507

MINUTES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF YORK

Regular Meeting September 15, 2020

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, September 15, 2020, in the Board Room, York Hall, by Chairman W. Chad Green.

Attendance. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were present: Walter C. Za- remba, Sheila S. Noll, W. Chad Green, Jeffrey D. Wassmer, and Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr.

Also in attendance were Neil A. Morgan, County Administrator; Mark L. Bellamy, Jr., Deputy County Administrator; Vivian A. Calkins-McGettigan, Deputy County Administrator; and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.

Invocation. James W. Noel, Jr., Director of Economic Development, gave the invocation.

Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. Chairman Green led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PRESENTATIONS

INTRODUCTION OF NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICERS AND PRO- JECTS UPDATE

Mr. Steven A. Meade, new Economic Development Chairman, appeared before the Board with Harmon J. Coxton, the new Economic Development Vice Chairman, and James W. Noel, Jr., Director of Economic Development. He explained that the presentation would cover topics related to:

 Economic Development Authority Leadership Changes

 COVID-19 Recovery Assistance

 Economic Development Authority Property Sales

 Economic Development Authority Project Updates

 Looking to the future

Mr. Meade explained Mr. R. Anderson Moberg had been the Chairman of the Authority for 19 years and noted during his tenure he missed only one meeting. He thanked Mr. Moberg for his support during the years that he served as Chairman. Mr. Meade thanked the Board for their support and covered specifics related to the COVID 19 Recovery Assistance. 508 September 15, 2020

Mr. H. J. Coxton stated the Economic Development Authority (EDA) had formed the EDA Busi- ness Recovery Task Force led by Mr. John F. Biagas to assist businesses in the community to help with the impacts of COVID 19. Two grant programs provide support to the businesses and included:

 York CARES Grant – provides $3,000 grants to 80 businesses with up to 200 employees to cover COVID 19 related expenses through an initial CARES Act appropriation by the County of $250,000

 COVID 19 Small Business Grant – provides $5,000 grants to cover COVID 19 expenses to 64 small businesses (as of September 10, 2020) with under 20 employees through a Community Development Block Grant from Virginia Housing and Community Develop- ment of $500,000.

Mr. Coxton explained the recent Economic Property Sales which included:

 The Miller Group – Purchase of 143 Stafford Court which provides 20,000 square feet of flex space on 3.39 acres.

 Smith/Jones Investments, LLC – Purchase of 410 Old York-Hampton Highway which provides 7,500 square feet of light industrial space on 2.14 acres.

Mr. Meade covered Economic Project Updates which included:

 T-Rex Capital Group for the Yorktown Data Center - set to be located at 700 Old York- Hampton Highway. The site is anticipated to include 161,890 gross square feet. York County approved the support package and the Dominion Real Estate Option Agreement was complete. The marketing effort to lease space is now underway with 20,000 square feet of pre-leased space required to move development forward.

 Beales East – a brew pub set to be located on 7120 through 7124 George Washington Memorial Highway. The site will include 4,000 square feet and provide 800 square feet of outdoor dining area especially useful now due to COVID 19. The site plan is currently under review and the owner plans to open in spring of 2021.

 The Edge District through a Brownfields Grant for marketing initiatives and rebranding initiatives along the Merrimac Trail Corridor. The Corridor includes such York County businesses as Casa Pearl, The Virginia Beer Co., Parkway Printshop, and Column 15. The program is supported by all three Economic Development Authorities in the City of Williamsburg, James City County, and York County.

Mr. Noel covered the Kings Creek Commerce Center which will include an Unmanned System Facility through the GO Virginia Project. This item is on the agenda for Board consideration and action this evening. The Eastern Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority was poised to acquire the property from the State, and explained the property was better known as the Fuel Farm Property and included 432 acres. Mr. Noel explained how the Economic Development Authority was looking to the future, noting the landscape has changed due to the impacts of COVID 19. Online purchases are increasing which may ultimately present challenges in retail and may require alternative uses in properties or future zoning adjustments. This also included the number of home-based businesses located in the County or the number of workers now teleworking instead of physically being present at work. Mr. Noel explained prior to COVID 19, an average of 7 percent of workers teleworked, but now the estimates were anticipated to be more closely at 60 percent. He noted if the trend were to continue, it would be necessary to capitalize on the quality of life in the County while promoting strong broadband service to at- tract and retain teleworkers through new place making initiatives.

Mr. Zaremba referenced the 2013 published memorandum from the Economic Development Authority on Fenton Mill.

509 September 15, 2020

Mr. Noel explained the memo was tied to the Comprehensive Plan at the time and noted when the property was considered residential, developers were not interested. He noted when the property was re-designated as mixed use, developers began to become more interested.

Discussion followed regarding the mixed use designation and the number of inquiries prior to the mixed use designation.

Mr. Wassmer thanked the Economic Development Authority for their service and noted Mr. Moberg’s long-standing tenure as the Chairman. He also thanked Mr. Meade for serving as the Chairman of the Authority. Mr. Wassmer expressed his interest in the presentation related to retail space and was pleased to hear about the possible need for zoning changes to meet the changing environment.

Mr. Shepperd thanked the Economic Development Authority for their service. He asked the Authority to work with the Planning Department to think outside of the box to see how busi- nesses can fit into communities similar to Washington D.C. which are walkable but do not damage the community.

Chairman Green echoed Mr. Wassmer’s comments regarding the service of the Authority mem- bers. He asked the Economic Development Authority to work with the Comprehensive Plan review process to ensure the specific challenges are being met. Chairman Green also suggested having a meeting with the Economic Development Authority similar to the work session with the School Board.

CITIZENS COMMENT PERIOD

Ms. Darci Tucker, 218 Skimino Road, spoke on behalf of the Conserve York County Foundation, an Environmental Conservation Organization. She had watched as the forest had been torn down over the past 30 years in the lower County, and was fearful of the same result for the upper County. She hoped the forest in the upper County would remain intact to preserve na- ture and the rural atmosphere. She asked for a larger venue at future meetings that may draw a larger attendance.

Mr. Ron Struble, 204 Shady Bluff Point, spoke on behalf of the Conserve York County Founda- tion regarding the development being proposed at Fenton Mill. He would like to work with York County to create a smart development for Fenton Mill. He invited members out to the area to see what the organization was working on.

COUNTY ATTORNEY REPORTS AND REQUESTS

Mr. Barnett had no report at this time.

Mr. Zaremba asked about the Sovereign Bill and its status at the General Assembly.

Mr. Barnett explained the bill has been denied, but would probably return in the future for consideration.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS AND REQUESTS

Mr. Morgan provided a COVID update and noted that York County, which is a part of the East- ern Virginia region in the Virginia Department of Health, was in the same COVID 19 status as the rest of the State. He explained the latest State update reduces the limitations on gathering size and buildings, restaurants are allowed occupancy levels closer to normal, as the general trend in Virginia has been favorable in the last two and a half weeks. He was hopeful the num- ber of college students that were sent home from campuses would not impact the trend over the 510 September 15, 2020 next few weeks. He stated the Waste Management Office, in the Department of Public Works, was still collecting debris from Tropical Storm Isaias and anticipated completing collections by the end of the month. Waste Management had collected 1,500 piles of debris over the last five weeks.

MATTERS PRESENTED BY THE BOARD

Mrs. Noll expressed her thanks to the citizens of York County for wearing their masks in an effort to prevent the spread of COVID 19. She noted this was not always the case in Virginia Beach when she is there on business.

Mr. Wassmer, who had chaired the Greater Williamsburg Tourism Council that day, noted the impacts of COVID 19 on the tourism industry. Hotel stays were down 77 percent. He explained the new campaign being conducted “Life at Your Pace” was a way to adapt to the current envi- ronment. He noted over Labor Day weekend, one of the hotels had 60 walk-ins, which is good news. The campaign supported the view that people were not planning vacations, but were getting out without prior plans. On the Visit Williamsburg website, 82 percent of the people visiting the site had never been there before. The website had seen a 70 percent increase in the last two weeks noting there was a trend of being an influencer on the website which was con- tributing to visits. This was a new way to market and attract tourists. Mr. Wassmer passed along Senator Norment’s thanks for York County’s support and contributions to tourism during a meeting recently.

Mr. Shepperd made comments concerning the education system in York County, specifically through virtual learning. He spoke about technical glitches and the struggle for the children everywhere. Mr. Shepperd felt fortunate to be in York where the resources and expertise were available to deal with these issues. He stated this is not the case in some homes and that would be a problem for all of us in the future. Mr. Shepperd expressed his thanks to teachers and the role they have in children’s lives.

Chairman Green made an announcement, Application No. UP-953-20, Ulla Clayborne applica- tion would be considered as the first public hearing due to the number of speakers present in the interest of public health due to COVID 19.

Meeting Recessed. At 6:53 p.m. Chairman Green declared a short recess.

Meeting Reconvened. At 7:00 p.m. the meeting was reconvened in open session by order of the Chair.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

APPLICATION NO. UP-953-20, ULLA CLAYBORNE

The application was considered and denied on a vote of 2:3. A summary of the preceding is attached per Mr. Zaremba’s request.

A formal petition binder was submitted by the Preserve Queens Lake Community Group on September 11, 2020, prior to the Public Hearing. The letter has been included below along with the residents who signed the letters.

11 September 2020 York County Board of Supervisors 224 Ballard St., PO Box 532 Yorktown, VA 23690 Re: Opposition to Application UP-953-20, Resolution R-20-107

To the Board of Supervisors:

511 September 15, 2020

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a super-majority of Queens Lake property owners who are AGAINST the above referenced Resolution for a tourist home. Regarding the Resolu- tion, concerned residents formed the Preserve Queens Lake Committee with three objectives: (1) to inform property owners about Short-Term Rentals (STRs) in general; (2) to provide current York County guidelines governing these commercial businesses in residential communities; and (3) to communicate information about the public hearing scheduled for 15 September 2020.

To achieve these objectives, we conducted a door-to-door canvas of the Queens Lake communi- ty. We found that an overwhelming majority of property owners oppose STRs in Queens Lake, especially under the current County guidelines. Most are so strongly opposed they signed a petition letter AGAINST the application before you. Others hold a strong position AGAINST but prefer not to sign a petition for various reasons (e.g., privacy, fear of retribution). A small per- centage support STRs and the specific application. Interestingly several homeowners who originally supported the application to the Planning Commission on 8 July 2020 changed their position to AGAINST. We did not canvass Mr. Anderson and Mr. Cross, who live in Queens Lake, because of their official planning responsibilities for the County.

At the upcoming hearing, we will address the canvass and the very real and well justified con- cerns of Queens Lake residents. We will urge you to deny the application based on the over- whelming percentage of property owners in Queens Lake who are AGAINST it. This was, in fact, recognized by the County as the consistent basis for denying these applications. We will urge you to re-think the efficacy of current County STR guidelines. We will encourage you to develop a new, transparent, and well-communicated process involving a collection of widespread input from affected County citizens. The goal is a community-centric application process, a more stringent approval process, recognition and addressing community concerns, and a plan of action for meticulous enforcement of new guidelines. As Mr. Cross briefed you earlier this year: “One size does not fit all.”

Attached to this e-mail is a blank copy of the petition letter signed by Queens Lake residents who are AGAINST the Application UP-953-20, Resolution R-20-107. This data is the most accurate information we have. We will supplement when and if additional information becomes available. All petitions are the same except for signatures, so we are providing this to you elec- tronically for your convenience. Mr. Morgan, County Administrator received a hard copy of each signed petition and a list of their names and addresses, under this same cover letter. It is our understanding that Mr. Morgan will make hard copies available to each Supervisor if need- ed.

Respectfully,

Dianne Howell for the Preserve Queens Lake Committee

Copies:

Mr. Walter C. Zaremba, Vice Chairman, District 1 Supervisor Ms. Sheila S. Noll, District 2 Supervisor, Mr. W. Chad Green, Chairman, District 3 Supervisor Mr. Jeffrey D. Wassmer, District 4 Supervisor Mr. Thomas G. Sheppard, Jr., District 5 Supervisor Mr. Neil A. Morgan, County Administrator

Queens Lake Residents who were included in the notebook as part of a formal petition:

100 ALLENDALE PL ECKOLS CHRISTOPHER W & LEISA M 101 ALLENDALE PL BRUEGGEMAN JAMES R & PAMALA J TRS 102 ALLENDALE PL HEALEY JOSEPH F ETUX 102A ALLENDALE PL HEALEY JOSEPH F ETUX 103 ALLENDALE PL FUNK DENNIS A ETUX 104 ALLENDALE PL IANNI PETER A ETUX 106 BOWSTRING DR MARSHALL BENJAMIN T. ETUX (Alicia Forestier) 108 BOWSTRING DR LOOFT JANET P 512 September 15, 2020

118 BOWSTRING DR FOSTER JOHN V & CYNTHIA P 122 BOWSTRING DR JANSEN CHRISTOPHER A & ELAINE K TRS 126 BOWSTRING DR DIMATTIA RALPH R & DIANE MARCIA TRS 100 CAMBRIDGE LN VAN LEUVELD MARIA TRUSTEE 104 CAMBRIDGE LN MUNK LAWRENCE D ETUX 106 CAMBRIDGE LN KOCA MARY E & DAVID B 108 CAMBRIDGE LN DALTON DAVID L 111 CAMBRIDGE LN UMBERGER MICHAEL N. 100 CHARLES RIV LNDG RD ROBERTSON KENNETH JOHN & DOROTHY K TRS 101 CHARLES RIV LNDG RD WILLIAMS LARRY L & JUDITH J TRS 103 CHARLES RIV LNDG RD KILGORE NANCY H TRUSTEE 104 CHARLES RIV LNDG RD GRIGGS L MARK & CHERYL THOMPSON 106 CHARLES RIV LNDG RD SENG JANET E TRUSTEE 109 CHARLES RIV LNDG RD MALMQUIST DAVID L ETUX 118 CHARLES RIV LNDG RD ABBINANTI DAVID M & LISA M 105 COPSE WAY REMPFER SAMUEL B & TARRA 106 COPSE WAY HORRES EDWARD J ETUX 109 COPSE WAY BEGLEY CHERYL L & JOHN R TRS 110 COPSE WAY BANKS CHARLES M ETUX 111 COPSE WAY WALKER CASEY J & EMILY-ANNE RIGAL 114 COPSE WAY LEWIS DWIGHT L & SHELLEY P & VICTORIA R HARRISTON 115 COPSE WAY O REGAN GERARD ETUX 117 COPSE WAY JONES SAMUEL E ETUX 119 COPSE WAY REED DAVID L & RHONDA S 120 COPSE WAY RAWLINGS DONALD W & MARGARET M TRS 122 COPSE WAY BUENGER MICHAEL L & CAROLINE N BROUN TRS 102 CROWN CT GOODE GEORGE E & DOLORES T TRS 104 CROWN CT JONES MARK K & SUSAN LEVY 106 CROWN CT SERBIN CLIFFORD L ETUX 127 DENNIS DR RILEY EVA M B SCHERER C FAUERBACK 129 DENNIS DR BALDASARE JAMES R ETUX 139 DENNIS DR OWENS WALTER A ETUX 143 DENNIS DR VINGIELLO SUSAN & C E BORRMANN 145 DENNIS DR SHAYEGAN RICHARD R & MORAD 147 DENNIS DR ROSE RUSSELL R ETUX 150 DENNIS DR SAUNDERS M ALLEN & BARBARA G TRS 157 DENNIS DR VINSON GARY L ETUX 158 DENNIS DR GASCHEN ROBERT J & ALLISON P 165 DENNIS DR LEWIS LUTHER A JR & PATRICIA D TRS 167A DENNIS DR CHO THOMAS Y & REBECCA R TRS 170 DENNIS DR STEELE ROBERT P & ANDREA B 173 DENNIS DR VIRGIL, STAN & ANNETTE 174 DENNIS DR SMITH MARGERY B 175 DENNIS DR HILL FREDERICK L 176 DENNIS DR CURTIS JOHN R JR ETUX 178 DENNIS DR VINGIELLO FRANK A ETUX (Susan) 183 DENNIS DR CARROLL GUDI M TRUSTEE 186 DENNIS DR SPARKMAN SEAN & CARY 235 EAST QUEENS DR HARDING JOHN M JR & THERESE W 237 EAST QUEENS DR SUTTON FAMILY LLC 241 EAST QUEENS DR TOTH RICHAD W ETUX 243 EAST QUEENS DR YEOMANS ROBERT F & KATHLEEN F SLEVIN 245 EAST QUEENS DR CANTRELL JOHN H ETUX 247 EAST QUEENS DR LOCKWOOD JOHN G & JANICE H 249 EAST QUEENS DR PEEBLES KENNETH 250 EAST QUEENS DR BLOMMEL JOHN M. JR & DAWN D 252 EAST QUEENS DR FOX RONALD CURTIS SR & YUNG THI LE 254 EAST QUEENS DR GERARDEN ANN DAVIS 256 EAST QUEENS DR WHITTEMORE SHARON W & JAMES L 257 EAST QUEENS DR LOUGHMAN ROBERT P & NICOLE T 258 EAST QUEENS DR COPPING GEORGE F ETUX 260 EAST QUEENS DR FRAKES WILIAM B & GLORIA J HASSLACHER 513 September 15, 2020

262 EAST QUEENS DR TIEFEL HANS OTTO TRUSTEE 263 EAST QUEENS DR FELTS LEWIS W & LAUREN RAMSEY-FELTS 264 EAST QUEENS DR MYLUM THOMAS M 265 EAST QUEENS DR MORECOCK WILLIAM A JR & DEBRA F 266 EAST QUEENS DR DRUMOV JACEQUELYN S 267 EAST QUEENS DR BRITTON GEORGE L III 268 EAST QUEENS DR HOGG CHARLES M JR ETUX 269 EAST QUEENS DR RAUNIG D R ETUX TRS LIVING TRUST 271 EAST QUEENS DR BAILLIE NATHAN K & KAREN G 275 EAST QUEENS DR ROBINSON JOHN J ETUX 277 EAST QUEENS DR POE MATTHEW A & ARIELLE M 278 EAST QUEENS DR EVANS DONALD R ETUX 280 EAST QUEENS DR ROLLEY ROBERT S ETUX 283 EAST QUEENS DR O KEEFFE JOHN G JR & LINDA L ETAL 284 EAST QUEENS DR CARDMAN LAWRENCE S & HELEN A TRS 285 EAST QUEENS DR RUHLAND GARY L ETUX 288 EAST QUEENS DR SMITH LESLIE P ETUX 290 EAST QUEENS DR SOWERS HEATHER B & MARK E 293 EAST QUEENS DR MAGGIO VICTOR E & SUZANNE D 295 EAST QUEENS DR SLOGGIE DAVID C & MARUREEN C 296 EAST QUEENS DR GALOW GORDON T & RUTH L TRS 301 EAST QUEENS DR HUDSON JEAN C 100 GREENWOOD DR POTTER SHAUN R ETUX 102 GREENWOOD DR TAMBONE FRANK J ETUX 103 GREENWOOD DR PHINNEY MARKH ETUX 105 GREENWOOD DR AIKAT PROSANT ETUX 102 HOLCOMB DR HART BARBARA A TRUSTEE 104 HOLCOMB DR SCHERER BARBARA RILEY TRUSTEE 106 HOLCOMB DR MOORMAN KAROL VOIGHT TRUSTEE 109 HOLCOMB DR ALBERT KENNETH M ETUX 112 HOLCOMB DR BLOUNT RICHARD H II ETUX 115 HOLCOMB DR STAGGS, RYAN & JENNIFER 118 HOLCOMB DR DOLEY LIS SCHACKINGER TRUSTEE 119 HOLCOMB DR GERHART HENRY & MARCIA O TRS 123 HOLCOMB DR LEGECKIS JOSEPH M & WENDY G 124 HOLCOMB DR RUSSELL GREGORY L & SUSAN B TRS 130 HOLCOMB DR HOLLERITH HERMAN IV ETUX 132 HOLCOMB DR KAMMER F DANIEL JR LIVING TRUST 100 HOLLOWAY DR PULLER WILLIAM FLOYD & MARY P TRS 102 HOLLOWAY DR ENNIS DONALD E ETUX 106 HOLLOWAY DR GROSE WILLIAM L TRUSTEE 107 HOLLOWAY DR JOHNSTON BILLIE O TRUSTEE 10 HORSESHOE DR PASCALE CHRISTIAN V & LIRIA H TRS 104 HORSESHOE DR HOWELL RICHARD C ETUX 107 HORSESHOE DR WILSON NORMAN D & BONNIE L TRS 108 HORSESHOE DR DEJAGER MARINUS & DANA TRS 110 HORSESHOE DR OGDEN ROBERT J & XIAO MEI REN 120 HORSESHOE DR VRABEL LESLIE JR & RICHARD KRATZER 123 HORSESHOE DR ALBERTS STEPHEN N I AMY A AMERICO 125 HORSESHOE DR EVANS JANICE CATHERINE 127 HORSESHOE DR HALYO NESIM 134 HORSESHOE DR FIELDS BRANCH T III & MYA 136 HORSESHOE DR BOLAND MARY A & BRIAN KREYDATUS 137 HORSESHOE DR EDDINS NAN CECILE & BARBARA ANN 138 HORSESHOE DR DENBY OTIS E & PATRICIA M TRS 140 HORSESHOE DR MURRAY JOHN D & ELIZABETH M TRS 141 HORSESHOE DR HEWITT SALLY M & ROBERT REINING 142 HORSESHOE DR OTTERSTEIN JEFF & JORIE SIUDA 129 HUNTER LN TIMKO CHARLES J & BARBARA J 132 HUNTER LN JAMES BURTON W ETUX 133 HUNTER LN BROWN NIGEL R & KELLY E 514 September 15, 2020

100 HUNTINGDON RD TRICOCHE CARLOS J & YAZMIN C 101 HUNTINGDON RD JEBSON ARTHUR L ETUX 104 HUNTINGDON RD COTTRIL CLYDE A & FREDERICKA A 107 HUNTINGDON RD YATES GARY E & MARY E 114 KING RICHARD CT WELLS JOHN T & PATRICIA B 261 KING CT POCK MAXIMILIAN O ETUX 263 KINGS CT GRAFTON SUE B TRUSTEE 301 LAKESHEAD DR HOLT H MILTON & FRANCES G TRS 107 LAKESHEAD DR ART GRITZMAKER 501 LAKESHEAD DR CLAYTON BRUCE A 513 LAKESHEAD DR DUGGAN JOSEPH J &DIANE S TRS 527 LAKESHEAD DR POPLASKI JOSHUA A & KELLY C 127 LITTLE JOHN RD ASKEW SEAN & DANETTE 103 LITTLE JOHN RD BARTNECK PATRICIA H 105 LITTLE JOHN RD SEBASTIAN RICHARD J ETUX 107 LITTLE JOHN RD CHAPMAN MICHAEL W ETUX 108 LITTLE JOHN RD FALLON KEVIN S ETUX 110 LITTLE JOHN RD GROVE PEARCE S & RITA R 111 LITTLE JOHN RD PENDER JAMES B & PATRICIA N TRS 113 LITTLE JOHN RD ATKINSON RALPH E & SANDRA L 115 LITTLE JOHN RD SMITH WILLIAM C JR &I MARTHA V 116 LITTLE JOHN RD FARRAR BETTY W 117 LITTLE JOHN RD OWENS FRED E & SANDRA E TRS 118 LITTLE JOHN RD MITCHELL SANDRA L 119 LITTLE JOHN RD ELLIS DOUGLAS S & DEBORAH K 122 LITTLE JOHN RD CRUZ ROBERTO & DORIS R 123 LITTLE JOHN RD STEWART HARLEY A 124 LITTLE JOHN RD POGGIONE WILLIAM J TRUSTEE 125 LITTLE JOHN RD FRIPP ARCHIBALD L & JEAN C TRS 126 LITTLE JOHN RD OLIVER ALEXANDER W IV TRS & LIBBEY H TRS 129 LITTLE JOHN RD GOUDELOCK STEWART C & MELANIE C HEATH 131 LITTLE JOHN RD MCCLUNEY RICHARD L JR & S S ROBERTS 132 LITTLE JOHN RD HILBURGER JOHN P & JILL M TRS 133 LITTLE JOHN RD ANDERSON JEFFREY S & QUAN C NIM 134 LITTLE JOHN RD WELCH CAROL C TRUSTEE 135 LITTLE JOHN RD NORAKO VINCENT W JR ETUX 138 LITTLE JOHN RD COCHRAN HENRY M ETUX 139 LITTLE JOHN RD GRAFFILIS BRENT M & MICHELE BINGLE 141 LITTLE JOHN RD CAMPBELL CAROLYN H 142 LITTLE JOHN RD 116 MATOAKA COURT LLC, George Mackert 143 LITTLE JOHN RD FARLEY JOHN J & LOURDES C 145 LITTLE JOHN RD WARRICK JAMES M & KAREN E TRS WARRICK FAMILY LIVING TRUST 106 MAID MARION PL HAILEY CHRISTOPHER B & ANN C BROWN 118 MAID MARION PL TRUE BRIAN E 102 MONTAGUE CIR MYERS MICHAEL K ETUX 104 MONTAGUE CIR MOVER DUNCAN E & PATRICIA P 105 MONTAGUE CIR MCGUIRE TERENCE J & KERRY 106 MONTAGUE CIR SEPANSKI JOHN M & LAURIE 107 MONTAGUE CIR LOWRY RICHARD S ETUX 109 MONTAGUE CIR MARQUART GREGORY D & APRIL 110 MONTAGUE CIR CORBIN WILLIAM E JR & CLARISSA J 112 MONTAGUE CIR FIELDS RANCH T ETUX 114 MONTAGUE CIR CROLY JONATHAN & NATALIA (new owner moved in 21 August 2020 105 N WILL SCARLET LN SMITH GARY E & JULIETTE L 105 N WILL SCARLET LN SMITH GARY E & JULIETTE L 106 N WILL SCARLET LN GERARDEN TED P & ANN D 257 NOTTINGHAM RD ANDREWS ALEXANDER G JR & JOANNE TRS 258 NOTTINGHAM RD WATERS STEPHEN J & LYNNE A 260 NOTTINGHAM RD SPENCER JAMES LITTLETON 268 NOTTINGHAM RD MCDONAL DARRIN A & ANGELA B CLARK-MCDONAL 515 September 15, 2020

269 NOTTINGHAM RD SATTERWHITE FRED B & MARY H TRS 272 NOTTINGHAM RD WINDER ROBERT C ETUX 277 NOTTINGHAM RD WATSON LAWRENCE M & MEREDITH A 301 NOTTINGHAM RD MAXFIELD CHARLES J & KATHLEEN S 302 NOTTINGHAM RD LITTLE THOMAS H ETUX 304 NOTTINGHAM RD MILBURN JOHN G ETUX 306 NOTTINGHAM RD BAY EOMOND T & KEISHA M 307 NOTTINGHAM RD HILL HARRY T ETUX 309 NOTTINGHAM RD SIMON DARLENE JOYCE TRUSTEE 310 NOTTINGHAM RD MITCHELL DOROTHY M 312 NOTTINGHAM RD MCGOVERN CHARLES F ETUX 316 NOTTINGHAM RD ROBERTS IAN T & BEVERLEY R TRS 317 NOTTINGHAM RD ROBINSON JEWEL M TRUSTEE 319 NOTTINGHAM RD SADLER JOHN M & PATRICE P TRS 320 NOTTINGHAM RD TURCOTTE KEVIN F & CHERRI 102 OLD GLORY CT BOLCHOZ DANIEL R & ROBIN L 104 OLD GLORY CT ECKMAN PHILIP K &HELEN L 106 OLD GLORY CT LEACH PAUL R ETUX 108 OLD GLORY CT PETTUS BENJAMIN J & MARTHA A TRS 105 POINT LAUREL PL HOLT H MILTON & FRANCES G TRS 106 POINT LAUREL PL HOLT H MILTON & FRANCES G TRS 107 POINT LAUREL PL HOLT H MILTON & FRANCES G TRS 102 PRINCE CHARLES RD NEWMAN JAMES A & PATRICIA H TRS 201 PRINCE CHARLES RD MULLENAX CLYDE E & DAWN F GRIGGS 271 PRINCESS PL LEGASPI JOSEPH M & RYAN & LISA 275 PRINCESS PL CHECU ADRIAN ETUX 102 RINGFINGER CT DUCKWORTH HARRY A JR ETUX 106 RINGFINGER CT SCHMIDT MARK D & YVONNE M 104 SAXON RD HANSON GREGORY D ETUX 108 SAXON RD BRAMBLE DEREK & MICHAEL TURKOVICH 111 SAXON RD MORRIS CARLY J 100 SHERIFFS PL TATE KAREN H 101 SHERIFFS PLA HARGROVE ROY B III & ASHLEY S 102 SHERIFFS PL MCCORMACK JUDITH K TRUSTEE 103 SHERIFFS PL EVANS DONALD R & LINH D MCALEXANDER 105 SHERIFFS PL ANGLES KIMBERLY C 106 SHERIFFS PL STONE TIMOTHY A TRUSTEE 101 SHERWOOD DR WISEMAN LAWRENCE L & NANCY A CO-TRS 104 SHERWOOD DR FASHING NORMAN J & GISELA K TRS 106 SHERWOOD DR PEGG ROBERT J TRUSTEE 107 SHERWOOD DR ALBERT KENNETH M ETUX 109 SHERWOOD DR TERRY JOEL L JR & CHARLOTTE W TRS 110 SHERWOOD DR BABER HAL T & MARGARET F TRS 112 SHERWOOD DR DAMRON BENNIE D 113 SHERWOOD DR MAXWELL ROBERT E & BETTY LYNN 114 SHERWOOD DR CRAIN RADFORD P & JENN A CO-TRS 116 SHERWOOD DR DUNN ROBERT M II ETUX 117 SHERWOOD DR MCDERMOTT JOHN P III & PATRICIA K 119 SHERWOOD DR CLARKE GERALD D ETUX 121 SHERWOOD DR FERGUSON CHRISTOPHER M & MELISSA B TRS 103 SHOREHAM LN MURPHY DAVID B & JACQUELINE N TRS 107 SHOREHAM LN KING DARREL J & TARNYA 100 SIXPENCE CT HAGER CHRISTIAN ETUX 101 SIXPENCE CT JAMES PETER L & CHRISTINE L 103 SIXPENCE CT BROWN RICKLIN G & SAREAH G SULLIVAN 104 SIXPENCE CT PHILLIPS JOSEPH F JR REV TRUST & EDEL- TRAUD G PHILLIPS 105 SIXPENCE CT MOUL THOMAS M & NANCY-LU F TRS 101 SPUR CT HOOD JOSHUA A & NOSHICA J 101 VALOR CT MARTIN SYLVIA SEETHARAM 105 VALOR CT LAWRENCE KIM M 516 September 15, 2020

105 WEST QUEENS DR ERIC WYNKOOP 142 WEST QUEENS DR BAGBY PAUL R ETUX 143 WEST QUEENS DR PALMER RICK & BECKY 146 WEST QUEENS DR JENKINS JAMES F JR & BETTY G TRS 147 WEST QUEENS DR HUPTICH ARTHUR W JR & JEAN F TRS 148 WEST QUE3ENS DR MORRIS CHARLES ETUX 150 WEST QUEENS DR BONADONNA FRANCIS D & PENNY S 151 WEST QUEENS DR CLEMENTS ERNEST & TERESA 152 WEST QUEENS DR KEENER BRUCE C & WENDY TRS 156 WEST QUEENS DR HAYES MICHAEL B & JENNIFER M 157 WEST QUEENS DR BROWN NANCY C TRUSTEE 159 WEST QUEENS DR BIERER BESSIE 163 WEST QUEENS DR MALTINSKY LYNN J & JEANNE M WILSON 165 WEST QUEENS DR DOOLEY JOHN & JULIE 169 WEST QUEENS DR PILSON THOMAS A JR ETUX 170 WEST QUEENS DR BURNS JOHN P JR 171 WEST QUEENS DR MOORE LESTER C & TAMMY 174 WEST QUEENS DR ABBOTT GREGORY A & CYNTHIA A 175 WEST QUEENS DR OLSON LANA G TRUSTEE 181 WEST QUEENS DR WHITE FORREST R & ANN W 183 WEST QUEENS DR GLEASON MARY BURTON HILL TRUSTEE 184 WEST QUEENS DR MAINES PETER R ETUX 185 WEST QUEENS DR EMANUAL PETER J ETUX 187 WEST QUEENS DR HENNESSY JOHN W ETUX 189 WEST QUEENS DR HART CLIFFORD A SR ETUX 195 WEST QUEENS DR TAYLOR THOMAS C & MARTHA B TRS 196 WEST QUEENS DR MARCUSON D CRAIG & Z CHRISTINE TRS 197 WEST QUEENS DR HERNANDEZ NEIL A & JODI L 201 WEST QUEENS DR KOWALCZYK RICHARD S JR & CYNTHIA BLAKE 203 WEST QUEENS DR NEIL GEORGE R & DOREEN O TRS 204 WEST QUEENS DR CURREY JON C & SUSAN L CO-TRS 205 WEST QUEENS DR GUSLER WALLACE B ETUX 207 WEST QUEENS DR SIMS ANDREW M & SUSAN T 210 WEST QUEENS DR KOLLOFF CHRISTOPHER B & LINDA M WALDRON K0LL KOLLOFF 211 WEST QUEENS DR NANARTOWICH EDWARD J & LARUA T TRS 212 WEST QUEENS DR STONEBURNER FRANCES K TRUSTEE 213 WEST QUEENS DR THOMPSON GEORGE A T 217 WEST QUEENS DR OHO THOMAS & REBECCA 223 WEST QUEENS DR VANDER KOOI DOUGLAS C & RUTH NL 224 WEST QUEENS DR MCRITCHIE BRUCE D & BARBARA A TRS 228 WEST QUEENS DR KING JAMES D & SUZANE C 229 WEST QUEENS DR KOSSODO LUCILLE M 231 WEST QUEENS DR REAMS STEVEN H ETUX 102 WILL SCARLET LN CARNEY CHARLES L ETUX 103 WILL SCARLET LN GOLDING VIVIAN S TRUSTEE 107 WILL SCARLET LN BRANTLEY ANDREW M ETUX 110 WILL SCARLET LN CLOYED GEORGE R ETUX 114 WILL SCARLET LN HOULE’S 117 WILL SCARLET LN BOWE LINDA G TRUSTEE LIV TRUST 118 WILL SCARLET LN WILSON GEORGE JAMES 120 WILL SCARLET LN MCKINNEY GEORGE JEFFRESS ETUX 123 WILL SCARLET LN WRIGHT DANA C 124 WILL SCARLET LN REINECKE JOSEPH P 125 WILL SCARLET LN ALLEN JESSE B & LAURA M KAMMER 126 WILL SCARLET LN DOBSON HENRY V JR & VALARIA T 103 WILLOUGHBY DR TILLAR DONALDSON P JR ETUX 104 WILLOUGHBY DR FORBES STEPHANIE L & JUSTIN M 107 WILLOUGHBY DR MCFADZEAN THOMAS C ETUX 110 WILLOUGHBY DR GRIFFIN JEREMY T & JENNIFER K 111 WILLOUGHBY DR LEONARD ROBERT P & ELISE

517 September 15, 2020

Amy Parker, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation on Application No. UP-953-20 to approve a request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 24.1-306 (category 1, no. 6) of the York County Zoning Ordinance, to authorize the establishment of a tourist home in an existing sin- gle-family detached house on a 0.7-acre parcel of land located at 100 Bowstring Drive (Route 1323).

Chairman Green asked if the Claiborne’s wanted to rent the property long-term, would they be able to proceed without a Special Use Permit.

Ms. Parker stated they would indeed need a Special Use Permit should they choose to rent the property out long-term.

Mr. Wassmer asked if, of the nine Short-Term Rental applications that had been approved by the Board, any violations or problems had occurred with the respective properties.

Ms. Parker stated that no complaints had been received on the existing nine Short-Term Rental properties that currently exist in York County.

Mr. Wassmer appreciated the applicant going through the approval and asked if she had met all requirements.

Mr. Zaremba asked whether the performance standards just covered and approved by the Board in March developed over time by the Planning Commission.

Ms. Parker confirmed they were.

Mr. Zaremba they were briefed and ultimately approved by the Board, but he noticed one of the major considerations of the Planning Commission was that neighborhood input was critical to the decision making in the approving or disapproving of the short term rental. He asked why she did not include that in her presentation.

Ms. Parker stated she was reading the Zoning Ordinance requirements.

Mr. Zaremba stated the report from the Planning Commission which resulted in the changes to the Zoning Ordinance requirements was that neighborhood input was critical. He raised the issue because it was why the people were here this evening to give their input and was the most important take away of the entire exercise.

Ms. Ulla Clayborne, 100 Bowstring, Drive, spoke as the applicant. She asked for a Special Use Permit to rent out one room of her home. Both she and her husband would remain in the home and be present on the property. Ms. Clayborne stated the home was purchased as a retirement home and she felt the value on the property had increased due to work she and her husband had done once they moved in. She was concerned about the false accusations made by mem- bers of the Queens Lake neighborhood and noted that both she and her husband would ensure that all of the rules and regulations were followed if the application was approved. Her four adjacent neighbors were in support of the application. Ms. Clayborne stated the Queens Lake community had no Homeowners’ Association and a short-term rental was not prohibited in the community. Neighbors had raised a concern about her application and the number of strangers it would bring into the community. She did not understand how that could be a concern. She explained the clubhouse could be rented out for individuals who did not live in Queens Lake and a proposal had been made by some of the residents to begin a farmer’s mar- ket in the community. She asked for the application to be approved, because it followed the rules, regulations, and standards for short-term rentals, would be non-evasive in the communi- ty, and would not decrease property values.

Chairman Green then called to order a public hearing on Application No. UP-953-20, Proposed Resolution R20-107, which was duly advertised as required by law. 518 September 15, 2020

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TOURIST HOME IN AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING AT 100 BOWSTRING DRIVE

Supported:

Curtis Clayborne Christina Cooper Alana Indorina 100 Bowstring Drive 106 Shoreham Lane 104 Shoreham Lane Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

David Dafashy 105 Willoughby Drive Williamsburg, VA

519 September 15, 2020

Opposed:

Richard Howell David Malmquist Frances Holt 104 Horseshoe Drive 109 Charles River Landing Road 107 Point Laurel Place Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

K. Dana De Jager John Sepanski FrancIs Bonadonna 108 Horseshoe Drive 106 Montague Circle 150 West Queens Drive Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Mark Sowers John Farley Branch Fields, III 290 East Queens Drive 143 Little John Road 134 Horseshoe Drive Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Penny Bonadonna Patricia Bartneck Les Vrabel 150 West Queens Drive 103 Little John Road 120 Horseshoe Drive Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Zane Sowers Lourdes Farley Sylvia Martin 290 East Queens Drive 143 Little John Road 101 Valor Court Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Laura Nanartowich Heather Sowers Carlos Tricoche 211 West Queens Drive 290 East Queens Drive 100 Huntingdon Road Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Jack Dooley Richard Toth Christian Pascale 165 West Queens Drive 241 East Queens Drive 102 Horseshoe Drive Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Milton Holt Caroline Brown Michael Buenger 107 Point Laurel Place 122 Copse Way 122 Copse Way Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Cherri Turcotte Lucia Sebastian Marinus De Jager 320 Nottingham Road 105 Little John Road 108 Horseshoe Drive Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Dianne Howell Trevor Sowers Heidi Garman 104 Horseshoe Drive 290 East Queens Drive 104 Little John Road Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Nigel Brown Brent Baumberger Ron Kirkland 133 Hunter Lane 103 Little John Road 1001 Richmond Road Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

Kathy Devanny Patricia Albert 177 Dennis Drive 109 Holcomb Drive Williamsburg, VA Williamsburg, VA

There being no one else present who wished to speak, Chairman Green closed the public hear- ing on the application.

Mrs. Noll explained she had reviewed the various correspondence received both in favor of and against the application. She had also reviewed the various guidelines regarding Short-Term Rentals the County had in place. Mrs. Noll stated it was unfortunate the application had turned into such discontentment within the Queens Lake neighborhood. She explained that how we as a community deal with change defines the citizens and noted the applicant, Ulla Clayborne, had agreed to not pass the Special Use Permit to new owners should the property be sold. She was in favor of approving the application.

520 September 15, 2020

Mr. Wassmer replied that the Queens Lake Subdivision had no Homeowners’ Association in place similar to many of the subdivisions he represents in his district. He explained that Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) help to protect the citizens within the community noting if Short-Term Rentals are not allowed in the community, the approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board is meaningless because the HOAs govern themselves.

Mr. Zaremba spoke to Mr. Wassmer’s comments regarding Homeowners’ Associations (HOA) noting they are very difficult to deal with for most private individuals. He explained the Queens Lake Subdivision had no existing HOA in place. Mr. Zaremba explained based on correspond- ence received by the Board, 80 percent of the citizens within Queens Lake did not want the application to be approved and reminded the Board members that they ultimately represented the citizens.

Mr. Shepperd stated he was both impressed and saddened by the number of speakers that had addressed the Board tonight. He had tried to simplify the identified issues in order to make his decision whether to approve or deny the application. Mr. Shepperd explained the process of how Special Use Permits are received by the Planning Division and how they proceed for the Board’s consideration. The two factors the Board must consider is to look at the specific land use and the overall sense of the neighbors within the community.

Chairman Green thanked the community and neighbors for speaking before the Board this evening. He stated the Queens Lake Subdivision was a special place and needed some healing in the community after the application.

Mrs. Noll then moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R20-107.

On roll call the vote was:

Yea: (2) Noll, Wassmer Nay: (3) Zaremba, Shepperd, Green

APPLICATION NO. UP-940-19, LEE RIGGINS RICH

The application was considered and approved as amended on a vote of 4:1. A summary of the preceding is below.

Amy Parker, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation on Application No. UP-940-19 to approve a request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 24.1-306 (category 1, no. 6) of the York County Zoning Ordinance, to authorize the establishment of a tourist home in an existing sin- gle-family detached house on a 5.3-acre parcel of land located at 1718 Calthrop Neck Road (Route 606).

Mr. Zaremba asked whether any neighbors had called regarding the application.

Ms. Parker stated the Planning Division had received two comments about the application.

Mr. Shepperd asked whether Ms. Parker was aware of any electricity issues on the property.

Ms. Parker stated she was unaware of any electrical problems.

Mr. Scott Dinning spoke as the applicant’s representative. He provided a brief presentation on the proposed tourist home. He asked the Board to approve the application.

Mr. Shepperd asked if there were power lines running in front of the parcel that were surround- ed by trees causing a potential electrical outage.

Mr. Dinning stated he was aware of the power lines, but did not feel there were power issues associated with the property due to the trees.

521 September 15, 2020

Chairman Green then called to order a public hearing on Application No. UP-940-19, Proposed Resolution R20-106, which was duly advertised as required by law.

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TOURIST HOME IN AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING AT 1718 CALTHROP NECK ROAD

Mr. Ron Kirkland, 1001 Richmond Road, spoke on behalf of the Williamsburg Hotel Motel Association. He was in opposition to the application, because there was not a need for the Short-Term Rental (STR) within the community. He asked the Board to deny the application.

Ms. Diane Howell, 104 Horseshoe Lane, spoke regarding the application. She was trying to understand the specific guidelines for Short-Term Rentals (STRs) within the community.

There being no one else present who wished to speak, Chairman Green closed the public hear- ing on the application.

Mr. Shepperd suggested the resolution be revised to include the clearing of trees around the power lines as they cross over Ms. Rich’s property.

Discussion followed on the specific wording for the revision of the application.

Mr. Shepperd then moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R20-106(R) that reads:

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TOUR- IST HOME IN AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELL- ING AT 1718 CALTHROP NECK ROAD

WHEREAS, Lee Riggins Rich has submitted Application No. UP-940-19, pursuant to Section 24.1-306 (category 1, no. 6) of the York County Zoning Ordinance, to authorize the establishment of a tourist home in an existing single-family detached dwelling on an approxi- mately 5.2-acre parcel located at 1718 Calthrop Neck Road (Route 606) and further identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 31-4-1 (GPIN V05a-0237-3621); and;

WHEREAS, said application has been forwarded to the York County Planning Commis- sion in accordance with applicable procedure; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval this application; and

WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has conducted a duly advertised pub- lic hearing on this application; and

WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered the public comments and Planning Commission recommendation with respect to this application;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this the 15th day of September, 2020, that Application No. UP-940-19 be, and it is hereby, approved to authorize the establishment of a tourist home in an existing single-family detached dwelling on an approximately 5.2-acre parcel located at 1718 Calthrop Neck Road (Route 606) and further identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 31-4-1 (GPIN V05a-0237-3621), subject to the following conditions:

1. This Special Use Permit shall authorize the establishment of a tourist home in an exist- ing single-family detached dwelling on an approximately 5.2-acre parcel located at 1718 Calthrop Neck Road (Route 606) and further identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 31-4-1 (GPIN V05a-0237-3621).

2. The tourist home shall be operated in accordance with York County Zoning Ordinance Section 24.1-409, Standards for boarding house, tourist home, and bed and breakfast establishments and the application description, sketch plan, and floor plans provided by 522 September 15, 2020

the applicant and received by the York County Planning Division on July 31, 2019, cop- ies of which shall remain on file in the office of the Planning Division.

3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all applicable permits and/or approvals required in accordance with regulations of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, the York County Department of Fire and Life Safety, and the Virginia Department of Health prior to use of the dwelling as a tourist home.

4. No more than six (6) guests shall occupy the tourist home at any one time.

5. The property owner or tourist home resident manager shall reside on-premises during times of rentals.

6. On-street parking shall not be permitted.

7. Exterior cooking appliances used by customers of the tourist home shall have a fuel source of either propane or natural gas. The use of charcoal shall be prohibited.

8. To afford enhanced emergency vehicle access, tree branches and shrubbery within the driveway corridor shall be cleared to a vertical distance of thirteen feet, six inches (13’6”) and a horizontal distance of sixteen feet (16’). Location of the widened corridor shall be flexible in order to minimize removal of any trees.

9. To ensure the reliability of electric utility service to the property, the property owner or manager shall ensure that trees and shrubs adjacent to the existing overhead power line serving the property shall be kept trimmed in accordance with standards acceptable to Dominion Virginia Power. Tree trimming performed by Dominion Virginia Power or its contractor shall satisfy this condition. The initial work plan and schedule to properly clear the vegetation shall be reported to the County’s Department of Planning and De- velopment Services.

10. Approval of this application shall not be construed to supersede or negate the effect and application of any private covenants that may be applicable to the proposed use/activity nor the authority of any property owners association to enforce compliance with any ap- plicable covenants.

11. The term of this Special Use Permit shall expire upon the termination of ownership of the property by the applicant.

12. In accordance with Section 24.1-115(b)(6) of the York County Zoning Ordinance, a certi- fied copy of this resolution shall be recorded at the expense of the applicant(s) in the name of the property owner(s) as grantor(s) in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court prior to commencement of the tourist home use on the subject property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these conditions of approval are not severable and in- validation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph shall invalidate the remainder.

On roll call the vote was:

Yea: (4) Noll, Wassmer, Shepperd, Zaremba Nay: (1) Green

APPLICATION NO. UP-956-20, NEWPORT NEWS WATERWORKS

The application was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0. A summary of the preceding is below.

Amy Parker, Senior Planner, gave a brief presentation on proposed Resolution R20-108 to ap- prove a request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 24.1-306 (category 17, no. 6) of 523 September 15, 2020

the York County Zoning Ordinance, to authorize the construction of an approximately 144-foot tall elevated water storage tank on a 0.9-acre parcel located at 1301 Lightfoot Road (Route 646).

Mrs. Noll asked what color the water tower would be once constructed.

Ms. Parker stated the tower would be white, but due to its location on the property it would be shielded by trees and not visible.

Mr. Zaremba asked if the tower would be permanent and whether it would replace the existing tower.

Mr. Yann Le Gouellec, Assistant Director of Newport News Waterworks, spoke on behalf of the application. He stated the tower would be in addition to the current tower on the property.

Mr. Green asked if cell towers were to be added to the top of the tower.

Mr. Le Gouellec stated it was against Newport News Waterworks policy to add cell towers to the top of water towers.

Chairman Green then called to order a public hearing on Application No. UP-956-20, Proposed Resolution R20-108, which was duly advertised as required by law.

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 144- FOOT TALL ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK AT 1301 LIGHTFOOT ROAD

Mr. Doug Holroyd 103 Marina Point, Williamsburg, made general comments concerning the application.

There being no one else present who wished to speak concerning the subject application, Chairman Green closed the public hearing.

Mr. Wassmer then moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R20-108.

On roll call the vote was:

Yea: (5) Wassmer, Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Green Nay: (0)

APPLICATION NO. ZM-186-20, YORK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The application was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0. A summary of the preceding is below.

Timothy C. Cross, Deputy Director of Planning and Development Services, gave a brief presen- tation on proposed Ordinance No. 20-22 to repeal previously proffered conditions applicable to portions of Busch Industrial Park on Penniman Road.

Chairman Green then called to order a public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 20-22 that was duly advertised as required by law.

AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL PREVIOUSLY PROFFERED CONDITIONS APPLI- CABLE TO PORTIONS OF BUSCH INDUSTRIAL PARK ON PENNIMAN ROAD

There being no one present who wished to speak concerning the subject application, Chairman Green closed the public hearing.

524 September 15, 2020

Mr. Zaremba then moved the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 20-22.

On roll call the vote was:

Yea: (5) Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Wassmer, Green Nay: (0)

APPLICATION NO. ZM-187-20, BRIAN D. JAYNES

The application was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0. A summary of the preceding is below.

Timothy C. Cross, Deputy Director of Planning and Development Services, gave a brief presen- tation on Application No. ZM-187-20 to approve an application to rezone two approximately 0.7- acre parcels of land located at 2429 and 2431 Pocahontas Trail (Route 60) from RR (Rural Residential) to GB (General Business).

Mr. Bryan Jaynes, appeared as the applicant, and was available to answer any questions the Board had concerning the application.

Chairman Green then called to order a public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 20-23 that was duly advertised as required by law.

AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION TO REZONE TWO APPROXI- MATELY 0.7-ACRE PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED AT 2429 AND 2431 POCA- HONTAS TRAIL (ROUTE 60) FROM RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO GB (GEN- ERAL BUSINESS)

There being no one who wished to speak concerning the subject application, Chairman Green closed the public hearing.

Mr. Wassmer then moved the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 20-23.

On roll call the vote was:

Yea: (5) Zaremba, Noll, Wassmer, Shepperd, Green Nay: (0)

CARES ACT FUNDING

The matter was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0. A summary of the preceding is below.

Mr. Morgan, provided a brief presentation on proposed Resolution R20-104 for the York County Board of Supervisors to consider a proposed budget amendment, supplemental appropriation and transfer to increase the FY21 budget in the amount of $5,957,167 to appropriate federal funding awarded as a result of the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020.

Mr. Zaremba asked whether a pay raise will be given with the additional funding.

Mr. Morgan stated a pay raise will not be given with the additional funding. 525 September 15, 2020

Discussion followed on hazard pay, if it will be given, and who will qualify.

Chairman Green then called to order a public hearing on proposed Resolution R20-104 that was duly advertised as required by law.

A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $5,957,167 IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET FEDERAL FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND

There being no one who wished to speak concerning the subject application, Chairman Green closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Noll then moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R20-104.

On roll call the vote was:

Yea: (5) Noll, Wassmer, Shepperd, Zaremba, Green Nay: (0)

KINGS CREEK COMMERCE CENTER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

The matter was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0. A summary of the preceding is below.

Mr. Morgan, provided a brief presentation on proposed Resolution R20-113 authorizing the County Administrator to execute, on behalf of the County, a participation agreement between the Eastern Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority and a number of its members, whereby the Authority will purchase approximately 432 acres of land located at 1801 Penniman Road.

Mr. Zaremba confirmed the property was the old Hawks Nest Golf Course.

Mr. Morgan confirmed it was the same property.

Chairman Green then called to order a public hearing on proposed Resolution R20-113 that was duly advertised as required by law.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE EASTERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY FOR THE PURCHASE FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF APPROXIMATELY 432 ACRES OF LAND, AND TO LEASE APPROXIMATELY 250 ACRES OF THE SAME TO KDC SOLAR, LLC, FOR PURPOSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SOLAR FARM

There being no one who wished to speak concerning the subject application, Chairman Green closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Noll then moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R20-113.

On roll call the vote was:

Yea: (5) Wassmer, Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Green Nay: (0)

526 September 15, 2020

NEW BUSINESS. None.

CLOSED MEETING. None.

Chairman Green stated the next meeting, a work session, would be held on October 6, 2020, and would be most held most likely through Zoom and not in person.

Meeting Adjourned. At 10:53 p.m. Chairman Green declared the meeting adjourned sine die.

______Neil A. Morgan W. Chad Green, Chairman County Administrator York County Board of Supervisors

ATTACHMENT I: Comments Made Concerning Application No. UP-953-20, Ulla Clayborne

PETITIONS: Application No. UP-953-20, Ulla Clayborne: Petitions are maintained as perma- nent records and are on file in the County Administrator’s Office.

526 September 15, 2020

Detailed Transcript of Application No. UP-953-20, Ulla Clayborne Curtis Clayborne, I wanted to inform the public that I have spent 27.5 years serving in the Air Force as a senior military member. I understand what it meant to honor my country, support the community, and do the right thing. The short time we have been in the Queens Lake area, residents who didn’t oppose the application and some who did, walk by our home each day speak. The residents of Queens Lake know the kind of people we are. I ask the residents to take the facts and understand we are going to do what is right for the community. Richard Howell, 104 Horseshoe Drive, spoke in opposition of the application. I told the Board a year ago that the County has no strategic plan for STR’s. The Board had sent the Planning Commission off to develop some guidelines for them. I had offered my support with the process with other citizen input but no one contacted him. Several months later, residents received word of revised verbiage of the Planning Commission. I had provided a letter and spoke before the Planning Commission as did many others. Citizens felt this was a great first step, but the items proposed did not have any strategic value or purpose. The Commission sent it to the Board as COVID began and it was passed. This was a topic that was important to multiple people within the community. Had the changes been a true first step in the series of changes to address changes for STR’s that would have been good, but the Planning Commission has made clear that these were the only changes needed. The Planning Commission has acknowledged the significant growth and issues these STR’s, but it has done no studies, assessments, impact analysis within the County. There are no strategic vision for these tourist homes, none in the plans or codes, and worse there is no limit. Each application is taken individually, with no stated limits such as a density factor or number per square mile. This leaves the communities to deal with what is a reality a rezoning, one lot at a time. You don’t call it a rezoning, you are allowing more and more Special Use Permits allowing commercial businesses in a rural residential single family dwelling community with no thought to the cumulative impacts of the many impacts of the applications coming in as highlighted by Mr. Cross’s January 30 report. STR’s will change what the community is and as a Board are responsible to make sure that doesn’t happen. If the Board didn’t do it now before that door is open, it may be more difficult to close it when the potential for litigation steps begins. I had prepared and sent in for Board comments and thoughts. The document contained examples of how other communities have effectively set aside communities where these operations were not a fit. I hadn’t received any response from Board members. It is obvious that some governments have realized the need to provide an effective strategic plan for these businesses. Communities plan for all sorts of things: roads, transportations, the schools, parks, businesses in district, but here is a business like a virus that invades our communities. The neighborhoods of the Board’s constituents without a plan to protect them or at very least limit the impact which by the way was the most concerning issue from supporting this application to opposing the application. Citizens depend on the Board to take affirmative action on this matter before it is too late. David Malmquist, 109 Charles River Landing Road, spoke in opposition to the STR application in Queens Lake. Citizens formed the “Preserve Queens Lake” volunteer group in response to repeated applications and the recurring debate concerning STR’s. The approval of these STR’s would open the close nit neighborhood to the many concerns raised by this type of business. During interactions with the County, the group had come to learn that safeguards pen opaque processes that are not open to public input. Moreover, regulations on these businesses are practically nonexistent allowing the expansion of the STR activity to include house rentals by absentee landlords. In previous discussions of the issue, the Planning Commission made three considerations that were needed in making fair and objective STR decisions. Unfortunately, Commission staff did not follow the recommendation requirements when approving the application. One size does not fit all, as the residents strongly agreed. That is why the citizens find it so troubling that Commission staff used results from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan survey to support STR’s. The survey is a generic, large scale survey that is not appropriate for guidance on small scale decisions concerning an individual STR application in our specific Queens Lake neighborhood. The survey asked no specific questions regarding STR’s, nor even used the term. It only utilizes the generic term of home based businesses. Typical planning considerations do not apply. STR’s require special planning considerations because they fundamentally differ from home based businesses. Home Based Business were an increasing part of our economy and they welcomed those that currently exist in Queens Lake. Unlike short term rentals, they require residency and have no outward sign of business activity. By equating support of each home based business with the support of short term rentals, as the Commission staff did in approving the application, fails to acknowledge the additional community and planning concern that STR’s 527 September 15, 2020 pose. Neighborhood input is critical and the citizens strongly agree. Instead of relying on a County wide statistical survey of just one percent of upper County residents, the group sought the opinion of every Queens Lake homeowner ultimately speaking with more than 80 percent. People love living in Queens Lake for the close rapport with their neighbors and the sense of community. Queens Lake is truly a special place and a neighborhood not just in name but in spirit and action. Citizens who currently resided in the County did not like excess traffic. Residents did voice concerns because of increased traffic due to STR’s. Frances Holt, 107 Point Laurel Place, thank you for the opportunity to voice opposition to the application. The Zoom meeting of the Planning Commission in July, in which Ms. Parker reported 33 expressions of support for the application and 44 expressions of opposition. The applicant stated her expectation were that residents would fall in to three categories relative to the application. There would be some who support, some who would oppose, and most of the folks in Queens Lake who did not care. The applicant stated in the category of those would oppose, residents who have lived in Queens Lake more than 30 years would resist every change. Both me and my husband have resided in Queens Lake for 45 years. We have participated in many constructive changes for the community. We were very much involved in advocacy for a sewer system, supported erosion control for Princes Pond. Most recently, we were involved in advocating to the Virginia Department of Transportation a decision to put a sound wall beside Queens Lake. After the Planning Commission meeting because of the questions about the sense of the community regarding STR’s, we organized a group and established three objectives relative to the group. To conduct a door to door canvas reaching every property owner to inform that property owner about STR’s in general and the application. To inform residents regarding issues related to guidelines to advise residents of the Board of Supervisors’ hearing. Our group had walked the streets in the summer heat to collect this information. On Friday, the group had delivered to Mr. Morgan’s office about 411 petitions in opposition. We have added to that tonight and estimated there were about 450 property owners in opposition. I ask the Board to hear the voices of these citizens and noted they were not alarmists or whiners, they needed the Board’s help and stricter guidelines. Dana De Jager, 108 Horseshoe Drive spoke in opposition to tourist homes in Queens Lake. As Mrs. Holt stated, the citizen’s group wanted every neighbor knowledgeable and they wanted to obtain every neighbor’s opinion on STR’s. It was a testament to the culture of our community, and 99 percent of those who responded were open to a conversation. The volunteer team managed to reach 82 percent of Queens Lake property owners, collectively 455 parcels. Of those property owners the citizen’s group was able to contact only 9 percent supported this application. 14 percent remain neutral or expressed no opinion fearing offense or conflict. But the vast majority of 475 owners representing 352 properties, a majority of 8 to 10 were opposed to this application and all future STR applications. She explained this is an overwhelming opposition and consensus. 90 percent of those opposed to the application felt compelled to sign 432 petition letters to be put on the record. Here is a map of all of the individuals who were opposed to STR’s in Queen’s Lake. Who makes up the super majority and is there a trend that stands out? There was no trend. Both sides of the political isle object to the current weak rules. Citizens who were recent graduates as well as retirees oppose the lack of process transparency. New homeowners as well as those that built their home a generation ago object to the revolving process which leads to regulatory uncertainty. The most telling of all is that both Airbnb owners and those who rent Airbnb homes who live in this neighborhood oppose these in our community because they recognize the potential to degrade the quality of the community and the value of the investments. On all sides of the conversation, a unifying theme was expressed by hundreds of neighbors. The neighborhood had no interest of creating conflict, but wished to preserve the community and neighborhood relationships. The residents are free and open thinkers who choose to live in harmony side by side with neighbors, not property owners. The residents of Queens Lake have been very clear about the legacy of our neighborhood. The big question is what will be the legacy of the current Board of Supervisors. John Sepanski, 106 Montague Circle, spoke against tourist homes in Queens Lake. He agreed with the committee and the majority of residents. He needed to address four issues. The County Attorney said on July 22 “The special use permit is a rezoning issue that applies to the property, once approved the Special Use Permit becomes part of the Zoning law applying to that property, third the rezoning does not die when the property is sold to a new owner.” Without stringent controls, the County was threatening the intent of single family rural residential zoning. He felt the Board should stop ever granting Special Use Permits for tourist homes in Queens Lake or any residential neighborhood in York. The consequences are the de facto rezoning of Queens 528 September 15, 2020

Lake one home at a time. The second issue was no limitation on the number of those permitted in a defined neighborhood or the entire County. The Planning Commission has never offered any research or evidence that they have considered the consequences. Comments made by Mr. Titus, Planning Commissioner, and his wariness in approving the applications. Mr. Sepanski felt a risk existed that will destroy the zoning in the County. The County Code states that after one year the tourist home owner may apply for a supplemental special use permit to allow events on the property such as weddings, receptions, and others. While this has been in the Code for some time, the notion of expanding the commercial use of tourist’s homes and B&B’s in Queens Lake is beyond acceptable and should never be considered. To allow a tourist home to sell and cater money making events with outdoor tents, large party guests, and parking on our narrow streets will further commercialize the neighborhood with increased risks and no benefits to the residents. The fourth issue is that the County Code says and Mr. Morgan affirms “as always the commercial uses in residential areas preserve a neighborhood character and the resident’s quality of life is paramount.” This is clearly not the case by all of the attendees protested the application. Residents felt like their opinion has been adequately considered by the Board. Francis D. Bondonna, 150 West Queens Drive, spoke in opposition of tourist homes in Queens Lake. As a retired military planner, he covered five items. I looked for research on the impact ‘tourist homes’ will have on our neighborhood’s home values. There is none. The Board cares because: They are asked to act without regard to consequences to our equity. I looked for research on how many STRs can operate in our neighborhood without substantially altering the neighborhood’s character. There is none. The Board cares because: Approval opens the door to any number of like applications without regard for impact on the community. The Board is asked to act without regard to consequences. Planners begin from an end state. The recommendation subverts the end state of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, established with consideration for, ‘The conservation of properties and their values...’ At the July 8 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Titus stated he found no empirical evidence of a change in property values, but offered only his undocumented opinion. Responding to a request for substantiation, your Public Information Officer stated no record exists of any impact assessments or analyses. The Board cares because: They are asked to set a precedent, alter existing County guidance without ‘due diligence’ and without a clearly articulated end state. A ‘case by case’ decision process, as exists here, fosters conflict, shifting focus from the desired community character to an individual. So arguments are either ideological, i.e. there should be no restraint of what a person does with their property, or ad hominem, centering on the intentions and/or performance of an individual. The Board cares because: Both the York County Code and Virginia Statutes identify the purpose of zoning. The process’s toxicity was raised at several points at the July 8 meeting, He urged the Board to replace this with a process based on analysis of the physical, economic and human environment and a risk assessment of various Courses of Action to enable the County to make objective decisions in a dispassionate and non-partisan manner. Lastly, the County depends upon individual residents to report violations rather than providing oversight. This guarantees the neighborhood divisiveness already noted and enables ineffective enforcement as Mr. Zaremba recognized at the March 17 Board of Supervisors’ meeting. The Board cares because: Supervision is an ‘inherently governmental’ function. Failure to provide such supervision opens County officials to litigation in the event of an incident. Mark Sowers, 290 East Queens Drive, spoke against tourist homes in Queens Lake. York County does not require STR ownership reside on the property. If they don’t live in the property, they must have a responsible person identified within a reasonable distance. The Code does require the owner, not the manager, to live on the premises for home occupation. In the Code, the only distinction between a bed and breakfast and short term rental home is the latter has no breakfast. Why are the owner of the STR is singled out for special privilege of being absent, with an off premises manager. He felt there was incorrect conflation of home occupancy or right by code. The County is not required to provide oversight of STR’s, but relies on the community to inform the Code Enforcement office of violations and should be the first line of defense in monitoring compliance. The lack of responsibility sows the seed of dissent and is contrary to the County goals while pitting neighbor against neighbor and currently occurring. The County should hold unannounced inspections and have governance which is the key. The Planning Commission has not considered public health. During this time of the pandemic, there is no requirement of a tourist home registry, no home client tracking for health purposes, no mandatory testing for owners or clients for COVID 19, procedures as a quarantine, contact tracing, dedicated entrance, personal protective equipment, and disinfection on the premises. Tourist homes should be held at the same practice for hotels and motels. Another issue was 529 September 15, 2020 that the County does not require proof that a STR has appropriate liability insurance for commercial activity. A STR owner is not required to identify Queens Lake residents from litigation by the clients. Furthermore, a deed of property and the association with extensive community property is open to unauthorized use by the owner’s clients and residents are at risk of being sued. Lastly, the attractiveness of the Queens Lake amenities opens the doors for STR. Illegal activity did occur at that tourist home and another separate tourist home in Queens Lake. John Farley, 143 Little John Road spoke in opposition to the application. Queens Lake did not need a tourist home in the community. The use of short term rentals utilizing special use permits versus residents in Queens Lake who require York County business licenses to conduct their occupations. STR’s allow people to stay in our neighborhood for up to 90 days. They are unknown persons who have no ties to the community and do not have a requirement to obey the standards of conduct relative to the neighborhood. Standards that are not written for the most part, but are followed while providing a peaceful, safe, friendly, and nurturing community. The citizens that live in Queens Lake with York County business licenses do not have unknown persons staying overnight. The neighborhood does not have any licensed tourist homes and that is how the residents would like it kept. Home based businesses currently licensed in the community include surgeon, radiologist, psychiatrist who do not conduct business within the neighborhood. Branch Fields, III, I live at 134 Horseshoe Drive and Branch Fields Sr. lives at 112 Monique Circle. We moved there when I was eleven years old and 7 years ago I was able to move my family back to Queens Lake and my kids are truly growing up with the same experience I had growing up which is a remarkable thing. It is not just the beauty of the neighborhood but it is the people that make it great. Corey Miller is a professional photographer who photographs swim meets and community events and takes family photographs. Anne Brown Haley organizes yoga for the community and there are great cooks who organize seafood nights and dessert contests and we have movers and shakers who campaign to upgrade our water pipes and prevent silt run-off that was decreasing the size of our lake and there are dozens of big strong kids who can to yard work for people who need that. I am a professional opera singer and I sing the National Anthem at neighborhood swim meets but I don’t hold concerts at my home. So there is a pediatrician that lives a few houses down whose name is Dr. Mark Downey who you may know. Mark and I hung out as teenagers sometimes every day and we coach the swim team together. We even swim at the old guys’ relay at the last swim meet of the Queens Lake season. There is another member of that relay here tonight. So there are a number of people who have moved back some old kids that I knew growing up that have moved back to Queens Lake. So you see how important it is that we protect it and how much we like it the way it is. After my kids spent 6 years living in New York City and my youngest was born there it was very freeing for them to be able to ride their bikes all by themselves to their friends’ houses or to the swimming pool all by themselves, go fishing at one of the public access to the lake or explore the neighborhood without us worrying about it one bit. It is a throw-back to maybe the 70s or 80s in terms of safety and community. My main concern is that it will be increasing B&Bs in the neighborhood because there are several nice houses, we’re 7 minutes from Colonial Williamsburg, 7 minutes from Busch Gardens probably too so we could see potential for this no matter what the ordinances are today. I am all for tourism and tourist dollars but there needs to be boundaries. B&Bs have sort of knocked down those boundaries without regard to character in the neighborhood and as we have seen it has affected the neighborhoods that you find it in. It is so rare to find a neighborhood like Queens Lake and that is why we want to protect it. Penny Bonadonna, I live at 150 West Queens Drive. I stand with the super majority of my neighbors in opposing tourist homes and B&Bs in Queens Lake. County Code and County Officials are on record many times over affirming the importance of preserving the character of the community and demonstrating genuine need for implementing changes in residential zoning by special use permits. Applicants are required to demonstrate need as part of the process. This applicant has failed to do this. More significantly the Planning Commission has failed to do this to residential zones County-wide. No study, no assessment, no cumulative impact analysis has been done to study the need for or consequences of tourist homes and B&Bs in residential neighborhoods such as Queens Lake. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan sites an occupancy rate only of 40% for 2019 so there is obviously no lack of hotel and motel rooms in the County. This is reinforced in the recent Virginia tourism section for York County lodging and those numbers don’t take into account over 1,000 units and six timeshare resorts that the County has already approved. County Planner, Amy Parker, has stated that “it is not the County’s place to regulate the market for any given use or industry or to restrict or control competition” but by granting 530 September 15, 2020 these SUPs you are, you are creating one home at the time an entirely new class of direct competition with the hotels and motels operating in established commercial zones that significant support the tax base. None of this information was considered or referenced by any Commissioner except for a statement by the Chairman at the July 8th hearing that he quoted “understands the hotel industry and feels for their pain”. Airbnb’s have been around for a long time and they have created problems. They drive down room rates for other hospitality businesses and they threaten he property values of homes around them and the quality of life of the neighborhood as you will hear later. The Code permits them by right in the limited business and general business zoned areas, but to be allowed into the single-family rural residential zone there must be a need as well as appropriateness. With these facts before you on what basis can you justify granting SUPs for short-term rentals in residential zones such as Queens Lake? Patricia Bartneck, 103 Little John Road. I am speaking on behalf of Jerry and Sharon Neary of 303 Cobblestone of Cobble Creek Subdivision who wrote an email in opposition to this proposal. My wife and I strongly oppose allowing a short-term rental in Queens Lake and Cobble Creek. We have had firsthand experience living next door to a prior short-term rental several years ago as the property owners of the house next door to us were operating a short-term rental business without a permit. They subsequently were denied a permit thankfully to continue operating the house in the short-term rental arrangement. What we experienced was in opposition for several months in the neighborhood and out right dangerous situation climaxing in a drug bust conducted by the York County Sheriff, State Police, and the Tri-River Drug Task Force. On November 21, 2008 and he sites report number 0811244. The front door of the short-term rental was broken down by a battering ram and two defendants were taken away in handcuffs. We heard from the York County Deputy that they also confiscated weapons in the arrest as well. This house was right on the corner where the Magruder Elementary school bus would pick up and drop off the children every day. What often is promised by the owner is that there is careful watching and screening over those who are staying on the property, but those promises quickly go by the wayside and the property turns into a Motel 6 every six weeks. Even without the drug bust we encountered problems with the short-term rental clients with dogs running free up and down the neighborhood and in the morning and leaving unwanted deposits on Cobble Creek property owners’ lawns. On Sundays when those staying at the property would vacate the property piles of trash bags would be deposited on the front curb leaving an unsightly mess until Wednesday’s trash pickup. In a couple of instances, neighbors nearly got into fist fights with those staying on the site when the dogs were running free in the neighborhood. Also what is of great concern is in the state of Virginia those from out of state who are pedophiles are sex offenders need not report to local law enforcement unless they plan to be in the state of Virginia 10 days or longer. So those staying in short-term rentals in York County for a week or a weekend need not even report to the York County Sheriff that they are in our County let alone in our neighborhood. When we moved here from Pennsylvania 25 years ago we particularly choose York County for the great many things we had heard about it. We have loved our time here in the County and do not wish to see it into an Airbnb haven with short-term rentals. After our experiences as well as others in the Cobble Creek neighborhood in addition to the drug bust we do not want to see or change our county to allow these short-term rentals to operate in Queens Lake or Cobblestone. Thank you Jerry Neary. Les Vrabel, I live at 120 Horseshoe Drive and the reason I want to address the committee this evening is to discuss property values. I’ve been a realtor for 20 years both in Pennsylvania, Buck’s County for Sotheby’s and for a major concern in Palm Beach, Florida. Everybody knows what determines the price of property are three things, first one is location, the second one is location and the third one is location. If you want to buy a house next to a gas station it’s going to cost you a heck of a lot less than if you buy a house in a beautiful neighborhood. If you buy a house in a beautiful neighborhood and the houses are single-family dwellings you pay for a house based on the fact that your neighbors are single-family dwellings. I think what we are doing here is we are letting the camel get his nose under the tent. You are going to allow this rental property and it is going to be a commercial property. Mary down the street wants to do the same and so does John because he’d like to make a few more bucks too. So because they were granted a special permit, I should be granted a special permit. The applicant mentioned the fact that she had put a lot into her house and certainly wouldn’t want to open a commercial establishment if it was going to make her house worth less money. Of course it’s not going to make her house worth less money, she’s changed her house into a commercial establishment. How would you like to live next door to a commercial establishment? As a realtor you must disclose certain things about a neighborhood. If I’m selling you a house and you say, what’s the 531 September 15, 2020 neighborhood like? Oh it’s just fine, everybody is happy. Well not really, next door we have a person is renting out part of her house to make extra money, so if you want to do that you can probably do that too because the board will give you a special permit because they do, but what we have to realize is that 400 applicants looking for that house wouldn’t want to buy it now because of the fact that it is now a short-term rental property with people moving in and out every other day. You don’t know who they are or where they are coming from or anything else. So the bottom line is this is not going to increase property values except for one person and that person is the person running the rental property. That’s my story. Zane Sowers, I live at 290 East Queens Drive. I’m not completely opposed to the idea of short- term rentals, they are a great economic opportunity. The problem is when they come into residential neighborhoods. We had lived at a house also on Horseshoe Drive two years earlier that had an Airbnb set up and it completely ruined the atmosphere of the entire street. We felt uncomfortable, weird and it just changed the neighborhood and you know there’s nothing wrong with doing a short-term rental, but the problem is we are a residential neighborhood. There is plenty of commercial areas within Williamsburg where they can be doing this short-term rental, but it does not need in a neighborhood that I’ve come to love and it just doesn’t belong. It needs to be in a commercial area. Lourdes Farley, I reside at 143 Little John Road. I never thought that after living in the United States for more than half of my life I would be standing here to defend my right to peacefully live in our beloved Queens Lake neighborhood. I, along with the majority of the Queens Lake residents, oppose the establishment of any Airbnb in our rural residential neighborhood. I want to address the impact that this would have and would create in relation to movement within the neighborhood. As you know, Lakeshead Drive is a winding, hilly road with ravines on both sides but no shoulder pads or sidewalks. It has been a safety concern for many years especially at night and worse now with the I-64 construction. The planning staff failed to recognize this based on outdated statistics. Guests at the tourist home would not be familiar with this street as we the residents are. Chairman Green recognized that a transient driving is actually more intensive than permanent residents. This was his basis for denying a previous special use permit. Looking at the applicant’s home from Lakeshead there is an abrupt turn from either direction then an almost immediate turn again into her house. This road is often used by joggers, bicyclists, and walkers. Being a family oriented neighborhood and not a commercial location York County school buses run throughout the area. Their stops are unmarked since we are a rural area. One stop is right at the corner of Lakeshead and Bowstring Drive. Due to COVID the school buses are not running right now but eventually they will; we hope they will. Correct? The applicant and Mr. Morgan would like you to believe that her clients will use Lakeshead Drive to enter and exit Queens Lake or the New Quarter Park. Curious travelers might wander onto other streets to sightsee to use the amenities of the lake and end up by Queens Lake Middle School or the short causeway along the dam that allows two-way traffic, but is very narrow. Residents know that approaching this causeway they need to allow the drivers coming from the opposite direction to complete their passage. Sylvia Martin, I live at 101 Valor Court for 30 years and I am one of the 80% opposing this application. I do not know the applicant, but express my concerns as a property owner who has personally experienced problems with a STR that operated illegally on my street for over a year. Queens Lake is void of streetlights and remains dark. Neighbors and I constantly have to deal with tourists banging on our doors to check in during late night hours. We did not purchase property in Queens Lake to live next door to a Motel 6 and give directions to unknown people at all hours daily. These STR guests had no respect for our property; unsupervised dogs defecated in our yards and knocked down a gentleman with stage 4 cancer walking on his own street. The STR was often rented for family reunions. So one person checks in then their friends, family and a parade of unrecognized people, motor vehicles all showed up the next day and it became a non- stop party house. Another STR home on Valor Court was being used for drug trades. In order to protect the drugs, the renter had a Chow which viciously attacked a small child who required 100 stitches and treatment from a plastic surgeon and therapists. The lack of screening for STR guests remains seriously problematic and registered sex offenders are not required to notify anyone when renting a room for less than 30 days. Hence we have no idea when a sexual predator is residing right next door to us nightly. When you constantly bring in unknown people, you risk everyone in the neighborhood. Why expose and endanger children playing or riding bikes on our own streets simply for the applicant’s financial gain. The 556 property owners in Queens Lake pay approximately $1.8 million in property taxes annually and if you add personal property taxes this figure exceeds $2 million. So why does York County want to antagonize 532 September 15, 2020 property owners by approving a STR which is not what we bought into to begin with. Based on our canvassing, we do not want it and we do not need it. This is the fourth time the Planning Commission has approved an STR in Queens Lake with no regards to homeowners. The applicant is already in violation of York County Code so it is totally shameful and negligent for the Planning Commission to send this to the Board. Why consider an application from an individual who has already demonstrated self-serving and of no benefit or value to Queens Lake homeowners? The applicant submitted Facebook comments from people who support her tourist home. Actually one does not live in Queens Lake and three others have changed their minds and no longer support her. These four should be removed from her support camp. Given the super majority of homeowners opposing this application, I respectfully ask the Board to take the concerns voiced by 80% of the Queens Lake homeowners and deny this application. Turning Queens Lake into mini hotels or dorm rooms is definitely not in the best interest of the homeowners. We want to preserve Queens Lake as a residential neighborhood and stop it from becoming a rental. Laura Nanartowich, I’m Laura Nanartowich at 211 West Queens Drive. I want to be on record that I oppose short-term rentals in Queens Lake and specifically the application for the special use permit at 100 Bowstring. So I discovered this in the attic of the clubhouse, this is a history of Queens Lake called Living in Nature’s Neighborhood. It was for the 50th anniversary of Queens Lake. It details a wonderful history of Native Americans of our land, the property, from the Civil War to the inception and the planning that went into Queens Lake that started in 1952 and the author’s note in this book that the importance of protecting, improving and sustaining that which our fathers started way back when. So how does this application protect, improve or sustain Queens Lake? It doesn’t. In fact it puts other residents here at risk and does nothing to protect or improve the neighborhood. Queens Lake as you have heard and you know is rural residential. Most residents, including our family, bought here for the large lots and solid houses surrounded by nature. And because of the character of Queens Lake, a thriving diverse and tight-knit community where we all watch out for one another we all have a vested interest in protecting that legacy. We don’t want to have a commercial enterprise set up shop next to us with transient customers coming and going. The applicant speaks of her right to open a tourist home in Queens Lake, but York County says there is no inherent right to a special use permit. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the necessity for or the appropriateness of a SUP. It’s clearly not appropriate or safe for Queens Lake. Our roads as you have heard are unlit and narrow and some pass over unguarded ravines and water. Lakeshead the feeder road to Bowstring is dangerous for a seasoned driver, but think of tired tourists in the dark of night looking for their mini hotel on this dark and winding road. Safety is a concern. We are part of a neighborhood watch and we have tightened policies on our clubhouse rentals and COVID, of course, is a huge concern since there are no COVID state health guidelines for STRs. These customers will surely be drawn to the beautiful amenities, the playground and the lake easily accessible and very difficult to police. The Community Association will be opened to liabilities and other members will question the morality of a member profiting off of what other people pay for and our association is voluntary it is not a traditional HOA with covenants that would talk about this. Let me just say one more thing quickly that I know Queens Lake members to be kind and welcoming and gracious. We welcome all residents of all races, ages, religion, sexual orientation, nationalities and political views. We are not xenophobes; we are not Nazis and we are not insulated. I moved here 22 years ago from Europe and I love my neighborhood. The majority has spoken. Please deny this request. Heather Sowers, I live at 290 East Queens Drive. I am against tourist homes in Queens Lake. My comments go to the ethical aspect of the law when granting special use permits for tourist homes in neighborhoods zoned residential, rural residential. Certain types of commercial activities occur as a matter of right in residential areas and are not under the boundaries of the York County Code. These activities had been determined not to threaten the quality of life or character of the neighborhood and are benign to the neighborhood in terms of risk. By contrast tourist homes are not an inherent right but subject to SUPs in residential neighborhoods because they do not meet this criteria. The efforts of the York County staff and Planning Commission to merge an SUP process into that of commercial activities as a right is not within the boundaries of the Code. The power to issue a SUP is a tool that allows the Board of Supervisors to grant permanent exceptions to the law when justified and can be of value if you use with due diligence and respect for the spirit of the law which recognizes the will of the majority. SUPs that benefit the community and are supported by the neighborhood residents are not a problem. But according to the County’s own determination, these tourist homes are different. While these 533 September 15, 2020 commercial ventures benefit the owner and generate tax revenue for the County they do not demonstrate a need and appropriateness to benefit the immediate neighborhood or the community as a whole. On the York County website, it explicitly states that Special Use Permits are a privilege granted by the County as it falls to the applicant to demonstrate the necessity for and appropriateness of establishing a Special Use on the specific property. The applicant has not met the burden to demonstrate the community need and the appropriateness for a tourist home in Queens Lake. In fact, she stated tonight she was hard pressed to show a benefit to our community. Complying with the letter of the law to craft an application fails to comply with the letter and spirit of the law that requires incorporation of community concerns. Legal and ethical behavior demands the County officials take no action that can harm the people or damage the law. Granting a SUP primarily for generating revenue without regard for risks to the taxpayers and citizens does just that. Those who oppose the County’s approach have for years provided suggestions to be ignored and dismissed. They have offered their willingness to work together which has been ignored, allowing public comments is not for the purpose of merely appeasing the public, but in our government public input must be considered sincerely by any administrative body. This has not occurred. Christina Cooper, I live with my husband, Stephen Cooper, at 100 Shoreham Lane where we just purchased a home last year. As a matter of fact, this summer we had rented it and now ended up purchasing it because we love this community very much in Queens Lake. Another reason for that is our neighbors, Ulla and Curtis Clayborne, just like Indovina. And with that being said, they are very reasonable people; they are responsible; they are very ethical. He spent over 27 years in the Air Force. My husband is a 20+ years retiree from the Army and I can assure you people as anyone here knows that spent any time in the military, it is very responsible, very ethical and wouldn’t let any kind of strangers in their home unless they have been screened. And here I have a question for everybody, has anybody ever stayed at an Airbnb, not a B&B, not a motel, not a hotel, I am talking about an actual Airbnb that is all over the world. And you see how many hands went up. Not even half as many comments as we have gotten here so that tells me that the people don’t really know the meaning of Airbnb, how many screens you have to do. I have traveled all over the world to Airbnb’s and you have to be screened through passports, through driver’s license, and if you bring them into your own home you are responsible and yes you have to have insurance so there’s a lot of work with that and I totally understand and I love Queens Lake and I will stay there for the rest of my life with my husband and that’s why we purchased a home there, but I also understand there’s ups and downs to everything so I totally understand. I’m very close to my neighbor, Nancy Dutro, and I love her story, she’s been living here pretty much all of her life and I love all of the new people I meet the same as the elderly ones and I continue to live there and I totally support both sides, but I’m really for Ulla and Curtis Clayborne and hope that they get approved and I understand that there are restrictions. You can make a restriction of a month, of a quarter or whatever amount and see how it works and if it doesn’t work out you can always change it. That’s just my thought and another thing you were talking about to increase businesses, and another thing, nothing to do with the Airbnb, bring grocery stores and shopping malls. I am devastated when we moved here from another state how many empty businesses are standing right and left of everywhere and with this epidemic it’s getting worse. But one thing we’ll never run out of is groceries. Carlos Tricoche, I live at 100 Huntington Road and I am against tourist homes in Queens Lake. I am speaking in support of the other residents and I agree with the committee. On July 11, 2018 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the SUP application for UP-910-1 for B&B in which the SUP owner requested and I quote “a minor expansion of a legally conforming bed and breakfast pursuant to Section 24.1-115 of the York County Zoning Ordinance”. In 5 August 2019 in the memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Morgan recommended approval of and I quote “a very modest expansion of the existing Bed & Breakfast that will not have any adverse effect on the surrounding area.” The Board approved it on 20 August 2019. So now we know that once one of the SUPs is approved you have the power to increase the very real risk to the neighborhood with a memo. All it takes is a simple letter. Combined with a Special Use Permit provisions in the Code, that is also addressed tonight the exercise of this power can and will devastate rural residential zone. This is most definitely not in conformance with County Code and Mr. Morgan’s affirmation and I quote “there will always be commercial uses in residential areas and preserving the neighborhood character and the resident’s quality of life is paramount.” On 8 July Mr. Criner said and it’s another quote “although it is difficult to see neighborhoods torn apart by an applicant, he’s inclined to support the application”. Even the County and state law identify creating a harmonious community as one of the purposes of 534 September 15, 2020 the Zoning Law. This is just the Planning Commission ignoring the law for a predetermined outcome even when recognizing that it is the expressed purpose of the law. On 8 July, Mr. Peterman said and I quote again “we are in a new age when novelty approaches to lodging”. Novelty approaches is like purposely injecting cancer into your body and watching it metastases. Now at the 8 July Planning Commission meeting Mr. Titus said quote “changes to the Code are being proposed with a lot more opportunities for clients and customers to enter the home”. In other words the ultimate agenda of the Planning Commission is the outright destruction of single- family rural residential zone in favor of the tax revenue commercial no holes barred meaning many hotels might generate. Jack Dooley, I live at 165 Queens Way. I am against tourist homes In Queens Lake. I’m speaking on behalf of the nearly 80% of the residents who are also against them. Prior to starting my own business, I spent several years working for Price Waterhouse as a managing consultant. Fortune 500 companies paid my firm over $500 an hour for my advice on how to improve their business processes. I’m here tonight to York County about $20 of free consulting. The bottom line is the Special Use application process is broken. The applicant submits an application with the check and the Planning Commission must listen to each and every individual application in the County including hearing from other residents who make their cases for or against their application. Then the entire process is repeated again. But this time for the Board of Supervisors again each applicant must make their 10-minute speech and other residents get their three minutes to speak their minds. For this particular application, over a dozen residents of Queens Lake have collectively spent hundreds of hours doing research, disseminating information, going door-to- door and/or collecting signatures in a sprawling neighborhood with over 500 homes. Question, why is it the applicant, the only person who will benefit from this permit merely needs to complete an application and write a check and the entire neighborhood must rally to defend our rural residential zoning. This is the third application that I have personally been involved with in just the past few years. Key recommendations: 1. York County should create additional regulations that tightly limit where short-term rentals are allowed and make sense. This will reduce the number of applications which need to be reviewed by the County. Given the number of vacant hotel rooms in the County perhaps none should be allowed. 2. Put the burden of support on the applicant. When an applicant lives in a well-defined neighborhood require that they are the ones who get petitions signed by more than 50% of the residents. They are the ones who will financially benefit; make them work for it. 3. Queens Lake does not have a HOA which can deny a short-term rental; however, understand that we have done the leg work and proven that our neighborhood does not want them. Please disallow any future applications in Queens Lake, otherwise we will be back here again repeating the process, presenting you with the same binder with over 400 letters doing this all over again one more time. In closing, our forefathers chose for Virginia to be a commonwealth, the word wealth from the middle English meaning well-being or good, in other words for the common good. Short-term rentals only benefit the applicant and are certainly not for the common good of the neighborhood. Richard Toth, I live at 241 East Queens Drive and I am speaking for 8 out of 10 majority of my neighbors. Tonight we have quoted confusing and misleading statements that demonstrate advocacy for applicants at the expense of representation of the residents. We’ve cited errors of commission and omission that have created community discord and real risk to the Queens Lake residents and frankly to all seven categories of non-commercial residential zones in the County at-large. Look, each of us should zealously guard our individual rights, but at the July meeting the Planning Commission Chairman said that this doesn’t have the hallmarks of a commercial business and the applicant has the right to this SUP. That is just not true. By County Code, the applicant does not have the right to claim nor has she demonstrated the necessity that she should be entitled to operate a tourist home in Queens Lake. Just plain ethically I shouldn’t be allowed to claim the right that creates a risk for my neighbors and only benefits me. Certainly, the Board of Supervisors should make sure that this never happens. SUPS are supposed to be the tools to deal with worthy exceptions to the Code. They are not a way around them with no regard to the consequences to the community or the underlying law. It’s that tried and true fundamental in society to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We bought our homes in Queens Lake because of the zoning laws and the expectation that we could live our lives in the single-family home in a family oriented neighborhood as we originally intended when the County laid them out. Again, we’re speaking for 8 out of 10 majority. What else do we have to do to get your attention? We want you to stop accepting Special Use Permits applications for tourist homes and B&Bs in our neighborhood. If not forever, then for the next ten years at which time you can conduct another door-to-door campaign to determine and respect the will of the 535 September 15, 2020 majority. If done only in ten years you would be able to enlist neighborhood residents to do this proactively. If you care at all for representative government and really intend to promote harmony in the community this absence of equitable rules and coherent processes must be fixed. We care and want to work with you. We’ve made a list of essential elements to start with and we just passed them out and we emailed them to you yesterday. In neighborhoods where a majority residents are okay with SUPs, like tourist homes and B&Bs these essentials must be in place to protect them and control the risks created. These are not recommendations or requests they are elements of a fair and equitable and democratic process. A proactive gift from the folks you represent and sampled in Queens Lake. You can extrapolate Queens Lake like to the rest of the County but you should really ask the voters. Christian Pascale, I live at 102 Horseshoe Drive and I appreciate this opportunity to speak before Chairman Green and the rest of the Board. I am opposed to STR proposed for 100 Bowstring Drive in Queens Lake. I agree with my fellow presenters for the many reasons already stated why this STR is not appropriate. But before we consider any STR in Queens Lake we must make sure there are rules that apply to all and there are no loop holes in the Planning Commission’s guidelines. Handling things on a case-by-case basis is not acceptable. I would like this application rejected and all applications for STRs postponed until we can close these loopholes and omissions in the guidelines approved in the March 2020 BOS meeting. A SUP is simply a way to rezone a property without rezoning. As per the website SUPs are a privilege granted by the County and not an inherent right. This applicant should be subject to guidelines that protect our Queens Lake neighbors. The following are the tenant loopholes and omissions in the guidelines: 1. there is no assurance that the character and quality of the neighborhood and in this case Queens Lake will not be changed. We wish to maintain a rural, serene, safe and secure life style. We are not seeking to exclude anyone. We welcome the presence of everyone, persons of all colors, races, cultures as long as they are long-term renters or homeowners. 2. The York County website states once issued a SUP, any conditions imposed runs with the land for an indefinite period of time unless specifically conditioned otherwise. It appears now that the Commission says that they will run with the person. I would like further clarification on this and there are other issues that we do not have time to address now that will arise if it runs with the land or whether it runs with the person. 3. The only limit imposed by the Planning Commission is essentially the 90-day rule. The guidelines impose little limitations on the number of transient visitors or rooms rented at one time or the number days rented per year. These are all addressed in other counties. 4. There is no limit on the number of SUPs that can be issued within a defined residential neighborhood. Family oriented buyers will not wish to purchase in the community and the current value of properties will decline as has already been mentioned. 5. There is no requirement that the owner reside on the premises. There can be an off-site manager as currently written. This resident on the premises is required by the City of Williamsburg and other counties. 6. The County is not providing oversight of the STRs, but relies on the community and there are no specific regulations on how the guidelines are enforced. 7. The STR may apply for another SUP within one year. The applicant already runs one business so this will be the second. 8. Address the issue of homeowners’ insurance. 9. Guidelines and potential health issues as there is no requirement to register for short-term renters. And last of all there are no background checks on the clients. Milton Holt, I live at 107 Point Laurel Place in Queen’s Lake and I am here to oppose this Special Use Permit. My wife and I have lived in Queens Lake since 1970 at three different locations except for a three period when we lived elsewhere. Our daughter lived with us from 1984 until she finished her Master’s Degree in Environmental Science in 2013. During our extensive travels, during our NASA and Navy careers and also our consultant business, which by the way is not licensed in York County. We have experienced many different communities, both nationally and internationally. We know from these experiences that Queens Lake is truly a national treasure; it’s a jewel of a quiet, residential community. A place with great demographic diversity; a place where neighbors love neighbors where children return as adults to raise their own families where property owners are intensively interested in the evolution of their beloved community. And you have heard earlier about some of the changes that have taken place in those years. It is a neighborhood that encourages our youth to excel and nourish future leaders. For example, our daughter did extensive oyster research at the marina at Queens Lake without fear that her experiments would not be disturbed and with the help of many supportive residents. And therefore we look with great concern on any action that would adversely affect this special place where we live. Now you have heard reasons why we object to this application for a tourist home in Queens Lake and there will be more and I think some may even have touched on the 536 September 15, 2020 two issues that I’m interested in and am speaking about today. The first issue concerns the confusion that existed regarding property law. Specifically we needed clarification on whether an approved Special Use Permit relates to property laws, zoning issues whether overt or defacto and whether it runs with the land or does a Special Use Permit apply only to the applicant and not the property. I would like to thank Ms. Parker for today clarifying that for this particular SUP; however, I did not see that clarification at the Planning Commission Zoom meeting that occurred earlier. So my wife and I, as members of the Queens Lake team. I’m sorry – up already, okay any way the other issue is why does Queens Lake need a tourist zone. There is no evidence to support that. Caroline Brown, 122 Copse Way. I am opposed. As an attorney for over 30 years these comments are offered based on my background and experience and an expanded discussion of these was sent to each of you in laymen’s terms. Some of my observations, the County abandons any level of planning activities in relation to STRs. County officials disagree whether lot by lot determinations effect a rezoning. Eight out of ten homeowners oppose the application and the County’s approach. The County provides no standards to permit and exercise discretion. The County abdicates the responsibility, forcing it on the neighbors, ignores the purpose of zoning to create harmonious communities even bemoaning the advice of this application. County recommends conditioning this application on applicant’s ownership against the advice of counsel and case law. Even more egregious, the recommendation to approve given a known code violation. The County’s lot by lot determination, limited review of this SUP to her application, outdated traffic data, ignoring cumulative impacts in our input. In fact Queens Lake interest can only be expressed in the terms of the collective experience enjoyed by the residents. This Comprehensive Plan wording requires the County to incorporate our interests. They don’t. The County insists that a lot by lot determination and isolation is permissible. It’s not in light of the Code and the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, this approach violates the spirit or intent of the law, a legal obligation in Virginia since the 1700s. Courts have held that the intent of the zoning law requires cumulative impact assessments because a change of a property in isolation may not affect the community but the cumulative impacts of many such changes might be significant so ignoring them violates the spirit of the law. At every step of the process, the County dismisses aspects of its legal obligation, fails to provide a basis for a rational decision and seems to manipulate the process to push STRs into residential neighborhoods. Any approvals of SUPs under this approach will benefit the owner to the detriment of the community. This is the definition of spot zoning effectively rezoning one lot at a time illegal in Virginia for decades and spot zoning has been determined by consistency with our Comprehensive Plan, which the County has never done. We prefer to work with the County on this, but alternate forms exist. The County’s action and use of taxpayer funds is an issue here, not simply this application which demonstrates no need or appropriateness, misstates the law, misrepresents the facts and mischaracterizes me, the opposition. Does this really epitomize what the County expects of these applications? Please use your wisdom here. Stop the process. Have the County work with us. If the permit is approved and this goes to court it will preclude any satisfying resolution, create more animosity, and waste precious taxpayer dollars. Dollars this County cannot afford to waste. Michael Buenger –I live at 122 Copse Way. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application and the permit which I rise to oppose. Last night I sent each of you a summary of the concerns, a lengthy summary and given the lateness I won’t try to rehash all of those again. Let me just make a couple of points. It was interesting this evening listening to the staff presentation on this particular permit all of the conditions it was going to place in order to restrict use. I find that curious because if you read your own zoning code, the requirement that someone live on the property is in fact not a requirement. Your zoning code says either a) I can live on the property; b) I can live next to the property; or c) I can have someone else manage the property for me. So if I were the current applicant right now, I would be curious how the Planning staff and the Board can impose upon me a condition that your own code says you cannot impose upon me. I think what you are experiencing here this evening is a fear of the way that the discretion of the County is being exercised is not comporting with basic standards of the community’s interests and the interests of individuals with their right to community input, their right to participate in the planning of what goes on here. There seems to be, particularly among the staff, a sense that your discretion is limitless. As I mentioned to you last night in the letter your discretion is not limitless. This is a government of laws and you like every other governmental body has to exercise its discretion according to law. The most of important of which here is equal protection. I also found it somewhat interesting that the County staff appear to argue that SUPs do not run with the land when your own County’s Attorney office seems to 537 September 15, 2020 suggest otherwise. An SUP is in effect a determination, a legislative determination by this body that the land use can be accommodated within the zoning code. That is why SUPs run with land. What you are effectively doing is granting a SUP and turning it into a business license. You are granting a particularized economic benefit through the zoning code. That has been determined by the Virginia Supreme Court as well as numerous courts around this country to be unlawful. If in fact what you’re trying to accomplish here, is to bring rationality and reasonableness to the management of STRs in York County, this is not the way to do it. The citizens of Queens Lake have offered to engage with the County if what’s happening here demonstrates anything to you it is a failure of the planning process. The standard of America, I get to do with my property whatever I want to, which appears to be the standard of your Planning Commission is an arbitrary and capricious standard and I suggest to you that at some point in time the County will pay a significant litigation costs for that standard. Cherrie Turcotte, I live in Queens Lake. I am a licensed, registered nurse. I’ve worked in crisis management for abused women; I’ve written a number of grants and programs and I also 18 years ago was the spokesman for concerned residents in Gloucester County. Can you hear that? Some of you may remember that landfill issue. It was pretty hairy. I can tell you that this vote will not end this issue tonight. It won’t. It’s possibly the official beginning of this issue. You are creating, perhaps unbeknown to you, the very case, this case, a grass roots political action group. You are creating it with this problem and this is powerful. We are waking up and paying attention because at the most basic level of government, county government, a political citizens’ group can make a huge impact. Because its districts are small, fine. In the future, we will not simply react each time a new tourist home application arises in Queens Lake. We may choose to publish each member’s voting record on the tourist homes and let the general public know who they have to thank for the intrusions in their neighborhoods, County-wide. We will do this strategically through mailings, signs and community contacts. That way the County, York County citizens will know who they have, whose record they have, excuse me. That way York County citizens will know who has a record for selling out their neighborhoods. And that is what you are doing for a couple of little pennies. This is how grass roots political action machines are born from the ground up, from meetings just like this. This isn’t personal. I don’t know her. This application is setting a precedence every time another one comes up. I would like to offer you some personal insight on the changes I’ve seen with the Airbnb platform over the last seven years. As I have both been a guest and I have been a host. In all of the seven years of experience with Airbnb’s, okay. I ran an Airbnb and I can tell you that in a very short period of time Tucson started busting at the seams with Airbnb’s everywhere. Airbnb does not limit how many hostings they have. They would send you all kinds of prompts to lower your price tags and eventually they had a book now button and that book now button, you didn’t even need to speak to the guest that’s coming. It was just like a hotel. So you know Airbnbs do not have the interest of the community; it is a platform. That’s all it is, it’s a booking platform. Everything is going to be related. She’s going to be responsible for everything. Do we trust her? And I do take offense to the Nazi. Lucia Sebastian, My husband, Richard, and have lived at 105 Little John Road for the past 34 years. We raised two children in this wonderful older neighborhood which provided ample space for outdoor activities, but with the security and caring of friendly neighbors. Queens Lake was first developed in the 1950s before the era of strictly enforced covenants and gated communities. We are very concerned that the precedent that will be set if you approve this Special Use Permit for a tourist home for the property at 100 Bowstring Drive from rural residential to commercial. If this change is approved, it is done without review or oversight by the County government. This is a precedence setting decision which will affect the quality of life of the residents of this wonderful community. A September 8, 2020 article in the Daily Press provided information on the ongoing problems and issues with short-term rentals via Airbnbs and other renting services. As the article notes, when the local government approves these Special Use Permits they are basically “embracing them”. Someone or some department needs to be able to manage and enforce any issues that may arise by having a commercial venue in the middle of a rural residential neighborhood. Please help us to preserve the unique qualities of this beautiful neighborhood by voting no to this Special Use Permit request that is before you. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Marinus (Renee) De Jager, I have very much enjoyed living here in Queens Lake at 108 Horseshoe Drive with my wife and four kids. I want to personally be on record that I am opposed to short- term rentals in Queens Lake and I agree with my fellow presenters who are organized against short-term rentals. I have read the application for a tourist home using a Special Use Permit on 538 September 15, 2020

100 Bowstring Drive and I would like to explain my opposition against approving the application. The York County regulations for Special Use Permits states that there is no inherent right to obtain a Special Use Permit. Special Use Permits are a privilege granted by the County. It falls to the applicant to demonstrate the necessity for and appropriateness of establishing the Special Use on the specific property. The applicant for this Special Use Permit states specifically in her application that it is her right to obtain a Special Use Permit. That is obviously not correct and York County’s regulations is very clear about this. The application does not explain the necessity for establishing a tourist home in Queens Lake. The lodging industry in Williamsburg is in bad shape today. From a recent industry report it is clear how hard Williamsburg has been hit this year. To quote the report “the hotel revenue fell seventy-four percent in Williamsburg in 2020”. The last thing that Williamsburg needs is an increase in tourist homes or short-term rentals. The application states that the Special Use Permit is written for the owner or person with the business license and not generally for the property. This is not correct. When the application is approved the permit is for the property independent of who owns the property. As the applicant states in her application, the value of property with Airbnb rentals might increase and allowing short-term rentals in Queens Lake, interesting investors to buy up homes with the permit as these properties are more valuable than regular residences. This would be a bad trend for communities like Queens Lake in my view. The application explains that the homeowners will only rent out when they are home. Well that sounds great, but who will monitor for compliance. Moreover, approval of the Special Use Permit allows the owner of a tourist home to not even live on the property and on top of that allows a third party to manage the property and the third party does not even have to live on the property either. After approval of a special Use Permit, the owner of the property can and after twelve months apply for a so-called supplemental Special Use Permit to allow events on the property like weddings and receptions and other events. Again a development path that would have adverse effects on communities like Queens Lake. Please deny the request and start the discussion with the people you represent. Dianne Howell, I live at 104 Horseshoe Drive. I’m actually reading a letter from Brian Italia. He would have been here tonight but he has a COVID quarantine restriction on him for a procedure at Portsmouth Naval Hospital tomorrow. Brian has also sent you a lengthy letter with documentation and evidence in it. Mr. Italia respectfully requests that his full length letter be read for further details and evidence of the following comments. The applicant based on background and behavior clearly purchased the home in Queens Lake with the intention to establish a commercial business, contrary to the current zoning district. Currently the applicant is advertising on her Facebook page as if this Special Use Permit was approved using the email address [email protected], the planned business name at this address. The applicant cites use of an Airbnb.com as the means to screen potential renters, but is not limited to that business solution and currently advertises on Facebook and the business website for Williamsburg’s Farmers Market and will likely use these and other means to advertise this rental without the same screening criteria as described in her application. The application also does not meet the conditions of the short-term rental, which by definition must be restricted to fewer than ninety days. It establishes an open-ended maximum stay by expressing the intent to open this rental as a student rental or even as a military transition rental both of which regularly exceed ninety day periods. The applicant has already demonstrated the tendency to violate the conditions of an existing business license. Her home based business license with York County only allows retail sales of goods at the Williamsburg Farmers Market. However, on at least two occasions 21 March and 28 March of this year she was selling goods from her residence. York County zoning and enforcement have already addressed these violations with a cease and desist order. However, she was already in direct violation of Virginia Executive Order 53 and Virginia Order of Public Health Emergency One, a class 1 misdemeanor offense and an immediate permit suspension which the County has not addressed. Currently as there is no requirement for the County’s zoning and enforcement to report such violations to the Virginia Department of Health and instead it is placed on the individual. Although the applicant may claim ignorance on these matters, we can all agree that she’s educated well enough to the requirements of this SUP. She also likely knew the restrictions of other York County SUPs and home based business applications that specifically prohibit these activities and therefore demonstrated a purposeful intent for personal gain over that of community safety and on those grounds alone you should deny this application. Trevor Sowers, I live at 290 East Queens Drive and I am against Airbnb’s and short-term rentals. My parents and my whole family has a dream to live on a farm and we would love to have cows and goats, but we know we cannot have those. We have lived here my whole life – fifteen years 539 September 15, 2020 and I think they’ve lived here for seventeen years. The first year they came here they were not looking to change the zoning for commercial or whatever zoning that would be. They decided you know that we are going to abide by the rules and unlike the applicant she is trying to seek to get a Special Use Permit or change the aspect of our whole community. And to go with the background check that she talked about using, a background check doesn’t tell you there’s going to be a car wreck a background check doesn’t tell you there’s going to be a drowning in the pool. A background check doesn’t tell you half of the story, all it tells you is that they have lived crime free for this part of their life. And at some point whoever has committed a crime they started, there’s always a first time. So that’s pretty much all I have to say and thank you. Heidi Garman, I live at 104 Little John Road. Our home is almost directly behind the property in question here. And I oppose the application. I do not want to belabor a lot of the points that other speakers have made because we have been here so long, but I did want to call to your attention one thing and that is the lack of County staff available to investigate violations of short- term rentals which leave our community basically in the place where they have to police them themselves and leaves us with little to no ability to negate negative impacts of short-term rentals. I wanted to call attention to especially the amenities of our community, especially the two pools, the playground and the tennis courts that are just a mile from the property in question and the one mile lake that we have several access points, one of which is a boat dock which is half a mile from the property in question. As it stands those amenities are all paid for by members of our community and they are pretty much open access. The boat docks are not gated; we do not have pass keys and things like that and so there is no way for us to really prohibit use of our amenities by people who might be renting from the short-term rentals. If we are going to start policing them by putting up gates and having pass keys, the burden of that cost on our community and the residents who live there and so I just wanted to point this out as one more example of how the applicant for this short-term rental is going to benefit financially from this application, but the members of our community are going to basically shoulder the cost. Thank you very much for your time. Nigel Brown, I live at 133 Hunter Lane. I’m here on behalf of my family, my wife, my four children. We stand opposed to the application. It’s nothing personal, simply put. Home based businesses make a lot of sense. I’ve operated one over the years in various counties, including York County a number of years. It makes sense if it’s the right type; this isn’t; it doesn’t make sense. This brings people into the neighborhood from outside. There is a continuous flow of traffic; people coming and going. They certainly will be accessing community amenities; there’s no way to patrol or police that. It creates an atmosphere of paranoia within the neighborhood, totally unnecessary. This is not a good fit for this business. The application should be rejected. I urge you to do that or perhaps even withdrawn because clearly the neighborhood does not want it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate it. David Dafashy, I live at 105 Willoughby Drive. I guess I am speaker number thirty-four and just sort of want to compliment all the wisdom and the words of the previous thirty-three speakers. I agree with a lot that has been said actually this whole evening and yet I have come to a slightly different conclusion as far as I feel about this situation. Had you asked me ten years ago I would probably agree with the last thirty-three people but today I’m actually here to speak gently in support of the application. I love a lot of things about Queens Lake. I love the raw natural beauty of the land, and I love the mist rising over the lake in the morning and the glimmer of the gold in the marsh of the evening. I love the fact that no two houses look alike, I love the same things as the last thirty-three speakers have told us you know what’s so special about Queens Lake, but most of all I love people and the fact that it really does feel like one great big family. It’s a wonderful community and I think it is truly fair to say that my favorite thing about Queens Lake, things about Queens Lake are largely sitting and have spoken in this room tonight. I count many of them as my friends. We may have different views on the topic that we discuss tonight but there is one important commonality and that is our love for this very special and beautiful place. My parents fell in love with Queens Lake when they were in their late twenties in 1972 and brought me here as an infant and I can honestly confirm that very little has changed having grown up here, very little has changed in the last 50 years. That is a very good thing. Young kids still ride their bikes to the pool, play in the fields and on the playground unaccompanied by adults as one of the previous speakers mentioned. People wave at each other and stop to chat, top to borrow an egg or a cup of sugar or at least they did before COVID. It has close to a Norman Rockwell painting as you will find in 2020 and it’s a wonderful place. I’m the last person who would want it to change in any measurable way. I happen not to like change; it is uncertain and I prefer the certainty of the status quo especially when they are as wonderful as they are in 540 September 15, 2020

Queens Lake. No reason to want it to ever change. But one thing is certain in life and that is that change will come no matter if we like it or not. So the question, how do we harness and positively guide change rather than fruitlessly stopping, attempting to stop it. Williamsburg has always been a popular tourist destination for very obvious reasons and that hasn’t changed much. What has changed is the way tourists visit us. In the 50s and 60s motor lodges were all the rage then it moved into the 70s and 80s with hotels and timeshares, but as many of you are well aware there has been a dramatic shift towards the unique custom experience that only a private residence can provide. This is now the preferred place to stay for many travelers. This will likely change too, but for now that is the new face of tourism. And to me a town, city or locality that depends on tourism for its quality of life, it makes no sense to me that a tourist destination would not provide what some of our new tourists are seeking. What better way to promote repeat visitation than to give visitors a glimpse into one of our most beautiful neighborhoods. I love showing this place off and I showed this place off to my Italian wife when she was living in Italy and now she lives here in America with me. Isn’t that the point of a tourist destination to make people want to come again? If this request is approved I will say that it is fair that there should be some sort of compromise and a lot of people have brought up some very good ideas/regulations. Brent Baumberger, Thank you for letting me speak to you tonight. My name is Brent Baumberger and I live at 103 Little John Road in Queens Lake. I appreciate the time to speak. I am not going to come out and say that I am opposed. The idea of a short-term rentals, I think it is flawed at this point for many stated reasons prior to my addressing you tonight. I had notes prepared and I put them in my car about an hour ago after listening to so many speakers and I think that Ulla’s ideas are understandable based on her background and based on her thesis I can understand why from a hospitality standpoint she envisioned how this could work for her and it would be to her advantage, there’s no doubt about that. I applaud her entrepreneurial spirit. Clearly the community is not going to support this. By the last two hours that is evident. The litigation risks are very high at this point that is evident. The speaker before me raised a very interesting point, there is going to be change. How it is done, the structuring, the way it is approached, the incorporation of the community, incorporation especially of Queens Lake. It is a tough job you have; I really empathize with you all. This is a real bear because it’s coming, it’s going to be fun, it’s going to be difficult to approach this without change and there’s going to be forces opposing the change. The bottom line is to, in my opinion, to incorporate a very balanced approach to these competing issues. There are clearly going to be people besides Ulla on a larger basis that could benefit from a change such as this. This is not the way to approach it. One last point is that over time clearly the community is changing now and it’s going through. My children went to Queens Lake went to Bruton. I’ve seen it I’ve lived in community for over more than twenty years. I think that time spent with this community, working with the HOA even though it’s loosely assembled is the way to approach this. I can’t support. I understand where Ulla is coming from, it’s just not ready. I don’t think this should be approved. Ron Kirkland, I live at 1001 Richmond Road, Williamsburg, VA. I am here representing the hotel/motel association. On behalf of our members we are opposed to any and all Special Use Permits for short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. It has been discussed a lot about the Planning Commission, clearly says you have to show the necessity for the Special Use Permit and there’s no necessity that you can create. At the end of July, hotels in York County averaged twenty-six percent occupancy so on the average day three out of four hotel rooms are sitting empty and we’re going to add inventory to it. There is no necessity; it doesn’t exist. In a good year, last year fifty-five percent occupancy for the year, that’s just a little more than half. A necessity for short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods does not exist. I’m not even really sure how this made it this far. The applicant made a number of comments that she may not know they are incorrect. Airbnb do not require a driver’s license, does not require a passport, there is no background check. I have three log-in credentials for Airbnb, one is the actual one I use and two fake ones I use for hotel association, we book rooms to make sure people are following the rules, collecting taxes and doing what they are supposed to do. I have never been asked for my ID – ever. Never had a background check so that’s just not the case. If I were advising someone on how to get more revenue out of Airbnb rental I would recommend that they use it on a number of platforms, VRBO and others that you can use and I would assume the applicant would do that as well. So the idea that you just have to get through this Airbnb and everything will be fine is just not how things operate. We just booked lodging, I tried to book some today for Lexington, VA for Thanksgiving. My daughter is going to VMI. There’s a necessity in Lexington you can’t really find a hotel room, there’s not many, so Airbnb is great way for us 541 September 15, 2020 to go see our daughter in college. That’s not Williamsburg. There’s not a necessity here, there in Lexington there is a necessity but not in Williamsburg. The applicant also probably doesn’t know 2017 Hotel Association partnered with Virginia Restaurant Lodging Travel Association to conduct a study done by Penn State. Study found that about forty percent of Airbnb rentals are operated by one person who owns three or more homes or management companies. So this isn’t just one person renting to someone else this is actually a business model that a lot of places have including a lot of your timeshares here in town. This short-term use is bad for lodging, it’s bad for Queen’s Lake, it’s bad for the neighborhood, it’s bad for York County and I ask that you vote no. Kathy Devanny, I live at 177 Dennis Drive, Williamsburg. I’ve been there since 1994 and I’ve raised my four daughters there. In this room I know so many people. These are my friends, loved beloved neighbors, but I am very upset about how this process has happened. I think that many of the petitions that went around to have engaged people to opposed this Airbnb contained false information, much of which was corrected this evening by Ms. Parker before we started. And there was a great deal of bullying. You hate to call it that but that’s indeed what it was. And I think you’ve had a taste of that as people addressed you here tonight. Many had covert or overt threats pushing to see things their way and potential of litigation. That can go in both directions as well. We are standing here tonight in Yorktown. This is Yorktown, the United States founded on the basis of life, liberty and estate, even John Locke’s essay talks about life, liberty and estate. It’s not an accident that a nation founded on liberty and dedicated to justice that protects property rights. James Madison said that man is said to have right to his property and a property taken through regulations should be treated the same as property taken through physical seizure. If we regulate people’s property, the right to use and enjoy their property so much that they can’t use and enjoy their property then indeed we are seizing their property and taking away their property rights even if we’re not physically taking it. In modern usage, individuals or independent are free to extent of they have sole or exclusive dominion over what they hold. It’s no avail to hold property once acquired if it cannot be used and enjoyed. In a modern context, that’s the right of free use that is present in all common law so even though people intimated that the Planning Commission could be sued, individuals could also produce litigation that people are required to obtain so much regulation that they cannot freely enjoy their property. That’s the basis of freedom here in the United States and I have been dismayed that some of the people I love, those that are right here in this room I know have not gathered information and gathered names without a full disclosure of what was going on here. I think it’s a shame that so much bullying took place in this neighborhood. I think that the Planning Commission did a very reasonable job of screening and I’ve stayed in an Airbnb in fact the business I work for mandates us to try to use Airbnb whenever we can. You do you do absolutely have to have an ID. Alana Indorina, I live at 104 Shoreham Lane, right down the road from Ulla and I believe that Queens Lake in Williamsburg is a beautiful and small community in town. Tourists are majorly funding our city and keep it running as nicely as it has been which this Airbnb would increase tourism; it’s proven. Personally when I travel I rather experience the area as close to the local as possible to rather than the commercialized stay that hotels offer. I would like to hope that visitor can have the option to experience and come to love our small town just like our locals have. Unfortunately when the petition was passed around I was told that it was solely to inform and I quote “the technologically challenged” residents. Since I consider myself technologically advanced I looked up the information on the York County government website and when I brought up the differences and the information I was told specifically not to believe everything I read on the internet and that the paper they printed out 30 days ago was more up-to-date and true than the website. Although I’ve lived in Queens Lake for six years now and on Creekside for five, which is just down the road. I went to Magruder Elementary School, went to Queens Lake Middle School and graduated from Bruton High School, I was told multiple times that due to my age I am not allowed to have a say on the issue and I hope that you won’t hold the same discrimination that the many neighbors had to me. I believe that although most speakers before me have been negative I believe that quality is more important than quantity and I hope that you can consider that I support Ulla and Curtis Clayborne and I hope that you will too. Patricia Albert, I live in Queens Lake and have two other properties in York County. My residents is 109 Holcomb Drive. I have a lot at 107 in Sherwood and had the pleasure of meeting you guys last year for that short-term rental permit. I also have property in Skimino Hills that was granted a B&B and last year you all approved an expansion. So with that said, I am against the Special Use Permits for short-term rentals. I bought my land and houses zoned RR because of what it 542 September 15, 2020 means Residential Rural. It is not zoned Commercial. If people want to run Airbnb’s, there is plenty of land available to do so, but why should I have to move away from them. I ask myself what is the positive to bring these to Queens Lake and my answer is none. I didn’t see where the Planning Commission had taken the negatives into consideration. Okay, like I said I was here last year and the woman from Sherwood was crying the blues; she couldn’t pay her mortgage; she had to have this income. It was denied. She explained how she was already operating and how her rate was fifteen percent and how she wanted to increase the occupancy. It was denied. I don’t think she ever really stopped, but it seems to be a pattern of people breaking the law and then applying for something and then maybe or maybe not getting it. Her year will be up and I’m sure I’ll be back to see you if you approve this one. I do have one question that I have not heard asked tonight, but it is very relevant in the Sherwood permit. We share a vacuum pot. Okay, those are designed for residential. They have a safety over use allotted to them, but these places are already running businesses out of their house now want to add an STR to them. Has anybody in the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors gone to the Utilities Department and asked what the design features are, how much more flow can these pots handle because we share pots before it imposes on my use of my sewer system. That is not a light subject. The entire Queens Lake has a large amount of these pots.