On the agenda: Yorktown Board of Supervisors Work Session — data center (Oct 6)

Agenda
Board of Supervisors Work Session
York Hall
301 Main Street
Yorktown, VA 23690
Tuesday, October 6, 2026, 6:00 PM

A. Call to Order
B.

Roll Call

C. Work Session
1.

VDOT Quarterly Update. Presentation by Brian Gentry, Williamsburg VDOT Residency
Administrator

2.

Voter Registrar Update. Receive an update from Walt Latham, Voter Registrar, on the upcoming
election.

3.

2027 Legislative Program. Receive a presentation and overview of the proposed 2027 York
County Legislative Agenda, including key legislative priorities and initiatives for the upcoming
General Assembly session.

4.

Stormwater Ordinance Presentation. Receive an update on proposed revisions to the Stormwater
Ordinance, including anticipated changes to existing language.

D. Consent Calendar

E.

5.

Approval of Minutes. Consider approval of the August 18, 2026 Minutes of the York County
Board of Supervisors meeting.

6.

Back Creek Navigation Improvements Project Partnership Agreement. Consider the adoption
of Proposed Resolution R26-144 authorizing execution of the Project Partnership Agreement with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Memorandum of Agreement with the Virginia Resources
Commission, as well as appropriating funding for the non-federal share of the project.

7.

Fire Training Facility Agreement. Consider adoption of Proposed Resolution R26-145
authorizing a Memorandum of Agreement between the County and the City of Newport News for
the Newport News Regional Live Fire Training Facility

8.

Retirement Recognition - Christopher S. Brisson. Consider adoption of proposed Resolution
R26-142 to recognize Master Firefighter Christopher S. Brisson for his tenure with York County
and upon his retirement from County service.

9.

Retirement Recognition – Angela Rigler, Administrative Coordinator. Consider adoption of
proposed Resolution R26-143 recognizing Angela Rigler for her dedicated service to York County
and honoring her upon her retirement from County service.

Open Discussion
Page 1 of 2

Page 1 of 98

F.

Closed Meeting
10.

Legal Matters: Consult with legal counsel on a matter of actual litigation in which the County is
involved. Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(7)

G. Adjournment

Page 2 of 2

Page 2 of 98

Memorandum
Board of Supervisors Work Session
October 6, 2026

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Mark L. Bellamy, Jr., County Administrator

SECTION:

Work Session

SUBJECT:

Stormwater Ordinance
Presentation. Receive an update on proposed
revisions to the Stormwater Ordinance,
including anticipated changes to existing
language.

DEPARTMENT: Public Works
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ALIGNMENT
Environmental Stewardship with a Focus on Resiliency
BACKGROUND
When the stormwater ordinance was last fully updated in 2024 (combining chapter 10 – Erosion
and Sediment Control with Chapter 23.3 – Stormwater Management to create the new Chapter
10 – Erosion and Stormwater Management), the update was completed using the model
ordinance provided by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). York
County utilized this model as it ensured we codified all items required by the state. However, it
has been found that the model ordinance provided was unclear in some of the language included.
Now that we have worked with the state version day to day, we believe the community as a
whole would be better served by the proposed ordinance in terms of organization and clarity.
These changes are allowed under the state framework, which permits a local ordinance as long
as it contains the substantive provisions from the state’s model.
The proposed ordinance has no changes to the contents or processes currently implemented by
the County. It only proposes to revise the language for clarity for the citizens in the following
ways:Clarity of Language- Reducing generalized information or technical language where
possible (i.e. Section 10-3 - Qualified Personnel)
a. Former Definition: A person knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion
and sediment and stormwater management controls who possesses the skills to assess
conditions at the construction site for the operator that could impact stormwater quality
and quantity and to assess the effectiveness of any sediment and erosion control
measures or stormwater management facilities selected to control the quality and

Page 3 of 98

quantity of stormwater discharges from the construction activity.
b. Proposed Definition: An individual holding a certificate accepted by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality responsible for the management and
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
2. Elimination of Redundancy- Repeated language making the ordinance larger without
additional substance (i.e. Section 10-4)
a. Former Language:
i. Land disturbing activities that meet one of the criteria below are regulated
as follows:
1. Land disturbing activity that disturbs 500 square feet or more and
is less than one acre is subject to criteria defined in Article 2
(9VAC25-875-540 et seq.) and Article 3 (9VAC25-875-570 et
seq.) of Part V unless Article 4 (9VAC25-875670 et seq.) of Part
V of the Regulation is applicable, as determined in accordance
with 9VAC25-875-480 and 9VAC25-875-490.
2. Land disturbing activity that disturbs less than one acre, but is part
of a larger common plan of development or sale that disturbs one
acre or more, is subject to … (repeats underlined material above).
3. Land disturbing activity that disturbs one acre or more and
is subject to … (repeats underlined material above).
b. Proposed Language:
1. Land disturbing activities that disturb 2500 square feet or more; and
2. Land disturbing activities that disturb less than 2500 square feet, but is
part of a larger common plan of development or sale that disturbs 2500
square feet or more.
3. Improved Organization- Making the ordinance more easily accessible for citizens (i.e.
Section 10-11 (b) - Creating a full list of all requirements for LDA permitting in a single
location)
a. Former Language:
i. A person shall not conduct any land disturbing activity in the County of
York until:
1. An application that includes a permit registration statement, if
required, a soil erosion control and stormwater management plan
or an executed agreement in lieu of a plan, if required, has been
submitted to the County of York.
2. The name of the individual who will be assisting the owner in
carrying out the activity and who holds a Responsible Land
Disturber certificate pursuant to §62.1-44.15:30 of the Code of
Virginia shall be submitted to the County of York… (continues
into information on waiving the requirement or penalties for
failing to meet the requirements that are covered in later sections).
b. Proposed Language:

Page 4 of 98

i. Prior to the submission and approval of the following, if, and as required
by the Program Administrator or his designee, it shall be unlawful for any
person to conduct any land disturbing activity in the County of York …
(continues into an 8-item bullet list of all required documents for
permitting).
Additionally, the 2024 ordinance update was passed in June 2024 to go into effect on July 1st,
2024. As a result, we could not repeal the standing stormwater ordinance (Chapter 23.3) as it
was the only active regulations in our code for the remainder of that month. Therefore, we also
need to go through the process of repealing or clearing and reserving chapter 23.3.
I recommend that the Board approve proposed Ordinance No. 26-20.
Walters/3774
Attachment:
Proposed Ordinance No. 26-20

Page 5 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF YORK
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Ordinance
At a regular meeting of the York County Board of Supervisors held in the Board
Room, York Hall, Yorktown, Virginia, on the ____ day of ____________, 20___:
Present

Vote

Douglas R. Holroyd, Chairman
Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr., Vice Chairman
Sheila S. Noll
M. Wayne Drewry
G. Stephen Roane, Jr.

On motion of
ordinance was adopted:

, which carried __:__, the following

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE YORK COUNTY EROSION AND
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE CURRENTLY
CHAPTER 10 OF THE ORDINANCES OF YORK COUNTY TO THE
CURRENT USAGE OF THE ORDINANCE IN KEEPING WITH THE
PROVISIONS AS MANDATED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:27 provides enabling authority for the
County to enact and amend provisions of its Stormwater Ordinance in keeping with the
provisions as mandated by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the _____ day of _____________, 20__, that the Ordinance “Chapter
23.3 – Stormwater Management” is hereby repealed in its entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IF FURTHER ORDAINED that the following be
amended and enacted as “Chapter 10 – Erosion and Stormwater Management” of the
Code of Ordinances of York County, Virginia, which chapter shall read as follows:
Chapter 10 EROSION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL

Page 6 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 2
Sec. 10-1. Title, purpose and authority.
Pursuant to § 62.1-44.15:27 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, this chapter is
adopted as part of an initiative to integrate the County of York stormwater management
requirements with the County of York erosion and sediment control requirements into a
consolidated erosion and stormwater management program. The erosion and stormwater
management program is intended to facilitate the approval of plans, issuance of permits,
payment of fees, and coordination of inspection and enforcement activities for landdisturbing activities into a more convenient and efficient manner for both the County of
York and those responsible for compliance with these programs.
(a)

This chapter shall be known as "the Erosion and Stormwater Management
Program" of the County of York."

(b)

The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the general health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the County of York, protect the quality and
quantity of state waters from the potential harm of unmanaged stormwater
and soil erosion, including protection from a land disturbing activity
causing unreasonable degradation of properties, water quality, stream
channels, and other natural resources, and to establish procedures whereby
stormwater requirements related to water quality and quantity shall be
administered and enforced.

(c)

This chapter is authorized by §62.1-44.15:27 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended.

Sec. 10-2. Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section:
Adequate channel. A channel that will convey the designated frequency storm even
without overtopping the channel bank nor causing erosive damage to the channel bed or
banks.
Agreement in lieu of a plan. A contract between York County and the owner or
permittee which specifies methods that shall be implemented to comply with the
requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Act (VESMA) and
this chapter for the construction of (i) a single-family detached residential structure or (ii)
a farm building or structure on a parcel of land with a total impervious cover percentage,
including the impervious cover from the farm building or structure to be constructed, of
less than five percent; such contract may be executed by York County in lieu of a soil
erosion control and stormwater management plan (ESM plan).
Applicant. Any person submitting an erosion and sediment control planan erosion
control and stormwater management plan (ESM plan) to a Virginia Erosion and

Page 7 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 3
Stormwater Management Program (VESMP) authority for approval in order to obtain
authorization to commence a land disturbing activity.
Best management practice (BMP). Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices, including both structural and
nonstructural practices, to prevent or reduce the pollution of surface waters and
groundwater systems.
(1) Nonproprietary best management practice means both structural and
nonstructural practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of surface waters
and groundwater systems that are in the public domain and are not protected
by trademark or patent or copyright.
(2) Proprietary best management practice means both structural and
nonstructural practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of surface waters
and groundwater systems that are privately owned and controlled and may be
protected by trademark or patent or copyright.
Board. The State Water Control Board.
Causeway. A temporary structural span constructed across a flowing watercourse or
wetland to allow construction traffic to access the area without causing erosion damage.
Channel. A natural stream or manmade waterway.
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Article 2.5 (§ 62.1-44.15:67 et seq.) of Chapter
3.1of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Any land designated by a local government
pursuant to Part III (9VAC25-830-70 et seq.) of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
Designation and Management Regulations and § 62.1-44.15:74 of the Code of Virginia.
A Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area shall consist of a Resource Protection Area and a
Resource Management Area as defined in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
Designation and Management Regulations (9VAC25-830).
Clean Water Act. The federal Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1251 et seq.), formerly
referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217, Public
Law 95-576, Public Law 96-486, and Public Law 97-117, or any subsequent revisions
thereto.
Cofferdam. A watertight temporary structure in a river, lake, etc. for keeping the water
from an enclosed area that has been pumped dry so that bridge foundations, dams, etc.,
may be constructed.
Common plan of development or sale. A contiguous area where separate and distinct
construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules.
Comprehensive stormwater management plan. A plan, which may be integrated with,
other land use plans or regulations that specify how the water quality components,

Page 8 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 4
quantity components, or both, of stormwater are to be managed on the basis of an entire
watershed or a portion thereof. The plan may also provide for the remediation of erosion,
flooding, and water quality and quantity problems caused by prior development.
Construction activity. Any clearing, grading, or excavation associated with large
construction activity or associated with small construction activity.
Control measure. Any best management practiceBMP, stormwater facility or other
method used to minimize the discharge of pollutants to state waters.
CWA and regulations. The Clean Water Act and applicable regulations published in
the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated thereunder. For the purposes of this chapter,
it includes state program requirements.
Dam. A barrier to confine or raise water for storage or diversion, to create a hydraulic
head, to prevent gully erosion, or to retain soil, rock or other debris.
Denuded. A term applied to land that has been physically disturbed and no longer
supports vegetative cover.
Department. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Development. Land disturbance and the resulting landform associated with the
construction of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation, transportation
or utility facilities or structures or the clearing of land for non-agricultural or nonsilvicultural purposes.
Dike. An earthen embankment constructed to confine or control water, especially one
built along the banks of a river to prevent overflow of lowlands; levee.
Discharge. Where used without qualification, means the discharge of a pollutant.
Discharge of a pollutant.
(1) Any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to state waters from
any point source; or
(2) Any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to the waters of the
contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other
floating craft which is being used as a means of transportation.
(3) This definition includes additions of pollutants into surface waters from:
surface runoff that is collected or channeled by man; discharges through pipes,
sewers, or other conveyances owned by a state, municipality, or other person
that do not lead to a treatment works; and discharges through pipes, sewers, or
other conveyances, leading into privately owned treatment works. This term
does not include an addition of pollutants by any indirect discharger.

Page 9 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 5
District (or soil and water conservation district). A political subdivision of the
Commonwealth organized in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 (§ 10.1-506 et
seq.) of Chapter 5 of Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Diversion. A channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side constructed across or
at the bottom of a slope for the purpose of intercepting surface runoff.
Dormant. Denuded land that is not actively being brought to a desired grade or
condition.
Drainage area. A land area, water area, or both from which runoff flows to a common
point.
Energy dissipator. A nonerodable structure which reduces the velocity of concentrated
flow to reduce its erosive effects.
Environmental Protection Agency (or EPA). The United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Erosion and sediment control plan (ESC plan). A document containing material for the
conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include
appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory and management
information with needed interpretations, and a record of decisions contributing to
conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions to ensure
that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation
objectives.describing methods for controlling on site erosion control and sediment loss
during construction.
Erosion impact area. An area of land that is not associated with a current land disturbing
activity but is subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto
neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or
parcel of land of 10,0002,500 square feet or less used for residential purposes or to
shorelines where the erosion results from wave action or other coastal processes.
ESC. Erosion and sediment control.
ESM plan. A soil erosion control and stormwater management plan, commonly
referred to as the erosion control and stormwater control pFarm building or structure. This
term is defined in the same manner as it is defined in § 36-97 of the Code of Virginia and
also includes any building or structure used for agritourism activity, as defined in § 3.26400 of the Code of Virginia, and any related impervious services including roads,
driveways and parking areas.
Flooding. A volume of water that is too great to be confined within the banks or walls
of the stream, water body, or conveyance system and that overflows onto adjacent lands,
thereby causing or threatening damage.
Flume. A constructed device lined with erosion-resistant materials intended to convey
water on steep grades.

Page 10 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 6
General permit. A permit authorizing a category of discharges under the CWA and the
Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Act ( VESMA) within a geographical
area.
Hydrologic Unit Code (or HUC). A watershed unit established in the most recent
version of Virginia's 6th Order National Watershed Boundary Dataset unless specifically
identified as another order
Impervious cover. A surface composed of material that significantly impedes or
prevents natural infiltration of water into soil.
Incorporated place. A city, town, township or village that is incorporated under the
Code of Virginia.
Inspection. An on-site review of the project's compliance with any applicable design
criteria, or an on-site review to obtain information or conduct surveys or investigations
necessary in the implementation or enforcement of the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater
Management Act (VESMA) and applicable regulations.
Karst area. Any land area predominantly underlain at the surface or shallow subsurface
by limestone, dolomite, or other soluble bedrock regardless of any obvious surface karst
features.
Karst features. Sinkholes, sinking and losing streams, caves, large flow springs, and
other such landscape features found in karst areas.
Land disturbance (or land-disturbing activity). A manmade change to the land surface
that may result in soil erosion or has the potential to change its runoff characteristics,
including construction activity such as the clearing, grading, excavating or filling of land.
Large construction activity. Construction activity including clearing, grading, and
excavation, except operations that result in the disturbance of less than five acres of total
land area. Large construction activity also includes the disturbance of less than five acres
of total land area that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, if the larger
common plan will ultimately disturb five acres or more.
Large construction activity does not include routine maintenance that is performed to
maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility.
Linear development project. A Land-disturbing activity that is linear in nature such as,
but not limited to: (i) the construction of electric and telephone utility lines, and natural
gas pipelines; (ii) construction of tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities
and other related structures of a railroad company; (iii) highway construction projects;
(iv) construction of stormwater channels and stream restoration activities; and (iv)
construction of stormwater channels and stream restoration activities; and (v) water and
sewer lines. Private subdivision roads or streets shall not be considered linear
development projects.

Page 11 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 7
Live watercourse. A definite channel with bed and banks within which concentrated
water flows continuously.
Locality. The County of York; York County.
Localized flooding. Smaller scale flooding that may occur outside of a stormwater
conveyance system. This may include high water, ponding or standing water from
stormwater runoff, which is likely to cause property damage or unsafe conditions.
Main channel. The portion of the stormwater conveyance system that contains the base
flow and small frequent storm events.
Manmade. Constructed by man.
Minimize. To reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the extent achievable
using stormwater controls that are technologically available and economically practical.
Minor modification. Modifications and amendments not requiring extensive review
and evaluation including changes in EPA Environmental Protection Agency promulgated
test protocols, increasing monitoring frequency requirements, changes in sampling
locations, and changes to compliance dates within the overall compliance schedules. A
minor permit modification or amendment t=does not substantially alter permit conditions,
substantially increase or decrease the amount of surface water impacts, increase the size
of the operation, or reduce the capacity of the facility to protect human health or the
environment.
Natural channel design concepts. The utilization of engineering analysis and fluvial
geomorphic processes to create, rehabilitate, restore or stabilize an open conveyance
system for the purpose of creating or recreating a stream that conveys its bankfull storm
event within its banks and allows larger flows to access its bankfull bench and its
floodplain.
Natural stream. A tidal or nontidal watercourse that is part of the natural topography.
It usually maintains a continuous course or seasonal flow during the year and is
characterized as being irregular in cross-section with a meandering course. Constructed
channels such as drainage ditches or swales shall not be considered natural streams;
however, channels designed utilizing natural channel design concepts may be considered
natural streams.
Nonerodable. Means a material, e.g. riprap, concrete, plastic, etc. that will not
experience surface wear due to natural forces.
Nonpoint source pollution. Pollution such as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus,
hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and toxics whose sources cannot be pinpointed but rather
are washed from the land surface in a diffuse manner by stormwater.
Notice of Completion. Written notification to the operator that he has satisfied all the
conditions of the land-disturbing activity permit.

Page 12 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 8
Operator. The owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to the Virginia
Erosion and Stormwater Management Act (VESMA) and this chapter. In the context of
stormwater associated with a large or small construction activity, operator means any
person associated with a construction project that meets either of the following two
criterial: (i) the person has direct operational control over construction plans and
specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and
specifications or (ii) the person has day-to-day operational control of those activities at a
project that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention
plan for the site or other permit or Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management
Program authority (VESMAP authority) permit conditions (i.e., they are authorized to
direct workers at a site to carry out activities required by the stormwater pollution
prevention plan or comply with other permit conditions).
Owner. The same as that term is defined in § 62.1-44.3 of the Code of Virginia. For a
regulated land-disturbing activity that does not require a permit, "Owner" also means the
owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, mortgagee or
vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee, or other person,
firm or corporation in control of a property.
Peak flow rate. The maximum instantaneous flow from a prescribed design storm at a
particular location.
Percent impervious. The impervious area within the site divided by the area of the site
multiplied by 100.
Permit. A Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (VPDES permit)
issued by the department pursuant to § 62.1-44.15 of the Code of Virginia for stormwater
discharges from a land-disturbing activity.
Permittee. The person to whom the permit is issued.
Person. Any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private
corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility,
cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth,
governmental body, including a federal or state entity as applicable, any interstate body,
or any other legal entity.
Point of discharge. A location at which concentrated stormwater runoff is released.
Point source. Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance including any pipe,
ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, vessel, or other
floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include
return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff.
Pollutant discharge. The average amount of a particular pollutant measured in pounds
per year or other standard reportable unit as appropriate, delivered by stormwater runoff.

Page 13 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 9
Pollution. Such alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of any state
waters as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters (a) harmful or
detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare, or to the health of animals,
fish or aquatic life; (b) unsuitable with reasonable treatment for use as present or possible
future sources of public water supply; or (c) unsuitable for recreational, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, or other reasonable uses, provided that (i) an alteration of the
physical, chemical or biological property of state waters, or a discharge or deposit of
sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes to state waters by any owner which by itself is
not sufficient to cause pollution, but which, in combination with such alteration of or
discharge or deposit to state waters by other owners, is sufficient to cause pollution; (ii)
the discharge of untreated sewage by any owner into state waters; and (iii) contributing
to the contravention of standards of water quality duly established by the State Water
Control Board, are "pollution" for the terms and purposes of this chapter.
Pollution prevention plan. A plan for implementing pollution prevention measures
during construction activities, including but not limited to pollution from vehicle washing,
pesticides, chemical spills, paint chips, etc.
Post-development. The conditions that reasonably may be expected or anticipated to
exist after completion of the land development activity on a specific site or tract of land.
"Pre-development refers to the conditions that exist at the time that plans for the land
disturbing activity are submitted to the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management
Program authority (VESMP authority). Where phased development or plan approval
occurs (preliminary grading, demolition of existing structures, roads and utilities, etc.),
the existing conditions at the time prior to the commencement of land-disturbing activity
shall establish pre-development conditions.
Prior developed lands. Land that has been previously utilized for residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation, transportation, or utility facilities or
structures, and that will have the impervious areas associated with those uses altered
during a land disturbing activity.
Program administrator. An individual who has been duly certified by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality DEQ as a program administrator in both Erosion
and Sediment Control, as well as Stormwater Management. This individual has also been
designated by the County Administrator to operate on their behalf in accordance with this
chapter.
Qualified personnel. A person knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion
and sediment and stormwater management controls who possesses the skills to assess
conditions at the construction site for the operator that could impact stormwater quality
and quantity and to assess the effectiveness of any sediment and erosion control measures
or stormwater management facilities selected to control the quality and quantity of
stormwater discharges from the construction activity. An individual holding a certificate
accepted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality responsible for the
management and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

Page 14 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 10
Record drawings. Engineering plans prepared after the completion of work described
in the site plans showing how the stormwater structures and facilities installed differ in
location and elevation from the initial plan approved by the County of York.
Responsible land disturber (or RLD). An individual holding a certificate issued by the
department who is responsible for carrying out the land disturbing activity in accordance
with the approved erosion and sediment control plan or Soil Erosion Control and
Stormwater Management Plan (ESM plan). The RLD may be the owner, applicant,
permittee, designer, superintendent, project manager, contractor, or any other project or
development team member. The RLD must be designated on the erosion and sediment
control plan, Soil Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan (ESM plan), or
permit as defined in this chapter as a prerequisite for engaging in land disturbance.
Runoff (or stormwater runoff). That portion of precipitation that is discharged across
the land surface or through conveyances to one or more waterways.
Runoff characteristics. These include maximum velocity, peak flow rate, volume, and
flow duration.
Runoff volume. The volume of water that runs off the land-development project from
a prescribed storm event.
Sediment basin. A temporary impoundment built to retain sediment and debris with a
controlled release structure.
Sediment trap. A temporary impoundment built to retain sediment and debris which is
formed by constructing an earthen embankment with a stone outlet.
Sheet flow (or overland flow). Shallow, unconcentrated and irregular flow down a
slope. The length of strip for overland flow usually does not exceed 200 feet under natural
conditions.
Shoreline erosion control project. An erosion control project approved by local
wetlands boards, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the department, or the
United States Army Corps of Engineers and located on tidal waters and within
nonvegetated or vegetated wetlands as defined in Title 28.2 of the Code of Virginia.
Site. The land or water area where an y facility or land disturbing activity is physically
located or conducted, including adjacent land used or preserved in connection with the
facility or land disturbing activity. Areas channelward of mean low water in tidal Virginia
shall not be considered part of a site.
Site hydrology. The movement of water on, across, through and off the site as
determined by parameters including soil types, soil permeability, vegetative cover,
seasonal water tables, slopes, land cover and impervious cover.
Slope drain. Tubing or conduit made of nonerosive material extending from the top to
bottom of a cut or fill slope with an energy dissipator at the outlet end.
Small construction activity.

Page 15 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 11
(1)

Construction activities including clearing, grading, and excavating that
results in land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre and less than
five acres. Small construction activity also includes the disturbance of less
than one acre of total land area that is part of a larger common plan of
development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb equal
to or greater than one and less than five acres. Small construction activity
does not include routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the
original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the
facility. The department may waive the otherwise applicable requirements
in a general permit for a stormwater discharge from construction activities
that disturb less than five acres where stormwater controls are not needed
based on an approved "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) that addresses
the pollutants of concern, or for nonimpaired waters that do not require
TMDLs, an equivalent analysis that determines allocations for small
construction sites for the pollutants of concern or determines that such
allocations are not needed to protect water quality based on consideration
of existing in-stream concentrations, expected growth in pollutant
contributions from all sources, and a margin of safety. For the purpose of
this chapter, the pollutants of concern include sediment or a parameter that
addresses sediment (such as total suspended solids, turbidity, or siltation)
and any other pollutant that has been identified as a cause of impairment of
any water body that will receive a discharge from the construction activity.
The operator shall certify to the department that the construction activity
will take place, and stormwater discharges will occur, within the drainage
area addressed by the TMDL or provide an equivalent analysis. As of the
start date in Table 1 of 9VAC25-31-1020, all certifications submitted in
support of the waiver shall be submitted electronically by the owner or the
operator to the department in compliance with this subdivision and 40 CFR
Part 3 (including, in all cases, 40 CFR Part 3 Subpart D), 9VAC25-875940, and Part XI (9VAC25-31-950 et seq.) of the Virginia Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Regulation. Part XI of
9VAC25-31 is not intended to undo existing requirements for electronic
reporting. Prior to this date, and independent of Part XI of 9VAC25-31,
permittees may be required to report electronically if specified by a
particular permit.

(2)

Any other construction activity designated by either the department or the
EPA regional administrator, based on the potential for the contribution to a
violation of a water quality standard or for significant contribution of
pollutants to surface waters.

Soil erosion. The movement of soil by wind or water into state waters or onto lands in
the Commonwealth.
Soil Eerosion Ccontrol and Sstormwater Mmanagement Pplan (commonly known as
the erosion control and stormwater management plan or ESM plan). A document
describing methods for controlling soil erosion and managing stormwater in accordance

Page 16 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 12
with the requirements adopted pursuant to the VESMA. The ESM plan may consist of
aspects of the erosion and sediment control plan and the stormwater management plan as
each is described in this chapter. , which may contain aspects of both the Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan (ESC plan) and the Stormwater Management Plan (SWM plan).
Stabilized. Land that has been treated to withstand normal exposure to natural forces
without incurring erosion damage.
State. The Commonwealth of Virginia.
State application (or application). The standard form or forms, including any additions,
revisions, or modifications to the forms, approved by the administrator and the
department for applying for a permit.
State Water Control Law. Chapter 3.1 of title 62.1 (§ 62.1-44.2 et seq.) of the Code of
Virginia.
State waters. All water, on the surface and under the ground, wholly or partially within
or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction, including wetlands.
Storm sewer inlet. A structure through which stormwater is introduced into an
underground conveyance system.
Stormwater. For the purposes of the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management
Act (VESMA), means precipitation that is discharged across the land surface or through
conveyances to one or more waterways and that may include stormwater runoff, snow
melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
Stormwater conveyance system. A combination of drainage components that are used
to convey stormwater discharge, either within or downstream of the land disturbing
activity. This includes:
(1)

Manmade stormwater conveyances system, which means a pipe, ditch,
vegetated swale, or other stormwater conveyance system constructed by
man except for restored stormwater conveyance systems;:

(2)

Natural stormwater conveyance system, which means the main channel of
a natural stream and the flood-prone area adjacent to the main channel; or

(3)

Restored stormwater conveyance system, which means a stormwater
conveyance system that has been designed and constructed using natural
channel design concepts. Restored stormwater conveyance systems include
the main channel and the flood-prone area adjacent to the main channel.

Stormwater detention. The process of temporarily impounding runoff and discharging
it through a hydraulic outlet structure to a downstream conveyance system.
Stormwater management facility. A control measure that controls stormwater runoff
and changes the characteristics of that runoff including the quantity and quality, the period
of release, or the velocity of flow.

Page 17 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 13
Stormwater management plan (SWM plan). A document containing material
describing methods for complying with thepost-development compliance with water
quantity and water quality standards. requirements of the VESMP.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (or SWPPP). A document that is prepared in
accordance with good engineering practices and that identifies potential sources of
pollutants that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharges.
A SWPPP required under the VESMP for construction activities shall identify and require
the implementation of control measures and shall include or incorporate by reference an
approved erosion and sediment control plan (ESC plan), an approved stormwater
management plan (SWM plan), and a pollution prevention plan.
Subdivision. The same as defined in § 15.2-2201 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as
amended.
Surface waters. This term means:
(1)

All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters
that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

(2)

All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

(3)

All other waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation,
or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign
commerce including any such waters:
a.

That are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes;

b.

From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in
interstate or foreign commerce; or

c.

That are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries
in interstate commerce;

(4)

All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as surface waters under this
definition;

(5)

Tributaries of waters identified in subdivision 1 through 4 of this definition;

(6)

The territorial sea; and

(7)

Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves
wetlands);

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water ActCWA and the law, are not surface waters. Surface

Page 18 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 14
waters do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an
area's status as prior converted cropland by any other agency, for the purposes of the
CWAClean Water Act, the final authority regarding CWA Clean Water Act jurisdiction
remains with the EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency.
SWM. Stormwater management.
Temporary vehicular stream crossing. A temporary nonerodible structural span
installed across a flowing watercourse for use by construction traffic. Structures may
include bridges, round pipes or pipe arches constructed on or through nonerodible
material.
Ten-year storm. A storm that is capable of producing rainfall expected to be equaled
or exceeded on average of once in 10 years. It may also be expressed as an exceedance
probability with a 10% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
Total maximum daily load (or TMDL). The sum of the individual wasteload allocations
for point sources, load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, natural background
loading, and a margin of safety. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of either mass per
time, toxicity, or other appropriate measure. The TMDL process provides for point versus
nonpoint source trade-offs.
Town. An incorporated town.
Two-year storm. A storm that is capable of producing rainfall expected to be equaled
or exceeded on the average of once in two years. It may also be expressed as an
exceedance probability with a 50% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year.
Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Act (or VESMA). Article 2.3 (§ 62.144.15:24 et seq.) of Chapter 3.1 State Water Control Law of Title 62.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Program (or VESMP). A program
established by the VESMP authority for the effective control of soil, erosion and sediment
deposition and the management of the quality of runoff resulting from land disturbing
activities to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters,
and other natural resources. The program shall include such items as local ordinances,
rules, requirements for permits and land disturbance approvals, policies and guidelines,
technical materials and requirements for a plan review, inspection, and enforcement
consistent with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management
Act (VESMA).
Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Program authority (or VESMP
authority). The County of York approved by the department to operate the Virginia
Erosion and Stormwater Management Program (VESMP)
Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit (or VPDES permit).
A document issued by the department pursuant to the State Water Control Law

Page 19 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 15
authorizing, under prescribed conditions, the potential or actual discharge of pollutants
from a point source to surface waters.
Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse. A collection of pertinent information that
provides general guidance for compliance with the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater
Management Act (VESMA) and associated regulations and is developed by the
department with advice from a stakeholder advisory committee.
Wasteload allocation (or wasteload). The portion of a receiving surface water's loading
or assimilative capacity allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution.
Wasteload allocations are a type of water quality based effluent limitation.
Water quality technical criteria. Standards set forth in regulations adopted pursuant to
the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Act (VESMA) that establish minimum
design criteria for measures to control nonpoint source pollution.
Watershed. A defined land area drained by a river or stream, karst system, or system
of connecting rivers or streams such that all surface water within the area flows through
a single outlet. In karst areas, the karst feature to which water drains may be considered
the single outlet for the watershed.
Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.
Sec. 10-3. Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Program established.
Pursuant to § 62.1-44.15:27 of the Code of Virginia, the County of York hereby
establishes a Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Program for land disturbing
activities and adopts the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Regulation that specify
standards and specifications for Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Program
(VESMP)s promulgated by the State Water Control Board for the purposes set out in
Section 1.1 of this Ordinance. The County of York hereby designates the Chief of
Stormwater Programs or his designee as the Administrator of the Virginia Erosion and
Stormwater Management Program established by this Ordinance.
Sec. 10-4. Regulated land disturbing activities.
(a) Pursuant to Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:33(A), lLand disturbing activities that
meet one of the criteria below are regulated as follows:
(1)
Land disturbing activity that disturbs 500 square feet or more and is less than one
acre is subject to criteria defined in Article 2 (9VAC25-875-540 et seq.) and Article 3
(9VAC25-875-570 et seq.) of Part V unless Article 4 (9VAC25-875670 et seq.) of Part V

Page 20 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 16
of the Regulation is applicable, as determined in accordance with 9VAC25-875-480 and
9VAC25-875-490:.
(1) Land disturbing activities that disturbs 2500 square feet or more; and
(2) Land disturbing activitiesy that disturbs less than one acre2500 square feet, but is
part of a larger common plan of development or sale that disturbs one acre2500
square feet or more, is subject to criteria defined in Article 2 (9VAC25-875-840 et
seq.) and Article 3 (9VAC25-875-570 et seq.) of Part V unless Article 4 (9VAC25875-670 et seq.) of Part V of the Regulation is applicable, as determined in
accordance with 9VAC25-875-480 and 9VAC25-875-490.
(3)

Land disturbing activity that disturbs one acre or more and is subject to criteria
defined in Article 2 (9VAC25-875-540 et seq.) and Article (9VAC25-875-570 et
seq.) of Part V unless Article 4 (9VAC25-875-670 et seq.) of Part V is applicable,
as determined, in accordance with 9VAC25-875-480 and 9VAC25-875-490.

(b)

Land disturbing activities exempt per 9VAC25-875-90 are not required to comply
with the requirements of the VESMA unless otherwise required by federal law.

Secs. 10-5. - Reserved.
Secs. 10-6. - Reserved.
Secs. 10-7. – Reserved.
Secs. 10-8. - Reserved.
Secs. 10-9. - Reserved.
Secs. 10-10.- Reserved.
Sec. 10-11. Review and approval of plans; prohibitions.
(a) The County of York shall review and approve soil erosion control and stormwater
management (ESM) plans, except for activities not required to comply with the
requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Act (VESMA),
pursuant to § 62.1-44.15:34 of the Code of Virginia. Activities not required to comply
with VESMA are defined in 9VAC25-875-90.
(b) A person shall not conduct any land disturbing activity in the County of York
until:Prior to the submission and approval of the following, if, and as required by the
Program Administrator or his designee, it shall be unlawful for any person to conduct any
land disturbing activity in the County of York
(1)

An application that includes a permit registration statement, if required,

Page 21 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 17
(i)

a soil erosion control and stormwater management plan (ESM plan), or an
executed agreement in lieu of a plan,

(ii)

all local and state-mandated permit Stormwater applications as determined
by the Program Administrator,

(iii)

a reasonable performance bond, with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit,
any combination thereof, or such other acceptable, legal arrangement, to
ensure that the County can take measures, at the applicant's expense, should
the applicant fail, to comply with the conditions the County imposes as a
result of his land disturbing activity,

if required, has been submitted to the County of York.
(2)
(iv) tThe name of the individual who will be assisting the owner in
carrying out the activity and who holds aa Responsible Land Disturber (RLD), certificate
pursuant to §62.1-44.15:30 of the Code of Virginia shall be submitted to the County of
York. The County of York may waive the Responsible Land Disturber certificate
requirement for an agreement in lieu of a plan for construction of a single family detached
residential structure; however, if a violation occurs during the land disturbing activity for
the single family detached residential structure, then the owner shall correct the violation
and provide the name of the individual holding a Responsible Land Disturber certificate
as provided by §62.1-44.15:30 of the Code of Virginia. Failure to provide the name of an
individual holding a Responsible Land Disturber certificate prior to engaging in land
disturbing activities may result in revocation of the land disturbance approval and shall
subject the owner to the penalties provided by the VESMA.
(v)

a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and accompanying name
of the qualified personnel,

(vi)

a fully executed BMP Maintenance and Access Agreement for all long-term
stormwater management facilities, in a form approved by the County
Attorney for recordation among the land records in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court for the County of York, and

(vii)

any other State or Federal regulatory permits, such as Wetlands, Virginia
Department of Transportation land use, or Virginia Department of Health.

(viii) Exception: State agencies and federal entities are not required to post a
performance bond to meet the requirements of this Section.
(c)

The County of York may require changes to an approved ESM plan in the
following cases:
(1)

Where inspection has revealed that the plan is inadequate to satisfy
applicable regulations or ordinances; or

(2)

Where the owner finds that because of changed circumstances or for
other reasons the plan cannot be effectively carried out, and

Page 22 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 18
proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements
of the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Act, are agreed
to by the VESMP authority and the owner.
(d)

In order to prevent further erosion, the County of York may require
approval of an erosion and sediment control plan (ESC plan) and a
stormwater management plan for any land it identifies as an erosion impact
area.

(e)

Prior to issuance of any land disturbance approval, the County of York may
also require an applicant, excluding state agencies and federal entities, to
submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of
credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement it finds
acceptable, to ensure that it can take measures at the applicant's expense
should he fail, after proper notice, within the time specified to comply with
the conditions it imposes as a result of his land disturbing activity. (e)
If the County of York takes such action upon such failure pursuant
to item (b)(iv) above by the applicant, it may collect from the applicant the
difference should the amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed
the amount of the security held. Within 60 days of the completion of the
County of York's conditions, such bond, cash, escrow, letter of credit, or
other legal arrangement, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereof,
shall be refunded to the applicant or terminated.

(f)

The County of York may enter into an agreement with an adjacent VESMP
authority regarding the administration of multijurisdictional projects,
specifying who shall be responsible for all or part of the administrative
procedures. Should adjacent VESMP authorities fail to reach such an
agreement, each shall be responsible for administering the area of the
multijurisdictional project that lies within its own jurisdiction.

(g)

No exception to, or waiver of, post-development nonpoint nutrient runoff
compliance requirements shall be granted unless offsite options have been
considered and found available in accordance with subsection D of § 62.144.15:35 of the Code of Virginia.

(h)

The County of York is authorized to cooperate and enter into agreements
with any federal or state agency in connection with the requirements for
land disturbing activities in accordance with § 62.1-44.15:50 of the Code
of Virginia.

(i)

The County of York shall issue either land disturbance approval or denial
and provide written rationale for any denial.

Sec. 10-12. Review of a Soil Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan
(ESM Plan).

Page 23 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 19
(a) The County of York shall approve or disapprove an ESM plan according to the
following:
(1) The County of York shall determine the completeness of any application
within 15 days after receipt and shall act on any application within 60 days
after it has been determined by the County to be complete. (2) The County
of York shall issue either land disturbance approval or denial and provide
written rationale for any denial.
(3)
Prior to issuing a land disturbance approval, the County of York shall be required
to obtain evidence of permit coverage when such coverage is required.
(2) The County of York shall also determine whether any resubmittal of a
previously disapproved application is complete within 15 days after receipt
and shall act onf the resubmitted application within 45 days after receipt.
Sec. 10-13. Stormwater permit requirement; exemptions.
(a) Except as provided herein, no person may engage in any land disturbing activity
until a permit has been issued by the County of York in accordance with the
provisions of this Ordinance and the Regulation. A permit issued under this
chapter shall be valid for a period of two (2) years; provided, however, it may be
extended for an additional two-year period, by written approval of the program
administrator, upon receipt of evidence of reasonable progress toward completion
of the approved project and compliance with all conditions of approval. Should
permitted land disturbing activities cease for more than one hundred eighty (180)
days, or if the permittee fails to initiate land disturbing activities within one
hundred eighty (180) days, of the date of issuance of a land disturbing activity
permit, then the land disturbing activity permit and its associated plan shall
become void.
(b) Where a site in excess of 5 acres is proposed to be developed, to accommodate
multiple lots and/or buildings under separate ownership or control, the County
Administrator or his designee the Program Administrator may authorize a land
disturbing activity in advance of approval of site or development plans for the
individual commercial or industrial establishments upon demonstration by the
property owner, to the satisfaction of the Program Administrator County
Administrator, or his designee, that
(1)

the topographic relief of the property will require extensive cut, fill and
grading to prepare the site for multiple lot or building development and that

(2)

such site preparation prior to plan approval is necessary and consistent with
the objectives and policies of the County.

Page 24 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 20
(c)

In conjunction with such an authorization, tThe following conditions shall be
required by the County Administrator, or his designee, in conjunction with such
an authorization and shall be satisfiedbe met to the satisfaction of the Program
Administrator prior to issuance of any land disturbing activity permits:

(1)
A plan of development for the roads, drainage facilities and main-line utilities that
will serve the proposed development and its multiple building sites shall be prepared
submitted and approved in accordance with all applicable site plan or subdivision
development plan requirements.
(12)

All work shall be performed in strict accordance with an approved erosion
and sediment control plan (ESC Plan);that has been prepared and approved
in accordance with all applicable standards.

(23)

The construction of all streets, main-line utilities, drainage improvements
and similar infrastructure, both public and private, as shown on the
approved plan,Implementation and performance of the approved erosion
and sediment control plan shall be guaranteed for construction by an
agreement and secured by a letter of credit, cash, escrow, or performance
bond with surety in an amount and form approved by the County
Administrator and the County Attorney;. The agreement shall require that
said construction shall commence within one year of the initial date of
authorization of the land disturbing activity and shall be in accordance with
properly submitted and approved plans.

(34)

Where no Certificate of Occupancy is issued within 3 years of the initial
date of authorization of the land disturbing activity for at least one structure
on the parcel pursuant to this Section, all land disturbance permits and
permissions shall be void, and the applicant shall be responsible for
restoring the parcel to its undisturbed condition to the satisfaction of the
Program Administrator. Reforestation of the property, or portions thereof
as deemed appropriate by the County Administrator, or his designee, with
approximately the same numbers and species of trees as were located on
the property prior to clearing Restoration of the parcel shall be guaranteed
by an agreement and secured by a letter of credit, cash escrow, or
performance bond with surety in an amount and form approved by the
County Administrator and the County Attorney;. Said reforestation shall be
required unless a certificate of occupancy for at least one establishment is
issued within 3 years of the initial date of authorization of the land
disturbing activity.

(45) No clearing shall be permitted within 50 feet of any property line, except to
permit the construction of approved infrastructure improvements, not within any other
portion of the site determined by the County Administrator, or his designee, to be
nonessential to preparation of the site for development. ; and
(56)

The County Administrator or his designee shall require the submission of
Aany additional plans, plats, certifications or supporting materials deemed

Page 25 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 21
to be necessary and appropriate to apply and enforce this subsection shall
be submitted and approved by any applicable authorities.
(dc) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following activities are
not required to comply with the requirements of this chapter unless required by
federal law:
(1)

Minor land disturbing activities, including home gardens and individual
home landscaping, repairs, and maintenance work;

(2)

Installation, maintenance, or repair of any individual service connection;

(3)

Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground utility line when
such activity occurs on an existing hard surfaced road, street or sidewalk
that is hard surfaced;

(4)

Installation, maintenance or repair of any septic tank line or drainage field
unless included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity relating to
construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system;

(5)

Permitted surface of deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas
operations and projects conducted pursuant to Title 45.2 of the Code of
Virginia;

(6)

Clearing of lands specifically for bona fide agricultural purposes; the
management, tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, or forest crops;
livestock feedlot operations; agricultural engineering operations, including
construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes,
ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour
furrowing, land drainage and land irrigation; or as additionally set forth by
the Board in regulations. However, this exception shall not apply to
harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is
reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 11 (§ 10.1-1100 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia or is converted to
bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in subsection B
of § 10.1-1163 of the Code of Virginia;

(7)

Installation of fence and signposts or telephone and electric poles and other
kinds of posts or poles;

(8)

Shoreline erosion control projects on tidal waters when all of the land
disturbing activities are within the regulatory authority of and approval by
local wetlands boards, the Marine Resources Commission, or the United
States Army Corp of Engineers; however, any associated land that is
disturbed outside of this exempted area shall remain subject to the VESMA
and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto;

(9)

Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication
facilities, and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company;

Page 26 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 22
(10)

Land disturbing activities in response to a public emergency where the
related work requires immediate authorization to avoid imminent
endangerment to human health or the environment. In such situations, the
County of York shall be advised of the disturbance within seven days of
commencing the land disturbing activity, and compliance with the
administrative requirements of subsection A is required within 30 days of
commencing the land disturbing activity; and

(11)

Discharges to a sanitary sewer or a combined sewer system that are not
from a land disturbing activity.

(ed) Notwithstanding this chapter and in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and
Stormwater Management Act, Article 2.3 (§ 62.1-44.15:24 et seq.) of Chapter 3.1
of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia, the following activities are required to
comply with the soil erosion control requirements but are not required to comply
with the water quantity and water quality technical criteria, unless otherwise
required by federal law:
(1)

Activities under a state or federal reclamation program to return an
abandoned property to an agricultural or open land use;

(2)

Routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the original line and
grade, hydraulic capacity, or original construction of the project. The
paving of an existing road with a compacted or impervious surface and
reestablishment of existing associated ditches and shoulders shall be
deemed routine maintenance if performed in accordance with this
subsection; and

(3)

Discharges from a land disturbing activity to a sanitary sewer or a combined
sewer system.

Sec. 10-14. Stormwater pollution prevention plan; contents of plans.
(a) A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall include, but not be limited
to, an approved erosion and sediment control plan, an approved stormwater management
plan, a pollution prevention plan for regulated land disturrobing activities, and an
approved description of any additional control measures necessary to address a TMDL
pursuant to subsection D C of this section. All components of the SWPPP must be
implemented during construction activities.(b) A soil erosion control and stormwater
management (ESM) plan consistent with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and
Stormwater Management Act (VESMA) and regulations must be designed and
implemented during construction activities. Prior to land disturbance, this plan must be
approved ty the County of York in accordance with the VESMA, this chapter, and
attendant regulations.

Page 27 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 23

(ac)

An approved pollution prevention plan that identifies potential sources of
pollutants that may reasonable be expected to affect the quality of stormwater
discharges from the construction site, and it describes control measures that will
be used to minimize pollutants in stormwater discharges from the construction site
must be developed before land disturbance commences..

(bd) In addition to the requirements of subsections A through C of this section, if If the
Program Administrator determines that a specific wasteload allocation or TMDL
for a pollutant has been established by the Department and in approved TMDL and
is assigned to stormwater discharges from a construction activity, and the Program
Administrator determines that such assignment applies to an individual
construction site, then the operator of the construction site must identify and
implement additional control measures must be identified and implemented by the
operator, to the satisfaction of the Program Administrator, such that the stormwater
so that discharges are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the
wasteload allocation.
(ce) The stormwater pollution prevention plan must address the following requirements
as specified in 40 CFR 450.21, to the extent otherwise required by state law or
regulations and any applicable requirements of a state permit:
(1)

Control stormwater volume and velocity within the site to minimize soil
erosion;

(2)

Control stormwater discharges, including both peak flow rates and total
stormwater volume, to minimize erosion at outlets and to minimize
downstream channel and stream bank erosion;

(3)

Minimize the amount of soil exposed during construction activity;

(4)

Minimize the disturbance of steep slopes;

(5)

Minimize sediment discharges from the site. The design, installation and
maintenance of erosion and sediment controls must address factors such as
the amount, frequency, intensity and duration of precipitation, the nature of
resulting stormwater runoff, and soil characteristics, including the range of
soil particle sizes expected to be present on the site;

(6)

Provide and maintain natural buffers around surface waters, direct
stormwater to vegetated areas to increase sediment removal and maximize
stormwater infiltration, unless infeasible;

(7)

Minimize soil compaction, and unless infeasible, preserve topsoil;

(8)

Stabilization of disturbed areas must, at a minimum, be initiated
immediately whenever any clearing, grading, excavating or other earth
disturbing activities have permanently ceased on any portion of the site, or

Page 28 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 24
temporarily ceased on any portion of the site and will not resume for a
period exceeding 14 calendar days. Stabilization must be completed within
a period of time determined by the VESMP authority. In arid, semiarid, and
drought-stricken areas where initiating a vegetative stabilization measures
immediately is infeasible, alternative stabilization measures must be
employed as specified by the VESMP authority; and
(9)

Utilize outlet structures that withdraw water from the surfaces, unless
infeasible, when discharging from basins and impoundments.

(df) The SWPPP shall be amended whenever there is a change in design, construction,
operation, or maintenance that has a significant effect on the discharge of
pollutants to state waters and that has not been previously addressed within the
SWPPP. The SWPPP must be maintained at a central location onsite. If an onsite
location is unavailable, notice of the SWPPP's location must be posted near the
main entrance at the construction site.
Sec. 10-15. Stormwater management plan; contents of plan.
(a) A stormwater management plan shall be developed and submitted to the County
of York./ The stormwater management plan shall be implemented as approved or
modified by the County of York and shall be developed in accordance with, or
including, the following:
(1)

A stormwater management plan for a land disturbing activity shall apply
the stormwater management technical criteria set forth in this chapter and
Article 4 (9VAC25-875-670 et seq.) of Part V of the Regulation to the entire
land disturbing activity. Individual lots in new residential, commercial, or
industrial developments, including those developed under subsequent
owners, shall not be considered separate land disturbing activities.

(2)

A stormwater management plan shall consideration of all sources of surface
runoff and all sources of subsurface and groundwater flows converted to
surface runoff. (b) A complete stormwater management plan shall
include the following elements:

(31)

Information on the type and location of stormwater discharges, information
on the features to which stormwater is being discharged, including surface
waters or karst features, if present, and pre-development and postdevelopment drainage areas;

(42)

Contact information including the name, address, telephone number, and
email address of the owner and the tax reference number and parcel number
of the property or properties affected;

Page 29 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 25
(53)

A narrative that includeswith a description of current site conditions and
final site conditions or if allowed by the VESMP authority, the information
provided and documented during the review process that addresses the
current and final site conditions;

(64)

A general description of the proposed stormwater management facilities
and the mechanism through which the facilities will be operated and
maintained after construction is complete;

(75)

Information on the proposed stormwater management facilities, including
(i) detailed narrative on the conversion to a long-term stormwater
management facility, if the facility was used as a temporary ESC measure;
(ii) the type of facilities; (iii) location, including geographic coordinates;
(iv) acres treated; and (v) the surface waters or karst features into which the
facility will discharge;

(86)

Hydrologic and hydraulic computations, including runoff characteristics;

(97)

Documentation and calculations verifying compliance with the water
quality and quantity requirements of these regulations;

(108) A map of the site that depicts the topography of the site and includes;
a.

All contributing drainage areas;

b.

Existing streams, ponds, culverts, ditches, wetlands, other water
bodies, and floodplains;

c.

Soil types, geologic formations if karst features are present in the
area, forest cover, and other vegetative areas;

d.

Current land use, including parcels to assess the impacts of
stormwater from the site on these parcels;

e.

Sufficient information on adjoining parcels to assess the impacts of
stormwater from the site on these parcels;

f.

The limits of clearing and grading, and the proposed drainage
patterns on the site;

g.

Proposed buildings, roads, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater
management facilities; and

h.

Proposed land use with tabulation of surface area to be adapted to
various uses, including planned locations of utilities, roads, and
easements.

(119) If an operator intends to meet the requirements established in 9VAC25-875600 through the use of off-site compliance options where applicable, then
a letter of availability from the off-site provider must be included; and

Page 30 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 26
(120) If the County of York requires payment of a fee with the stormwater
management plan submission, the fee and the required fee form in
accordance with this chapter must have been submitted. .
(bc) All final plan elements, specifications, or calculations of the stormwater
management plans, the preparation of which require a license under Chapter 4 (§
54.1-400 et seq.) or 22 (§ 54.1-2200 et seq.) of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia,
shall be appropriately signed and sealed by a professional who is licensed to
engage in practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Nothing in this subsection
shall authorize any person to engage in practice outside his area of professional
competence.
Sec. 10-16. Pollution prevention plan; contents of plans.
(a) A plan for implementing pollution prevention measures during construction
activities shall be developed, implemented, and updated as necessary. The
pollution prevention plan shall detail the design, installation, implementation, and
maintenance of effective pollution prevention measures as specified in 40 CFR
450.21(d) to minimize the discharge of pollutants. At a minimum, such measures
must be designed installed, implemented, and maintained to:
(1)

Minimize the discharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle washing,
wheel wash water, and other wash waters. Wash waters must be treated in
a sediment basin or alternative control that provides equivalent or better
treatment prior to discharge.

(2)

Minimize the exposure of building materials, building products,
construction wastes, trash, landscape materials, fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste, and other materials present on the
site to precipitation and to stormwater; and

(3)

Minimize the discharge of pollutants from spills and leaks and implement
chemical spill and leak prevention and response procedures.

(b) The pollution prevention plan shall include effective best management practices to
prohibit the following discharges in accordance with 40 CFR 450.21(e):
(1)

Wastewater from washout of concrete, unless managed by an appropriate
control;

(2)

Wastewater from washout and cleanout of stucco, paint, form release oils,
curing compounds, and other construction materials;

(3)

Fuels, oils, or other pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation and
maintenance; and

(4)

Soaps or solvents used in vehicle and equipment washing.

Page 31 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 27
(c) Discharges from dewatering activities, including discharges from dewatering of
trenches and excavations, are prohibited unless managed by appropriate controls
in accordance with 40 CFR 450.21(c).
Sec. 10-17. Erosion and sediment control plan; contents of plans.
(a) An erosion and sediment control plan, which is a component of the ESM plan,
shall be filed for a development and the buildings constructed within, regardless
of the phasing of construction. The erosion and sediment control plan shall contain
all major conservation decisions to ensure that the entire unit or units of land will
be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives in 9VAC25-875-560. The
erosion and sediment control plan may include:
(1)

Appropriate maps;

(2)

An appropriate soil and water plan inventory and management information
with needed interpretations; and

(3)

A record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment.

(b) The person responsible for carrying out the plan shall provide the name of an
individual holding a certificate who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out
the land disturbing activity to The County of York. The County of York may waive the
Responsible Land Disturber certificate requirement for an agreement in lieu of a plan in
accordance with § 62.1-44.15:34 or § 62.1-44.15:55 of the Code of Virginia.
(bc)

If individual lots or sections in a residential development are being developed by
different property owners, all land disturbing activities related to the building
construction shall be covered by an erosion and sediment control plan or an
agreement in lieu of plan signed by the property owner(s).

(cd) Land disturbing activity of less than 2,500 square feet on individual lots in a
residential development shall not be considered exempt from the provisions of the
VESMA if the total land disturbing activity in the entire development is equal to
or greater than 2,500 square feet.
Sec. 10-18. Technical criterial for regulated land disturbing activities.
(a) To protect the quality and quantity of state water from the potential harm of
unmanaged stormwater runoff resulting from land disturbing activities, the County
of York hereby adopts the technical criterial for regulated land disturbing activities
set forth in Part V of 9VAC25-875 expressly to include 9VAC25-875-580, water
quality design criteria requirements; 9VAC25-875-590, water quality compliance,
9VAC25-875-600, water quantity; 9VAC25-875-610, offsite compliance options;
9VAC25-875-620, design storms and hydrologic methods; 9VAC25-875-630,
stormwater harvesting; 9VAC25-875-640, linear development project; and

Page 32 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 28
9VAC25-875-650, stormwater management impoundment structures or facilities,
all of which shall apply to all land disturbing activities regulated pursuant to this
chapter, except as expressly set forth in subsection (c) or (d) B of this section. In
addition, all regulated land disturbing activities will need to detain the postdevelopment ten-year discharge to pre-development levels.
(b) The expected average percent impervious cover per lot for subdivisions shall be
determined by the applicant based upon such factors as: the size and style of the
homes; length, width, and configuration of driveways; number and size of decks,
pools, sheds, and other accessory structures, and other development that can be
reasonably expected to occur on the lots. In no case shall the expected average
impervious cover per lot be less than is defined by the curve containing the
following data points in the form of (average lot size in square feet: minimum
expected percent impervious cover): (87120:12), (43560:20),(14505:30),
(10890:38) and (5445:65). BMPs shall be sized based upon total impervious cover
which is the summation of the actual impervious cover of the streets and other
improvements being proposed as part of the subdivision and the expected average
percent impervious cover per lot.
(c) Any land disturbing activity shall be deemed grandfathered and shall be subject to
Article 4 (9VAC25-875-670 et seq.) of Part V of the Regulation provided:
(1)

A proffered or conditional zoning plan, zoning with a plan of development,
preliminary or final subdivision plat, preliminary or final site plan, or any
document determined by the County of York to be equivalent thereto (i)
was approved by the County of York prior to July 1, 2012, (ii) provided a
layout as defined in 9VAC25-875-670, (iii) will comply with the technical
criteria of Article 4 of Part V of 9VAC25-875, and (iv) has not been
subsequently modified or amended in a manner resulting in an increase in
the amount of phosphorous leaving each point of discharge; and such that
there is no increase in the volume or rate of runoff; and

(2)

A permit has not been issued prior to July 1, 2014; and

(3)

Land disturbance did not commence prior to July 1, 2014.

(d) Locality, state and federal projects shall be deemed grandfathered by the County
of York and shall be subject to the technical criteria of Article 4 of Part V of
9VAC25-875 provided:
(1)

There has been an obligation of locality, state or federal funding in whole
or in part, prior to July 1, 2012, or the department has approved a
stormwater management plan prior to July 1, 2012; and

(2)

A permit has not been issued prior to July 1, 2014; and

(3)

Land disturbance did not commence prior to July 1, 2014; and

Page 33 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 29
(4)

In cases where governmental bonding or public debt financing has been
issued prior to July 1, 2012..

(e) Land disturbing activities grandfathered under subsections (c) and (d) A and B of
this section shall remain subject to the technical criteria of Article 4 of Part V of
9VAC25-875 for one additional permit cycle. After such time, portions of the
project not under construction shall become subject to any new technical criteria
adopted by the Board.
(f)

In cases where governmental bonding or public debt financing has been issued for
a project prior to July 1, 2012, such project shall be subject to the technical criteria
of Article 4 of Part B of 9VAC215-875.

(g)

Nothing in this section shall preclude an operator from constructing to a more
stringent standard at his discretion.

Sec. 10-19. Long-term maintenance of permanent stormwater facilities.
(a) Prior to the completion of the project and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for any commercial structure, final record drawings shall be submitted
and approved, together with any required and associated closed circuit television
(CCTV) footage of the installed storm system.
(b) The operator shall submit a construction record drawing for permanent stormwater
management facilities to the County of York in accordance with 9VAC25-875535. The record drawing shall be appropriately sealed and signed by an appropriate
licensed professional in adherence to all minimum standards and requirements
pertaining to the practice of that profession. The record drawings shall:
(1)

Be of the same sheet size, format, scale, etc. as the approved stormwater
management plan;

(2)

Show the as-built condition of the stormwater system calling attention to
any changes from the approved drawings;

(3)

Give the actual dimensions of components such as length of pipe, ditch,
etc.;

(4)

Provide elevations for all rims, inverts, channel bottoms, outfalls, pond
cross-sections, structures and all other elevation sensitive components of
the system; and

(5)

Contain a certification stating that the stormwater system has been
constructed in accordance with the plan and that the system is functioning
as designed;

(c) The County of York shall require the provision of long-term responsibility for and
maintenance of stormwater management facilities and other techniques specified to

Page 34 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 30
manage the quality and quantity of runoff. Such requirements shall be set forth in an
instrument recorded in the local land records prior to general permit termination or earlier
as required by the County of York and shall at a minimum: The BMP Maintenance and
Access Agreement shall:
(1)
Be submitted to the County of York for review and approval prior to the
approval of the stormwater management plan.
(2)

Be stated to run with the land; Be set forth in a form approved by the County
Attorney for recordation among the land records of the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court for the County of York;

(23)

Provide for all necessary access to the property by the Program
Administrator or his designee for purposes of maintenance and regulatory
inspections;

(34)

Provide for inspection and maintenanceRequire the property owner to
inspect and maintain the permanent stormwater facilities, and, if requested
by the Program Administrator or his designee, to submit the submission of
inspection and maintenance reports to the County of York; and

(45)

Be enforceable by all appropriate governmental parties.

(d)
At the discretion of the County of York, such recorded instruments
need not be required for stormwater management facilities designed to treat
stormwater runoff primarily from an individual residential lot on which they are
located, provided it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County of York that
future maintenance for those facilities will be addressed through an enforceable
mechanism at the discretion of the County of York.
(e)
If a recorded instrument is not required pursuant to Subsection C, the
County of York shall develop a strategy for addressing the maintenance of
stormwater management facilities designed to treat stormwater runoff primarily
from an individual residential lot on which they are located. Such a strategy may
include promoting inspections, homeowner outreach and education, or other
method targeted at promoting the long-term maintenance of such facilities. Such
facilities shall not be subject to the requirement for an inspection to be conducted
by the County of York or its duly authorized agent.
Sec. 10-20. Monitoring and inspections.
(a) The County of York shall inspect the land disturbing activity during construction
for:
(1)

Compliance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan;

(2)

Compliance with the approved stormwater management plan;

Page 35 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 31
(3)

Development, updating and implementation of a pollution prevention plan;

(4)

Development and implementation of any additional control measures
necessary to address a TMDL.

(b) The County of York shall conduct periodic inspections on all projects during
construction. The County of York shall either:
(1)

Provide for an inspection during or immediately following the installation
of erosion and sediment controls, at least once in every two-week period,
within 48 hours following any runoff producing storm event, and at the
completion of the project prior to the release of any performance bonds; or

(2)

Establish an alternative inspection program which ensures compliance with
the approved erosion and sediment control plan Any alternative inspection
program shall be:
a.

Approved by the department prior to implementation;

b.

Established in writing;

c.

Based on a system of priorities that, at a minimum, address the
amount of disturbed project area, site conditions and stage of
construction; and

d.

Documented by inspection records.

(c) The County of York shall establish an inspection program that ensures that
permanent stormwater management facilities are being adequately maintained as
designed after completion of land disturbing activities. Inspection programs shall:
(1)

Be approved by the department;

(2)

Ensure that each stormwater management facility is inspected by the
County of York or its designee, not to include the owner, except as provided
in subsection (d)s D and E of this section, at least once every five years; and

(3)

Be documented by records.

(d) The County of York may utilize the inspection reports of the owner of a stormwater
management facility as part of an inspection program established in subsection B
of this section if the inspection is conducted by a person who is licensed as a
professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor; or a person
who holds an appropriate certificate of competence from the department.
(e)
If a recorded instrument is not required pursuant to 9VAC25-875-130, the
County of York Shall develop a strategy for addressing maintenance of stormwater
management facilities designed to treat stormwater runoff primarily from an individual
residential lot on which they are located. Such a strategy may include periodic
inspections, homeowner outreach and education, or other method targeted at promoting

Page 36 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 32
the long-term maintenance of such facilities. Such facilities shall not be subject to the
requirement for an inspection to be conducted by the County of York.
Sec. 10-21. Hearings.
(a) Any permit applicant or permittee, or person subject to the requirements of this
chapterAny landowner or his agent proceeding under this Chapter and who is
aggrieved by any action, or inaction, of the County of York taken without a formal
hearing, or by inaction of the County of York, may demand in writing a formal
hearing by the York County Board of Supervisors; provided a petition requesting
such hearing is filed with the program administrator within 30 days after notice of
such action, or inaction, is given by the program administrator.
(b) The hearings held under this section shall be conducted by the York County Board
of SupervisorsSuch meeting shall be held at a regular or special meeting of the
York County Board of Supervisors, or by at least one member of the York County
Board of Supervisors designated by the York County Board of Supervisors to
conduct such hearings on behalf of the York County Board of Supervisors at any
other time and place authorized by the York County Board of Supervisors.
(c) A verbatim record of the proceedings of such hearings shall be taken and filed with
the York County Board of Supervisors. Depositions may be taken and read as in
actions at law.
(d) The York County Board of Supervisors or its designated member, as the case may
be, shall have power to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and at the
request of any party shall issue such subpoenas. The failure of a witness without
legal excuse to appear or to testify or to produce documents shall be acted upon by
the York County Board of Supervisors, or its designated member, whose action
may include the procurement of an order of enforcement from the circuit court.
Witnesses who are subpoenaed shall receive the same fees and reimbursement for
mileage as in civil actions.
Sec. 10-22. Appeals.
Final decisions of the County under this chapter are subject to review by the Circuit
Court for the County of York, provided an appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of
any written decision adversely affecting the rights, duties or privileges of the person
engaging in or proposing to engage in land disturbance activities.any landowner or his
agent proceeding under this Chapter who is aggrieved by any action, or inaction, of the
County of York.
Sec. 10-23. Right of entry.

Page 37 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 33
(a) The County of York or any duly authorized agent thereof may, at reasonable times
and under reasonable circumstances, enter any establishment or enter upon any
property, public or private, for the purpose of obtaining information or conducting
surveys or investigations necessary in the enforcement of the provisions of this
chapter.
(b) In accordance with a performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit,
or any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement, the County of York
may also enter any establishment or enter upon any property, public or private, for
the purpose of initiating or maintaining appropriate actions that are required by
conditions imposed by the County of York on for a land disturbing activity when
an owner, after proper notice, has failed to take acceptable actionact within the
time specified.
Sec. 10-24. Enforcement.
(a) If the program administrator determines that there is a failure to comply with the
permit conditions or determines there is an unauthorized discharge, the program
administrator shall serve notice shall be served upon the owner, permittee or
person responsible for carrying out the permit conditions, or the person conducting
land disturbing activities without an approved plan or required permit by any of
the following: verbal warnings and inspection reports with verbal warnings;
notices of corrective action, notices to comply; and consent special orders, and
notices to comply. Written notices shall be served by registered or certified mail
to the address specified in the notices shall be served by registered or certified mail
to the address specified in the permit application or by delivery to the permittee,
his agent, or the supervising employee at the site of the development activities to
the agent or employee supervising such activities. . The notice shall specify the
measures needed to comply with the permit conditions and the time within which
such measures shall be completed.
(b1) The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the permit conditions
and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Upon
failure to comply within the time specifiedwith any notice pursuant to (a)(1), the
Program Administrator may issue a stop work order may be issued in accordance
with subsection 2 or the permit may be revoked by the program administrator. or
revoke the permit.
(2) If a permittee fails to comply with a notice issued in accordance with this section
within the time specified, the program administrator may issue an order requiring
the owner, permittee, person responsible for carrying out an approved plan, or the
person conducting the land disturbing activities without an approved plan or
required permit to cease all land disturbing activities until the violation of the
permit has ceased, or an approved plan and required permits are obtained, and
specified corrective measures have been completed. Such orders shall be issued in
accordance with other directives issued by compliance officers in the County of

Page 38 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 34
York. Such orders shall become effective upon service on the person by certified
mail, return receipt request, sent to his address specified in the land records of the
locality, or by personal delivery by an agent of the program administrator.
Howeve(c) Should the program administrator finds thatdeem any such violation
is to grossly affecting or presents an imminent and substantial danger of causing
harmful severe erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the
watersheds of the Commonwealth or otherwise substantially impacting water
quality, it he may issue, without advance notice or hearing, an emergency order
directing such person to cease immediately the immediate cessation of all land
disturbing activities on the site. and He shall provide an opportunity for a hearing,
after reasonable notice as to the time and place thereof, to such person, to affirm,
modify, amend or cancel such emergency stop work order. If a person who has
been issued an order is not complying with the terms thereof,Additionally, the
program administrator may initiate proceedings for an injunction, mandamus, or
other appropriate remedy in accordance with the terms of this chapter.
(d) In no event, will the Program Administrator issue a stop work order that will result
in noncompliance with an earlier, stop work order issued by another Department
within the County of York. Any stop work order is effective upon service.
(eb) Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey any rule, regulation,
ordinance, order, approved standard or specification, or any permit condition
issued by the program administrator may be compelled in a proceeding instituted
in the Circuit Court for County of York to obey the same and to comply therewith
by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy.
(fc) Violations for which a penalty may be imposed under this subsection shall include
but not be limited to the following:
(1)

No state permit registration;

(2)

No SWPPP;

(3)

Incomplete SWPPP;

(4)

SWPPP not available for review;

(5)

No approved erosion and sediment control plan;

(6)

No approved Stormwater Management Plan;

(76)

Failure to install stormwater BMP's or erosion and sediment controls;

(87)

Stormwater BMPs or erosion and sediment controls improperly installed or
maintained, to include without limitation, long-term maintenance of
stormwater management facilities;

(98)

Operational deficiencies;

(109) Failure to conduct required inspections;

Page 39 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 35
(110) Incomplete, improper, or missed inspections; and
(121) Discharges not in compliance with the requirements of 9VAC23-875-70.all
other applicable regulations.
(gd) The program administrator may issue a summons for collection of the civil penalty,
and the action may be prosecuted in the appropriate court.
(he) In imposing a civil penalty pursuant to this subsection, the court may consider the
degree of harm caused by the violation and also the economic benefit to the
violator from noncompliance.
(if) Any civil penalties assessed by a court as a result of a summons issued by the
County of YorkProgram Administrator shall be paid into the treasury of the
County of York to be used for the purpose of minimizing, preventing, managing
or mitigating pollution of the waters of the locality and abating environmental
pollution therein in such manner as the court may, by order, direct.
(jg) Notwithstanding any other civil or equitable remedy provided by this chapter or
by law, any person who willfully or negligently violates any provision of this
chapter, any order of the program administrator, any condition of a permit, or any
order of a court shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in jail
for not more than 12 months or a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than
$32,500, or both, per day, per violation..
Sec. 10-25. Fees.
All regulated land disturbing activities pursuant to this section shall be subject to a
Land Disturbing Activity permit application fee.
(a) In addition to the fees according to the schedule set by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality and transmitted to the Program Administrator, the Land
Disturbing Application Fee will be calculated according to a formula in which
LOD stands for Limits of Disturbance in square feet for the relevant project: The
fee in dollars, is equal to (LOD-2,550)*o.005 +50.
(b)

The same fee, described in subsection A, will be charged every 2 years after the
permit is issued as a renewal fee for as long as the permit remains open.

(ca) All persons seeking coverage under the general permit, shall pay fFees to cover
costs associated with implementation of a VESMP related to land disturbing
activities and issuance of general permit coverage and VESMP authority permits
shall be imposed in accordance with the schedule set by “the Department”,the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, which schedule shall be
maintained by the Program Administrator and available for public inspection,
including by publication on the County’s website. When a site or sites has / have

Page 40 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 36
been purchased for a development within a previously permitted common plan of
development or sale, the applicant shall be subject to fees (total fee to be paid by
applicant) in accordance with the disturbed acreage of their site or sites according
to the schedule set by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality “the
Department” and transmitted to the Program Administrator.
(db) All permittees who request modifications to or transfers of their existing
registration statement for coverage under a general permit, shall pay fFees for the
modification or transfer of registration statements from the general permit issued
by the department shall be imposed in accordance with the schedule set by “the
Department”, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, which schedule
shall be maintained by the Program Administrator and available for public
inspection, including by publication on the County’s website. The fee assessed
shall be based on the total disturbed acreage of the site. In addition to the general
permit modification fee, modifications resulting in an increase in total disturbed
acreage shall pay the difference in the initial permit fee paid and the permit fee
that would have applied for the total disturbed acreage in accordance with ing to
the schedule set by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality “the
Department” and transmitted to the Program Administrator.
(ec) Permit and permit coverage maintenance fees outlined herein may apply to each
general permit holder. An The following annual general permit maintenance fee
shall be imposed in accordance with the schedule set by the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality, “the Department”, which schedule shall be maintained
by the Program Administrator and available for public inspection, including by
publication on the County’s website, including fees imposed on expired permits
that have been administratively continued. With respect to the general permit,
these fees shall apply until the permit coverage is terminated.
(f) No general permit application fees will be assessed to:
(1)

Permittees who request minor modifications to general permits as defined
in section 1.2 of this chapter. Permit modifications at the request of the
permittee resulting in changes to stormwater management plans that require
additional review by the program administrator shall not be exempt
pursuant to this section.

(2)

Permittees whose general permits are modified or amended at the initiative
of the department, excluding errors in the registration statement identified
by the program administrator, or errors related to the acreage of the site.

(g) All incomplete payments will be deemed as nonpayment, and the applicant shall
be notified of any incomplete payments. Interest may be charged for late payments
at the underpayment rate set forth in § 58.1-15 of the Code of Virginia and is
calculated on a monthly basis at the applicable periodic rate. A 10% late payment
fee shall be charged to any delinquent (over 90 days past due) account. The County
of York shall be entitled to all remedies available under the Code of Virginia in
collecting any past due amount.

Page 41 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 37
(d) The fees set forth in subsections A through C of this section shall apply to:
(1)

All persons seeking coverage under the general permit.

(2)

All permittees who request modifications to or transfers of their existing
registration statement for coverage under a general permit.

(h3)

Persons whose coverage under the general permit has been revoked shall apply to
the Virginia Department of Environmental Qualitydepartment for an Individual
Permit for Discharges of Stormwater fFrom Construction Activities.

(e) Permit and permit coverage maintenance fees outlined herein may apply to each
general permit holder.
(f)

In addition to the fees set forth in Tables 1 through 3, the Land Disturbing
Application Fee will be calculated according to a formula in which LOD stands
for Limits of Disturbance in square feet for the relevant project: The fee in dollars,
is equal to (LOD-2,550)*o.005 +50.

(g)

The same fee, described in subsection F, will be charged every 2 years after the
permit is issued as a renewal fee for as long as the permit remains open.

(ih)

Fees associated with inspection may be imposed and will be subject to the same
terms and conditions as other fees related to land disturbing activity.
(i)

No general permit application fees will be assessed to:

(1)
Permittees who request minor modifications to general permits as defined
in section 1.2 of this chapter. Permit modifications at the request of the permittee resulting
in changes to stormwater management plans that require additional review by the program
administrator shall not be exempt pursuant to this section.
(2)
Permittees whose general permits are modified or amended at the initiative
of the department, excluding errors in the registration statement identified by the program
administrator, or errors related to the acreage of the site.
(j)
All incomplete payments will be deemed as nonpayments, and the applicant
shall be notified of any incomplete payments Interest may be charged for late payments
at the underpayment rate set forth in § 58.1-15 of the Code of Virginia and is calculated
on a monthly basis at the applicable periodic rate. A 10% late payment fee shall be
charged to any delinquent (over 90 days past due) account. The County of York shall be
entitled to all remedies available under the Code of Virginia in collecting any past due
amount.
Sec. 10-26. Performance bond.
Prior to issuance of any land-disturbing activity permit, the applicant shall be required
to submit a reasonable surety, in the form of a performance bond with surety, cash escrow,

Page 42 of 98

Ord. No. 26-20
Page 38
letter of credit, or any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to
the County Administrator and the County Attorney, to ensure that measures could be
taken by the County of York at the applicant's expense, should the applicant fail, after
proper notice, the applicant’s performance within the time specified. to initiate or
maintain appropriate actions which may be required of him by the permit conditions as a
result of his land disturbing activity. If the County of York takes such action upon such
failure by the applicant, the County of York may collect from the applicant for the
difference should the amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount of
the security held, if any. Should the County act to correct the failure of such applicant,
the County may collect the cost of such correction, including any costs in excess of the
surety held pursuant to the land-disturbing activity permit. Upon completed performance
of the land-disturbing activity, any unexpended surety shall be released wWithin sixty
(60) days of the completion of the requirements of the permit conditions such bond, cash
escrow, letter of credit or other legal arrangement, or the expended or unobligated portion
thereof, shall be refunded to the applicant or terminated. of the issuance of a Notice of
Completion.

Page 43 of 98

805
MINUTES
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF YORK
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2026
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Convened. A regular meeting of the York County Board of Supervisors was called to
order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 18, 2026, in the Board Room, York Hall, by Chairman
Douglas R. Holroyd.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were present: Douglas R.
Holroyd, Sheila S. Noll, M. Wayne Drewry, G. Stephen Roane, Jr., and Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr.
Also in attendance were Mark Bellamy, Jr., County Administrator; Brian Fuller, Deputy County
Administrator; Susan Goodwin, Deputy County Administrator; Ralph “Bo” Clayton, Assistant
County Administrator; Richard Hill, County Attorney; Heather Schott, Deputy Clerk; and Lori
Nardozzi, Assistant Deputy Clerk.
PRESENTATIONS
SERVICE RECOGNITION
Chairman Holroyd and Sheriff Ron Montgomery presented a service pin to Crystal L. Minor,
York-Poquoson Sheriff's Office, to honor her 20 years of service.
Chairman Holroyd and Fire Chief Allen Baldwin presented a service pin to Lieutenant Chasity
D. Johnson, Fire Department, to honor her for 20 years of service.
Chairman Holroyd and Terry Hall, Director of Emergency Communications, presented a service
pin to Amy D. Morris, Telecommunications Shift Leader for Emergency Communications to
honor her 25 years of service.
Chairman Holroyd and Sarah Webb, Commissioner of the Revenue, presented a service pin to
Tonya Isaksen, Auditor, for the Commissioner of the Revenue to honor her 30 years of service.
DOMINION ENERGY UPDATE
Crystal Bright, Local Affairs Advisor – Virginia Peninsula, Dominion Energy, gave a presentation.
She provided an overview of the company's presence in York County, their contributions to the
County, and their monthly billing structure.
Ms. Bright discussed aspects of Dominion's current work, including:
•
•
•
•

Fundamentals of bill structure
State Corporation Commission (SCC) biannual review and approval of rates
Components of electric rates: base rates, rate adjustment clauses, and fuel factor)
2025 bill increases

Ms. Bright detailed some key 2025-2026 regulatory filings, which included:
•
•
•
•

2025 fuel factor update to recover costs due to extreme weather and expiring fuel credits
2025 biennial review of base rates increased for the first time since 1992 and proposed a
separate rate class and contract changes for high-energy users
2026 fuel factor update due to costs associated with power purchasing and extreme
weather
2026 transmission rider update, which was intended to shift the burden of costs away
from residential customers

Page 44 of 98

806
August 18, 2026
Ms. Bright further discussed the following topics:
•
•
•
•

Dominion's all-time demand peaks, half of which occurred in 2026
Comparison of Dominion's residential rates to national and regional averages
Response to data center demand growth
Key outcomes from the 2025 biennial review

Chairman Holroyd asked about fuel costs and whether data centers were paying fuel charges
based on the most expensive fuel or on an average.
Ms. Bright explained that the SCC would review fuel findings and adjust rates based on actual
usage; therefore, while data centers did pay for fuel, the SCC would increase the fuel rates if
their consumption was high. She explained that when the SCC reviewed a finding, they dissected
every change submitted and approved them separately.
Chairman Holroyd expressed frustration about the complexity of riders. He stated that there
needed to be an abstract or a one-page summary explaining the purpose of each rider so that
the Board of Supervisors can properly educate the community and fulfill their responsibility to
their constituents.
Ms. Bright said that she understood. She also acknowledged the difficulties customers faced and
highlighted the various assistance options available through Dominion.
Mr. Shepperd stated that PJM monitored the power transmission in their region, and he had
noticed Dominion had the highest rate with them. He asked how Dominion Energy compared to
other providers that generated their own power.
Ms. Bright confirmed that Dominion had several power generators, including Surry Power
Station, North Anna, and Chesterfield. They did not currently have enough generators to fully
support the system, especially during extreme weather or due to the demands of data centers.
She explained that they currently purchased 42% of their power and acknowledged the need for
more power generating stations to reduce their reliance on external providers.
Mr. Shepperd asked if they still used coal for power.
Ms. Bright replied yes; Mount Storm Power Station in West Virginia was an all-coal plant.
Mr. Shepperd asked what their primary source of power was.
Ms. Bright replied that they had a variety of sources, including natural gas, solar, nuclear,
biomass, and offshore wind.
Mr. Drewry asked for clarification regarding the shutdown of the Yorktown plant.
Ms. Bright explained that the plant was shut down primarily to transition away from coal, a
process they were undertaking gradually.
Mr. Drewry asked about Dominion's plans for increasing power generation.
Ms. Bright confirmed that they were setting up a project in Chesterfield called Chesterfield
Energy Reliability Center (CERC). She explained that this combined fuel station would allow
them to restore power to over 600,000 customers in approximately 11 minutes during an outage.
They had other plans for power generation projects, but it was too early to confirm specific
details.
Mr. Drewry asked about the subsidized 14-year contracts. He asked what would happen if a data
center went bankrupt during that time period.
Ms. Bright said that lawyers would have to answer that question. She said the data centers
would need to have a solid plan and stay committed.
Page 45 of 98

807
August 18, 2026
Mr. Roane asked if Dominion had any active plans to bury overhead lines to help minimize power
outages caused by branches or poles falling during storms.
Ms. Bright replied that their Strategic Underground Program was approved again during the last
General Assembly, but that was for residential services rather than main lines. For main lines,
the focus remained on tree trimming when they did not own the property underneath the lines.
Mr. Roane asked if a reduction in fuel prices would lead to a reduction in rates. He asked what
other initiatives Dominion Energy were undertaking to find opportunities to lower costs for
customers.
Ms. Bright stated that rate costs were subject to change because they were reviewed by the SCC
every year.
Chairman Holroyd inquired how the merger with NextEra Energy would benefit customers.
Ms. Bright stated that it was too early to provide specific details as the process was currently in
the engagement phase.
Chairman Holroyd referenced a recent Washington Post article titled "How Utility and Tech Firms
Educate Regulators with Big Donations and Secret Retreats," noting that both Dominion and
NextEra Energy were named. He stated that his message to Dominion's senior management
would be to avoid such ethical issues. He would be disappointed if the allegations were true and
to see Dominion's name in that context.
Mr. Drewry asked about the benefits of the merger with NextEra.
Ms. Bright replied that NextEra was the largest utility in the world, so they would be able to use
their capital to complete more projects and add more generation to the system. Additionally,
customers would be getting $2.2 billion in credits on their bills.
Mr. Roane asked who approves that merger.
Ms. Bright replied the SCC would approve the merger. She invited the Board members to
participate in a tour of the Surry Power Station, which was scheduled for October.
Will McCahill, Project Manager, Dominion Energy, provided an update on the Kings Creek Solar
project:
•
•
•
•
•

The 20-megawatt site was located east of Penniman Road, between the Cheatham Annex
and Water Country USA.
The SUP was approved by the Board of Supervisors in late 2019.
Land disturbance approval was received in August 2025, with mobilization planned for
March 2027.
Substantial completion is expected in the third quarter of 2028.
Project timelines had slipped due to several challenges:
o It was a brownfield site
o Underground storage tanks
o Invasive vegetation management
o Hydrocarbon-impacted soils
o Interconnection delays due to permitting
o Recontracting with a new EPC

Mr. McCahill provided a detailed timeline for the project:
•
•
•

The current request for proposals (RFP) process was ongoing
The intent is to have the site ready this month to facilitate a site visit and pre-bid
walkdown in early September.
The new EPC contractor is anticipated to be on board in early 2027.
Page 46 of 98

808
August 18, 2026
Mrs. Noll asked if there was any work being done on the property right now.
Mr. McCahill replied no; nothing within their lease area.
Mr. Drewry asked about hydrocarbon contamination.
Mr. McCahill explained that the site was subject to the Department of Environmental Quality's
material management plan, meaning any hydrocarbon-impacted soils encountered would be
disposed of properly. Additionally, enhanced erosion and sediment control measures were
planned, including the installation of impermeable liners in the basins to prevent groundwater
infiltration.
Mr. Drewry asked what the life cycle of the panels was for this project.
Mr. McCahill replied they were expected to last the life of the project, which was 30 years. He
explained that they could construct the site in less than two years but could not energize it until
they were interconnected with the distribution lines. Therefore, substantial completion was
expected to be in 2029.
Chairman Holroyd asked the County Administrator if the County needed to consider a parallel
path for others to have access to the area, considering this was an Eastern Virginia Regional
Industrial Facility Authority (EVRIFA) site.
Mark Bellamy, County Administrator, answered that it would be an EVRIFA decision, but County
representatives could certainly bring that to their attention.
Mr. McCahill discussed the status of the project, which included the procurement of major
equipment, permit transfer to VEPCO, re-contracting, and coordination with York County staff.
Mr. Roane asked how many homes could be powered with 20 megawatts.
Mr. McCahill said that he could follow up with that specific information.
Mr. Roane asked how much power it took to run the facility.
Mr. McCahill stated that 20 megawatts was the total amount the site would generate, but when
it was converted from DC to AC, there was some loss there.
Mr. Roane asked what happened at the end of the project lifetime. He asked if they removed the
panels.
Mr. McCahill answered that they had a decommissioning plan that was submitted and approved
by the County, which included a decommissioning bond. Dominion would be responsible for
decommissioning the site, with the intent of returning it to its previous hydrologic functions in
order to close out their best management practices (BMP).
VIRGINIA ARTS FESTIVAL
Kristi Olsen, Director of Economic and Tourism Development, introduced representatives from
the Virginia Arts Festival, including Robert Cross, Executive Director and Perry Artistic Director,
Dianna Starkey, Marketing and Communications Director, and Jon Martin, Festival Advisor for
the Williamsburg/Historic Triangle.
Robert Cross provided a brief update. He stated that their Bluegrass & Beyond Festival would
be on May 15-16, 2027, at Riverwalk Landing, Yorktown Riverfront. He noted that the Virginia
Arts Festival was celebrating its 30th anniversary. He highlighted the festival's significant
economic impact, estimating a conservative $20 million annual impact on Virginia, and noted
that 32% of ticket buyers traveled from outside the local area.

Page 47 of 98

809
August 18, 2026
Dianna Starkey, Director of Marketing & Communications, discussed how the Virginia Arts
Festival drove cultural tourism to increase visitor spending in local hotels and restaurants. She
explained that their organization promoted events at tourism conferences across the country and
distributed seasonal brochures through the Virginia Tourism Corporation. She highlighted that
Yorktown will be featured in the first brochure to be released in late October or early November.
Additionally, the festival would receive significant digital exposure through social media,
websites, digital advertising, and video promotions.
Jon Martin, Festival Advisor for Williamsburg/Historic Triangle, shared a video promoting the
Bluegrass & Beyond festival.
Mr. Shepperd asked how many people they expected to attend the festival.
Mr. Cross replied that they were working with local public safety officials to determine the
appropriate capacity for that site over a two-day period. They were expecting 3,500 to 4,000
people per day.
Darren Williams, Deputy Director of Economic and Tourism Development, noted that this would
be an annual festival in collaboration with the Virginia Arts Festival.
CITIZENS' COMMENT PERIOD
Pam Pouchot, 103 Kimberly Court, expressed strong opposition to Donald Trump, accusing him
of corruption, violating the Constitution, and prioritizing his own interests over the country. She
criticized Republican members of Congress for supporting him and argued that the funds spent
on his administration and various political actions could instead be used to fund essential
programs such as healthcare, education, environmental safety, and social services. She
concluded by urging citizens to vote based on their values and the principles of righteousness.
Mark Williams, 513 Charles Road, thanked the Board for addressing the Dominion Energy issue.
He shared information he sent to Board members regarding a potential merger involving power
companies across three states and advised the Board to review it. He also discussed "demand
control" programs offered by Dominion that allow the utility to control home appliances like air
conditioning. Additionally, there were pros and cons of underground versus overhead wiring,
including the trade-off between power reliability and property damage during repairs. Finally, he
commented on the potential synergy between the Bluegrass Festival and the legalization of
marijuana in Virginia and expressed hope that the Sheriff's Office could find ways to balance
safety with community events.
RECESS
The Board recessed at 7:25 p.m.; and reconvened at 7:34 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
APPLICATION NO. PD-060-26, MARQUIS CROSSING
The matter was considered approved on a vote of 4:1. A summary of the proceedings is below.
Jeanne Carner, Principal Planner, presented the application. She explained this item was an
application to rezone a 22-acre portion of a 32-acre parcel at 200 Water Country Parkway (Route
640) from Conditional Economic Opportunity to Planned Development Mixed Use (PDMU) subject
to voluntary proffers. The subject property was currently designated as Economic Opportunity
in the Comprehensive Plan and surrounded by Water Country USA, the Marquis Shopping
Center, and various commercial and industrial uses.
Ms. Carner stated that the proposed Marquis Crossing project included up to 125 townhouse
units, a convenience store, gas and food uses, and two additional commercial outparcels. The
property had been zoned Economic Opportunity since 1995. She detailed the history of the

Page 48 of 98

810
August 18, 2026
parcel, including a previous rezoning in 2014 and a canceled road realignment project. A
previous rezoning application for luxury apartments and commercial development was denied
by the Planning Commission in February 2024; the applicant requested a deferral and the
application ultimately expired.
Ms. Carner explained that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as potentially
appropriate for mixed-use development, provided that residential components are included to
avoid purely residential rezonings. She stated that the current proposal included 125 three-story
townhomes, a pocket park, and a community green in Land Bay B, and a Sheetz convenience
store, gas station, and food use in Land Bay A. The applicants proffered that a site plan would
be approved and foundation poured for a commercial development in Land Bay A or C prior to
the issuance of 80 final certificates of occupancy for the townhomes.
Ms. Carner explained that Land Bay C was intended for future commercial development,
including approximately 4,000 square feet for fast food restaurants, though the final mix of uses
would depend on market demand. The remaining 10 acres would remain Conditional Economic
Opportunity with no proposed development. Because Marquis Crossing was less than 50 acres,
it was classified as a minor PDMU and was subject to those guidelines. The proposal met the
commercial guidelines for square footage and the residential density guidelines. However, the
proposal did not include the guidelines of 40% of dwelling units located above ground-floor
commercial uses, which was attributed to limited local market demand.
Ms. Carner stated that regarding open space, the 22-acre site requires 2.2 acres; the proposal
provided 2.7 acres, including a 2.4-acre community green and a 0.3-acre pocket park. Much of
the required open space was also located in landscape yards and buffers. While the commercial
uses were primarily automobile-oriented, the plan included sidewalks connecting residential and
commercial areas and a bike lane connection. The applicant submitted design guidelines to
ensure architectural consistency, and language was included in the ordinance regarding signage
limitations.
Ms. Carner stated that, regarding the PDMU phasing plan, applicants propose constructing the
townhomes and preparing a 3.3-acre commercial site immediately following rezoning, with Land
Bay C development occurring as tenants are secured. The project's traffic impact analysis (TIA)
estimated approximately 8,510 daily trips upon completion. The applicant's traffic impact
analysis was submitted to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), which recommended
several improvements. She noted that specific infrastructure improvements must be completed
before certificates of occupancy were issued for Land Bay A and Land Bay B.
Ms. Carner stated that regarding impact to schools, the development was estimated to generate
47 students. While the York County School Division expressed concerns about capacity, the
applicants noted that enrollment projections for 2030 suggested sufficient capacity. The proposal
met all parking requirements for both residential and commercial uses. A fiscal impact analysis
estimated that while the development would increase County and school operating costs, the
projected $410,000 in annual real estate tax revenue was expected to exceed costs associated
with the development.
Ms. Carner concluded that the proposal generally met the intent of the PDMU district by
providing a mix of uses, open space, pedestrian connections, and adequate transportation
improvements. However, she noted that the primary issue was whether the land use was
appropriate for this location. While the Comprehensive Plan supported mixed-use development
at this location, it emphasized the need for a genuine commitment to both residential and
commercial uses to create cohesive communities.
Ms. Carner stated that there were several relevant considerations in evaluating this application.
She explained that the County had an abundance of EO-zoned land relative to demand. The
Marquis area continued to struggle due to a lack of food uses and surrounding residential
density. She noted that while approval would increase housing and potentially add a food use to

Page 49 of 98

811
August 18, 2026
support local businesses, a significant concern was the lack of a guarantee that commercial
development would occur before residential development.
Ms. Carner stated that because the application was not fully consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and could allow up to 80 townhomes without a commercial component, staff recommended
denial, though they had prepared Ordinance No. 26-17 should the Board choose to approve it.
She summarized that at the July 8, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission heard from six
members of the public, with four opposing and two supporting the application, and ultimately
voted 3-4 to recommend denial.
Ms. Carner explained that public concerns included traffic, site history, commercial
commitments, and fiscal impact, while supporters cited the need for a nearby gas station.
Additionally, staff received five emails from citizens: three in support, citing increased affordable
housing and a broader tax base, and two in opposition, citing traffic safety, litter, crime, and
overdevelopment, with requests to keep the parcel zoned as EO to preserve the area's quieter
character.
Chairman Holroyd expressed frustration regarding the volume of documentation provided,
noting that a 570-page package was unreasonable for the Board to review in the time allotted.
He specifically mentioned that the traffic impact analysis, which was over 250 pages, should
have been summarized. He stated that both the Planning staff and the developer needed to do a
better job of making such large documents presentable. He requested that they not provide such
massive packages on a Friday for a meeting the following Tuesday.
Ms. Carner noted that while certain tables are required for VDOT, they can be removed for the
Board's review.
Chairman Holroyd asked how many parking spaces were required by the County for the
townhouse portion of the development.
Ms. Carner noted that the number of parking spaces required depended on the number of
townhomes, ranging from 313 spaces for 125 townhomes to 293 spaces for 117 townhomes. She
said the applicant's proposal had fluctuated between 125 and 117 townhomes.
Chairman Holroyd asked why the County requested a third-party service to analyze the study
issued by Ted Figueroa, Inc.
Ms. Carner explained that the third-party study was requested by citizens, prompting the
department director to inquire of County Administration, which then decided to proceed with it.
Chairman Holroyd stated that he believed Board members were involved in the request, not just
citizens. He asked for the primary conclusions of the independent study.
Ms. Carner replied that the review found the fiscal impact analysis failed to provide sufficient
documentation, materially understated school operating costs, and largely omitted capital facility
impacts, making its conclusions regarding school capacity questionable. While Marquis Crossing
may still be fiscally neutral or positive due to market-rate housing, online sales tax allocations,
and commercial uses, staff cautioned that the conclusion that revenues would substantially
exceed public costs should be treated with caution until a more complete analysis accounts for
operating, capital, and commercial service costs.
Chairman Holroyd asked whether the numbers presented in the earlier package were based on
an earlier submission that failed to reflect corrections made by independent consultants.
Ms. Carner confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Holroyd stated that regarding schools, he noted that Magruder was over capacity by
approximately 150 children two years ago, and following redistricting, most of those children
went to Waller Mill. The County was currently addressing significant capital needs at Waller Mill
Page 50 of 98

812
August 18, 2026
School and Queen's Lake. He stated for the record that the FIA's initial assumption that there
would be no impact on schools and thus no need for a cash proffer was incorrect.
Chairman Holroyd stated that regarding the archaeological study, he noted that despite
presentations to the Planning Commission, the Whitaker Mill house and mill, which was listed
in the National Register of Historic Places, was not identified on any maps in the study by Circa,
Inc. He asked why an independent consultant review of that study had not been requested.
Ms. Carner explained that until a few years ago, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
served as the independent consultant by reviewing archaeological studies for sufficiency. She
noted that this process was used for this application in 2016, at which time the Department
approved the study and determined no further review of the site was necessary. While the County
now hires independent consultants, that need did not exist at that time.
Chairman Holroyd expressed disappointment with the overall quality of the study, noting several
gaps in the findings. He said that he had since met with the developer to identify the location of
the Whitaker House and determine necessary signage, and he would allow the developer to speak
to that during the discussion. He emphasized that the County had a responsibility to more
thoroughly analyze independent reports, including archaeological and fiscal studies, to ensure
all information provided with these developments was accurate.
Chairman Holroyd asked whether Item 10 of the proffers, which indicated that no further
residential development may take place without Board approval, required a special use permit
(SUP) or if a presentation to the Board was sufficient.
Ms. Carner replied that an SUP would not be required, but a rezoning would be.
Mr. Roane clarified that the two letters requesting denial of the application referred to those sent
to the shared mailbox. He noted that several members of the Board had individually received a
substantially higher number of letters requesting the denial of the application.
Ms. Carner replied that these were the ones she had been made aware of.
Mr. Roane asked for the information regarding fiscal impacts to homeowners.
Ms. Carner stated that the independent review only reviewed what was submitted and did not
address potential costs or revenue generation. Consequently, the applicant's financial impact
analysis had not been updated, so the numbers remained the same.
Mr. Roane asked if they did not yet know the increased operating costs per household or per
school.
Chairman Holroyd said the developer could provide that answer.
Mr. Roane asked about other projected revenue gains from other sources that would occur upon
full build-out, in addition to the projected real estate tax revenue for that specific piece of
property.
Ms. Carner stated that the numbers provided were the only ones received and no additional
information was provided. She noted that while they mentioned additional revenue sources such
as personal property, meals, and sales tax, they did not provide specific figures for them.
Chairman Holroyd asked if the applicant had a presentation.
Vernon Geddy, representing the applicants, gave a presentation. He stated that the request was
for a PDMU mixed-use project on a property currently zoned EO. He noted that the site had been
subject to previous development attempts that lapsed and this new proposal addressed past
feedback by focusing on moderately priced for-sale townhomes rather than apartments. The

Page 51 of 98

813
August 18, 2026
project included a Sheetz, an Arby's, and up to 117 townhouse units, along with another
commercial out-parcel site.
Mr. Geddy highlighted that the development would provide much-needed gas, convenience, and
food uses to the area. Additionally, the commercial developer had signed binding agreements
with Sheetz and Arby's, and the site plan had been updated to include improved parking to avoid
issues seen in other local projects. The applicant had also offered proffers to ensure early
commercial development and to restrict residential use on the remaining EO land.
Mr. Geddy stated that construction was targeted to begin in early 2027. He explained that the
parking layout had been completely revised to include an increased parking count and overflow
areas. The main public streets would have 50-foot rights-of-way, 26-foot alleys, and 20-foot
driveways to accommodate large vehicles without obstructing sidewalks or alleys.
Mr. Geddy stated that the applicant had proffered streetlights and speed limit signs along Water
Country Parkway to improve safety. Regarding the site's historic significance, the proffers had
been strengthened, and the historical marker would be relocated near the trail with an adjacent
parking area for visitors. They would collaborate with the Civil War Trails group on signage
content, and an independent archaeologist had located the original Whitaker House, which
would be noted on a sign to explain its relation to the property.
Mr. Geddy stated that the project was expected to generate over $800,000 in annual revenue. To
address concerns regarding the expense side of the fiscal impact, they had offered a cash proffer
of $1,360 per residential unit to ensure the project remained a fiscal positive for the County.
Mr. Shepperd asked when the proffers would be paid.
Mr. Geddy explained that the cash proffer would be paid on a per-unit basis after the final
inspection and before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. He also noted that the long,
narrow parcel on Penniman Road would be dedicated to the County to serve as a trailhead for
the Cheatham Annex Trail. Regarding the commercial components, the Arby's and Sheetz would
represent a $12 million initial investment and create 50 new jobs. He stated that the project
provided much-needed, moderately priced, for-sale housing, in the $380,000 to $450,000 range.
He stated that there was a high demand for homes in that price range. This would allow local
residents to achieve homeownership within York County.
Mr. Shepperd asked what the square footage for these houses would be.
Mr. Geddy replied they would be about 1,950 square feet. He stated that Roka and Stanley Martin
were well-respected local entities that have worked closely with staff, neighbors, and County
officials to mitigate potential impacts and address neighbor concerns. He stated that the project
was a good design fit for the challenging, vacant property. He concluded that the project would
generate tax revenue, provide quality residential units at reasonable prices to facilitate
homeownership, and activate vacant land by providing much-needed services such as food, gas,
and convenience stores. He requested the Board to approve the application.
Chairman Holroyd asked how many total parking spaces were in the most recent site plan.
Mr. Geddy replied there would be 343 parking spaces.
Chairman Holroyd noted regarding fiscal impacts, a new deputy patrol was needed based on the
number of developments in the Marquis area This was calculated at approximately $1,600 per
unit, which was not in their original plan. For school capital costs, their debt load was $13
million per year through 2032, which equated to roughly $1,000 per student. The 47 new
students expected from this development would add $47,000, and then divide that by the
number of units. He noted the new study gave a revised operating cost for the schools of $2,139
per unit; this was based on the County's Fiscal Year 2027 Capital Improvement Plan estimate of
just over $5,000 per student per year. The addition of County operating costs brought the total
expense to the County to $5,044 per unit, or a little over $630,000 per year. He stated that this
Page 52 of 98

814
August 18, 2026
was the all-in expense for this project. He asked if Mr. Geddy could explain the estimated revenue
of this project.
Mr. Geddy explained that the revenue side included residential and commercial real estate tax,
personal property tax, business personal property tax, local option sales tax, business license
fees, and meals tax. He noted that they used actual sales numbers from both Sheetz and Arby's
to calculate expected revenue from those. He stated that this totaled $879,000 per year.
Chairman Holroyd stated that the commercial portion of that number was $430,000 based on
his own calculations, meaning the balance comes from residential sources.
Mr. Roane asked if any of that revenue was tied to the bond obligations for Marquis Shopping
Center.
Chairman Holroyd replied they were separate. He said that page 8 of the County letter stated the
PDMU provision required construction in a mixed-use development to be sequenced in
accordance with the project build-out schedule and approved by the Board. He said that he had
not heard of a plan for this during the discussion and asked for confirmation on whether the
project would be completed in a single phase.
Mr. Geddy confirmed that the project would begin as a single phase, with approvals for both the
residential and commercial components being processed simultaneously. Because the
commercial portion would take significantly less time to build than the residential build-out, the
commercial section would be online first, and the housing would be built in phases.
Chairman Holroyd noted that the cash proffer for schools was intended to cover both operating
costs and capital for new construction, based on the new fiscal impact study.
Mr. Shepperd asked for clarification regarding the $800,000 cash proffer.
Mr. Geddy stated that this was the projected revenue for the County.
Mr. Shepperd asked for the proffered amount per unit.
Chairman Holroyd stated that the amount is $1,360 per unit, which totaled $159,000.
Mr. Shepperd questioned how $800,000 in proffers would help the schools.
Chairman Holroyd stated the amount was per unit for the number of students being placed in
the schools.
Mr. Geddy stated that the $800,000 was annual tax revenue that will be received by the County
every year.
Mr. Shepperd expressed concern that the County was approaching the threshold for needing to
build a $50 million school.
Chairman Holroyd said that 47 students would not require that $50 million new school.
Mr. Shepperd stated that the Board of Supervisors must consider that they were about to trigger
the need for a new school.
Chairman Holroyd stated that was not a result of the project, as they were paying their share of
the capital debt.
Mr. Shepperd stated that he understood the point that they were not purchasing the entire
school.
Mr. Roane agreed with Mr. Shepperd's point regarding the implications if the project required
the addition of even one additional classroom build-out.
Page 53 of 98

815
August 18, 2026
Chairman Holroyd stated that there were six to eight classrooms at both Waller Mill and Queen's
Lake.
Mr. Roane stated that $800,000 would not be sufficient to cover the costs.
Chairman Holroyd agreed, noting that their Capital Plan was approximately $30 million per year.
Mr. Shepperd stated that the development triggered the requirement for a $30 to $40 million
investment in schools. He said it was not the developer's fault, but this was the impact on the
entire community.
Mr. Geddy stated that between the $800,000 in additional annual revenue and the one-time cash
proffer, the developer was paying their fair share of those costs.
Chairman Holroyd discussed the archaeological study and noted his conversations with the
applicant and Glenn David Brasher, a leading historian on the Civil War and the Battle of
Williamsburg. He stated that Dr. Brasher wrote a letter to the Board in March 2024, recognizing
the site as one of the most significant historic locations related to the Civil War and potentially
the genesis of the Emancipation Proclamation. Consequently, they were working to locate the
house and install a proper historic marker.
Mr. Geddy stated that they were happy to recognize that; it would benefit both the project and
the community.
Chairman Holroyd said that regarding Item 3 of the proposed proffers, he questioned why the
Certificate of Occupancy requirement was set at 80 units before the foundation was poured on
Land Bays A and C. He asked when the 80th unit would be complete. He said that Sheetz and
Arby's ability to complete their buildings was dependent on that pad being ready, and he did not
support it being three to five years down the line, and it may take that long to get to the 80th
unit.
Mr. Geddy explained that the concept was to provide assurance that there would not be a full
residential build-out without any commercial component.
Chairman Holroyd stated that he would prefer zero residential build-out before having
commercial components in place, noting that revenue was not generated until commercial
operations were running. He expressed concern regarding the number of units the Board was
willing to accept. He said that representatives from Sheetz and Arby's had builders ready to
proceed. He emphasized the County's desire to see economic elements in place well before
reaching 80 townhouses.
Mr. Geddy stated that while he believed they would be, it was very difficult to tie the number of
units a residential developer could build to something entirely outside their control.
Chairman Holroyd argued that by requiring them to wait until the 80th unit, they were holding
up the development of those businesses.
Mr. Geddy stated that those businesses would start immediately and that they looked forward
to working with the County’s new business facilitator, Mr. Clayton, to help them through the
process as quickly as possible. He added that they would proceed immediately, making the
proffer irrelevant.
Mr. Shepperd asked why it was not set at 50 units.
Mr. Drewry asked what the commitment was and how that commitment would be held.
Dan Hargett, Roka Partners, the applicant and developer, explained that the 80-unit threshold
was worked out with County Planning staff and was not intended as a restriction preventing
commercial development. Rather, it was a measure to ensure commercial progress before further

Page 54 of 98

816
August 18, 2026
townhouse development. He noted that he had binding long-term commitments with two
national retailers, Sheetz and Arby's, who were eager to open as soon as zoning and site plan
approvals were secured. He clarified that the proffer meant they could not build any more
residential buildings before the commercial components were built.
Mr. Shepperd said that it sounded like the developer already had businesses lined up and ready
to go, so he did not understand why they were tying that to the 80-unit threshold.
Mr. Hargett explained that the 80-unit threshold was intended to set a threshold that allowed
for the development of the residential portion and the commencement of the overall project.
Mr. Shepperd asked why the threshold was not set lower, such as at 40 or 50 units.
Mr. Hargett explained that there was a threshold required to finance the overall project and
secure tenants like Sheetz and Arby's, who were attracted to the project's mixed-use nature and
residential base. He said that Planning staff suggested reducing the number of townhouses to
ensure commercial viability. He agreed to reduce that to 80 units, which allowed him to secure
financing while creating an incentive to complete the remaining 45 units only once Sheetz or
Arby's moved forward.
Mr. Shepperd asked if investors, such as banks or loan companies, were requiring a minimum
of 80 units to proceed.
Mr. Hargett clarified that he was the sole investor, but a lender would evaluate the overall
collateral and the project's viability. He explained that the decision to target 80 units was not
arbitrary, but rather a strategic move to ensure the project remained viable for financing. He
stated that the number could be adjusted slightly if necessary.
Hunter Taylor, Division President, Stanley Martin Homes, explained that they were two separate
developers and that, if the project was approved, they would purchase the residential land from
Mr. Hargett. They would complete a minor subdivision plat and then develop the residential
section themselves, adding that a certain number of homes was required to justify the cost of
purchasing the land and installing the infrastructure.
Tony Caruso, Project Engineer, Sheetz, explained that Sheetz had signed a contract with Roka
for a site, under which Mr. Hargett was responsible for zoning the site and building a pad site
for Sheetz to construct a store. He clarified that his own role was to get the Sheetz plan approved
so construction could begin.
Mr. Caruso stated that the agreement with Mr. Hargett and Roka included specific timelines: Mr.
Hargett had a timeline to get the property rezoned and approved of their use and the other uses
within the development, while they had a timeline to get his infrastructure and site plans
approved.
Mr. Shepperd stated that he thought the Board's interest was his commitment.
Mr. Drewry stated that yes, he wanted to hear from Sheetz that they were ready to proceed
tomorrow if they had a pad.
Mr. Caruso stated that as soon as the Board and their staff could get them approved, they were
going to construction.
Chairman Holroyd asked when Sheetz signed off on it.
Mr. Caruso noted that they signed on probably three years ago and would have preferred to be
under construction two years ago. While acknowledging concerns regarding certain uses and the
historic nature of the property, they were happy to work with the County staff to make this
happen as soon as possible.

Page 55 of 98

817
August 18, 2026
Chairman Holroyd asked how this project would rank among approximately six other locations
across Williamsburg and York County that were currently on the books or being considered.
Mr. Caruso said that they wanted to move forward equally with all six locations, including this
one. He said that they were ready and eager to move forward with the project as soon as they got
through the rezoning process. He noted that they had other stores under construction nearby
and hoped to open this location as soon as possible to align with other openings and increase
distribution efficiency.
Chairman Holroyd asked if there was further approval required by VDOT for this site.
Mr. Caruso said he would defer to Mr. Hargett to explain VDOT reviews. He noted that there were
some difficulties regarding access and VDOT, but master plan developments typically had those
issues resolved upfront. However, they understood that and were eager to work on this site.
Mr. Roane asked why Sheetz had not pursued this site independently.
Mr. Caruso explained that, similar to what other developers had stated, the property was a large
piece that required more investment than a single parcel. He stated that he did not believe a
single user could develop the site, as the full development was necessary to fund the required
infrastructure, such as the signal upgrades and road improvements outlined by the Planning
Department.
Mr. Hargett explained that they had several factors to consider. First, the seller would only sell
32 acres. Second, VDOT required significant off-site road improvements that could not be funded
by the Sheetz use alone. Third, they had been working on this for four years, maintaining a
steadfast commitment to the location, as had Sheetz, which resulted in a 50-year commitment
signed by the Sheetz CEO.
Angela Ryckman, Arby's franchisee, expressed her excitement about the project and noted their
15-year relationship with Mr. Hargett and Roka Partners. She currently operates four Arby's
locations, with one under construction; this would be her sixth if approved. She confirmed that
Arby's corporate had already approved the project, making it part of her contractual development
agreement. She noted that she was legally and financially bound to open the location within a
specific timeframe.
Chairman Holroyd asked if Mr. Hargett was holding them up.
Ms. Ryckman replied yes; Arby’s was ready whenever they were ready.
Mr. Shepperd asked if he heard correctly that there would be a 20-foot setback from the major
road.
Mr. Geddy stated there would be a 20-foot driveway.
Mr. Shepperd asked about the setback, specifically inquiring about the wall's location near
Penniman Road.
Steve Miller, Stanley Martin Homes, stated there was a 20-foot buffer from the edge of the
railroad right-of-way to the lot line for the townhome buildings, and that the townhomes would
have 15- to 20-foot-deep backyards before reaching the building on the lot.
Mr. Shepperd mentioned that when the Legacy of Poquoson was built with a 20-foot or 25-foot
setback, it was right up against Victory Boulevard.
Mr. Miller stated that that was not the case here.
Chairman Holroyd noted that the roads were widened to allow parking on both sides, including
private roads, to increase the number of parking spots. He said that they had learned from the
parking challenges experienced at Kelton Station and the Fort Eustis Boulevard locations.
Page 56 of 98

818
August 18, 2026
Mr. Drewry stated that the commercial was not coming there.
Chairman Holroyd opened the public hearing.
Steven Kennedy, 104 Penn Drive, Williamsburg, York County, spoke in opposition to the
application. He stated that he was a stockbroker and also a co-founder of the Conserve York
County Foundation. He urged the Board to read the Figueroa piece before reviewing the Marquis
Crossing financial opinion letter. He said there were too many unanswered questions and a
flawed process, and he noted their schools were already overcrowded and using trailers without
this additional development. As Mr. Bellamy had previously stated, while there were positive
features, the lack of guarantees regarding commercial development made him unable to support
the request.
Ron Struble, 205 Shady Bluff Point, President of the Conserve York County Foundation,
recommended tabling or deferring the item. He commended the staff and Supervisors and
thanked the developers for moving away from apartments, including a historical marker, and
increasing the parking area, though he suggested more acreage could be dedicated to parking
and green space. However, he expressed significant concerns regarding the commercial
component's viability, the impact to the schools, and the need for more verified data.
Martin Bank, 129 Clements Mill Trace, expressed concerns regarding the proposed development.
He noted that Water Country Parkway was a dark, winding road that already experienced heavy
traffic, including approximately 100 18-wheelers daily from the nearby park. He stated that a
Sheetz gas station would increase dangerous traffic, noise, light, and litter issues in the
neighborhood, as well as potential loitering and safety issues. He stated that it was currently a
wonderful neighborhood and he wanted it to stay that way.
Dean Rich, 113 Clements Mill Trace, spoke in opposition to the rezoning at 200 Water Country
Parkway. He noted that while the proposal had been scaled back from previous versions, he
believed the current plan remained inappropriate for the site. His primary concerns were traffic
and safety, noting that the projected 8,510 daily vehicle trips significantly exceeded the VDOT
threshold for substantial transportation impact. He also noted environmental concerns regarding
the storage and dispensing of fuel near residential areas. He acknowledged concerns about
alternative uses on this site, but those impacts should be compared to this proposal. He stated
that development should fit the infrastructure and development of the surrounding community.
Ruth Staley, 212 Clements Mill Trace, spoke in support of the proposed project. She noted that
the developers had addressed community objections through compromises regarding design,
scale, green space, and the recognition of historical significance. She highlighted that the area
currently lacked convenient access to fuel and quick service food, and noted that the project's
proximity to the highway was an advantage. While acknowledging the challenges regarding
school capacity, she argued that this project was necessary to attract and retain residents and
to help offset the need for increased tax revenue.
Leigh Houghland, 101 Bowstring Drive, spoke in support of the project. As the chair of the
Marquis Community Development Authority and a former member of the Comprehensive
Planning Steering Committee, he felt that the project offered significant potential for the area.
He noted that the Marquis Shopping Center had suffered from the loss of several major retailers
and argued that the increased density from this Marquis Crossing project would drive more
traffic to existing businesses. He stated that the Marquis Community Development Authority
was also in favor of the project, believing it would support existing infrastructure and benefit the
County.
Noemi Pizarro Hyman, 603 Clements Mill Trace, spoke in support of the project, stated that the
only constant in life was change, and it was nothing to fear. She highlighted the potential for
positive economic impact and increased revenue for the County, which she believed would
support local infrastructure and schools. She stated that this project could provide convenient
access to services and emphasized the importance of ensuring that new revenues are used to

Page 57 of 98

819
August 18, 2026
maintain high-quality schools for the community. Finally, she noted that the developers had
been communicative with the community and expressed her belief in a collaborative approach
to development.
Darrell Hinson, 204 Galts Mill Arch, spoke in support of the proposed development, stating that
it would transform an inaccessible wooded area into an economically productive neighborhood
and would generate tax revenue and jobs. Regarding historical preservation, the developer had
committed to installing a commemorative plaque and bench. Without the developer's historic
marker, the historic site would remain entirely overgrown and unknown to people passing by.
Regarding traffic, the developer had committed to a VDOT-approved traffic study and necessary
roadway improvements, such as dedicated turn lanes. He emphasized the importance of using
"buffer by design" to create a park-like transition zone between the new residential units and
existing communities.
Tonia Hinson, 204 Galts Mill Arch, spoke in support of the Marquis Crossing application. She
stated that the project would transform an underutilized and unsightly property into a
community asset. The current state of the site, characterized by overgrown vegetation and
accumulated trash, created a poor first impression for visitors to the neighborhood. She
highlighted that the proposed development, particularly the convenience and gas component,
would provide much-needed services to residents who currently travel to other cities for such
amenities. While acknowledging concerns regarding traffic safety and neighborhood
compatibility, she argued that these issues could be managed through careful site planning and
appropriate conditions.
William Miller, 108 Davids Way, spoke in support of the application. He emphasized the
historical significance of the property, as documented by historian Dr. Glenn Brasher. He noted
that the site was the location of documented efforts by enslaved African Americans to provide
manpower and intelligence to the Union Army during the Battle of Williamsburg in 1862. He
expressed support for the applicant's vision to incorporate interpretive markers and a park-like
setting near the proposed County Rails to Trails project to honor this history. He stated that this
development represented a unique opportunity to memorialize these events, noting that
industrial or warehousing uses would not offer similar historical preservation opportunities.
Brandon Nice, 4700 Fenton Mill Rd., Toano, president of David Nice Builders, spoke in support
of the application. He stated that his company had operated locally for over 50 years. He
highlighted the community's need for affordable and attainable housing to support a solid
workforce for local businesses. While he had a personal appreciation for rural character and land
conservation, such responsible development as Marquis Crossing was necessary. The project's
proximity to major interstates and tourist attractions was of note, and a well-planned residential
population could revitalize the area, attract investment, and generate tax revenue to support
services like schools.
David Floyd, 2635 Forge Rd., spoke in support of the project. He noted that as an employer with
100 workers, he struggled to retain staff due to the lack of affordable housing in the area. He
expressed concern about the lack of necessary amenities like fuel stations and retail outlets in
the area, particularly with the decline of the Marquis Shopping Center. He acknowledged the
importance of preserving green space and wetlands, and he knew from working with them that
Stanley Martin took conservation very seriously. He stated that this project would benefit the
community by providing attainable housing for families and revitalizing the area.
Chris Thompson, 142 Banneker Drive, spoke in support of the proposal. He emphasized the
importance of homeownership to build financial stability and foster community accountability.
He stated that increasing the housing supply would help stabilize prices, making it easier for
people to achieve financial security. Additionally, he noted that the project could revitalize the
area around the Marquis Shopping Center by increasing traffic and business activity. He
suggested that the influx of residents and commercial amenities, such as the Sheetz, might
incentivize other stakeholders to invest in or sell existing properties, potentially improving the
local economy and infrastructure.
Page 58 of 98

820
August 18, 2026
Ann Grigorian, 117 Baldric Place, expressed her opposition to approving the project at this time.
She stated that the data required further clarification. She thought the County Administration
should have identified certain factors that the third-party analysis raised. The analysis failed to
account for the costs of new buses and of special education for children. She noted that
approximately 7% of York County households were tax-exempt, which could result in an
additional $40,000 in lost revenue for this development, not including exemptions for disabled
veterans or surviving spouses. She stated that the Board should not approve the project until
those points were clarified.
Pam Pouchot, 103 Kimberly Court, spoke in opposition to the project. She expressed concerns
regarding the current plan as proposed. She recalled that when Marquis Shopping Center
opened, she foresaw it failing due to the lack of a grocery store and restaurants to ensure longterm success. She noted that the proffers for schools were insufficient to cover the costs of school
staff. She stated there were inconsistencies regarding whether the units were luxury or moderate.
She suggested that the County needed more affordable housing to accommodate local workers
who could not afford to live in the area. Her additional concerns included the lack of accessibility
in three-story units, the potential for unpleasant odors from ground-floor commercial uses, and
the general need for better property maintenance to address trash and overgrowth.
Mark Williams, 513 Charles Road, expressed his support for the project. He said that to address
concerns regarding loitering, he suggested that the Board of Supervisors encourage residents to
utilize the County's crime prevention unit, which could provide recommendations on lighting
and cameras. He also agreed with previous comments regarding the importance of property
owners maintaining cleanliness and fostering a sense of community. Finally, he noted that
spreading the cost of roadway redevelopment among multiple investors, rather than a single
entity, was a sensible approach.
Diane Howell, 104 Horseshoe Drive, spoke in opposition to the current proposal. She encouraged
the Board to table the matter to reconsider the best use for this land. She noted that in the
Comprehensive Plan, this parcel was referred to as the "gateway to York County," She lamented
the potential loss of its natural beauty and timber. She suggested that the property would be
better utilized for recreation, such as a bike trail, rather than residential development.
Additionally, she expressed concern that building over 100 homes would undermine the
historical significance of the area and noted her frustration with the developers' suggestion that
worse things could happen. Ultimately, she questioned whether the proposed plan was the best
possible use for such a significant piece of land.
Chairman Holroyd closed the public hearing.
Richard Hill, County Attorney, stated that there was discussion that an annual payment was
proffered for five years, but he did not believe that was reflected in the language.
Mr. Geddy clarified that it was a one-time payment per unit.
Mr. Hargett confirmed that the idea behind the five-year breakout was their attempt to move as
fast as possible.
Mr. Hill explained that the payment was structured to reduce by 20 percent each year for five
years once the commercial pad was complete, essentially reaching zero per unit after five years.
Mr. Hargett explained that the idea was for the developer to commit to a faster timeline, with the
proffer decreasing overtime to incentivize them getting commercial users open and operating as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Geddy added that the revenue generated by the commercial users would offset the reduction.
Mrs. Noll expressed her support for the project. She noted that the land had been available for
development for a long time and that the proposed homes would be affordable for young people
in York County. She highlighted the benefits of the development, including a gas station for
Page 59 of 98

821
August 18, 2026
commuters, the addition of trail amenities, and the potential to boost business for the Marquis
development across the street. She noted the importance of the proffers for local schools, which
were aging and in need of funding. After reviewing the developers' changes and the long-term
discussions regarding the property, she concluded that this was a good use of the land.
Mr. Shepperd raised a point of order regarding the procedure, inquiring whether the Board would
make a motion on the ordinance before discussing it or if they were currently addressing it in a
preamble.
Chairman Holroyd stated that he would like to have a discussion regarding the 80 units for the
Certificate of Occupancy to determine if there was agreement on that point or if an adjustment
was necessary.
Mr. Shepperd expressed frustration with the excessive volume of the Planning staff's report,
noting that in his 25 years on the Board of Supervisors, he had never seen such a thick
document. Additionally, he noted that the level of service for transportation did not fall below a
"C" rating.
Mr. Shepperd said that he appreciated the discussion regarding the 80 units, and the developer's
eagerness to build the commercial portion was evident. He also commended the recognition of
the historical area as part of the project, which was important to the community and the County's
history. He noted that while the Planning Commission focused on land use, the Board of
Supervisors must consider land use alongside political and developmental implications.
Mr. Shepperd stated that regarding the Marquis Shopping Center, this was a 127-unit
development, and he wondered whether it would provide enough impetus to save the shopping
center. He noted that previous neighborhoods had been approved to increase business and
support the Marquis, but expressed concern that without restaurants or grocery stores, the area
would fail to thrive. Regarding the cost of $380,000 to $450,000 price range, that was considered
affordable in York County. He noted the numerous other developments where single-family
homes were approaching $700,000 to $1 million.
Mr. Shepperd expressed concern that if the County did not provide affordable housing, the state
may mandate it. He stated that ultimately, this was not the County's property, so he would not
dictate specific businesses if they were appropriate. He expressed appreciation for the investment
being made in the County. He thanked the Chairman for his detailed work, which greatly helped
the Board review the project. He expressed his support for the application.
Mr. Roane stated that most of his comments would be more appropriate for the discussion
following the motion, but he believed the Board needed to revisit the 80 units mentioned by Mr.
Shepperd. He noted that 80 units represented 68 percent of the 117 homes and suggested that
this number should be lowered to a range between 25 percent and 40 percent to provide the
developer with sufficient incentive to open businesses like Sheetz and Arby's. He also noted that
because the site work and development would take approximately 30 months before home
construction began, a lower threshold of homes would be more appropriate.
Mr. Shepperd noted that the 80 number appeared to be driven by the financing requirements for
Stanley Martin Homes. He explained that because it was a large company with developments
everywhere, the 80-unit threshold was likely tied to their ability to secure financing for the entire
project. He cautioned that reducing that number to 40 could potentially jeopardize the
developer's ability to obtain financing.
Mr. Roane stated that this indicated they were not confident that those retail establishments
would open in a timely manner.
Mr. Shepperd stated that he was viewing the situation through the lens of financing for a large
project. He suggested that they could potentially ask the developer for clarification, but he
cautioned that if they set the number at 40 and it prevented the developer from securing
financing, they would effectively be killing the project.
Page 60 of 98

822
August 18, 2026
Mr. Roane stated that he was encouraged regarding the enthusiasm shown by the
representatives from Sheetz and Arby's to come into the County. However, corporate decisions
could change quickly due to financial incentives. He stated that they had to build incentives and
confidence into the project to ensure it would happen.
Mr. Shepperd stated what he was hearing was that the specific number was not the priority, but
rather ensuring the business component was addressed first.
Mr. Roane stated that the only mechanism available to mitigate the issue was limiting the
number of homes that could be built before the business opened.
Mr. Shepperd noted that there were two businesses involved and that it was up to the developer
to prioritize building the platform first. He questioned how the developer could proceed with
building the homes if he was unable to secure financing.
Mr. Roane stated that allowing 80 homes to be built before the businesses open was too high a
number, as it would remove the developer's incentive to ensure the businesses are operational
first.
Mr. Shepperd stated that he did not know how to guarantee that.
Mr. Roane stated that they could not dictate that businesses must open before the first home
was built, and he understood that. However, they must consider the other mechanisms they had
available.
Mr. Shepperd recalled there had been several developments where business components were
never built or were built many years later.
Mr. Roane stated that the situation with the businesses in the Fort Eustis area served as an
example of development projects in the County based on promises that were never kept. He noted
that when promised revenue failed to materialize, the County ended up footing the bill. He
emphasized the need to avoid replicating that scenario here.
Mr. Shepperd stated that while he understood the concern, he did not want to arbitrarily pick a
number that might kill the project, unless a more appropriate number could be provided.
Mr. Drewry commended Chairman Holroyd for the hundreds of hours he had dedicated to
securing proffers and working with the developers to make this project feasible. He also shared
the concern regarding delayed commercial development, citing a pending Publix in his district
that is currently delayed due to environmental factors involving a rare bat species. To prevent
the issues raised by Mr. Roane, he suggested that the developers should not receive approval for
residential site plans until the commercial site plans were approved.
Mr. Drewry clarified that previous denials by the Planning Commission and the County
Administrator occurred before the full information presented tonight was available. He noted
that the project addressed the high priority of affordable housing in York County. He outlined
several benefits of the proposal, including its readiness for commercial use, the inclusion of
historical markers, the provision of green space, and the generation of business revenue to
reduce the tax burden on residents.
Mr. Drewry stated that the developers met all negotiated proffers and agreed to build townhomes
instead of apartments, which he believed would improve the area. He said that regarding the
negatives, there were concerns about school capacity, and he would note that school funding
depended on upcoming voter referendums and their Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He
stated regarding traffic, VDOT would manage traffic concerns through road widening and turn
signals, and the developers must adhere to their standards.
Mr. Drewry stated that he saw more positives than negatives. He acknowledged that issues like
trash, noise, and lights were inherent to any development. He expressed concern that seeking
Page 61 of 98

823
August 18, 2026
more information could lead to "paralysis by analysis." He emphasized that the Chairman had
worked extensively to secure the best possible data in the time they had. He expressed support
for the project, noting that the developers had exceeded expectations regarding proffers and that
the majority of public sentiment appeared positive.
Chairman Holroyd provided historical context regarding the Marquis Shopping Center. He
explained that the center had faced challenges due to a difficult owner from Dallas who was
nearly impossible to work with, noting that Foundation Church and the planned Sam's Club had
both been affected. He further noted that the current structure of that shopping center meant
the County did not receive tax revenue from those businesses, nor did the County owe anything
on the bonds.
Chairman Holroyd explained that while the Marquis Shopping Center had opportunities to build
restaurants and gas stations over the last 20 years, the owner had failed to do so, leaving the
area stagnant. He stated that the Board of Supervisors had limited control over the Marquis site
due to its ownership. He stated that with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, this current
application was a rezoning from EO to mixed-use, which was supported by the Comprehensive
Plan.
Chairman Holroyd emphasized that the residential component was contingent upon the success
of the associated businesses, as standalone businesses lacked the infrastructure capacity to
support such development. He noted that the developer had been responsive to the Board's
requests, including volunteering the $850,000 proffer over five years, with incentives included
to accelerate the opening of the commercial businesses. He expressed his hope for this project
to be successful, noting that 11 previous PDMUs in the County had failed.
Chairman Holroyd observed that while recent emails had been mostly negative, the public
comments during this meeting were mostly in favor. He explained that his review of this project
began in 2022, when he was a Planning Commissioner, at which time he insisted on a
commercial component to ensure the project's revenue viability. He noted that the commercial
aspect was essential, as the tax revenue from housing alone was insufficient; the commercial
side was expected to generate $470,000 of the projected $890,000 in annual revenue.
Chairman Holroyd stated that while he was willing to support the application, he expressed
concerns regarding the linkage of Certificates of Occupancy. He suggested amending the
language to ensure that site plans were approved and foundations were poured for the
commercial units before residential townhouses were allowed to proceed past a certain threshold.
As it was currently written in 1C, they did not have to do that.
Mr. Hargett agreed with Supervisor Drewry's specific request that the commercial site plans be
approved and a pad poured prior to the residential site plans being issued. He noted that the
current language only addressed one or the other, but he was happy to agree to having both
poured prior to the residential plans being issued.
Mr. Roane stated that while the site plan idea was good, it was not legally binding and would not
require anyone to build anything, noting that site plans could be submitted and then withdrawn
without any construction actually happening on the commercial sites.
Mr. Shepperd asked if the developer could pour the pads and build it.
Mr. Hargett clarified that they would not be the ones to build it. They had previously discussed
whether the national retailer would build its own building. He expressed a willingness to
personally invest upwards of $400,000 in civil engineering to secure site plan approval for the
project. He agreed to do that and build the pads prior to site plan approval for the residential
portion. He said he could not walk away from that significant investment.
Mr. Hill noted that a revised draft resolution had been presented to the Board. He said that while
the changes to the draft were not significant, he wanted to know if the Chairman was interested
in including additional verbiage regarding the parking and the historical marker.
Page 62 of 98

824
August 18, 2026
Chairman Holroyd stated that he would like to add a line to Section 1E regarding residential
townhouse development, specifying that the development shall contain a minimum of 250
parking spaces for residential use, but that he understood the requirement had already been
met.
Mr. Hill stated that they had agreed to 343 spaces.
Chairman Holroyd stated that a new section, 5D, should be added under Section 5, which
stipulated that any historical marker constructed must meet all requirements of the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources. He noted that these state requirements may be binding and
could fall outside of the County's sign ordinance, so they must be verified.
Mr. Hill clarified that regarding the commercial component, the intent was to ensure residential
site plans could be approved but not released until certain conditions were met. He proposed
that the language read, "no residential unit building permits may be issued until a site plan has
been approved and foundation poured for commercial uses in Land Bay A and at least one
commercial use in Land Bay C."
Mr. Shepperd made a motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 26-17(R) as amended.
Chairman Holroyd asked if there was discussion on the motion.
Mr. Roane highlighted several positive aspects of the development proposal, noting that the
developers had been responsive to the Board's recommendations for retail and homeownership
rather than just rented apartments. He praised the inclusion of affordable housing, the potential
for new businesses to offset the residential tax burden, and the developers' willingness to address
historical significance and provide amenities like bike trails and walking paths.
Mr. Roane stated, however, he wanted to discuss some concerns he had about the project.
Regarding the financial clarity of the project, the projected $160,000 annual revenue was
positive, but the margin was narrow and could disappear if tax relief for new residents reduced
revenue. Second, there were discrepancies regarding school capacity, noting that School Board
and Schools Administration feedback indicated they did not have much school capacity in
general. Finally, regarding parking, while the developer added more spaces, the townhouse
design may still lead to street parking issues and friction within the community.
Mr. Roane concluded that while the proposal was an improvement over previous versions, he did
not believe the current plan provided a clear path to success.
Chairman Holroyd addressed the financial concerns raised by Mr. Roane, stating that he believed
the revenue projections were accurate. Regarding expenses, his estimate of $600,000 was based
on a cost of $1,600 per unit for deputies, though the Sheriff suggested the actual cost might be
even lower when considering the impact across all new subdivisions in District 1. He concluded
that the numbers were solid enough to proceed, as any minor discrepancies in specific categories
should balance out.
Mr. Roane stated that while the current projections were positive, the margin was tight, and it
would not take much to turn the budget negative, which would result in a permanent financial
burden for the County.
Chairman Holroyd argued that the revenue projections might actually be understated, as the
previous estimates for meals and sales taxes were conservative. He also noted that the parking
ratio was nearly three to one, with 343 spaces for 117 units.
Mr. Roane noted that residents preferred to park directly in front of their homes rather than in
distant parking spots, which would require them to walk in inclement weather or carry groceries
and children.

Page 63 of 98

825
August 18, 2026
Mr. Shepperd stated that parking issues would likely be handled by a homeowner’s association
(HOA). He said that if they were parked in a VDOT right-of-way, they would have to call the
Sheriff to deal with it. He said that he did not think they could add any more parking spaces to
this development.
Chairman Holroyd said that ignoring the 44 units that had double-parking spaces, it left 260
parking spots for 71 houses, which was a four to one ratio.
Mrs. Noll agreed there was enough parking.
Mr. Roane stated that the number of spaces was irrelevant if they were placed far away from
residences. He said that people may not want to walk 200 yards when they come home at night;
they would want to park in front of their homes. He expressed concern that this would cause
perpetual friction with the Sheriff's Office to deal with parking violations in this development.
Chairman Holroyd stated that the parking issues associated with townhomes had been
addressed with this application.
Mr. Roane said that he spoke with the Sheriff this morning, who reiterated these concerns.
Chairman Holroyd noted they had updated information at this meeting, which the Sheriff had
not reviewed.
Mr. Roane expressed concern that the Sheriff had not reviewed the information.
Chairman Holroyd stated that the Board had reviewed it, so they must make a decision. He
called the vote on the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 26-17(R) as amended.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(4)
(1)

Noll, Drewry, Shepperd, Holroyd
Roane

NO WAKE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The matter was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0. A summary of the proceedings is
below.
Chairman Holroyd explained that they would conduct all public hearings related to the no wake
zones at the same time, and after he closed the public hearings, the Board would vote on each
item separately.
Brian Fuller, Deputy County Administrator, reported on the progress of the No Wake Advisory
Committee and presented the findings to the Board for their consideration. He noted that the
Committee, consisting of 17 members, 11 citizens and six County staff, held five meetings over
six weeks to resolve the issues. He presented the items for consideration, including the
development of a new Board Policy for the establishment, modification, and removal of no-wake
zones, along with evaluation criteria and a scoring form.
Mr. Fuller explained that specifically, they had Resolution R26-126 to establish the Board Policy,
Ordinance 26-18 to amend the County Code to match the new Policy, and Ordinance 26-19 to
modify two no-wake zones, expanding one and shrinking the other. . Resolution R26-127 was to
remove markers in the reduced Chisman Creek area, and Resolutions R26-128 and R26-129
removed redundant markers.
Mr. Fuller concluded by thanking the Committee members for their time and dedication. He
stated that while discussions were sometimes lively, they remained cordial, and the Committee
reached a consensus on all markers and the Policy.

Page 64 of 98

826
August 18, 2026
Mr. Drewry expressed his gratitude to Mr. Fuller for organizing the work and keeping the process
on track. He commended Shannon Forrest, Assistant County Attorney, for her legal
contributions, Dockmaster James Scruggs for his expertise, and the Virginia Department of
Wildlife Resources (DWR) for their guidance. He noted that the Committee members were handselected experts from the community who engaged in lively but cordial and respectful
discussions. Despite some heated disagreements, the team reached unanimous consensus, as
everyone shared the common goal of doing what was best for the waterways in York County. He
stated that the recommendations presented tonight reflected those agreements reached by the
Committee.
Mr. Fuller noted that because the meetings took place as the boating season was approaching,
there was a strong incentive to complete the work. He mentioned that the Committee wanted to
meet weekly, or even twice a week, if possible, to ensure they could finish the task and enjoy the
water themselves.
Chairman Holroyd opened the public hearing for Items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Seeing no
speakers, he closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Noll made a motion to adopt proposed Resolution R26-126 as submitted.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Drewry, Roane, Shepperd, Noll, Holroyd

Mrs. Noll made a motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 26-18 as submitted.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Roane, Shepperd, Noll, Drewry, Holroyd

Mrs. Noll made a motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 26-19 as submitted.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Shepperd, Noll, Drewry, Roane, Holroyd

Mrs. Noll made a motion to adopt proposed Resolution R26-127 as submitted.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Noll, Drewry, Roane, Shepperd, Holroyd

Mrs. Noll made a motion to adopt proposed Resolution R26-128 as submitted.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Drewry, Roane, Shepperd, Noll, Holroyd

Mrs. Noll made a motion to approve proposed Resolution R26-129 as submitted.
On roll call the vote was:

Page 65 of 98

827
August 18, 2026
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Roane, Shepperd, Noll, Drewry, Holroyd

ADMISSIONS TAX - AMEND CHAPTER 21 OF THE YORK COUNTY CODE
The matter was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0. A summary of the proceedings is
below.
Susan Goodwin, Deputy County Administrator, gave a brief summary of the item. She noted a
correction in the Ordinance included in the packet, stating that the definition of amusement
parks had inadvertently included go-karts. During the August 4, 2026, work session, they were
explicit about excluding go-karts and other small entertainment-type businesses, focusing only
on amusement, theme, and water parks. She recommended striking that word from the
ordinance and would provide more detail in her discussion.
Ms. Goodwin explained that the General Assembly granted York County the authority to charge
an admissions tax of up to 10 percent effective July 1, 2026. To allow for software modifications
and taxpayer notification, staff recommended an implementation date of January 1, 2027. After
reviewing neighboring tax rates, noting that the City of Hampton and Williamsburg were at 10
percent, while James City County recently adopted 5 percent. She stated that, according to the
Board of Supervisors' direction, an ordinance had been prepared to establish a 5 percent
admissions tax on amusement parks and water parks.
Ms. Goodwin clarified that, according to her earlier correction, small entertainment activities
such as go-karts, miniature golf, and escape rooms would be exempt. She stated that revenue
for the first half of Fiscal Year (FY) 27 was estimated at $450,000, with an estimated $900,000
annually thereafter. The ordinance was before the Board of Supervisors tonight for public hearing
and consideration; if adopted, staff would prepare for collections to begin on January 1, 2027.
Chairman Holroyd opened the public hearing. Seeing no speakers, he closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Noll made a motion to approve proposed Ordinance No. 26-21 (R) as amended.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Shepperd, Noll, Drewry, Roane, Holroyd

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Holroyd highlighted the items on the Consent Calendar and asked the Board if there
were any items they wished to discuss separately. Hearing none, Chairman Holroyd asked for a
motion.
The Consent Calendar was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0. A summary of actions
taken is below.
Mrs. Noll made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Drewry, Roane, Shepperd, Noll, Holroyd

Thereupon, the following resolutions were adopted:

Page 66 of 98

828
August 18, 2026
ITEM NO. 15 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 16, 2026, Board of Supervisors meeting
ITEM NO. 16 INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR BRIGHTWOOD STREAM
RESTORATION PROJECT, RESOLUTION R26-122
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORTING THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NEWPORT NEWS AND YORK COUNTY THROUGH AN AGREEMENT GRANTING ACCESS
TO CITY PROPERTY FOR THE INITIAL INSTALLATION AND LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE
OF THE PROJECT
ITEM NO. 17 HIGH-PRIORITY INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION PLAN (HPIIRP)
AGREEMENT, RESOLUTION R26-123
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT (HRSD) ALLOWING
HRSD TO PERFORM WORK ON COUNTY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE HIGHPRIORITY INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION PROGRAM (HPIIRP)
ITEM NO. 18 SOMMERVILLE SLIP LINING AND STORM DRAINPIPE REHABILITATION,
RESOLUTION R26-130
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT WITH EAST COAST INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., FOR SLIP LINING SERVICES
AND STORM DRAINPIPE REHABILITATION FOR THE SOMMERVILLE SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO. 19 REQUEST FOR REFUND OF REAL ESTATE TAXES FROM DISABLED VETERANS,
RESOLUTION R26-124
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A TAX REFUND TO INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR REAL
ESTATE TAX RELIEF PURSUANT TO CODE OF VIRGINIA §58.1-3219.5, TAX RELIEF
FOR DISABLED VETERANS, FOR TAX YEARS 2023-2026
ITEM NO. 20 RETIREMENT RECOGNITION - MELISSA M. DOAK, RESOLUTION R26-121
A RESOLUTION TO COMMEND MELISSA M. DOAK, BATTALION CHIEF, YORK COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT, ON OCCASION OF HER RETIREMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE
ITEM NO. 21 RETIREMENT RECOGNITION - CASSANDRA A. CHRISTENSEN, RESOLUTION
R26-125
A RESOLUTION TO COMMEND CASSANDRA A. CHRISTENSEN, SENIOR PAYROLL
COORDINATOR, FISCAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE ON THE OCCASION OF HER RETIREMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE
COUNTY ATTORNEY REPORTS AND REQUESTS
Richard Hill, County Attorney, stated he had no reports this evening.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS AND REQUESTS
Mark Bellamy, County Administrator, stated he had no reports this evening.
Chairman Holroyd stated that the Facebook page launched on the County website regarding the
one percent tax was very informative and well done but suggested it needed to be more
thoroughly publicized.
Mr. Bellamy thanked Chairman Holroyd for the feedback.

Page 67 of 98

829
August 18, 2026
NEW BUSINESS

None.

MATTERS PRESENTED BY THE BOARD
Mr. Roane stated that school was starting soon.
Chairman Holroyd recognized Commonwealth Attorney Krystyn Reid for her leadership and
collaboration with the United Way of the Virginia Peninsula and Senator Danny Diggs in
advancing the Guardian Network. He explained that this innovative statewide initiative created
a centralized platform for Virginia's missing persons alerts. Due to their efforts, the General
Assembly approved nearly $400,000 for the Virginia State Police to move the project into
development. Once implemented, the Guardian Network would consolidate Virginia's existing
missing persons alert systems to assist law enforcement and the public.
CLOSED MEETING
The matter was considered and approved on a vote of 5:0.
Mr. Shepperd made a motion that the Board of Supervisors convene in a Closed Meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) to consider prospective business or expansions of existing
business or industry; and pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) personnel matters.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Drewry, Roane, Shepperd, Noll, Holroyd

Chairman Holroyd moved the adoption of Resolution R26-103, which read:
A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ONE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE YORK COUNTY ARTS
COMMISSION AND ONE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE WILLIAMSBURG ARTS
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Narielle Living currently serves as a member of the York County Arts
Commission and has been serving in the capacity as a representative to the Williamsburg Arts
Commission and is willing to continue to do so; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the structure of the commissions, the member appointed to serve
as York County’s representative on the Williamsburg Arts Commission must also serve as a
member of the York County Arts Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to appoint a replacement to fill the
unexpired terms ending July 31, 2027; and
WHEREAS, seven residents who wish to serve in this capacity have submitted Board
Bank Applications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this
18th day of August, 2026, that Allison T. Chersicla be, and is hereby, appointed to serve on the
York County Arts Commission and the Williamsburg Arts Commission, such terms to begin
immediately and end July 31, 2027.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Noll, Drewry, Roane, Shepperd, Holroyd

Mr. Shepperd moved the adoption of Resolution R26-131, which read:
A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD
Page 68 of 98

830
August 18, 2026
WHEREAS, at the April 30, 2026, Board meeting the vacancy on the towing industry
representative was not filled as a result of Ms. Crystal Hernandez’s, towing industry
representation, resignation; and
WHEREAS, per adopted State Code § 46.2-1233.2 and York County Ordinance 26-15,
the Towing Advisory Board is required to have equal representation of local law enforcement,
licensed towing and recovery operators, and members of the general public; and
WHEREAS, the Board is therefore requested to consider filling vacancies of both the
towing industry representative as well as a second citizen representative.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of Supervisors this
18th day of August, 2026, that the following individuals be, and are hereby, appointed to the
Towing Advisory Board such term to begin immediately and end August 20, 2028.
William E. Chenault, III, towing industry representative
Robert Carpenter, Citizen representative
On roll call the vote was:
Yea:
Nay:

(5)
(0)

Drewry, Roane, Shepperd, Noll, Holroyd

FUTURE BUSINESS None.
Meeting Adjourned. At 11:20 p.m., Chairman Holroyd declared the meeting adjourned, and the
next Board of Supervisors meeting would be 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 1, 2026, in the East
Room at York Hall.

________________________________________
Mark L. Bellamy, Jr.
County Administrator

________________________________________
Douglas R. Holroyd, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors

Page 69 of 98

Memorandum
Board of Supervisors Work Session
October 6, 2026

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Mark L. Bellamy, Jr., County Administrator

SECTION:

Consent Calendar

SUBJECT:

Back Creek Navigation Improvements
Project Partnership Agreement. Consider the
adoption of Proposed Resolution R26-144
authorizing execution of the Project Partnership
Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Memorandum of Agreement with
the Virginia Resources Commission, as well as
appropriating funding for the non-federal share
of the project.

DEPARTMENT: Economic and Tourism Development
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ALIGNMENT
Exemplary Public Safety
Value-Driven Economic Development
Environmental Stewardship with a Focus on Resiliency
BACKGROUND
Back Creek, located adjacent to the Seaford community, provides important access to the
Chesapeake Bay for commercial fishing vessels, including scallop vessels as well as recreational
vessels. The channel is an important component of the area's maritime economy and is
dependent upon reliable access to the Chesapeake Bay for commercial and recreational activity.
Navigation challenges with Back Creek have been documented for decades. In 1982, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk District, completed a Detailed Project Report and
Environmental Assessment that identified channel shoaling as a navigation and safety concern
and recommended dredging. The project did not move forward at that time due to a lack of
funding. In 2017, York County requested that USACE conduct a new feasibility study under
Section 107 of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) to address the continued shoaling at
the entrance channel to Back Creek. The shoaling has created navigation hazards for commercial
and recreational vessels and has contributed to vessel groundings, economic damages,
congestion, transportation delays, and reduced cargo loading.

Page 70 of 98

The Back Creek Navigation Improvements Project will provide safer, more reliable, and more
efficient navigation for commercial and recreational vessels using Back Creek and accessing the
Chesapeake Bay.
York County serves as the non-federal sponsor for the project and has worked in partnership
with the USACE throughout the feasibility and planning process. USACE’s project materials
identify safety concerns, recurring vessel groundings, transportation delays, environmental spill
risks, and economic losses associated with the existing channel conditions.
As part of the feasibility study, USACE evaluated vessel traffic and operational requirements,
documented vessel groundings, economic needs, navigation safety, and considered potential
alternatives. Based on their analysis, USACE identified a recommended plan that includes:
• Widening and deepening the existing navigation channel;
• Improving approximately 12,614 feet of channel to a width of 60 feet and depth of
16 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW); and
• Creating a 900-foot-long turning basin approximately 250 to 300 feet wide.
USACE's economic analysis determined that the selected alternative provided the highest net
average annual benefits among the alternatives evaluated.
The project is authorized under Section 107 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, as amended,
which provides authority for USACE to undertake navigation improvements, including dredging
of channels and turning basins, in partnership with a non-federal government sponsor.
The project has now advanced to the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) phase. Execution of
the PPA between York County, as the non-federal sponsor, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is required for the project to proceed.
The total fully funded project cost is currently estimated at $7,110,000, with the cost shared as
follows:
• Federal Share (80%): $5,708,000
• Non-Federal Share (20%): $1,402,000
The County’s entire non-federal share has been secured through state funding. Through the
efforts of Senator Diggs, the Commonwealth of Virginia has provided $1 million towards the
project. Following execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with the County, the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) through its Marine Habitat & Waterways Improvement
Fund will provide the remaining $402,000 needed to satisfy the non-federal share.
I recommend the adoption of proposed Resolution R26-144 that will authorize the County to
execute the Project Partnership Agreement with USACE, the Memorandum of Understanding
with VMRC, and all other documents necessary to advance the Back Creek Navigation

Page 71 of 98

Improvements Project. The Resolution will also appropriate $1,000,000 in state funding and
$402,000 from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission’s Marine Habitat & Waterways
Improvement Fund to satisfy the non-federal share of the project.
Olsen/3525
Attachment:
• Proposed Resolution R26-144

Page 72 of 98

R26-144
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF YORK
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Resolution
At a regular meeting of the York County Board of Supervisors held in the Board
Room, York Hall, Yorktown, Virginia, on the ____ day of ____________, 20___:
Present

Vote

Douglas R. Holroyd, Chairman
Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr., Vice Chairman
Sheila S. Noll
M. Wayne Drewry
G. Stephen Roane, Jr.

On motion of (Name), which carried __:__, the following resolution was adopted:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A PROJECT
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS AND THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
VIRGINIA RESOURCES COMMISSION FOR THE BACK CREEK
NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
FOR THE NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, Back Creek provides access to the Chesapeake Bay for commercial
fishing vessels including scallop vessels as well as recreational vessels and is an important
component of the maritime economy of the Seaford community and York County; and
WHEREAS, shoaling within the Back Creek entrance channel has resulted in
navigation and safety concerns, including vessel groundings, congestion, transportation
delays, reduced cargo loading, and associated economic impacts; and
WHEREAS, in 1982, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk
District, completed a Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment that
identified channel shoaling as a navigation and safety concern and proposed dredging of
the channel, but the project was not constructed due to a lack of funding; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2017, York County requested that USACE conduct a
feasibility study under Section 107 of the Continuing Authorities Program to address the
continued shoaling and navigation challenges at the entrance to Back Creek; and
1

Page 73 of 98

WHEREAS, Section 107 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, as amended,
authorizes USACE to undertake navigation improvements, including dredging of channels
and turning basins, in partnership with a non-federal government sponsor; and
WHEREAS, York County serves as the non-federal sponsor for the Back Creek
Improvements Project and has worked in partnership with USACE throughout the
feasibility and planning process; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility study evaluated vessel traffic and requirements, vessel
groundings, economic needs, navigation safety, and potential alternatives and resulted in a
recommended plan to widen and deepen the existing navigation channel and construct a
turning basin to improve the safety, reliability, and efficiency of navigation within Back
Creek; and
WHEREAS, the selected plan includes improvements to approximately 12,614 feet
of channel to a width of 60 feet and depth of 16 feet Mean Lower Low Water, as well as a
900-foot-long turning basin approximately 250 to 300 feet wide; and
WHEREAS, the total fully funded project cost is currently estimated at $7,110,000,
of which the federal share is approximately $5,708,000 (80%) and the non-federal share is
approximately $1,402,000 (20%); and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has provided $1,000,000 toward the
non-federal share of the project, with the remaining $402,000 to be provided from the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission’s (VMRC) Marine Habitat & Waterways
Improvement Fund.; and
WHEREAS, execution of a Project Partnership Agreement between York County
and USACE is necessary to establish the parties' respective responsibilities and advance
the Back Creek Navigation Improvements Project; and
WHEREAS, execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Virginia
Resources Commission is necessary to obtain $420,000 from the Marine Habitat &
Waterways Improvement Fund for the remaining non-federal share match.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this ___ day of __________, 2026, that the Board hereby authorizes the
County Administrator and County Attorney, in coordination with the Department of
Finance, to execute the Project Partnership Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for the Back Creek Navigation Improvements Project, together with any related
agreements, certifications, assurances, financial documents, and other instruments
necessary to advance and implement the Project, subject to review and approval as to form
by the County Attorney; and
2

Page 74 of 98

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby authorizes the County
Administrator to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Virginia Resources
Commission to secure non-federal funding from the Marine Habitat & Waterways
Improvement Fund, subject to review and approval as to form by the County Attorney; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby appropriates in the Grant
Fund $1,000,000 in funding received from the Commonwealth of Virginia and $402,000
expected from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission’s Marine Habitat & Waterways
Improvement Fund for the non-federal share of the Back Creek Navigation Improvements
Project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Administrator, County Attorney
and Department of Finance are authorized to make such budgetary and administrative
adjustments and take such other actions as may be necessary to carry out the intent of this
Resolution and fulfill York County's obligations under the Project Partnership Agreement
with USACE and Memorandum of Understanding with VMRC

3

Page 75 of 98

Memorandum
Board of Supervisors Work Session
October 6, 2026

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Mark L. Bellamy, Jr., County Administrator

SECTION:

Consent Calendar

SUBJECT:

Fire Training Facility Agreement. Consider
adoption of Proposed Resolution R26-145
authorizing a Memorandum of Agreement
between the County and the City of Newport
News for the Newport News Regional Live Fire
Training Facility

DEPARTMENT: Fire and Life Safety
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ALIGNMENT
Exemplary Public Safety
BACKGROUND
The County has long maintained an agreement with various fire and rescue agencies in or
adjacent to the County to jointly operate and maintain the Newport News Regional Live Fire
Training Facility. An updated Memorandum of Agreement with the participating agencies is
presented for your consideration.
The proposed Memorandum of Agreement has been reviewed by the York County Fire
Department and the Office of the County Attorney. I recommend approval of Resolution 26-145
authorizing the County Administrator to execute the Memo of Agreement with the participating
agencies.
Baldwin/3619
Attachments:
• Memorandum of Agreement with Newport News
• Proposed Resolution R26-145

Page 76 of 98

NEWPORT NEWS REGIONAL LIVE FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, made this 15th day of February, 2026, by
and among CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, CITY OF HAMPTON, COUNTY OF JAMES
CITY, CITY OF POQUOSON, CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG, COUNTY OF YORK, 633rd
AIR BASE WING – JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, and CAMP PEARY, all of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and United States of America, and hereinafter collectively referred to
as “the Partners.”
WHEREAS, Newport News serves as the host jurisdiction for a regional live fire training
facility, hereinafter referred to as “the Facility;”
WHEREAS, the Partners wish to jointly operate the Facility and share the costs to operate
and maintain the Facility, and have budgeted funds necessary to operate and maintain the Facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and among the Partners as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
Agents means and includes authorized officers, employees and agents of a Partner.
Agreement shall mean this Memorandum of Agreement, as amended from time to time.
Facility and Regional Live Fire Training Facility mean the Regional Live Fire Training
Facility located at 17300 Warwick Boulevard, Newport News, Virginia.
Partner shall mean any one of the Partners.
Partners shall be a collective term meaning the jurisdictions of the City of Newport News,
City of Hampton, County of James City, City of Poquoson, City of Williamsburg, County
of York, 633rd Air Base Wing – Joint Base Langley-Eustis, and Camp Peary.
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this agreement is to operate and maintain a live fire training facility by and
among the Partners for the Partners’ firefighting personnel.

1

Page 77 of 98

3. DURATION
A.
The term of this agreement shall be 15 years commencing on the date of execution of this
Agreement. At the expiration of the 15-year term, this Agreement may be renewed based on the
approval of and for a term determined by the then active Partners.
B.
This agreement is additionally subject to the continued financial support of the Partners
and thus subject to continued appropriation by the Partners of funds necessary for the operation
and maintenance of the Facility.
4. FACILITY OPERATIONAL CONTROL
A.
The use of the Facility shall be under the control, direction and supervision of the Partners
with the objective of ensuring safe operation of the Facility. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, the Partners shall establish conditions for use of the Facility as the Partners shall
deem necessary in the interest of safety and prudent operational efficiency. This authority may be
delegated by the Partners to the City of Newport News.
B.
Newport News shall coordinate and ensure that utilities, trash removal and routine Facility
maintenance is provided for so long as it is a Partner to this Agreement
C.
Operational and maintenance costs of the Facility shall be administered and borne by the
Partners, as set out in Section 5 below, which shall provide for such costs in their annual operating
budgets, or from funds provided by the Virginia Department of Fire Programs or its successor.
5. MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS
A.
The Partners shall adopt an annual operating and maintenance budget for the Facility and
shall submit such budget to the Newport News Fire Chief by November 1 of each year.
B.
The Partners agree to each pay $3,000.00 annually for the operation and maintenance of
the Facility and shall submit such payment to the Newport News Fire Chief by December 15 of
each year.
C.
The Partners agree to amend this provision and increase the $3,000.00 annual payment per
Partner if any Partner or Partners withdraw from the Agreement. The Partners further agree to
amend the Agreement and increase the annual payment if the annual cost to operate and maintain
the Facility exceeds the total of the annual payments by the Partners.
D.
The provisions of this agreement are for the sole benefit of the Partners, and no other person
or entity shall be entitled to enforcement of any part or parts of this Agreement

2

Page 78 of 98

6. LIABILITIES
A.
As permitted by law, each Partner agrees that, as between the Partners, it shall be
responsible for its own agents’ acts and omissions within the scope of their duties which cause
injury to persons or property directly resulting from their use of the Facility. Nothing herein shall
be deemed as a waiver of sovereign immunity or any other defense available to a Partner. Each
Partner shall have responsibility for and control over its Agents.
B.
This Agreement shall not be construed to impair or affect any sovereign or governmental
or official immunities that may otherwise be available to a Partner or its Agents. Any legal liability
which may be imposed upon a Partner by a court of competent jurisdiction or by duly authorized
settlement of any legal claim against a Partner, shall be the responsibility of and retained by that
Partner for the conduct of its own affairs.
C.
Each Partner shall be responsible for workers’ compensation liability for their respective
Employees and Agents who may suffer compensable injuries arising out of their use of or
authorized presence at the Facility.
7. TERMINATION
A.
Any Partner may terminate its participation in this Agreement by providing 90 days written
notice to the chief executive officers of all the other Partners. The City of Newport News shall
retain ownership of the Facility and shall have and receive ownership of all personal property and
equipment and other assets of the terminating Partner not removed by such Partner prior to
termination. The terminating Partner shall execute any quit claim deed, bills of sale or conveyances
reasonably requested by the City of Newport News to evidence Newport News’s ownership of all
such assets.
B.
A terminating Partner shall forfeit all interests, property or otherwise, if any, in the facility
and its operations, however the terminating Partner shall continue to be liable for any obligation
incurred during such time as the terminating Partner was a Partner, specifically including the
operating and maintenance costs provided for in Section 5 (“Mutual Obligations”) of this
agreement
8. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Partners and supersedes any
previous oral or written agreement or understanding.
9. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Agreement shall be effective at such time as all Partners have executed same as an
original and copies of the original have been provided to all Partners.
3

Page 79 of 98

[Signature Pages Follow]

4

Page 80 of 98

WITNESSETH the following signatures and seals on behalf of the City of Newport News,
Virginia, in that behalf having first been duly authorized:
CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA
____________________________________
City Manager
____________________________________
Fire Chief

ATTEST:

_______________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

_______________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney

5

Page 81 of 98

WITNESSETH the following signatures and seals on behalf of the City Hampton,
Virginia, in that behalf having first been duly authorized:
CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA
____________________________________
City Manager
____________________________________
Fire Chief

ATTEST:

_______________________________
City Clerk

6

Page 82 of 98

WITNESSETH the following signatures and seals on behalf of the City of Williamsburg,
Virginia, in that behalf having first been duly authorized:
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
____________________________________
City Manager
____________________________________
Fire Chief

ATTEST:

_______________________________
City Clerk

7

Page 83 of 98

WITNESSETH the following signatures and seals on behalf of the City of Poquoson,
Virginia, in that behalf having first been duly authorized:
CITY OF POQUOSON, VIRGINIA
____________________________________
City Manager
____________________________________
Fire Chief

ATTEST:

_______________________________
City Clerk

8

Page 84 of 98

WITNESSETH the following signatures and seals on behalf of the County of James City,
Virginia, in that behalf having first been duly authorized:
COUNTY OF JAMES CITY, VIRGINIA
____________________________________
County Administrator
____________________________________
Fire Chief

ATTEST:

_______________________________
County Clerk

9

Page 85 of 98

WITNESSETH the following signatures and seals on behalf of the County of York,
Virginia, in that behalf having first been duly authorized:
COUNTY OF YORK, VIRGINIA
____________________________________
County Administrator
____________________________________
Fire Chief

ATTEST:

_______________________________
County Clerk

10

Page 86 of 98

WITNESSETH the following signatures and seals on behalf of the 633rd Air Base Wing,
Joint Base Langley-Eustis, in that behalf having first been duly authorized:
633rd Air Base Wing,
JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS
(Formerly U.S. Army Transportation Center,
Fort Eustis, Virginia)
____________________________________
Commander, 633rd Air Base Wing

____________________________________
Fire Chief

11

Page 87 of 98

WITNESSETH the following signatures and seals on behalf of Camp Peary, in that behalf
having first been duly authorized:
CAMP PEARY
____________________________________
Commanding Officer

____________________________________
Fire Chief

12

Page 88 of 98

R26-145
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF YORK
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Resolution
At a regular meeting of the York County Board of Supervisors held in York Hall,
Yorktown, Virginia, on the ___ day of _____________ 2026:
______________________________________________________________________
Present

Vote

Douglas R. Holroyd, Chairman
Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. Vice Chairman
Sheila S. Noll
M. Wayne Drewry
G. Stephen Roane, Jr.
On motion of __________, which carried ___, the following resolution was
adopted:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO
EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES FOR THE JOINT
NEWPORT NEWS REGIONAL LIVE FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
WHEREAS, the Newport News Regional Live Fire Training Facility (the
“Facility) provides a regional resource for fire and rescue agencies to conduct live fire
training and maintain operational readiness; and
WHEREAS, the County has long participated with various fire and rescue
agencies in or adjacent to the County in the joint operation and maintenance of the
Facility; and
WHEREAS, continued participation in the Facility provides opportunities for
training, professional development, and the enhancement of fire and rescue services
available to the citizens of York County and the surrounding region; and
WHEREAS, an updated Memorandum of Agreement has been prepared to
establish the terms and responsibilities of the participating agencies for the continued
joint operation and maintenance of the Facility; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Memorandum of Agreement has been reviewed by the
York County Fire Department and the Office of the County Attorney; and

Page 89 of 98

R26-145
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this ____ day of __________ 2026, that the County Administrator is
authorized to execute the Memo of Agreement for the Newport News Regional Live Fire
Training Facility and to execute such amendments or updates as maybe necessary to carry
out the purposes of the agreement.
.

Page 90 of 98

Memorandum
Board of Supervisors Work Session
October 6, 2026

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Mark L. Bellamy, Jr., County Administrator

SECTION:

Consent Calendar

SUBJECT:

Retirement Recognition - Christopher S.
Brisson. Consider adoption of proposed
Resolution R26-142 to recognize Master
Firefighter Christopher S. Brisson for his tenure
with York County and upon his retirement from
County service.

DEPARTMENT: Fire and Life Safety
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ALIGNMENT
Exemplary Public Safety
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 2026, Master Firefighter Christopher S. Brisson will retire from the York County
Fire Department. Resolution R26-142 recognizes Master Firefighter C. Brisson for more than 24
years of career service.
I recommend approval of this resolution recognizing Master Firefighter Christopher S. Brisson
for his tenure with York County and upon his retirement from County service.
Baldwin/3619
Attachment:
•

Proposed Resolution R26-142

Page 91 of 98

R26-142
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF YORK
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Resolution
At a regular meeting of the York County Board of Supervisors held in York Hall,
Yorktown, Virginia, on the _ day of
2026:
______________________________________________________________________
Present

Vote

Douglas R. Holroyd, Chairman
Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. Vice Chairman
Sheila S. Noll
M. Wayne Drewry
G. Stephen Roane
On motion of __________, which carried ___, the following resolution was
adopted:
A RESOLUTION TO COMMEND CHRISTOPHER S. BRISSON,
MASTER FIREFIGHTER, YORK COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, ON
THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE
WHEREAS, Christopher S. Brisson began employment with the County of York
on November 1, 1999, as a 911 Dispatcher with the York County Department of Public
Safety, 911 Emergency Communications Center. On July 8, 2002, he joined the Fire and
Rescue Division of York County Department of Public Safety as a Firefighter and will
retire on October 1, 2026, from his present position as Master Firefighter, with over 24
years of career service within the York County Fire Department and
WHEREAS, during his tenure, Master Firefighter Brisson served as an instructor
at the Tidewater Regional Fire Academy, graduated from the Hampton Roads Officers
Academy, and serves on the ROVER (Drone) Team; and
WHEREAS, throughout his career, Master Firefighter Brisson’s efforts and skills
contributed to many lives being cared for and saved, as well as much property being
protected and saved; and
WHEREAS, the County of York is justifiably proud of Master Firefighter
Brisson’s countless contributions to the provision of fire and life safety services, as well
as the care for the well-being of its citizens, businesses, and visitors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors, this the ____ day of ______2026, that the Board takes great pleasure in

Page 92 of 98

R26-142
Page 2
recognizing the significant service of Master Firefighter Christopher S. Brisson and
herewith expresses its sincere gratitude for the invaluable contributions he has made to
York County throughout his career with the York County Fire Department.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appreciation of the citizens of York
County is hereby extended to Master Firefighter Christopher S. Brisson for his service,
and the best wishes of this Board of Supervisors are extended to him and his family for a
well-deserved and pleasurable retirement.

Page 93 of 98

Memorandum
Board of Supervisors Work Session
October 6, 2026

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Mark L. Bellamy, Jr., County Administrator

SECTION:

Consent Calendar

SUBJECT:

Retirement Recognition – Angela Rigler,
Administrative Coordinator. Consider
adoption of proposed Resolution R26-143
recognizing Angela Rigler for her dedicated
service to York County and honoring her upon
her retirement from County service.

DEPARTMENT: Information Technology
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ALIGNMENT
Maximize Outstanding Communications and Customer Service
BACKGROUND
On January 1, 2027, Angela Rigler, Administrative Coordinator, will retire from the Department
of Information Technology. Proposed Resolution R26-143 recognizes Angela Rigler for more
than 35 years of career service.
I recommend the adoption of proposed Resolution R26-143 which recognizes Mrs. Rigler for
her tenure with York County upon her retirement from County service.
Wyatt/3589
Attachment:
Proposed Resolution R26-143

Page 94 of 98

R26-143
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF YORK
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Resolution
At a regular meeting of the York County Board of Supervisors held in York Hall,
Yorktown, Virginia, on the ____ day of __________, 2026:
______________________________________________________________________
Present

Vote

Douglas R. Holroyd, Chairman
Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr., Vice Chairman
Sheila S. Noll
M. Wayne Drewry
G. Stephen Roane, Jr.
______________________________________________________________________
On motion of __________, which carried ___, the following resolution was
adopted:
A RESOLUTION TO COMMEND ANGELA E. RIGLER,
ADMINISTRATIVE
COORDINATOR,
DEPARMENT
OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ON THE OCCASION OF HER
RETIREMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE
WHEREAS, Angela E. Rigler, began employment with York County on
December 9, 1991, and on January 1, 2027, is retiring from her present position as
Administrative Coordinator after 35 years of full-time service; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Rigler began her service to the citizens of York County on
December 9, 1991, as a Secretary I in County Administration, supporting Legislative
Assistant Mary Ellen Simmons; and throughout her career, she advanced through
positions of increasing responsibility, including Secretary II in the Department of
Finance on August 10, 1992, under Finance Director Leon Hirsh, and Accounting
Technician on March 8, 1994, under Chief of Finance James O. McReynolds; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Rigler continued her County service in the Department of
General Services, where she was promoted to Administrative III on March 1, 1999, and
later to Administrative Coordinator on October 11, 2009. During her tenure, General
Services transitioned to the Department of Public Works, and she provided dedicated
administrative support under Directors Robert Kraus, Robert Peters, and Mark Bellamy;
and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2017, Mrs. Rigler joined the Department of Information
Technology, where she continued her dedicated service to York County under Directors
Timothy Wyatt and Adam Frisch until his retirement; and

Page 95 of 98

R26-143
Page 2
WHEREAS, Mrs. Rigler was nominated as Employee of the Quarter on
December 5, 2006, in recognition of her exceptional dedication to the Department of
General Services and the Yorktown Projects Office. She played a key administrative
role in several major waterfront revitalization projects, including Riverwalk Landing,
Shoreline Erosion, the Riverwalk Extension, and the Freight Shed, and took the lead in
coordinating grant applications and tracking the invoices and payments necessary to
secure reimbursement from multiple funding sources. In 2005 alone, the grants she
administered provided more than $2 million in funding to York County; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Rigler’s expertise and commitment to York County was also
recognized by the Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, when she and Mr. Oien were
honored for their grantsmanship efforts supporting the Yorktown waterfront
revitalization. Their work included funding through the Virginia Transportation Fund,
Boating Infrastructure Grant (BIG) Program, Virginia Land Conservation Foundation,
and Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program;
WHEREAS, Mrs. Rigler was formally commended on January 15, 2013, in a
letter to County Administrator James McReynolds from David Peebles, President; Edith
Elliott, Vice President; and Frank Edwards, Secretary-Treasurer, recognizing her
outstanding performance in managing the Yorktown Freight Shed and her dedicated
assistance to the Limited Partnership in carrying out its responsibilities over a ten-year
period; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2020, County Administrator Neil A. Morgan
recognized Mrs. Rigler by memorandum for her invaluable contributions to the
successful implementation of Phase I and II of the Munis system; and
WHEREAS, throughout her service in the Department of Information
Technology, Mrs. Rigler demonstrated exceptional diligence and an unwavering
willingness to take ownership of the essential administrative and operational matters
necessary to keep the department running effectively, addressing difficult issues
directly, holding vendors and service providers accountable, and frequently identifying
and resolving concerns before they could become larger problems or distractions for the
department; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Rigler earned the complete confidence of departmental
leadership and staff through her meticulous management of invoices, payments, records,
and administrative processes, and through an extraordinary institutional memory
supported by decades of thorough documentation that enabled her to locate historical
information and provide answers regarding County processes with remarkable speed
and reliability; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Rigler also served as a trusted sounding board to the Director
and members of the Information Technology staff, offering a listening ear, practical
counsel, and a valuable nontechnical perspective that helped ensure matters were
considered not only from a technology standpoint, but also from the broader perspective
of County operations and the people the department serves.

Page 96 of 98

R26-143
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this _______ day of ________,
2026, that the Board of Supervisors takes great pleasure in recognizing the significant
achievements of Angela E. Rigler and herewith expresses its sincere gratitude for the
invaluable contribution she has made to York County throughout the past 35 years; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appreciation of the citizens of York
County is hereby extended to Mrs. Rigler for her service, and the heartfelt best wishes
of this Board of Supervisors are extended to Mrs. Rigler and her family for a long, welldeserved, and fulfilling retirement and continued success in all future endeavors.

Page 97 of 98

Memorandum
Board of Supervisors Work Session
October 6, 2026

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Mark L. Bellamy, Jr., County Administrator

SECTION:

Closed Meeting

SUBJECT:

Legal Matters: Consult with legal counsel on a matter of
actual litigation in which the County is involved. Virginia
Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(7)

DEPARTMENT: County Administration
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ALIGNMENT

BACKGROUND

Page 98 of 98