee has not been received at this time,
motion was made by Mr. Tankard that the Board table action on this matter. All members were
present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was unanimously
passed.
35
The Board heard brief comments from Mr. John Jacobs, Assistant Residency
Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation, who noted that following VDOT’s
internal review of the median crossings (once the Board’s recommendation has been received),
the Department will bring those findings back to the Board for review.
Action Items:
(12) Consider providing comments/Adjacent Property Owner’s Acknowledgement for a
petition of The Nature Conservancy for construction of a 450 ft. living shoreline project in the
village of Oyster (adjacent to county-owner property).
Motion was made by Mr. Trala that the project be approved as presented. All members
were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was unanimously
passed.
(13) Matters Presented by the Board Including Committee Reports & Appointments
Motion was made by Mr. Burden that Mr. Daryl Hayslett be appointed to the Southern
Rivers Management Team, representing the village of Willis Wharf. All members were present
with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.” The motion was unanimously passed.
Recess:
Motion was made by Mr. Murray that the meeting be recessed until 9:00 a.m., Monday,
September 15, 2008 in order to conduct continued discussions with regard to the Comprehensive
Plan and Future Land Use Map. All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes
and voted “yes.” The motion was unanimously passed.
The meeting was recessed.
____________________________CHAIRMAN
___________________ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
36