233  MINUTES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF YORK Work Session August 6, 2024 6:00 p.m.  Meeting Convened. A Regular Meeting of the York County Board of Supervisors was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday, August 6, 2024, in the East Room, York Hall, by Chairman G. Attendance. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were present: Douglas R.  Stephen Roane, Jr.  Holroyd, Sheila S. Noll, G. Stephen Roane, Jr., and Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr.  M. Wayne Drewry was absent during roll call.  Also in attendance were Mark L. Bellamy, Jr., County Administrator; Brian Fuller, Deputy County Administrator; Richard Hill, County Attorney; Heather Schott, Assistant to the County Administrator/Deputy Clerk; and Michelle Wright, Administrative Coordinator.  WORK SESSION  BERKLEY GROUP STAFFING STUDY PRESENTATION  Mrs. Rose McKinney, Director of Human Resources, introduced Mr. Jack Tuttle and Mr. Eric Campbell of The Berkley Group, who would be making the presentation. Mrs. McKinney informed the Board that The Berkley Group is here to help the Board better understand the methodology and process used to complete a staffing study, often referred to as an organizational assessment. Mrs. McKinney concluded that staffing studies have been around for decades in local government, and she expressed hope that the Board would gain value from Mr. Campbell introduced The Berkley Group as a whole. He stated that it is a Virginia based local government consulting firm that has been serving Virginia since 2010. The clients, he noted, are public entities at various levels of public service. He then introduced his project team, which included a group composed of reputable and diverse professionals able to provide ac comprehensive organizational assessment for the County. Their expertise, he stated, ranges from planning, public works, parks and recreation, human resources, information technology, and more. Mr. Campbell then introduced himself as a seasoned veteran who has graduated from the school of government at Virginia Commonwealth University and served as a City Manager in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and Assistant City Manager in Dallas, Texas, as well as the Mr. Tuttle introduced himself to the Board. He stated that he served most of his career in local government in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and before Virginia, he was a City Manager in the State of Florida. He, too, noted that the members of their staff have strengths in local government, finance, and overall administrative operations and are comprised of former City Managers, Human Resource specialists, and Information Technology analysts. Mr. Tuttle concluded his statement by pointing out that this team was specifically put together for the Mr. Campbell explained that the Organizational Strategic Assessment is an unbiased analysis of the County, conducted by an independent third party. The purpose of this assessment, he stated, is to evaluate how well the County is managing its resources and implementing best practices, with a focus on efficiency and effectiveness. The study will document the County's current state, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommendations to ensure the  the study.  City of Charlotte, North Carolina.  County's assessment.  County is a good steward of taxpayer money.    234 August 6, 2024  Mr. Tuttle briefly explained The Berkley Group's approach to its assessment and staffing study  for York County, which included the following: Collaboration and understanding Team-based Client communication Best Practices and Expertise Implementation focused Tailored to York County  Mr. Tuttle remarked that as the study progresses, the final report will highlight best practices based on professional experience and their potential positive impact on County operations. The report will also acknowledge areas where the County is already excelling. Despite recognizing the County's strong foundation and dedicated staff, he explained that the assessment will provide a fresh, unbiased perspective. The final report, he noted, will include tailored recommendations on implementation, detailing what actions to take, when to take them, who is responsible, and the expected. financial and time impacts. The approach the team will take is customized to York County, combining local knowledge with external expertise. Even now, he stated, the team is reviewing background data and conducting interviews across various Mr. Campbell noted the applied assessment process to be used includes reviewing existing conditions, holding staff interviews, drafting the report, and finally presenting their findings as well as their recommendations. He then presented the proposed schedule to fulfill these tasks and pointed out that on-site staff interviews began on July. 1, with a finalization of all tasks to occur in December 2024 or January 2025 with a presentation to the Board of Supervisors and as subsequent project closeout. However, he added that they will come to the Board in October to provide some higher-level observations of the information gathered by that time. Chairman Roane opened the floor for Board comments and/ /or questions.  departments to evaluate organizational efficiency and effectiveness.  Mr. Holroyd asked if a Board member had been interviewed in the first round of interviews led Mr. Tuttle replied that the Board is not normally involved in interviews unless otherwise requested. However, he stated that if the Board wishes to be more involved in the process, they Mr. Campbell noted that the final report will be provided directly to the Board. At that point, he Chairman Roane asked if the staffing study strictly looks at staffing levels or if the report Mr. Tuttle clarified that the study will produce information on the County's efficiency and Chairman Roane added that he noticed that the Constitutional Officers were also included in Mr. Tuttle stated that at the beginning of the process in the spring, The Berkley Group was given a scope of phases to act upon, and the Sheriff's Office and the Fire and Life Safety agencies were not included. He explained that they could be added to another phase if that is Chairman Roane asked Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Campbell how The Berkley Group will measure its Mr. Campbell stated that the measure of The Berkley Group's success is producing a product  by The Berkley Group. would be happy to do SO.  stated The Berkley Group would be happy to address any feedback. produces other information that will help the County.  effectiveness, noting that the study will be more of an overall assessment. the study; however, Law Enforcement, and Fire and Life Safety were not.  the Board's desire.  success on this organizational assessment upon the study's completion.  that is beneficial to the County's forward movement.    235 August 6, 2024  Chairman Roane asked if there had been any community engagement in previous organizational assessments conducted by The Berkley Group. Additionally, he questioned if there a strategy in place to incorporate community involvement in the study for York County. Mr. Tuttle replied if there is data from community surveys, The Berkley Group will review them. However, The Berkley Group will not be conducting separate surveys as a part of the public's Mrs. McKinney added that the Board was given a memo stating that The Berkley Group's approach to staffing levels and organizational structure was a two-pronged approach to observing the County's efficiency. She explained that The Berkley Group was on schedule with its tasks and was in partnership with staff to dissect the entire organization into a phased Chairman Roane stated that if Fire and Life Safety and Law Enforcement were included with the rest of the study, the comparison would be too large to produce an accurate outcome. Mr. Shepperd inquired about The Berkley Group's approach and how they utilize each department's different national standards and the common knowledge of what it takes to be Mr. Tuttle detailed that there are national standards and benchmarks in different divisions. While they are useful, not all of them are beneficial to York County due to the uniqueness of the organization. Mr. Tuttle described York County as unique due to its geography and Mr. Campbell explained that using benchmarks could be beneficial for assessing York County by providing The Berkley Group with a clear framework of the County's service levels. The data Mr. Holroyd questioned whether the organization's level of competency would be evaluated. Mr. Tuttle stated that although The Berkley Group cannot individually evaluate every employee, itcan provide a sense of the effectiveness of the workgroup and measure it against the people In conclusion, Chairman Roane thanked Messrs. Tuttle and Campbell for their informative presentation and added that the Board looks forward to seeing them again in October. LANDSCAPING, GREENBELT. AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Holroyd stated that the Board has had insufficient time in which to digest the 40-page package they, received less than an hour ago from staff. He recommended that in the future such material should be available to the Board in advance sO that it can be thoroughly digested Mr. Shepperd pointed out that some of the reading material Mr. Holroyd identified appears to Mrs. Noll stated that she sees the work session as a learning session, whereby the Board has the written material; however, staff's presentation aids one to absorb and consider it on a Ms. Caitlin Aubut, Planner II, stated that staff is reviewing Article 2, Division 4 of the Zoning Ordinance in its entirety. She added that the purpose of the presentation is to review this section of the Code, discuss it with the Board, clarify any vague items and explain what each section really means. She also noted that the review and discussion are to survey the Board's opinions on what sections are working and which ones need to be tweaked. In response to a Board question, she clarified that the information brought forward this evening is on  view of the County.  approach.  effective and efficient.  population.  collected will be tailored to meet York County's specific needs.  we have known in local government through our careers.  prior to discussion.  be a copy of the County's existing ordinance.  deeper level.    236 August 6, 2024  Landscape, Buffer, and Greenbelt Regulations. However, prior to her presentation, she stated that this is a broad topic requiring a great deal of the Board's time to review and consider. Mr. Mark Bellamy, County Administrator, stated that subsequent to speaking earlier with Chairman Roane regarding this matter, it was decided that the Board will determine how long the discussion will last this evening. In addition, he noted that continued discussion and final Mr. Shepperd noted the length of this section of the Code and inquired about the length of time Mr. Bellamy stated that this task is similar to that of the home-based business ordinance which the Board is prepared to address over multiple meetings with a formal vote being Chairman Roane noted that tonight's objective is to do a high-level overview of the ordinance Ms. Aubut reiterated that this evening the Board will take high level look at Article 2, Division 4 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with the County's landscape regulations which were adopted in 1995. Although several minor text amendments have occurred over the years, the ordinance basically has changed very little. During her subsequent presentation, she highlighted the  formal action on this item will be pursuant to the Board's direction.  needed to perform a thorough survey.  advertised and scheduled at the Board's direction.  with a deeper level of consideration occurring at subsequent Board meetings.  following information:  The purpose of this section of the Code is intended to establish minimum standards for landscape design and for the preservation of trees in order to better control soil erosion and the transport of sediment, and to protect and improve the quality of surface and groundwaters, screen noise and dust, and preserve, protect and enhance the natural Section 24.1-241 is all about landscape plans and details what is required on a landscape plan which needs to be prepared by a professional. This plan will also include what will be planted, the species, and the size to include schedules and charts Section 24.1-242 lists the landscape standards for new plantings to include the design, plant layout, species, and how the landscaping will be maintained. This section also includes ratios to ensure a good mix of trees and shrubs, and identifies planting minimums to include numerical standards for building perimeters and parking lots. Landscape credits for trees increase due to height and the diameter of the plantings. This is an incentive for individuals to plant larger trees/shrubs and also additional credits are given if a species is installed that will grow faster. Also existing mature trees on one's property provides additional credits, sO individuals are less likely to cut them Section 24.1-243, transitional buffers, updated in 1995, notes the required buffer between properties with different land use intensities/zoning, For example, a heavy industrial business next to a residential area would require the largest buffer of 50-feet. For transitional buffers, current planting ratio permits 70 percent of credits to be earned from shrubs in 25-foot, 35-foot buffers, and 50 percent in 50-foot buffers. Minimum shrub planting size is 18-inches in height and spread. However, whatever evergreen shrub that is planted, it must eventually grow to be four feet. The goal of the transitional buffer is to protect a less intense land use from a more During the presentation, Mr. Shepperd highlighted the importance of the words to be included in these regulations to ensure clarity for both citizens and the Board alike. He also stressed the need to ensure that property owners maintain the level of maintenance that is required Chairman Roane added that these regulations need to be tweaked to ensure that when levaton/photographic materials are submitted, the final structure, if approved, must reflect  and built environment.  that will explain how the minimum standards will be met.  down.  intense land use.  when a structure is initially constructed or built, such as fences, etc.  the submitted photos/elevation drawings.    237 August 6, 2024  Mr. Shepperd stated that in order to do this, another step, would have to be included in the process, which may not be legally feasible. He also noted that some changes occur due to Ms. Aubut interjected that relative to landscape plans approved by the Board, they must be Chairman Roane stated that the Board needs to be assured that whatever is constructed/erected accurately reflects what the Board has approved. However, he agreed that due to situations beyond our control, such as how a utility installation can alter a landscape plan, there has to be some leeway in such situations. In another instance, he noted that VDOT Mrs. Noll pointed out that typically submitted landscape plans show mature trees/shrubs, which do not accurately reflect the passage of time, and Ms. Aubut concurred. Mr. Holroyd expressed concern that the Zoning Ordinance, Section 24.1-242(a), does not prohibit the planting, of a 3-inch-diameter tree when a 24-inch-diameter tree is removed, which Mr. Shepperd also voiced unease that often, when large trees have to be removed for some reason, the County requires them to plant sO many small replacement trees that the visibility of Chairman Roane asked what determines the quantity and type of an actual engineered In response, Ms. Aubut stated that staff looks at a couple of things, including the landscape plan prepared as part of a site plan package. First, it is reviewed to determine if the plan meets the minimum planting requirements. Then, staff references the extensive list of species included in the appendix to decide if what is listed on the plan will thrive in the specified area. Chairman Roane asked if the staff is looking at the design and whether it is in harmony with Ms. Aubut stated that the County does have minimum planting requirements for green belts and noted that clearing a green belt is currently prohibited. However, she added that staff feels that the current Zoning Ordinance language in this specific area has issues that need to be Mrs. Noll asked if someone owns a piece of raw, untouched property that already has mature trees is that taken into consideration when applying the landscape requirements. Ms. Aubut responded that to do so, the property owner would have to engage a tree surveyor to validate the trees' location, size, and species, which will determine how many credits the Mr. Shepperd expressed concern that when large trees are left on a site, providing some of the required credits, they often die due to various environmental circumstances. As such, he inquired if the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance would satisfactorily address this Ms. Aubut stated that the County does not commonly see this issue anymore, especially in parking lots because even commercial property owners have concerns over this matter. Mr. Holroyd stated that when landscaping is removed, the property owners should be forced to However, Mr. Shepperd pointed out an example where a property owner removed trees because VDOT authorized it; however, the area was sO heavily replanted that it almost obscured the  regulations enacted by federal agencies, which the Board cannot alter.  substantially implemented as such.  designs can also sometimes alter a landscape plan.  should not be allowed.  on-site or nearby businesses is jeopardized.  landscape plan.  the County's green belt vision.  addressed.  property owner will receive towards the landscape requirements.  issue.  put back in what they have taken out.    238 August 6, 2024 shared.  adjacent business. He then inquired, if a buffer is required between two properties, can be In response, Ms. Aubut noted that it depends upon which property is developed first. She stated that the ordinance provides the option of two property owners executing a shared maintenance agreement. In addition, she pointed. out that as uses and zoning on abutting Mr. Shepperd stated that this is a complicated matter, but the County must be mindful of the language used in the ordinance to ensure that buffers are appropriately required and Mr. Holroyd added that the County needs improved language in the ordinance to ensure that when rezonings are approved, the effective setback is in place and maintained. He expressed concern that on Springfield Road the existing homes have only a 10-foot transitional strip Ms. Aubut explained that staff will also review these same requirements in open space cluster subdivisions in the next few months. She also noted that the planting requirements for green Mr. Shepperd stressed that common sense has to play into these issues as well, where often one size setback does not fit all circumstances. In certain situations, he stated the Board needs an escape clause sO that common sense can be used and applied when special conditions Chairman Roane agreed that the Board's hands cannot be tied when special circumstances arise that cannot be adequately addressed by the Zoning Ordinance. However, he also noted on Ms. Aubut reminded the Board that there is a mechanism whereby citizens can approach the Board of Supervisors for permission to clear in a required greenbelt buffer. She left the Board with a request for them to consider and discuss at a future meeting, the Code's existing planting matrix and the widths we currently have between the different districts and whether Chairman Roane noted the passage of time and that the Board should hopefully finish up considering and discussing transitional buffers this evening and continue the discussion at another time in the near future. However, he stressed that the Board needs to consider the true intent of the ordinance and added that the ordinance should address erosion control, aesthetics, screening, noise, and dust. Since the Zoning Ordinance was last updated in 1995, he questioned if we are still appropriately addressing these issues or do we need to make changes to better accomplish these goals. He also questioned the validity of the landscape Ms. Aubut stated that staff could review the number of landscape credit units being required; As Ms. Aubut's presentation proceeded, Mr. Holroyd stated that he would like to see the Zoning Ordinance require those property owners who are approved for a decrease in the transitional buffer to have to increase the number of shrubs in the buffer. He added that for businesses, this would help block noise from nearby. traffic. Mr. Holroyd expressed a desire to see this Mr. Shepperd questioned the adequacy of the current ordinance relative to the requirement of transitional/buffer: space between ai manufactured home park and a business. When discussing the transitional buffer, Mr. Holroyd asked if shrubs are removed from a site during the development stage, should the property owner be required to replace and thicken the shrub line. Instead of one-on-one replacement he recommended an amendment to the Code that would require a denser vegetative replacement. In addition, he noted that should an applicant be approved for a reduction in a buffer, additional plants should be required for the  properties change, this could cause a shift in the required buffer.  maintained.  between the existing older neighborhood and the new neighborhood.  belts are not has intense as transitional buffers.  are present.  the other hand this should only occur in very special situations.  or not the Board feels they are still appropriate.  credits and if they are truly accomplishing what was originally intended. however, a base unit of measurement will still be necessary.  added to our existing ordinance on transitional buffers.    239 August 6, 2024  remaining buffer, which would also deter the audio and visible impact of adjacent traffic Mr. Shepperd pointed out that, pursuant to sound engineers who have previously reported to the Board, you must have 200 feet of planted foliage to effectively buffer noise. He also questioned the adequacy of a 35-foot buffer between a manufactured home park and an Chairman Roane closed this portion of the meeting and stated that the Board would resume  congestion.  adjacent business. the discussion soon. RECESS  Chairman Roane called a brief recess at 7:15 p.m.; the work session reconvened at 7:22 p.m.  HOME-BASED BUSINESS UPDATE  Mr. Earl Anderson, Chief of Development Services, stated that the Board tabled this application at its June meeting to the September 17th Board meeting. He explained that he would provide the Home Base Business (HBB) Committee proposal, provide some information received from citizens, and then develop an understanding of how to prepare for the meeting in September,  which will include a public hearing.  During his presentation, Mr. Anderson highlighted the following information:  This application is for the Board to consider amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 24.1-280, Home Occupations Permitted, 24.1-281 General Requtrements for Home Occupations, 24.1-282, Home Occupations Permitted as a Matter of Right, 24.1- 283, Home Occupations Permitted by Special Use Permit, and 24.1-284, Prohibited Home Use Classification as follows: 0.5 percent exempt, 4 percent clients on site, 17 percent consulting, processing paperwork, 79 percent wholesale, retail, online. In July 2018, the York County Chamber of Commerce asked the Board of Supervisors to review what they considered to be outdated home occupation regulations that have not evolved to meet citizens' needs. The Chamber noted that many existing and potential businesses operate without authorization because of the length of time required to go through the Special Use Permit process. They, also offered a variety of recommended changes to the County Code to better accommodate home-based businesses. In response to the Chamber's concerns, the Board formed an ad hoc Home Based Business Committee to review the regulations related to these uses. The Board appointed six citizens to work with a Planning Commission representative as Chair and staff members from the Office of Economic Development (OED), the Zoning and Code Enforcement Office, and the Sheriff's Office. Staff support was provided by the Planning Division and the Zoning and Code Enforcement Office. The Committee started meeting in June 2019, first by reviewing the new home occupation environment and then Since the Great Recession in 2008, according to the OED, there has been a shift in the workplace resulting from technological advances, the cost of doing business, and generational and cultural shifts toward a more entrepreneurial mindset. Additionally, people who work from home see the benefits of flexibility in schedules to help them better maintain a work-life balance and also to be able to choose the location where they would like to live and work. The Office of Economic Development noted that over two- thirds of the County's licensed businesses are home-based businesses and saw a The Committee worked with staff to craft changes to the Zoning Ordinance, which were completed in February 2020 and were being prepared for review by the Planning Commission when postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On December 20, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed and was supportive of the text amendments, only changing the wording for allowing heavy trucks to be allowed "on" a residential  Home Occupattons.  delving into the County Code regulations.  greater demand to provide services for these businesses.    240 August 6, 2024  property, rather than the previous wording allowing it to operate "from" the property. The. Commission then recommended approval of the proposed changes 7:0. None of the home occupation provisions, existing or proposed, apply to short-term rentals, and such establishments would not be affected in any way by the proposed The amendments will require home occupations to provide parking off the street and wholly on the subject property on a surface space. No parking would be allowed on the The most significant proposed change is to remove the list of permitted home occupations as a matter of right and replace it with a more general allowance that addresses the items that are typically of concern to citizens, which most often focuses Proposed amendments to general requirements for home occupations include allowing a total of four resident employees, non-resident employees, and customers/Chents. Any number of people above the four that are onsite for the use, whether employees or customers, would require the owner/operator to apply for a Special Use Permit. Another proposed amendment to the general requirements is to allow home occupations to operate during all the days of the week, but the hours of operation would remain the AS Special Use Permit would still be required for uses too intense, such as requiring more than the typical number of parking spaces, on premise sales, personal services such as beauty salons, renting a room for more than 90 days, firearms sales, using non-resident Prohibited uses include convenience stores, small engine and equipment repair, tattoo parlors, gambling or gaming establishments, and vehicles that transport hazardous The Home-Based Business Committee proposes to eliminate the list of uses and just allow a more general allowance for the number of people on-site; restrict the number of people and the number of parking spaces that could be accommodated on the site; and address intensity by allowing up to four resident or non-resident employees or customer clients in total. They still have to meet the parking requirements; parking must be on the property; and must be a surface parking area. If they cannot meet these requirements, a Special Use Permit must be obtained. They did propose changing the days of operation to seven days a week but did not change the hours of operation. They did propose keeping the list of prohibited uses but thought gift shops should be Mr. Anderson stated that Ms. Diane Howell, who served on the Home-Based Business Committee, was present this evening. Ms. Howell and the Committee felt that home-based businesses need to be invisible in order to maintain a residential feel in neighborhoods. One primary suggestion was to keep the list of uses that are allowed and add to it if needed. The Committee also thought penalty fines should continue to dissuade violators from future Code infringements. In conclusion, Mr. Anderson sought the Board's direction on how to proceed with this matter. He specifically inquired if the Board wants to maintain the current ordinance, make minor changes, implement the HBB Committee recommendations, form a new  amendments.  street when a home occupation is present. on the number of people on-site at any one time.  same.  employees, docking of boats, etc. in a residential area.  materials.  removed from this list and allowed as a use.  HBB Committee, or perhaps proceed another way.  Chairman Roane opened the floor for Board comments and/ /or questions.  Mrs. Noll remarked that she had no questions but stated that the current ordinance, except for some minor tweaks, has worked pretty well over the years. However, she did mention that she In response, Mr. Anderson explained that due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, you cannot forbid signs any longer. However, he noted that the Board does have the authority to prevent approved Special Use Permit applicants from having a yard sign, but most of these Mr. Holroyd stated that he supports the proposed change that prohibits street parking for Home-Based Businesses. He recommended cross-checking any identified zone-poor businesses to prevent any violations from occurring. He also suggested re-examining the prohibited list and including vape shops, adult entertainment, and greenhouses with nighttime illumination.  does not support advertising signs in residential yards.  applicants do not want a sign.    241 August 6, 2024  He stated that the County's current interpretation of daycare is no more than four children at any one time; however, he did not agree with allowing running shifts where there may be four kids in the morning and another four in the afternoon. He recommended that the ordinance Mrs. Noll stated that she supported the current Code provision that states that there can never Chairman Roane asked where in the County is a current daycare business being run that In response, Mr. Anderson stated that there is such a business currently in Queens Lake. He also asked for clarification as to whether the Board is or is not supportive of a by-right business having no more than four individuals involved in the business in the home at one time; that is, the four would be composed of the owner, employee(s) and/or customer(s). In addition, he inquired if it would be permissible for the identities or makeup of the four to Mr. Shepperd stated that this issue is very. complicated. He recommended the following: ifan HBB is visible, it should require a Special Use Permit (SUP); however, ifit is invisible to anyone outside of the home, it should not require an SUP. He stressed that he supports whatever the community wants in which the HBB is located. He added that staff needs to ensure that the neighborhood is fully aware of what is being proposed sO that the Board can obtain their input on the matter. He noted that these decisions are the responsibility of the Board and should not be handled strictly by a list of Code regulations. He also stated that, in many cases, he does Mrs. Noll agreed that input from the neighborhood in which the HBB is located is paramount Chairman Roane asked Mr. Shepperd if he supports every business acquiring an HBB. In response to this question, Mr. Anderson stated that he believes Mr. Shepperd supports the by-right list that is currently in the Code, but perhaps we need to take out tutoring because it Chairman Roane stated that this is an interesting approach to handling HBBs; however, the Board needs to consider all possible scenarios in handling them. He stated that the Board needs to be able to put on paper what the Board can and cannot support relative to this issue. He then asked how we could enforce any parking restrictions the Board might place on an HBB Mr. Anderson explained that since it would be in the Zoning Ordinance we could enforce Mr. Richard Hill, the County Attorney, stated that since the County does not own the streets, the HBB property owner could pull his cars out of the four required on-site spaces and park them on the road to ensure room for the employee(s), and/or customer(s). There is really nothing the Board can do to prevent this from occurring ifit is a permitted parking area. Chairman Roane stated that allowing this to occur produces a poor traffic situation, which can detrimentally impact the neighborhood and lead to angst among the affected adjacent property Mr. Anderson stated that should this occur, the County would notify the residents that under the Zoning Ordinance, they are in violation of their agreement since all residential, employee(s), Mr. Hill warned the Board that in such cases, there is typically an enforcement and proof  stipulate strictly four children per day. be more than four children at any given time.  includes shifts.  change throughout the day.  not support these invisible businesses having to purchase a business license.  when deciding if an SUP should be approved.  involves too many people coming to the home.  since the County does not own the roadways. infringements as a zoning violation.  owners. He asked how the Board can ensure that this does not occur.  and customer(s) parking should occur on-site.  problem.    242 August 6, 2024  Regarding the suggestion to abandon the requirement of a business license for home-based businesses, Mr. Bellamy recommended against this. He based his recommendation on the numerous compliance issues related to many home-based businesses, such as Social Services overseeing childcare businesses, the Department of Health overseeing catering businesses, barber shops, and more. To drop the business license requirement, he noted, the County would lose the data that it needs relative to what businesses are active in our locality. In addition, Mr. Anderson pointed out that purchasing a business license places the business on the Economic and Tourism Department's radar, allowing them to contact the business to Chairman Roane supported maintaining the business license requirement but added that he has spoken with the Commissioner of the Revenue to simplify the purchase of this license. Mr. Shepperd pointed out that there is insufficient day care currently in the County, especially for our military residents. The Board needs to look into making more childcare available to our Chairman Roane stated that he has concerns over placing small engine and equipment repair on the prohibited HBB list if said property is on a large acreage, some distance from neighbors, Mr. Anderson stated that in such cases if the Board desires, these uses can be placed in the Following a brief discussion, the Board unanimously decided to place gift shops in the Special In conclusion, Chairman Roane stated that this matter will be brought before the Board as a Mr. Anderson sought clarification, as Mr. Holroyd appears to support a by-right category for businesses with no more than four people, composed of the resident, customer(s), and employee(s), onsite. However, he stated he is hearing from the other Board members that any Mr. Holroyd clarified that he can support what Mr. Shepperd has outlined, which is that any business visible to the neighbors must obtain a Special Use Permit and have the neighbors' Mr. Hill warned the Board that they must specifically identify what is meant by visible and Mr. Anderson stated that he will likely tweak the County's current ordinance to accommodate the Board's wishes. As such, he will likely place tutoring businesses in a Special Use Permit category along with other similar businesses, clarify the parking piece, and submit the draft Chairman Roane stated that the terminology in the tweaked document needs to be exact and enforceable. So moving forward, he stated that the Board needs the draft document by the work session sO that they will be prepared for the second September Board meeting. Mr. Anderson stressed that the public hearing on this item will occur at the September 17 meeting; however, the Board can table its action that evening ifit is not ready to formally vote. Mr. Hill also clarified that the proposed ordinance is being prepared not only for the Board's early consideration but also sO that it may be advertised and, therefore, available for public Mrs. Heather Schott, Deputy County Clerk and Assistant to the County Administrator explained that the first advertisement for this hearing must be shown in the Daily Press on  assist with developing and growing it.  military families.  and invisible to neighbors. Special Use Permit category. User Permit category.  public hearing item on September 17th.  visible business should apply for a Special Use Permit.  support.  invisible as it relates to home businesses.  document to the Board by the September work session for their review.  inspection no later than September 2.    243 August 6, 2024  September 2 and again on September 9, sO the proposed ordinance must be ready and In conclusion, Mr. Anderson expressed appreciation for the Board's and the public's input on Chairman Roane stressed that the most difficult task facing staff is ensuring that the definitions for visible and invisible are clear and understandable to the public.  available by that time. this item.  CONSENT CALENDAR  The Consent Calendar was considered and approved on a vote of 4:0.  Chairman Roane asked if a Board member would like to pull, ask for clarification, or offer Mr. Holroyd asked that Item No. 11 be pulled for further discussion sO that the public might be Chairman Roane asked that the reason for the amendments to R24-130 and R24-122 be Prior to clarification on Item No. 11, Mr. Hill noted that R24-130(R) was the correct resolution to be considered this evening. It had been amended since the agenda was published to increase the amount of refund due to interest that was not included in the original resolution. Mr. Holroyd noted that Item No. R24-122 should also be changed to an (R) as the original resolution did not specify that we are specifically appealing to U.S. Congressman Rob Wittman and all our congressional legislators for funding for the Queens Lake Dredging Project. Mrs. Schott explained that both amended resolutions had been placed at each Board member's Mr. Bellamy then asked Mr. Darren Williams, Deputy Director of Economic and Tourism Development, to come forward to provide additional information on Item No. 11, the Regarding Item No. 11, Mr. Holroyd stated he is requesting the specifics on the design-build Mr. Williams stated that the Board is considering approval of the award of a contract to construct a Dockmaster Building. to replace the old dilapidated structures, which include the existing bathrooms and the existing Dockmaster Building. Specifically, he added the Board's approval will allow for the demolition of the two existing buildings and the construction of a single-story building with an approved design that received input from the public. He pointed out that the new structure will house ADA-accessible bathrooms, a singular Dockmaster  comments on any of the consent items. advised of what is occurring.  provided.  seat this evening. Dockmaster Building.  services for the Dockmaster Building.  Building, and a guest services space.  Mr. Holroyd asked if the cost fell within the prescribed budget.  Mr. Bellamy explained that the budget for this project was funded over multiple years, but the  total was within the amount we had to spend.  Mr. Holroyd stated that is information he sought for the public's information.  Chairman Roane asked what the schedule was for construction should it be approved this  evening.    244 August 6, 2024 after Labor Day.  Mr. Williams responded that if approved this evening, demolition will hopefully start the week Mrs. Noll moved that the Consent Calendar items be approved as amended, specifically Item  Nos. 4, 5,6,7,8,9, 10 and 11, respectively.  On roll call the vote was: Nay: (0)  Yea: (4) Holroyd, Noll, Shepperd, Roane  Item No. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 18, 2024, Regular Meeting  Item No. 5. PEST, RODENT AND WOOD DESTROYING INSECT CONTROL SERVICES: A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A PRIMARY CONTRACT WITH DODSON BROTHERS EXTERMINATING COMPANY AND A SECONDARY CONTRACT WITH RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICAN D/B/A BUGOUT FOR PEST, RODENT, AND WOOD DESTROYING Item No. 6. REQUEST FOR REFUND OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR M.K.K.: A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A TAX REFUND TO M.K.K. FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES PURSUANT TO CODE OF VIRGINIA $58.1-3980, FOR TAX Item No. 7. REQUEST FOR REFUND OF BUSINESS LICENSE TAX-CCCOI Inc.: Resolution Al RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A TAX REFUND TO CCCOI INC. FORTHE1 TAX Item No. 8. REQUEST FOR REFUND OF BUSINESS TANGIBLE PROPERTY TAX-RINC: A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A TAX REFUND TOCCCOI INC. FORTHE' TAX  Resolution R24-128.  INSECT CONTROL SERVICES FOR COUNTY  Resolution R24-129.  YEARS 2020-2023  R24-130(R).  YEARS 2021-2024 FOR BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES  Resolution R24-131.  YEARS 2021-2024 FOR BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES Item No. 9. BANK CARD PROCESSING SERVICES: Resolution R24-132  A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH TRUIST BANK FOR BANK CARD PROCESSING SERVICES Item No. 10. REQUEST OF FUNDING SUPPORT FOR QUEENS LAKE DREDGING: Resolution A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT TO REQUEST FUNDING FOR THE QUEENS LAKE DREDGING THAT HAS SEEN SIGNIFICANT SILT INCREASES OVER TIME DUE TO DRAINAGE FROM BOTH THE COLONIAL PARKWAY OF THE COLONIAL NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK AND THE WIDENING OF INTERSTATE 64 Item No. 11. DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES FOR THE DOCKMASTER BUILDING: Resolution R24-  24-122(R)  105    245 August 6, 2024  A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE. A CONTRACT WITH GC COMMERCIAL, INC., FOR THE DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES  FOR THE DOCKMASTER BUILDING  OPEN DISCUSSION  Mr. Shepperd stated that he had recently spoken with representatives. of the York County Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) regarding the quality of education being provided. for our students. At that time, he learned that our teachers are allowed to register their children in our School Division, which is a plus for them. Also, when talking to the PTA representatives, he learned that they raise a great deal of money to help support our School Division. He then mentioned that most of our schools are aging; however, people continue to seek residency in the County primarily for our outstanding schools and safe neighborhoods. He thanked the family members and residents who are involved in the PTA to ensure our School Division Mr. Holroyd stated that he had spoken earlier with Mr. Bellamy regarding the deteriorated condition of Springfield Road. He added that VDOT had actually repaired 150 feet of its road shoulders but that they, needed to return to complete the job. He noted that he had asked Mr. Bellamy to reach out to Mr. Rossie Carroll of VDOT in regard to this matter. In light of the fact that Hubbard Lane is the only access to the Queens Lake community due to the extended closure of Parkway, he asked about ensuring that emergency access to Queens Lake is not jeopardized. He noted that his area had recently experienced some power outages and stated that he looked forward to Ms. Crystal Bright of Dominion Energy. speaking to the Board regarding storm/hurricane readiness at an upcoming September meeting. He also commended staff for quickly assisting the residents of the Pines of York apartment complex to restore their Mrs. Noll reminded everyone that the Virginia Symphony would be performing in the County on August 31. She thanked the Celebrate Yorktown Committee, the Yorktown Gallery, and others who raised the $25,000 necessary sO that the Symphony would perform at no cost to our Chairman Roane stated that he had recently received a letter in the mail from Mrs. Davis, Mrs. Mitchell, and Mrs. Worst expressing appreciation to the County for working to establish a senior citizen transportation mechanism, which seems to be off to a good start. He noted, too, that we are in the throes of Hurricane Season, and to obtain information relative to severe weather, one has only to visit the County website and click the banner at the top. He also thanked the County Administrator and the Public Works Department for proactively addressing drainage concerns before a storm hits to ensure that drainage works properly during and after astorm. He also commended the Information Technology Department for adding the Chatbot at the bottom right-hand corner of our website, which enables anyone to pose a question and get an answer quickly. He added should the Chatbot's answer be inadequate, respond accordingly sO that the Chatbot will learn and be of greater service moving forward.  maintains its excellent rating.  access to natural gas.  residents.  CLOSED SESSION  Prior to asking for a motion to go into Closed Session, Chairman Roane explained that Mr. Drewry will be participating remotely this evening because of a personal matter that necessitates his absence as permitted by. Code of Virginia, Section 2.2-3708.2 and the Board's Rules of Procedure 1-9. Proper notification was given to the Board Chair, and arrangements At 8:26 p.m. Mrs. Noll moved that the meeting be convened in Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)0)0) of the Code of Virginia pertaining to appointments to Boards and Commissions; and Section 2.2-3711(A)0)7 pertaining to consultation with legal counsel on a  have been made for Mr. Drewry's voice to be heard during the Closed Session.  specific legal matter requiring provision of legal advice by counsel.    246 August 6, 2024 On roll call the vote was: Nay: (0) The motion carried. Chair.  Yea: (4) Shepperd, Holroyd, Noll, Roane  Meeting Reconvened. At 8:50 p.m., the meeting was reconvened in open session by order of the  Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of proposed Resolution SR-1 which reads:  A RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REGARDING MEETING IN CLOSED MEETING  WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3711.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the York County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this the 15th day of August, 2023, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open. meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (2) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered by the York County Board of Supervisors.  Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and  Virginia law;  On roll call the vote was:  Yea: (5) Holroyd, Noll, Drewry, Shepperd, Roane  Nay: (0) The motion carried.  Mr. Drewry moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R24-127 which read: APPOINTMENT TO THE YORK COUNTY CHESAPEAKE BAY BOARD. Resolution R24-127. A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ONE MEMBER TO THE YORK COUNTY WHEREAS, Bradley Berrane has resigned from his appointment on the Chesapeake Bay WHEREAS, there are currently two applications from citizens who are eligible to fill this NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this, the 6th day of August, 2024, that the following individual is hereby appointed to the York County Chesapeake Bay Board for a term effective immediately and expiring on January 31,  CHESAPEAKE BAY BOARD  Board which expires on January 31 2025; and  vacancy and have indicated their desire to serve on this specific board.  2025:  Thomas M. Langston (Regular Member)  On roll call the vote was:  Yea: (5) Noll, Drewry, Shepperd, Holroyd, Roane    247 August 6, 2024  Nay: (0) The motion carried.  Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R24-123 which read:  A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION WHEREAS, there are currently three vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Advisory WHEREAS, this seven member board currently has only four active members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this the 6th day of August, 2024, that the following individuals be and they are hereby appointed to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, such terms to begin retroactively on August 1, 2024  ADVISORY BOARD  Board; and  and expiring July 31, 2028.  Jennifer G. McPeters Elizabeth S. Barber Nicholas Borelli  On roll call, the vote was: Nay: (0) The motion carried.  Yea: (5) Drewry, Shepperd, Holroyd, Noll, Roane  Mr. Drewry moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R24-126 which read:  A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ONE MEMBER TO THE YORK COUNTY PLANNING WHEREAS, Bradley Berrane has resigned from his appointment on the Planning WHEREAS, there are currently six applications from citizens who are eligible to fill this NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this, the 6th day of August, 2024, that Gregory Brooks is hereby, appointed to the York County Planning Commission for a term effective immediately and expiring on June 30, 2028.  COMMISSION  Commission which expires on June 30, 2028; and  vacancy and who have indicated their desire to serve on this specific board.  On roll call, the vote was: Nay: (0) The motion carried.  Yea: (5) Shepperd, Holroyd, Noll, Shepperd, Roane  Mr. Shepperd moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R24-124 which read: APPOINTMENTS TO THE SENIOR CENTER OF YORK BOARD. Resolution R24-124.    248 August 6, 2024  A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT EIGHT REPRESENTATIVES, ONE STAFF LIAISON AND THE PAA DIRECTOR TO THE SENIOR CENTER OF YORK BOARD WHEREAS, the Senior Center of York Board currently has eight members, the Board's staff liaison and the PAA Director whose terms expired on June 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, of those eight members whose terms expired, Carol Scott and Rupinder Gill have submitted their resignations; but the remaining six members, Lynda Bush, Viana Dail, Davene Davis, Thomas McNamara, Robert Rodgers, and Betty Titus, have indicated that they BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this 6th day of August, 2024, that the following eight citizens, staff liaison, and PAA Director be, and they are hereby, appointed to the Senior Center of York Board, such terms to begin retroactively on July 1,  desire to be reappointed.  2024, and expire June 30, 2028:  BettyJ.Titus Citizen Representative Davene D. Davis Citizen Representative Thomas D. McNamara Citizen Representative Lynda Bush Citizen Representative Viana Dail Citizen Representative Robert I. Rodgers Citizen Representative Jack L. Jordan Citizen Representative Beverly-Jean Powell Citizen Representative Sheri Newcomb Staff Liaison William S. Massey PAA Director  On roll call, the vote was: Nay: (0) The motion carried.  Yea: (5) Holroyd, Noll, Shepperd, Drewry, Roane  Meeting Adjourned. At 8:53 p.m. Chairman Roane declared the meeting adjourned sine die/to  6:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 20, 2024, in the Board Room of York Hall.    a  G. Stephen Roane, Jr. Chairman York County Board of Supervisors  County  H2ln