Loading...
2008-08-27 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES August 27, 2008 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Arthur S. Warren, Chairman Mr. Daniel A. Gecker, Vice Chrm. Ms. Dorothy Jaeckle Mr. James "Jim" Holland Ms. Marleen K. Durfee Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Lt. Col. John Austin, Police Department Ms. Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board Mr. George Braunstein, Exec. Dir., Community Services Board Mr. Kevin Bruny, Dean, Chesterfield University Ms. Jana Carter, Dir., Juvenile Services Mr. Allan Carmody, Dir., Budget and Management Ms. Marilyn Cole, Asst. County Administrator Mr. Barry Condrey, Chief Information Officer Mr. Roy Covington, Dir., Utilities Ms. Mary Ann Curtin, Dir., Intergovtl. Relations Mr. Will Davis, Dir., Economic Development Ms. Rebecca Dickson, Dep. County Administrator, Human Services Mr. William Dupler, Building Official Mr. Michael Golden, Dir., Parks and Recreation Mr. Russell Harris, Mgr. of Community Development Services Mr. Thomas E. Jacobson, Dir., Revitalization Mr. William E. Johnson, Deputy County Admin., Management Services Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir., Public Affairs Mr. Rob Key, Director, General Services Mr. Louis Lassiter, Dir., Internal Audit Mr. Michael Likins, Coop. Extension Director Ms. Mary Lou Lyle, Dir., Accounting Mr. Mike Mabe, Director, Libraries Chief Paul Mauger, Fire Department Mr. R. John McCracken, Dir., Transportation 08-560 08/27/08 Mr. Richard M. McElfish, Dir., Env. Engineering Mr. Steven L. Micas, County Attorney Mr. Jay Payne, Asst. to Dep. County Administrator Mr. Dean Sasek, Asst. Real Property Manager Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Deputy County Admin., Community Development Mr. Kirk Turner, Dir., Planning Mr. Scott Zaremba, Asst. Dir., Human Resource Management Mr. Warren called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 3:12 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.A. FROM THE JUNE 25, 2008 REGULAR MEETING On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved the minutes of June 25, 2008, as amended. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 1.B. FROM THE JULY 30, 2008 REGULAR MEETING On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved the minutes of July 30, 2008, as submitted. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. l.C. CORRECTION OF THE APRIL 9, 2008 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board corrected the April 9, 2008 minutes relating to the real estate tax rate for public service corporations. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS 2.A. RICHMOND METROPOLITAN CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU PRESENTATION Mr. Jack Berry, President and CEO, Richmond Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau, provided an update of the activities of the organization for the region. Mr. Mike Watkins, General Manager of Holiday Inn Select, discussed the forms of compression in terms of hotel room nights being used. He stated upcoming events in the region will result in over 6,000 room nights being booked in the J J J 08-561 08/27/08 next month. He further stated hotels work with the Convention Bureau to ensure the region can host sporting events. ~. Mr. Cleo Battle, Vice President of Sales and Marketing for the Convention Bureau, stated 84 percent of the conventions brought to the region are at individual hotels. He further stated in 2007, the Convention Bureau confirmed over 7,000 room nights and has confirmed over 6,000 room nights in 2008 thus far for Chesterfield County hotels. Mr. Holland expressed appreciation for the work the Convention Bureau does to assist Chesterfield County. Mr. Berry stated regional cooperation is a great benefit to the Convention Bureau. 2.B. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Mr. Stegmaier provided an update on several of the "Top 40" critical projects being worked on by county staff, to include changes to the appointment process for the Board's committees, property maintenance and neighborhood preservation, employee health care benefits contract, legislative program, and completion of the ground lease purchase at Cloverleaf Mall. He requested if the Board would like updates on other projects to notify staff. He stated Mr. Gecker has requested an item be added to the list of projects regarding irrigation policies as it relates to zoning which encourages the use of irrigation and the pricing structure used to sell water to water users. Mr. Gecker stated he would like staff to look at the demand management side of water use and management of our water supply and at the county ordinances which tend to increase the demand on the water supply via irrigation. Mr. Warren requested staff provide an update on the progress of the Amelia Reservoir project. 3. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Holland provided an update to the Board regarding the voting precinct changes in his district. He stated there are two community meetings scheduled in the Dale District to discuss these changes with the citizens. He further stated the new aquatics center being located in the Dale District which was recently discussed at the Chesterfield Business and will help promote a healthier lifestyle. Ms. Durfee provided an update to the Board relating to regular meetings held in the Matoaca District with Mr. Bass, Planning Commissioner, and Mr. Rajah, School Board member. She stated they have met with Mr. Holland and will scheduling meetings with other Board members. Also in the upcoming weeks we will be scheduling a series of town hall meetings. 4. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board deleted Item 8.C.l.e, Adoption of Resolution Confirming Proceedings of the Chesterfield Economic Development Authority for Approval of the Application of the Colonial 08-562 08/27/08 Ridge Apartments, LP for Issuance of Tax-exempt Revenue Bonds to Assist the Borrower in Acquiring, Renovating and Equipping a 192-Unit Multifamily Housing Development Known as Colonial Ridge Apartments; added Item 8.C.22., Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ordinance on Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly; and replaced Item 20., Adjournment. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 5. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS 5.A. RECOGNIZING CHIEF PAUL W. MAUGER, FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, UPON HIS RETIREMENT Mr. Stegmaier introduced Fire Chief Paul Mauger, who was present along with his family, to receive his resolution. On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Fire Chief Paul W. Mauger will retire from the Chesterfield Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department on September 1, 2008 after thirty-one years of dedicated service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chief Mauger began his service to the citizens as a volunteer firefighter with the Enon Volunteer Fire Department in 1974 and participated in the rescue of a young lady who was trapped in an overturned car in a creek; and WHEREAS, Chief Mauger began his employment with the county when he became a dispatcher in Fire Alarm Headquarters in August 1977 and then became a career firefighter in 1978 when he graduated from Recruit School #9, and went on to serve as a firefighter in several stations and in the Technical Services Unit; and WHEREAS, Chief Mauger rose through the ranks serving as a sergeant, lieutenant and captain, in the positions of company officer, inspector/investigator in the Fire Prevention Bureau, and then as a shift administrative officer; and WHEREAS, Chief Mauger was promoted to battalion chief in 1990, where he served as an operational battalion chief and as the director of emergency medical services, was promoted to senior battalion chief in 1996, and in 1998 was promoted to deputy chief, and as a deputy chief, led the Operations Division, Management Services Division, and the Support Services Division; and WHEREAS, during his career, Chief Mauger was instrumental in the formation of the department's Hazardous Incident Team and the Critical Incident Stress Team, chaired the EMS Study Workgroup as well as both Volunteer Integration Workgroups; and has received two life-save awards; and WHEREAS, Chief Mauger promoted the organization through his memberships and activities throughout the Commonwealth and the nation, as a member of the Virginia Fire Chiefs J J J 08-563 08/27/08 Association, the Southeastern Fire Chiefs Association, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association; and as president of the Virginia Association of Hazardous Materials Response Specialists, he was awarded the Environmental Protection Agency's Region III Partnership Award for his efforts in making the communities throughout Virginia safer; and WHEREAS, Chief Mauger was appointed as chief of the department on March 12, 2005; and as chief, he has led the organization through improvements in compensation, service delivery, and budget challenges, and has always made effective communications a focus in the organization; and WHEREAS, Chief Mauger's passion, energy, and wisdom will be missed by everyone throughout the Fire and EMS Department, as well as by leaders throughout county government. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 27th day of August 2008, publicly recognizes the contributions of Fire Chief Paul W. Mauger, expresses the appreciation of all residents for his service to the county, and extends appreciation for his dedicated service and congratulations upon his retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Chief Mauger, and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. Mr. Gecker presented the executed and stated Chief Mauger is a integrity, honor and commitment. Mauger has passion and compassion. to Chief Mauger for all of the wo: Department and wished him the best resolution to Chief Mauger person of unquestionable He further stated Chief He expressed appreciation ~k he has done for the Fire for his future endeavors. Chief Mauger expressed appreciation to the county, Mr. Bob Eanes, and Mr. Lane Ramsey for the opportunities afforded to him during his career with Chesterfield. Mr. Stegmaier expressed appreciation to Chief Mauger and presented him with an acrylic statue and watch. Ms. Jaeckle stated the county has been fortunate to have someone like Chief Mauger. 5.B. RECOGNITION OF THE 2008 NACO ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNERS Ms. Cole stated Chesterfield County is the recipient of ten Achievement Awards from the National Association of Counties (NACo) this year. She recognized members of the Public Affairs Department, who received six awards from the National Association of County Information Officers (NACIO). The following recipients were recognized by Mr. Holland, accompanied by Mr. Stegmaier, and department representatives were presented with the 2008 NACo Achievement Awards: 08-564 08/27/08 DEPARTMENT PROJECT Economic Development Business First - Greater Richmond Fire Department The Public Protection Classification Program by the ISO Pre-Certification Recruit School Program Human Resource Management And Internal Audit Dependent Eligibility Verification Program Mental Health Support Services Public Affairs and Parks and Rec. Sheriff's Office Utilities Department Wellness Recovery Program Let's Chat America's 400th Anniversary Community Commemoration Child Support Work Release Program Delivering World Class Customer Service One Customer at a Time Wastewater Supply Agreement Between Chesterfield County and Virginia Power Mr. Holland and Mr. Stegmaier congratulated and commended each department on their recognitions. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. The following item was moved at this time by the Chairman: 8.C.21. DECLARATION OF MANDATORY WATER USE RESTRICTIONS Mr. Raymond Parker, the owner of a third of his business is la mandatory water restrictions have business. He requested if the necessary, that the Board place relating to allowing 30 days to mechanically agitated. Rental Works, stated nearly wn and garden-related, and a detrimental effect on the mandatory restrictions are language in the ordinance water lawns that have been Mr. Tom Hessel, the President of Green Up Turf Care, stated 50 percent of his customer base is in Chesterfield County. He further stated aeration and seeding is critical to the success of his business. He urged the Board to take into consideration the impact of water restrictions on lawn care businesses. In response to the citizens' concerns, Mr. Stegmaier stated if it is the Board's wish, staff can look at the ordinance and study the impacts of the 10-day allowance versus the 30- day allowance of watering lawns. In response to Mr. Holland's question, Mr. Micas stated the item limiting business use to essential use only is interpreted to be only for restaurant use. J J 08-565 08/27/08 In response to Mr. Holland's question, Mr. Stegmaier stated the current ordinance would allow 10 days of continuous watering of reseeded lawns and following that time it would be limited to every other day. He further stated the amendments being requested by the citizens would be to allow watering for 30 days following reseeding lawns. Mr. Covington .stated Henrico County's ordinance states that watering is allowed for 30 days after reseeding and no watering allowed after that timeframe. He further stated refurbishing of existing lawns by overseeding is precluded from the 10-day time period. He provided the Board with background relating to the James River Regional Flow Management Plan and keeping certain amounts of water in the river. He stated the water restrictions have been applied 3 times in the past 7 years. He further stated after conversations with the Extension Agent, 10 days of watering is sufficient to allow for germination of the seeds. Mr. Warren clarified the Extension Agent has reaffirmed that 10 days is more than adequate to establish germination of the seeds and that watering 3 days a week thereafter is sufficient. In response to Mr. Gecker's question, Mr. Covington stated if the Board decides not to make a declaration that the county is experiencing drought conditions, then the Board would be able to reword the ordinance and bring the declaration back at a later time. He further stated the Board's confirmation of the declaration is needed to enact the mandatory water restrictions. In response to Ms. Durfee's questions, Mr. Covington stated in previous years, the water restrictions had lasted approximately four months. He further stated the recent rain will positively affect the level of water in the river, but will not be enough to replenish the groundwater supply. He stated the county does not have data on the number of new lawns and existing lawns. He further stated it is difficult to enforce whether the lawn is existing or refurbished. Ms. Jaeckle expressed concerns relative to enacting the water restrictions and then possibly lifting them in 30 days which would impact the lawn care businesses at their busiest time of the year. In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Covington restated Henrico does allow watering of new lawns for 30 days and then no watering is allowed thereafter and the Extension Agent feels allowing new lawns to be watered for 10 days is adequate. In response to Mr. Holland's question, Mr. Covington stated Board action is not required to lift the mandatory water restrictions. Mr. Covington stated the county is not legally bound to abide consistently with our neighboring localities, but should. do so in the spirit of regional cooperation. On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board confirmed and approved the declaration of mandatory water use 08-566 08/27/08 restrictions to assure maximum beneficial use of available water resources for the public welfare during the prevailing drought conditions, effective September 2, 2008. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 6. WORK SESSIONS 6.A. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION EFFORTS Mr. William Dupler presented a summary of neighborhood preservation actions by the Department of Building Inspections to include a summary of the authority and status. He stated the Department of Building Inspections uses the Property Maintenance Code to identify unsafe and blighted structures. He presented an overview of some of the proactive work done by Building Inspections to include the interior and exterior of houses, pools, fences, and sheds. He provided a summary of actions in Building Inspection for FY2007-2008. He stated the Planning Department handles inoperable and junk vehicles, illegal signs, junk and discarded materials, and weeds and tall grass. He presented a summary of violation types throughout the county and of the Planning Department actions for FY2007-2008. He provided a summary of the actions performed by the Community Development Block Grant Department to include housing rehabilitation, new construction, down payment assistance and emergency home repairs. He presented a comparison of similar counties and the type of zoning enforcement used. Mr. Jacobson presented some of the challenges faced by the Sustain Our Communities Committee, to include the fact that poverty today is greater in the American suburbs than central cities and poverty is rising in Chesterfield County. He provided some of the county's strategies to help sustain the neighborhoods to include re-establishing healthy communities and sustaining older residential and commercial areas. He stated the county is currently working with Jefferson Davis Association and Ettrick to encourage developers to reinvest in those areas of the county. He provided some of the results of revitalization efforts in the county. Mr. Cliff Bickford, a member of the Sustain Our Communities Committee, presented a summary of some of the accomplishments of the committee in the community. He provided information on the Salem Woods Subdivision pilot program to include the efforts of the revitalization plan. He further provided the Board with the proposed work program for the committee. Mr. Holland expressed appreciation to Mr. Dupler, Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Bickford for their presentations and for the prior Board's vision to create the Sustain Our Communities Committee. He stated schools are important in taking the lead in neighborhood preservation. He further stated he agrees communities need to be safe and walkable. Ms. Durfee stated it is important to continue the efforts to come up with different ways to tap into community resources. Mr. Bickford stated the Salem Woods clean-up day is expanding each year, and noted that the biggest issue with the J J J 08-567 08/27/08 volunteers is they are unsure of how to proceed in the community. Ms. Jaeckle expressed appreciation to Mr. Bickford for working with the communities to help get them involved with zoning enforcement. She stated blighted properties bring down the entire neighborhood. Mr. Gecker expressed appreciation to Mr. Bickford for his efforts in the community. He stated revitalization needs to be incorporated with the Comprehensive Plan rewrite. In response to Mr. Gecker's question, Mr. Micas stated the county can proactively enforce the maintenance code. Mr. Gecker stated he would like for the county to move toward a more aggressive property maintenance code enforcement. He further stated the county needs to have a rental housing inspection ordinance. He stated many communities have concerns with rental properties due to the statistical correlation between the number of rental units and condition of the surrounding properties. He requested staff bring information to the Board relating to the staffing of property maintenance issues and rental property inspections. He stated the Comprehensive Plan for Virginia Beach discusses the expenditure of public funds on public facilities and the importance of achieving a double benefit because citizens tend to congregate where the facilities have the curb appeal. He requested staff pay special attention to where and how the county is spending their money to maximize the return on the money. In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Ted Barclay stated the information provided indicates the number of cases handled in FY2008 in the Zoning Enforcement section of the Planning Department. He further stated the majority of the cases are closed within a couple months. He stated one of the major issues is maintaining compliance. Mr. Holland stated the county needs to look at the top three enforcement issues and focus on those. 7. DEFERRED ITEM 7.A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ELECTING AN OPTION FOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY TO SATISFY ITS SHARE OF A STATEWIDE $50 MILLION REDUCTION IN STATE REVENUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN BOTH FY2009 AND FY2010 Mr. Carmody stated adoption of a resolution electing an option for Chesterfield County to satisfy its share of a statewide $50 million annual reduction in state revenue for local governments in FY2009 and FY2010 was deferred from the Board's July meeting. He further stated this item does not address the most recent pending reductions announced by the state. He provided a list of the three options available to the county to satisfy its share to include, taking reductions in state revenues for one state aid program; taking reductions in state revenues in various state aid programs, the first two being program areas that have been identified by the state Department of Planning and Budget, or reimburse the Commonwealth leaving state aid revenues not reduced or 08-568 08/27/08 impacted. He stated the impact of either option is the same on Chesterfield County, which equals $1.25 million. He further stated a decision is needed to meet the state deadline. In response to Mr. Gecker's questions, Mr. Carmody stated some of the revenues from the state are distributed monthly and quarterly, or as a reimbursement. He further stated local dollars will end up going to state mandated programs if expenditures are not reduced. Mr. Gecker stated he would not want to send the state money before the county receives it. He further stated he would like the county to notify the state that if needed the county will cut some state funded programs to cover the reduction. Mr. Carmody stated staff monitors "the revenues and expenditures" in the budget monthly. On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia chose to respond to declining state general fund revenue growth by shifting to local governments the responsibility for reducing a combined $100.0 million of state aid funding for core services over fiscal years 2009 and 2010; and WHEREAS, a bill was signed into law approving a combined $100.0 million appropriation reduction for local governments over fiscal years 2009 and 2010 without identifying the programs to be reduced; and WHEREAS, because the Commonwealth did not identify which specific program funds to be reduced, the Commonwealth permitted local governments to choose to make a payment in the amount specified as reductions; and WHEREAS, these reductions or payments to the Commonwealth, are in addition to those reductions made by the General Assembly and signed into law affecting state funding for law enforcement, profits from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Enterprise Fund and distributions of wine liter tax collections, constitutional offices, the upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities in conformance with the water quality standards and goals to name but a few; and WHEREAS, the $100.0 million reduction or payments to the Commonwealth will likely be continued forward into future biennia constraining the county's ability to maintain service levels; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby elect to satisfy the County's proportionate share of the $100.0 million reduction in Commonwealth of Virginia aid to localities by choosing to fund the state reductions through revenue decreases in one or more of the programs identified by the Department of Planning and Budget. The details of such are described in the table below: J J J 08-569 08/27/08 State Reductions In Aid To Localities Chesterfield County FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2009 FY 2010 Calculated Calculated Localty Elected Locality Eluded Distributing Agency Distribution Title FY 2009 Base FY 2010 Base Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction State Board of Financial Assistance to Local $82,040 $82,040 $3,423 $3,379 $4,850 $4,766 Elections GovernmentforGenRegistrar Compensation State Board of Financial Assistance to Local $16,633 $16,633 $694 $685 $983 $966 Elections GovernmentforEledoralBoard CO m pen Sa tl On /m i ea ge Compensation Board Local Court Services $1,371,910 $1,371,910 $57,247 $56,498 $81,110 $79,689 Compensation Board Local Jail Operations $3,862,968 $3,862,968 $161,194 $159,084 $228,386 $224,385 Compensation Board Local Jail Per Diems $920,391 $920,391 $38,406 $37,903 $54,415 $53,462 Compensation Board Local Commissioners of.Revenue $415,331 $415,331 $17,331 $17,104 $24,555 $24,125 DperatlOnS CompensatwnBoard StateTaxServrcesby $32,884 $32,884 $1,372 $1,354 $1,944 $1,910 Commissioners of Revenue Compensation Board Operations of Local Attorneys for the $1,803,918 $1,803,918 $75,274 $74,288 $106,651 $104,782 Commonwealth Compensation Board Operations of Local Attorneys for the $110,555 $110,555 $4,613 $4,553 $6,536 $6,422 Commonwealth (Drug Prosecution) Compensation Board Operations of Circuit Court Clerks $506,259 $506,259 $21,125 $20,849 $29,931 $29,407 CompensationBoard Circuit CourtClerks'LandRecords $408,576 $408,578 $17,049 $16,626 $24,156 $23,733 Compensation Board Operations of Local Treasurers $430,333 $430,333 $17,957 $17,722 $25,442 $24,997 Compensation Board State Tax Services by Locel $20,602 $20,602 $860 $848 $1,218 1,196 Treasurers The Library of Virginia FinancialAssistanceforEducational, $231,465 $231,465 $9,659 $9,532 $13,685 $13,445 Cultural, Community and Artistic Affairs Department of Distribution of Rolling Stodc Taxes $68,979 $68,979 $2,876 $2,841 $4,078 $4,007 Accounts Transfer Payments Departmentof Distribution of Recordation Taxes $1,362,611 $1,362,611 $56,859 $56,115 $60,560 $79,149 Accounts Transfer Payments Comprehensive Financial Assistance for Child and $5,666,477 $6,015,863 $237,286 $247,743 $336,196 $349,437 Services for At-Risk Youth Services Youthand Families DepartmentofSocial General Relief $123,586 $123,586 $5,157 $5,089 $7,307 $7,178 Services DepartmentofCriminal CommunityCorrections $1,107,108 $1,107,108 $46,197 $45,593 $65,454 $64,306 Justice Services Department of Criminal Financial Assistance to Localities $8,867,943 $8,867,943 $370,042 $365,197 $0 $0 Justice Services Operating Police Departments DepartmentofJuvenile Financial Assistance for Juvenile $1,801,080 $1,801,080 $75,156 $74,172 $106,484 $104,618 Justice Confinement in Local Facilities Department of Juvenile Financial Assistance for Community $910,592 $910,592 $37,997 $37,500 $53,836 $52,893 Justice Based Alternative Treatment Services REIMBURSEMENT TO THE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 COMMONWEALTH TOTALS $30,142,244 $30,471,630 $1,257,778 51,254,875 $1,257,778 $1,254,875 Amount Remaining To Elect: SO $0 Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.A. APPOINTMENTS On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/ appointment of members to serve on various committees. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.A.1. YOUTH SERVICES CITIZEN BOARD On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Ms. Sylvia Brooks, a Midlothian District adult representative, to serve on Youth 08-570 08/27/08 Services Citizen Board, whose term is effective July 1, 2008 and will expire on June 30, 2011. And, further, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed the following students to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board, whose terms are effective July 1, 2008 and will expire June 30, 2009: Name District Ha Le Dale Andrea Daughtry Dale Erica Candido Bermuda Joey Foster Bermuda Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.A.2. CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Howard Heltman as an Alternate Board Member for the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority, whose term is effective immediately and shall expire .on December 31, 2009. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.B. STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION coSm APPRnVAT.G On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved the following streetlight installations: Clover Hill District • In the Penn Acres subdivision, on Trout Lane, in the vicinity of 8207, upgrade the existing 7000 lumen open mercury vapor fixture to an 8000 lumen enclosed sodium vapor fixture Cost to upgrade streetlight: $54.91 • In the Southport Business Park, at the intersection of Southlake Boulevard and Trade Road, upgrade the existing 8000 Lumen sodium vapor lamp to a 23000 lumen sodium vapor lamp Cost to upgrade streetlight: $68.06 Dale District • In the North Lake Hills subdivision, at the intersection of Caribbean Land and Lifsey Lane, on the existing pole Cost to install streetlight: $39.47 Matoaca District • In the Hickory Hill Estates subdivision, on Hickory Court, in the vicinity of 20506 Cost to install streetlight: $692.58 J 08-571 08/27/08 • In the River Road Estates subdivision, at the intersection of Brickhouse Drive and River Road, upgrade the existing 5000 Lumen mercury vapor lamp to a 14000 lumen sodium vapor lamp Cost to upgrade streetlight: $129.33 • In the Stonewood Manor subdivision, on Hickory Branch Drive in the vicinity of 20307 Cost to install streetlight: $2,393.89 • On River Road, in the vicinity of 4312, on the existing pole Cost to install streetlight: $476.53 • In the Eagle Cove subdivision, on West Oak River Drive, in the vicinity of 9235 Cost to install streetlight: $1,733.33 Midlothian District • In the Crestwood Farms subdivision, on Belleau Drive, in the vicinity of 1920/1930, on the existing pole Cost to install streetlight: $201.02 Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C. CONSENT ITEMS 8.C.1. AUTHORIZE THE RECEIPT AND APPROPRIATION OF GRANT r-uivLS r~xura ~rri~ CVMMVNW~ALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, TO HELP FUND THE PURCHASE OF SIX DEFIBRILLATORS On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the Fire and EMS Department to receive and appropriate $60,000 in grant funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Service, to help fund the purchase of six defibrillators. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.2. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 8.C.2.a. RECOGNIZING SEPTEMBER 22, 2008, AS "FAMILY DAY" IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the observance of "Family Day - A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children" provides a unique opportunity for families in Chesterfield County to join one another at the dinner table as a means of strengthening family relationships; and 08-572 08/27/08 WHEREAS, parental influence is known to be one of the most crucial factors in determining the likelihood of substance abuse by teenagers; .and WHEREAS, surveys conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse have consistently found that children and teenagers who routinely eat dinner with their families are far less likely to use cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs; and WHEREAS, meal times offer opportunities for families to spend time together, providing a basic structure that strengthens and encourages lasting relationships; and WHEREAS, young people from families who almost never eat dinner together compared to those that do are 72 percent more likely to use cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs; and WHEREAS, the correlation between family dinners and reduced risk for teen substance abuse is well documented; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County Youth Planning and Development and SAFE Inc., Chesterfield's substance abuse prevention coalition, are promoting the importance of family dinners to parents in Chesterfield County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes that eating dinner as a family is an important step toward raising drug-free children. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Monday, September 22, 2008, as "Family Day - A Day to Eat Dinner With Your Children," to recognize the positive impact of strong family interaction on the well being and future success of the young people in Chesterfield County. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.2.b. RECOGNIZING SEPTEMBER 1 - 5, 2008, AS "NATIONAL PAYROLL WEEK" IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the American Payroll Association and its 23,000 members have launched a nationwide public awareness campaign that pays tribute to the more than 156 million people who work in the United States and the payroll professionals who support the American system by paying wages, reporting worker earnings and withholding federal employment taxes; and WHEREAS, payroll professionals in Chesterfield, Virginia play a key role in maintaining the economic health of Chesterfield County, carrying out such diverse tasks as paying into the unemployment insurance system, providing information for child support enforcement, and carrying out tax withholding, reporting and depositing; and J J J 08-573 08/27/08 WHEREAS, payroll departments collectively spend more than $15 billion annually complying with myriad federal and state wage and tax laws; and WHEREAS, payroll professionals play an increasingly important role ensuring the economic security of American families by helping to identify noncustodial parents and making sure they comply with their child support mandates; and WHEREAS, payroll professionals have become increasingly proactive in educating both the business community and the public at large about the payroll tax withholding systems; and WHEREAS, payroll professionals meet regularly with federal and state tax officials to discuss both improving compliance with government procedures and how compliance can be achieved at less cost to both government and businesses; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the week in which Labor Day falls has been proclaimed "National Payroll Week," the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby gives additional support to the efforts of the people who work in Chesterfield, Virginia and of the payroll profession by proclaiming September 1-5, 2008, as "National Payroll Week" in Chesterfield, Virginia. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.2.c. RECOGNIZING SERGEANT JOHN J. COFFEY, JR., POLICE DEPARTMENT, UPON HIS RETIREMENT On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Sergeant John J. Coffey, Jr. retired from the Chesterfield County Police Department on August 1, 2008, after providing over 26 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Coffey has faithfully served the county in the capacities of patrol officer and sergeant; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Coffey, during his tenure as a police officer, served as a Canine Handler and continued to perform Canine duties as a sergeant; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Coffey and his canine, Wolfgang, were commended for their relentless pursuit of a suspect who had shot a seven-year-old child, and they were able to track the suspect in extreme heat through thick underbrush and vegetation for four miles, which caused the exhausted suspect to surrender to waiting officers; and WHEREAS, in addition to service as canine sergeant, Sergeant Coffey has served as assistant academy director, patrol sergeant, and administrative sergeant; and 08-574 08/27/08 WHEREAS, while serving as assistant academy director, Sergeant Coffey developed a different training philosophy toward basic academy classes that structured an environment more conducive to learning, thereby improving the overall training experience of all future police department recruits; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Coffey has received various letters of thanks and appreciation for service rendered from the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Coffey has provided the Chesterfield County Police Department with many years of loyal and dedicated service; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Sergeant Coffey's diligent service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Sergeant John J. Coffey, Jr., and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, appreciation for his service to the county, congratulations upon his retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.2.d. REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 60 AND VILLAGE MILL DRIVE On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has received requests from citizens to install a traffic signal on Route 60 at the intersection of Village Mill Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to conduct a traffic signal study at this intersection. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.3. RATIFY REQUEST TO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LEASE IN THE DALE DISTRICT FOR A PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICE On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board ratified the request sent to the State Department of Corrections requesting they hold a public hearing on a proposed lease at Burnt Oak Drive, and 4720 Iron Bridge Road for a state probation and parole office. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. J J J 08-575 08/27/08 8.C.4. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the street described below is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street described below to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Project: Collington 11 Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways: Addition Reason for Change: Pursuant to Code of Virginia New subdivision street §33.1-229 Street Name and/or Route • Paddock Wood Terrace, State Route Number 7299 From: Paddock Wood Dr., (Rt. 5999) To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.19 miles. Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 62 Right of Way width (feet) = 40 And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described below to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. 08-576 08/27/08 Project: Foxcreek Crossing Phase 1 Type Change to the Secondary System of State Addition Reason for Change: New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia §33.1-229 Street Name and/or Route • Foxcreek Crossing, State Route Number 7297 From: Woolridge Rd., (Rt. 668) To: 0.07 miles south of Woolridge Rd., (Rt. 668), a distance of: 0.07 miles. Recordation Reference: Db. 6872 Pg. 519 Right of Way width (feet) = 80 • Foxcreek Crossing, State Route Number 7297 From: 0.07 miles south of Woolridge Rd., (Rt. 668) To: 0.10 miles south of Woolridge Rd., (Rt. 668), a distance of: 0.03 miles. Recordation Reference: Db. 6872 Pg. 519 Right of Way width (feet) = 60 • Foxcreek Crossing, State Route Number 7297 From: 0.10 miles south of Woolridge Rd., (Rt. 668) To: 0.16 miles south of Woolridge Rd., (Rt. 668), a distance of: 0.06 miles. Recordation Reference: Db. 6872 Pg. 519 Right of Way width (feet) = 60 • Foxcreek Crossing, State Route Number 7297 From: 0.16 miles south of Woolridge Rd., (Rt. 668) To: 0.19 miles south of Woolridge Rd., (Rt. 668), a distance of: 0.03 miles. Recordation Reference: Db. 6872 Pg. 519 Right of Way width (feet) = 60 • Manor House Trail, State Route Number 7298 From: Foxcreek Crossing., (Rt. 7297) To: Temp EOM, a distance of: 0.02 miles. Recordation Reference: Db. 6872 Pg. 519 Right of Way width (feet) = 60 • Foxcreek Crossing, State Route Number 7297 From: Manor House TI., (Rt 7298) To: 0.02 miles south of Manor House TI., (Rt. 7298), a distance of: 0.02 miles. Recordation Reference: Db. 6872 Pg. 519 Right of Way width (feet) = 60 • Foxcreek Crossing, State Route Number 7297 From: 0.02 miles south of Manor House TI., (Rt. 7298) To: Temp EOM, a distance of: 0.01 miles. Recordation Reference: Db. 6872 Pg. 519 Right of Way width (feet) = 60 Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.5. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN OF THE ROUTE 10 WIDENING (FRITH LANE - GREENYARD ROAD) BOND PROJECT On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board appropriated $400,000 in bond proceeds and authorized staff J J 08-577 08/27/08 to proceed with the design of the Route 10 Widening (Frith Lane - Greenyard Road) Bond Project. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.6. AWARD ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS TO FACILITY DYNAMICS ENGINEERING AND INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONING ENGINEERS FOR COMMISSIONING SERVICES FOR NEW AND EXISTING FACILITIES IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute annual requirements contracts with Facility Dynamics Engineering and International Commissioning Engineers for commissioning services for new and existing facilities in Chesterfield County. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.7. AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO RENEW A HEALTH CARE CONTRACT WITH ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD AND A DENTAL CARE CONTRACT WITH DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF VIRGINIA FOR 2009 On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the County Administrator to renew the county's contract with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Anthem) and its contract with Delta Dental Plan of Virginia (Delta) for 2009 at the rates filed with the papers of this Board. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.8. CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE USE OF SCHOOL BUSES FOR PROGRAMS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ~. On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement with the Chesterfield County School Board for the use of school buses for programs conducted by the Department of Parks and Recreation, in a form approved by the County Attorney. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.9. APPROPRIATE STATE FUNDS IN FY2009 FOR NEW MENTAL HEALTH CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SERVICES On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board appropriated $70,000 in revenue and expenditures for the Chesterfield Community Services Board (CSB), county department of Mental Health Support Services and establish 08-578 08/27/08 one new full time Senior Clinician position to provide mental health services to children and adolescents. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.10. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR BASEBALL FACILITIES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT HARRY G. DANIEL PARK AT IRON BRIDGE FOR THE WORLD SERIES PONY BASEBALL TOURNAMENT On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved the appropriation of $120,000 from funds dedicated for tourism/economic development (convention center account) to the Parks and Recreation Harry G. Daniel Park Capital Improvement Projects account for construction of additional site improvements, related to the world Series Pony Tournament. Ayes: Warren, .Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.11. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS 8.C.li.a. TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY AND VERIZON VIRGINIA INCORPORATED FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES FOR THE CHALKLEY ROAD CURVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute easement agreements with Virginia Electric and Power Company and with Verizon Virginia Incorporated for relocation of utilities for the Chalkley Road Curve Improvement Project. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.ll.b. TO COLUMBIA GAS OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED TO RELOCATE A GAS LINE FOR THE MANCHESTER MIDDLE SCHOOL PARKING AND WALKWAYS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an agreement with Columbia Gas of Virginia, Incorporated for conveyance of an easement across the Manchester Middle School property. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.12. CHANGE IN SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS; ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF DELAVIAL STREET IN CHESTER VILLAGE GREEN On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution to abandon a portion of DeLavial Street in Chester Village Green: WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of Supervisors with a sketch dated October J J J 08-579 08/27/08 23, 2007, depicting an abandonment, required in the secondary system of state highways which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, a new road has been constructed that serves the same citizens as that portion of old road identified to be abandoned and that segment no longer serves a public need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does hereby abandon as a part of the secondary system of state highways that portion of road identified on the sketch as Segment A-B, .17 miles, Route 1513, DeLavial Street, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and, AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; and, AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does hereby request that the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner certify, in writing, that the portion of road hereby abandoned is no longer deemed necessary for uses of the secondary system of state highways pursuant to Section 33.1-154 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.13. ACCEPTANCE OF PARCELS OF LAND 8.C.13.a. ALONG HUGUENOT SPRINGS ROAD FROM FOXDENE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.800 acres along Huguenot Springs Road from Foxdene Limited Partnership, and authorized the County Administrator to execute the deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.13.b. FOR WESTCHESTER HILLS BOULEVARD AND WESTCHESTER SPRINGS DRIVE AND ALONG HUGUENOT SPRINGS ROAD FROM GRAY LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board accepted the conveyance of three parcels of land containing a total of 7.564 acres for Westchester Hills Boulevard and Westchester Springs Drive and along Huguenot Springs Road from Gray Land and Development Company, LLC, and authorized the County Administrator to execute the deed. (It is noted copies of the plats are filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 08-580 08/27/08 8.C.13.c. FOR WESTCHESTER HILLS BOULEVARD AND WESTCHESTER SPRINGS DRIVE FROM MIDLOTHIAN PARTNERSHIP, LLP On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 5.162 acres for Westchester Hills Boulevard and Westchester Springs Drive from Midlothian Partnership, LLP, and authorized the County Administrator to execute the deed. (It is noted copies of the plats are filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.14. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A VARIABLE WIDTH STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE EASEMENT AND A TWENTY-FOOT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF HULLCO ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a variable width SWM/BMP easement and a 20-foot SWM/BMP access easement across the property of Hullco Associates, L.L.C. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.15. APPROVAL OF AN ADDENDUM TO A SALES CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO PARCELS OF LAND FOR MATOACA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved an addendum to a sales contract for the purchase of two parcels of land containing a total of 2.8 acres, more or less, for $125,000.00, from James Douglas Perdue, for Matoaca Elementary School, and authorized the County Administrator to execute the addendum. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.16. REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FROM RIVERMONT APARTMENT HOMES, LLC FOR A SIGN TO ENCROACH WITHIN A VARIABLE WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO EAST HUNDRED ROAD On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved a request from Rivermont Apartment Homes, LLC for permission for a sign to encroach within a variable width right of way adjacent to East Hundred Road, subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. J J J 08-581 08/27/08 8.C.17. APPROVAL OF UTILITY CONTRACT FOR BRANCH'S BLUFF, SECTION 1 On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved the following utility contract for Branch's Bluff, Section 1, Contract Number 07-0262, and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents: Developer: Branch's Bluff Development Co., LLC Contractor: Excalibur Construction Corporation Contract Amount: Estimated County Cost for Estimated County Cost for Estimated Developer Cost Estimated Total Additional Work $13,802.40 Off-Site $47,146.18 $602,986.82 $650,133.00 Code: (Refunds thru Connections-Additional Work) 5N-572V0-E4D (Refunds thru Connections - Off-Site Work) 5N-572V0-E4D District: Dale (It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.18. CANCELLATION OF PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED PUBLIC HEARING AND ACCEPTANCE OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND GRANTS FOR THE PROCTORS CREEK AND FALLING CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board canceled the previously requested public hearing, accepted the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund Point Source Grant Agreement No. 440-5-09-06 and No. 440-5-09-07 for reimbursement of 35% of the eligible project costs for the Nutrient Removal Facilities at the Proctors Creek and Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants, authorized the County Administrator to execute the grant agreements and named the Director of Utilities, or his designee, as the Authorized Representative to execute the monthly requests for reimbursement. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.19. REQUEST FOR MUSIC/ENTERTAINMENT FESTIVAL PERMIT FOR CHESTERFIELD BERRY FARM'S MUSIC FESTIVAL SERIES ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS FROM SEPTEMBER 20, 2008 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2008 On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved a request for a music/entertainment festival permit for Chesterfield Berry Farm's Music Festival Series on Saturdays and Sundays from September 20 through October 31, 2008. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 08-582 08/27/08 8.C.20. TRANSFER OF DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS FROM THE BERMUDA DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUND TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO DEFRAY THE COSTS OF RENTING SPACE AND EQUIPMENT FOR CHESTERFEST On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board transferred a total $3,500 in Bermuda District Improvement Funds to the Parks and Recreation Department to rent space and equipment for ChesterFest. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 8.C.22. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE ON REAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY OR DISABLED On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board set September 24, 2008, at 6:30 p.m., as a public hearing for the Board to consider amendments to the ordinance on real estate tax relief for the elderly or disabled. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 9. REPORTS 9.A. REPORT ON DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS 9.B. REPORT ON STATUS OF GENERAL FUND BALANCE, RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS, DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS AND LEASE PURCHASES 9.C. REPORT ON ROADS ACCEPTED INTO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM 9.D. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION FOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION (CASE 07PD0248) TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF THE PROPOSED PROVIDENCE ROAD PARK SITE ON TEN ACRES OF THE PROPOSED PROVIDENCE PARK SITE ON TEN ACRES OF A FIFTY- TWO-ACRE TRACT PLUS AMENDMENT TO SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD (CASE 92PD0197) RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board accepted the following reports: a Report on Developer water and Sewer Contracts; a Report on Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Funds and Lease Purchases; and a Report of Planning Commission Substantial Accord Determination for Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation (Case 07PD0248) to Permit Expansion of the Proposed Providence Road Park site on Ten Acres of a Fifty-Two Acre Tract Plus Amendment to Substantial Accord (Case 92PD0197) Relative to Development Standards. . And, further, the following roads were accepted into the State Secondary System: Al~1~TTTC)N LENGTH MADISON VILLAGE SECTION A (Effective 07/28/2008) Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) - From Sovereign Grace Drive (Route 7165) to Charter Landing Drive (Route 7277) 0.10 Mi. J J J 08-583 08/27/08 Abrahams Lane (Route 7275.) - From Sovereign Grace Drive (Route 7165) to cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi. Charter Landing Drive (Route 7277) - From 0.13 miles south of Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) to 0.16 miles south of Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) 0.03 Mi. Charter Landing Drive (Route 7277) - From Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) to 0.13 miles south of Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) 0.13 Mi. Charter Landing Drive (Route 7277) - Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) to temporary end of maintenance 0.04 Mi. Charter Landing Drive (Route 7277) - From 0.16 miles south of Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) to 0.19 miles south of Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) 0.03 Mi. Charter Walk Lane (Route 7276) - From Charter Landing Drive (Route 7277) to temporary end of maintenance 0.01 Mi. Shawhan Court (Route 7274) - From Sovereign Grace Drive (Route 7165) to cul-de-sac 0.05 Mi. Shawhan Place (Route 7273) - From Sovereign Grace Drive (Route 7165) to cul-de-sac 0.06 Mi. Sovereign Grace Drive (Route 7165) - From 0.18 miles northwest of Charter Colony Parkway (Route 950) to Shawhan Court (Route 7274) 0.06 Mi. Sovereign Grace Drive (Route 7165) - From Shawhan Place (Route 7273) to Abrahams Lane (Route 7275) 0.10 Mi. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 10. FIFTEEN-MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS There were no requests to address the Board at this time. 11. DINNER On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board recessed to the Lane B. .Ramsey Administration Building, Room 502, for dinner. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. Reconvening: 08-584 08/27/08 12. INVOCATION Mr. Russell Harris, Manager of Community Development, gave the invocation. 13. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Eagle Scout Adam Charles Horn led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. 14. RESOLUTIONS 14.A. RECOGNIZING MR. JACK K. EGGLESTON FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE PHILLIPS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY 13 Chief Mauger introduced Mr. Jack K. Eggleston, who was present along with members of his family, to receive his resolution. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Volunteer District Chief Jack Eggleston retired from active operational status with Phillips Volunteer Fire Department, Company 13, in Chesterfield County, on July 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, Mr. Eggleston joined the fire service as a founding member of Phillips Volunteer Fire Department in November 1974 and became Volunteer District Chief in February 1979, where he served until his retirement; and WHEREAS, Mr. Eggleston was instrumental in leading Phillips Volunteer Fire Company to recognition as the Volunteer Fire Company of the Year for 1999, 2000, and again for 2002; and WHEREAS, Mr. Eggleston was given a Special Chiefs Award in 2003, recognizing him for his years of service to the Matoaca community and the Chesterfield County Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Eggleston was nominated for induction into the Chesterfield County Senior Volunteer Hall of Fame in 2005 for his commitment to Phillips Volunteer Fire Department and to the citizens of the Matoaca community; and WHEREAS, Mr. Eggleston continues to serve on the Board of Directors of the Phillips Volunteer Fire Department and has faithfully served the county for over 33 years, displaying a caring attitude, often going out of his way to help those in need, and demonstrating excellent teamwork skills by always being available to assist his volunteers, and the citizens of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 27th day of August 2008, publicly recognizes the contributions of Mr. Jack K. Eggleston, and expresses the appreciation of all residents for his service to the county. J J 08-585 08/27/08 AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Eggleston and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. Ms. Durfee presented the executed resolution to Mr. Eggleston and expressed appreciation for his dedication to the Matoaca District. Mr. Eggleston thanked the Board for the recognition and his family for their support. 14.B. RECOGNIZING BOY SCOUTS UPON ATTAINING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT 14.B.1. MR. ADAM CHARLES HORN, BERMUDA DISTRICt 14.B.2. MR. CHAD CONDREY LYTHGOE, DALE DISTRict 14.B.3. MR. SCOTT MITCHELL MANN, MATOACA DISTRICT Mr. Don Kappel introduced Mr. Adam Charles Horn, Mr. Chad Condrey Lythgoe and Mr. Scott Mitchell Mann, who were present, along with members of their families, to receive their resolutions. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered by Congress in 1916; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build character, provide citizenship training and promote physical fitness; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to their community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the Scout Oath and Law Mr. Adam Charles Horn, Troop 2837, sponsored by Chester Baptist Church, and Mr. Chad Condrey Lythgoe and Mr. Scott Mitchell Mann, both of Troop 874, sponsored by Saint Luke's United Methodist Church, have accomplished those high standards of commitment and have reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by only four percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through their experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and endeavoring to prepare themselves for roles as leaders in society, Adam, Chad and Scott have distinguished themselves as members of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. 08-586 08/27/08 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 27th day of August 2008, hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Adam Charles Horn, Mr. Chad Condrey Lythgoe and Mr. Scott Mitchell Mann, and acknowledges the good fortune of the county to have such outstanding young men as its citizens. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. Mr. Holland, Ms. Jaeckle, and Ms. Durfee presented the executed resolutions and patches to each of the Eagle Scouts, congratulated them on their outstanding achievements, and wished them well in future endeavors. Mr. Horn, Mr. Lythgoe, and Mr. Mann each provided details of their Eagle Scout projects and expressed appreciation to their parents and community for their support. 15. FIFTEEN-MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS Ms. Deborah Williamson, Executive Director for the Virginia Network of Non-Profit Organizations (VANNO), presented a summary to the Board of the organization's activities in the Tri-Cities Area. She invited the Board members to attend a regional event VANNO is sponsoring on September 9, 2008. Mr. L. J. McCoy, Vice President of the Chesterfield County NAACP, addressed the Board relating to procedures followed in the Sheriff's Department in relation to citizens coming to the jail to check on a warrant. 16. REQUESTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND REZONING PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: - WITHDRAWALS DEFERRALS - CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATION AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION - CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AND OR THERE IS PUBLIC OPPOSITION WILL BE HEARD AT SECTION 18 08SN0219 In Bermuda Magisterial District, DONNA P. BRENNAN requests Conditional Use and amendment of zoning district map to permit a special events business incidental to a dwelling unit in a Residential (R-12) District. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 1.0-2.5 dwelling units per acre. This request lies on 2.6 acres and is known as 10301 Old Wrexham Road. Tax ID 774-661-8804. Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 08SN0219 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions. Ms. Donna Brennan, the applicant, stated she accepted the recommendation in the staff analysis. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to address this request, the public hearing was closed. J J J 08-587 08/27/08 On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board approved Case 08SN0219 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. This Conditional Use shall be granted to Donna Brennan and her immediate family exclusively. (P) 2. Other than Donna Brennan and persons who reside in the home, a maximum of eight (8) employees shall be engaged in the special events business. (P) 3. The days and hours that the special events business may be open to the public shall be as follows: a. Between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays; b. Between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. (P) 4. No vendor deliveries shall be permitted before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. (P) 5. Other than normal maintenance and cosmetic enhancements, there shall be no exterior additions or alterations to existing structures, nor any new construction, to accommodate this use. This does not restrict the Owners from periodic use of tents for special events and does not prevent the Owners from providing necessary accommodations for the handicapped such as ramps. (P) 6. One (1) freestanding sign not to exceed four (4) square feet in area and a height of two (2) feet shall be permitted to identify this use. (P) 7. Outdoor music and sound equipment shall not be permitted. (P) 8. No freestanding lighting shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height. (P) 9. There shall be no more than 200 individuals, exclusive of employees and persons who reside in the home, on site at any one (1) time. (P) 10. There shall be no direct vehicular property to Centralia Road. Direct from the property to Old Wrexham Road to one (1) entrance/exit. The exact access shall be approved by th~ Department. (T) access from the vehicular access shall be limited location of this Transportation 11. All parking areas shall have a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet. This setback shall be landscaped so as to minimize the view of parking areas from adjacent properties. (P) 12. A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall the southern and eastern property passive uses associated with the permitted within the buffer areas. shall be landscaped so as to minim facilities from adjacent properties. be maintained along boundaries. Only business shall be These buffer areas ize the view of the (P) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 08-588 08/27/08 n~~Nn~an In Clover Hill Magisterial District, SUPER RADIATOR LTD PARTNERSHIP requests rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (I-1) of 9.6 acres plus proffered conditions on an existing 0.8 acre tract zoned Light Industrial (I-1) The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for light industrial and office/residential mixed use. This request lies on 10.4 acres fronting approximately 210 feet on the east line of Branchway Road, also fronting approximately 480 feet on the east line of North Courthouse Road, across from Edenberry Drive. Tax IDs 742-705-4670, 5949 and 9954. Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 08SN0240 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Andy Scherzer, the applicant's representative, stated the applicant accepted the recommendation in the staff's analysis. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to address the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board approved Case 08SN0240 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Utilities. The public waste water system shall be used. (U) 2. Timbering. Except for timbering approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Environmental Engineering Department and the approved devices installed. (EE) 3. Access. Direct vehicular access from the property to Courthouse Road shall be prohibited. (T) 4. Uses. A. Uses to a depth of approximately two hundred fifty (250) feet from the Courthouse Road frontage shall be limited to Corporate Office (O-2) District uses. B. The following uses shall be prohibited: 1) Group care facilities. 2) Massage clinics. 3) Public or private parks, playgrounds athletics fields. 4) Satellite dishes. 5) Communication towers. 6) A dwelling unit for the owner/operator business located on the property. 7) Funeral homes or mortuaries. and/or of the J J 08-589 08/27/08 8) Hospitals. 9) Vehicle storage yards. (P) 5. Drainage. Post development drainage shall be retained on site at the 50 year post development rate and released at the 10 year pre development rate. (EE) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 08SN0245 In Bermuda Magisterial District, GERALD R. AND JANET P. WHITE request rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (C-3) The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for community commercial/mixed use corridor use. This request lies on 0.6 acres fronting approximately 170 feet on the south line of Arrowfield Road approximately 190 feet east of Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax ID 799-628-Part of 7084. Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 08SN0213 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval. Mr. Gerald R. White, the applicant, stated the recommendation was acceptable. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to address the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved Case 08SN0245. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. nacNn~aa In Bermuda Magisterial District, DAVID AND ELIZABETH VAUGHN request Conditional Use and amendment of zoning district map to permit a 2 family dwelling in a Residential (R-15) District. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 1.5 dwellings per acre or less. This request lies on 5.4 acres and is known as 12800 Norlanya Drive. Tax ID 828-656- 0224. Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 08SN0248 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff's analysis. Mr. David and Mrs. Elizabeth Vaughn, the applicants, stated they agreed with the conditions. Mr. Warren called for public comment. 08-590 08/27/08 There being no one to address the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board approved Case 08SN0248 subject to the following conditions: 1. Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited to: the occupants of the principal dwelling unit, individuals related to them by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship, foster children, guests and any domestic servants. (P) 2. For the purpose of providing record notice, prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the second dwelling unit, a deed restriction shall be recorded setting forth the limitation in Condition 1 above. The deed book and page number of such restriction and a copy of the restriction as recorded shall be submitted to the Planning Department. (P) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 08SN0252 In Bermuda Magisterial District, PREMIER PARTNERS, INC. requests amendment to rezoning (Case 98SN0196) and amendment of zoning district map relative to access. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for general commercial use. This request lies in a General Business (C-5) District on 6.6 acres and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Chester and Perrymont Roads. Tax IDs 791-673- 7612, 7731 and 7847. Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 08SN0252 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered condition. Mr. David Matthews, on behalf of Premier Partners, Inc., stated the recommendation in the staff's analysis was acceptable. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to address the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board approved Case 08SN0252 and accepted the following proffered condition: Direct vehicular access from the property to Perrymont Road shall be limited to two (2) entrances/exits.. The exact location of these accesses shall be approved by the Transportation Department. (T) (Staff Note: This Proffered Condition Supersedes Proffered Condition 4 of Case 98SN0196. All other conditions of approval for case 98SN0196 remain in effect. ) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. J J J 08-591 08/27/08 08SN0222 In Bermuda Magisterial District, GEORGE E. STIGALL requests renewal of Manufactured Home Permit O1SR0152 to park a manufactured home in a Residential (R-7) District. The density of such amendment is approximately 6.25 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 2.51 to 4.0 units per acre. This property is known as 10114 Brightwood Avenue. Tax ID 793-666-9401. Ms: Donna McClurg presented a summary of Case 08SN0222 and stated staff recommended approval subject to the conditions, for two years. Mr. George Stigall, the applicant, stated he agreed with the conditions with exception of being approved for seven years. On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board approved Case 08SN0222 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the manufactured home. (P) 2. Manufactured home permit shall be granted for a period not to exceed two (2) years from date of approval. (P) 3. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto this manufactured home. This manufactured home shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. (P) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, and Holland. Nays: Durfee. 07SN0223 (Amended) In Matoaca and Midlothian Magisterial Districts, GBS HOLDING, LTD. requests rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Agricultural (A) and Light Industrial (I-1) to Community Business (C-3) of 211 acres with Conditional Use to permit multifamily and townhouse uses and rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Light Industrial (I-1) to Residential Townhouse (R- TH) of 1,183.9 acres plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to Ordinance requirements on the entire 1,394.9 acre tract. The density of such amendment will- be controlled. by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for regional employment center use, office/residential mixed use and residential use of 2.0 units per acre or less. This request lies on 1,394.9 acres fronting the east and west lines of Old Hundred Road at the Norfolk Southern Railroad; the north line of Old Hundred Road east of Otterdale Road; and the east and west lines of Otterdale Road north of Old Hundred Road. Tax IDs 707-700-7988; 708-702-1722; 709-701- 7328; 710-700-7596; 710-703-3345; 711-699-3470; 711-700-1144; 711-701-5180; 712-699-7663; 713-703-4194; 713-704-3412; 713- 705-5709; 714-703-2188 & 7259; 714-704-1729; 714-705-5728; 716-701-4130; 718-697-4548 & 6844; 718-699-7719; 719-697- 8012; 719-698-2822; 720-695-3288 & 9506; 720-698-0178; 720- 700-0007; 721-695-9061; 722-697-0512; 722-700-4002. 08-592 08/27/08 Ms. Jane Peterson presented a summary of 07SN0223 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions. She stated proffered conditions provide for a maximum of 5,540 dwelling units. She further stated there are three tracts that serve as the primary focus for commercial, office and industrial uses. She stated the proffered conditions provide for a minimum of 500,000 gross square feet of non-residential uses in the project, with a minimum of 400,000 in the North Park Tract. She further stated to ensure that North Park is primarily developed for regional employment uses consisting of office and light industrial, retail uses have been limited in North Park and the Old Town will provide for a minimum of 40,000 square feet of non-residential uses which must be under construction prior to the development of more than 50 dwelling units in Old Town. She stated the applicant has elected at the option of the county to dedicate land and construct facilities for public uses in lieu of the cash proffer to address the impacts on capital facilities, which include a minimum of one elementary school, with the reservation of property for a second elementary school site, a fire station with funds for a fire truck, and a library, and also provide for a minimum of 60 acres of publicly accessible park land and ball fields. She further stated the proffered conditions also provide for customary on-site road improvements, which include the construction of Woolridge Road as a six-lane divided highway through the property, two lanes of an east/west road, two lanes of Watkins Centre Parkway, relocated through the property, signalization at major intersections and turn lanes, and improvements and widening along Old Hundred Road. She provided a summary of the off-site road improvements to include construction of a section of Woolridge Road, prior to the development of 2,000 dwelling units. She stated the proffered conditions mitigate the impact on capital facilities consistent with the Board's current policy. She further stated the applicant submitted additional proffers in an effort to address concerns relative to building heights, size of hotel use, and the location of amphitheaters in proximity to Charter Colony. She stated subsequent to the Board's deferral of the case in July, the applicant amended transportation conditions relative to road phasing and off-site improvements for Woolridge Road, modifications to stormwater management proffer, to reduce median in-lake phosphorus levels to .035 and to eliminate vesting opportunity for residential development as well as to require schools to be built to meet the LEED requirements. She further stated Hands Across the Lake proposed a condition, which would require development to comply with any more restrictive stormwater management standards adopted by the county subsequent to this case for any undeveloped portion of the property, and the applicant has stated the condition would be acceptable as a replacement for Proffered Condition 12.b, should the Board wish to impose the condition. She stated the applicant agreed to the imposition of a condition which would amend the estimated cost used to determine cash proffer credits for off-site Woolridge Road improvements from $13.8 million as noted in Proffered Condition 13.c.11 to $9.8 million. Mr. Dave Anderson, the applicant's representative, stated Roseland is a chance for the county to say yes to responsible and sustainable growth. He further stated the applicant has J J J 08-593 08/27/08 worked hard to bring a case to the Board which is endorsed by Planning staff and the Planning Commission. He stated the goal for Roseland is to bring a new urban community to Chesterfield County, providing a more sustainable alternative to suburban living. He shared changes to the case since April to include updated language, updated stormwater proffer, school proffer changes, maximum hotel size of 240 rooms, maximum height requirements, and new proffer language which permits future traffic studies. Mr. warren called for public comment. Ms. Katherine Anderson, resident of Midlothian, urged the Board to approve Case 07SN0223. Mr. Jay Lafler, a resident of Chesterfield County with 36 years of commercial real estate experience, stated Case 07SN0223 is the best opportunity for excellence in growth in the county. Ms. Sarah Rogers, a 12-year old citizen, urged the Board to approve Case 07SN0223. She stated Roseland is similar to the Baxter development in South Carolina, in which her family lived. Mr. Tom Pakurar, the Chairman of Hands Across the Lake, stated the Roseland case presents well. He further stated the concerns with Roseland is the stormwater management. He urged the county get a Low Impact Development (LID) manual in place to assist with received LID cases. Mr. Bruny Rogers stated the Roseland case is similar to a development in South Carolina where everything was within walking distance. He urged the Board to approve the request. Mr. Forrest Clapp addressed the Board regarding water quality issues relating to the Roseland development. He commended the applicants for their vision and for volunteering to meet environmental standards, but stated there will be difficulty in managing LID with the steep slopes, soils and maintenance after the developer is finished. Ms. Becky Rogers stated she moved to Chesterfield County a little over a year ago and wished there had been planned urban development in the area. She further stated the Roseland development would be a model for smart growth for the county. Dr. Betty Hunter-Clapp stated the county needs to have a LID manual for developers to have guidance on LID cases. Mr. Edward Brewer spoke in favor of Roseland. He stated the development will bring needed jobs to the area and will provide needed tax revenue. He urged the Board to approve Roseland. Ms. Kitty Snow stated most of the residents in the Moseley area support Roseland but with reservations over the concerns of roads, schools and phasing of development. Mr. Gary Armstrong, on behalf of Chesterfield Business Council, spoke in support of the Roseland development. He 08-594 08/27/08 stated the development will be a unique opportunity for Chesterfield County. Mr. James Shelton, a Midlothian District resident, inquired why the Board wants to rush to approve this case. He stated there are currently 25,000 residential units already approved in the area. He further stated the case does not represent smart growth. Mr. Hugh Woodle, a resident of Old Hundred Road, stated the Roseland case is as desirable as one could wish for. He further stated the developer desires to create a win-win situation for everyone involved. He stated the development will have a positive effect on the economy. Ms. Norma Szakal, a member of Hands Across the Lake, expressed appreciation for Ms. Durfee remaining committed to her campaign promises. Mr. Gordon Minor, a Midlothian District resident, urged the Board to act on the proposal. Mr. Peter Martin stated the development has made great promises if the developer lives up to them. He further stated the county does not have a watershed plan or a LID manual. He urged the Board not to make a decision on the case. Mr. Kevin McNulty, a homebuilder in Chesterfield County, stated Roseland represents smart growth that will be great for Chesterfield County. Mr. Bill Johns,a Midlothian District resident, stated the Roseland development is a great development for those citizens who are unable to drive and will allow those citizens to continue to live in.Chesterfield. Mr. Mark Tubbs, a Matoaca District resident, stated he is in support of this project. Mr. Will Shewmake stated Roseland will set a precedent for the county for the developers. He urged the Board to approve Roseland. Ms. Amy Satterfield stated the Village of Midlothian Coalition supports Roseland. Mr. Ivan Wu, a resident of Chesterfield County, stated he has never seen a zoning case thought through as thoroughly as the Roseland case. Ms. Andrea Epps, a resident of Brandermill, stated the Roseland case is a great case. Ms. Shelly Schuetz urged the Board to evaluate the case on the issues of schools and commercial development. She stated the language does not provide a timeline for the commercial development to be finished. Mr. Andy Scherzer, a resident of Midlothian, spoke in support of Roseland. He stated it is important to encourage an alternative to what the developers have been building. J J J 08-595 08/27/08 Ms. Christy Lucas, a Charter Colony resident, expressed appreciation to Ms. Durfee for facilitating a process to ensure the citizens have had a voice in the case. She stated she is willing to continue to work with Roseland through the planning process. Ms. Holly Marshall, a property owner in Charter Colony, expressed appreciation for Ms. Durfee taking time to assist in reaching a resolution. She urged the applicant to continue working with adjacent property owners throughout the planning process. Mr. Dick Collier, a homebuilder in Chesterfield -County, stated Roseland is by far the best planned community he has seen in his 50 years in the building industry. He urged the Board to approve the case. Mr. Greg Blake, a resident of the Upper Swift Creek area, spoke relating to the lack of wording in the proffered conditions regarding the infrastructure being built in a timely manner. Mr. Anderson stated the developer has not ignored or rejected water quality in the Upper Swift Creek. He further stated doing LID does not prevent the developer from having to work with the Environmental Engineering Department. He stated the components the school needs will be in the plans for the school, or the developer will not get approval to build the school. He further stated the developer has made seven changes to this zoning case in the last 30 days at the request of citizens, county staff, and Board members. In response to Mr. Holland's question, Mr. Anderson stated the second school contemplated would be an elementary school. Ms. Durfee stated when she took office in January, she met with Mr. Wayne Bass, the Matoaca District Planning Commissioner, and discussed how rezoning cases would be handled. She further stated it is of the utmost importance in the Matoaca District to ensure all rezoning cases follow a set process and to establish strategic planning principles and practices for the county. She explained in the past, there has been an abundance of residentially-zoned property in the Upper Swift Creek watershed. She stated detailed proffered condition language is now expected in rezoning cases in the Matoaca District so the county is granted assurances and protection for its residents. She further stated Roseland is the largest project brought before Chesterfield County and the applicant has brought a project which embraces the new urbanism concept and employs many smart growth principles. She stated the proffered conditions have been fine tuned in the past 30 days but the transportation proffered conditions still do not fully address the concerns raised. In response to Ms. Durfee's questions, Mr. McCracken stated he had prepared language for the Board members and the applicant relating to the transportation phasing analysis. He further stated he does not recollect a case where the initial phase of the development has generated an impact greater than what is expected when the development is fully developed. He stated a significant traffic impact will be seen from the Roseland development and other improvements 08-596 08/27/08 will need to be made in the area that have not been addressed in the zoning case. Ms. Durfee discussed some of her concerns with the language relating to the school proffered conditions being vague. She stated the proffered conditions provide no guarantee that the school will be built with a typical elementary school capacity of 900 students or provide land for trailers if needed. She further stated the applicant expressed a willingness to build a school with the capacity of 600 students, which does not deal with realistic population demands. She stated the county should have the ability to decide what type of school will be needed to serve student populations. She further stated the applicant has stated through proffered conditions the desire to reserve an additional site for the purpose of an elementary school, which provides little assurance the land will be available when the county is able to build a school in that location. She provided an estimate of the number of school-age students this development will generate. She expressed concerns relating to the environmental proffered condition and the phosphorus level and the language referencing degrading to an unacceptable level and it does not apply to residential if it is located in the same structure as commercial. She further expressed concerns relating to the lack of a stormwater management plan, a LID manual, and priorities for developing the watershed have not been defined. She stated she would like to see an increase in the amount of commercial square footage proffered and a decrease in the amount of residential square footage. She further stated residential construction should not outpace commercial construction and specific language indicating the number of residential units allowable in each space is not fully addressed. She stated the county must have a way to be assured the development will ultimately be built with the commercial business needed to make the residential part of the project successful. She discussed the proffered condition relating to the CDA and whether the county would be able to accommodate it. She stated she was highly encouraged by an alternative development design to sprawl bringing new urbanism into the county, but must take into account the issues which will impact the county as a whole. She further stated she is excited about the walkable portion of the development, but has concerns about the other part of the development not being walkable. She stated the county is currently in a budget shortfall and future budgets will be tight, and there is a huge gap in the ability to provide for public facilities and services already exist. She further stated the county has an imbalance between the residential and commercial and although this development will bring commercial development into the county it will also bring residential. She provided details of the shortfall of public safety officers in the county and questioned whether the county can absorb the development without compromising the sustainability of the needs of other areas of the county. Mr. Holland expressed appreciation to the speakers for their presence at the meeting as the county continues on its journey towards excellence. He stated he believes Roseland is a good case and a decision needs to be made tonight. Ms. Jaeckle stated Roseland presents an opportunity to change the way things have been done in the county, is on the cusp J J J 08-597 08/27/08 of the wave of the future and will raise development standards. Mr. Gecker addressed the comments relating to the county being under-policed, stating the changes in the pay policy for- the Police Department has led the department to believe that all empty positions will be filled by the end of the year. He stated the administration needs to be more involved with the development of the cases. He further stated this case is a product of the change in transportation patterns and the western part of the county has become much more accessible to the office complexes at Innsbrook and West Creek. He stated the Board is often criticized for not following plans in place, noting that the Route 288 Plan is one of the better land use plans in the county and this development fits into that Plan. He further stated the county is better if the development is forced to go in places where the county has. the ability to provide the infrastructure to handle that development, which he believes to mean to continue to work along the Route 288 corridor. He stated any school built in the county must go through Substantial Accord, which is a process by which the Planning Commission first and with confirmation of the Board, the school in question complies with the Public Facilities Plan. He further stated he does not believe the county needs to have larger schools and the language provided in the proffered conditions ties the requirements back to the Public Facilities Plan. He addressed the concerns relating to the commercial aspect of the development stating this land sits in a corridor which is commercial to north. He stated internal grid is guaranteed for the transportation aspect. He further stated he was supportive of Roseland, but saying the Board is supportive and is willing to vote for the case are two different things. He provided details of changes in the pxof,fers which show there was no deal made with the Board and the applicant. He stated improving the secondary roads will improve Route 360 and it was important that southern Woolridge be built. He further stated when the applicant agreed to the transportation changes, his vote changed from no to yes. He stated Roseland is a well-designed case and for the county to attempt to micromanage the internals of this development would be a long term mistake. Mr. Warren stated as late as yesterday afternoon, Mr. Gecker was still against the case. He expressed appreciation for the citizens who spoke on the request and for staff who has tirelessly worked to get the information requested to the Board. In response to Mr. Warren's questions, Mr. Turner stated the current Planning Commission heard this case in February and recommended approval with a vote of 4 to 1, and staff supports the case. Mr. Warren stated he received a letter from Chairman of the School Board expressing the favorable position of the School Board for the case. In response to Mr. Warren's questions, Mr. Turner stated the applicant has agreed to the recently adopted cash proffer amount. He further stated the zoning case has improved since the last time it was before the Planning Commission. He stated three years ago the county was issuing roughly 2,400 08-598 08/27/08 single-family building permits a year but with the downturn in the economy, the county will issue approximately 1,000 single family building permits this year. Mr. Warren provided details relating to the addendums for Case 07SN0223 that have been presented in the last week. In response to Mr. Warren's questions, Mr. Turner stated he felt the stormwater conditions proposed in the addendums are the most stringent water quality standards ever proposed in the county. He further stated the condition proposed in Addendum 3 reduces the amount of credit the applicant will receive for off-site road improvements, specifically on Woolridge Road, by $4 million. Mr . Warren thanked Mr . Anderson for the work he has done on behalf of his client to make the case what it is. In response to Mr. Warren's questions, Mr. Anderson stated the applicant accepts the revised stormwater management conditions and the revised condition relating to the amount of credit received by the applicant. He further stated DPZ in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a firm that is trying to create Light Imprint Development that is specifically geared towards new urban communities that the applicant intends to work with along with others in the country. He stated the applicant will have to present to Environmental Engineering a LID development in order to have approval on the plans. Mr. Warren stated the county has a responsibility to protect its interest to make sure the reservoir is protected. In response to Mr. warren's questions, Mr. Stegmaier stated staff is pursuing the development of an LID manual and intends to use outside experts to assist in the development of that manual. He further stated staff is currently preparing a request for proposals from professional firms to assist with development of that manual and other issues related to water quality planning. He stated the county has for sometime allowed the use of outside engineering firms to verify the effectiveness of water quality features and will continue to do that. He further stated staff will open the request up to all firms and our goal would be to find the best firm to meet our needs. Mr. Holland stated he does not tell anyone how he is planning to vote on a case and will not change his mind until he is confident conditions have been met. In response to Ms. Durfee's questions, Mr. Wayne Bass, Matoaca District Commissioner, stated when he asked for a deferral on the case, he was out of deferral time, and at that time the applicant would not take the deferral. He further stated his only option was to motion for denial and he did not get a second, and the case was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission. He stated the case has decent wording in it and is a good case, but ultimately he voted no on the case . He further stated the zoning case is the most important part of the process. Ms . Durfee stated it is unprecedented in the county for the School Board to send a letter supporting the case before the county had the opportunity to negotiate the case. She J J J 08-599 08/27/08 further stated Mr. Rajah, the Matoaca School Board representative, was not in support of the letter and did not support the language in the proffered condition. Mr. Warren made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holland, for the Board to approve Case 07SN0223 with the acceptance of the sixteen proffered conditions included in the "Request Analysis", as modified by the first Addendum, with the exception of Proffered Condition 12.b relative to stormwater management. In lieu of accepting Proffered Condition 12.B, Mr. Warren imposed a condition which is noted in Addendum II. This condition has been drafted by the leadership of Hands Across the Lake and clarifies the requirement for the developer to comply with the most restrictive stormwater management standards adopted by the county subsequent to this case for any undeveloped portion of the property. The applicant has acknowledged that this condition is acceptable and would replace Proffered Condition 12.B with all other proffers in the case remaining intact. Further, he recognized the county's continued efforts in balancing growth with environmental integrity. The applicant has agreed to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques throughout the project. The county is receptive to alternative approaches to stormwater management. As such, the developer's agreement to incorporate LID coupled with the county hiring a consultant to develop a low impact design manual will provide a uniform and positive approach in promoting environmentally- friendly developments. In addition, in the motion to approve, Mr. Warren imposed a second condition noted in Addendum III which would amend the estimated cost used to determine case proffer credits for the off-site Woolridge Road improvements from 13.8 million to 9.8 million dollars. The applicant has acknowledged that this condition is acceptable and would supersede that portion of Proffered Condition 13 relative to the estimated cost for road improvements, only, with all other proffers remaining intact. 1. The Developer acknowledges that, if the water quality of the Swift Creek Reservoir has reached a median level that exceeds .035 mg/1 in-lake phosphorus or otherwise degrades to an unacceptable level, that the County may recommend that the County may adopt phosphorus loading standards that are more restrictive than the standards applicable on the date on which the Board of Supervisors approves this rezoning request. To mitigate the impact of this development on the water quality of the Swift Creek Reservoir and the Upper Swift Creek Watershed, and consistent with the County's duty to exercise its police powers to protect the County's water supply, the Developer and his assignees agree that the phosphorus loading standards of the Zoning Ordinance, any water quality or stormwater management standards adopted by the County to mitigate the impact of development on the water quality of the Reservoir, and any water quality standards required by the state or federal governments that are applicable to any undeveloped portion of the Property shall be those standards that are in effect at the time of subdivision or site plan approval for any residential uses. This condition shall not apply to residential uses located within the same structure as commercial uses. All substantially approvable construction plans in the Department of Environmental 08-600 08/27/08 Engineering that have complied with the submittal criteria for review shall not be effected. (EE) (Note: This condition supersedes Proffered Condition 12.b) 2. The estimated cost for the road improvements referenced in Proffered Condition 13.,E.ii shall be $9,800,000. (T) (Note: This condition supersedes that portion of Proffered Condition 13.E.ii referencing the estimated cost for road improvements, only.) And further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: The Owners and the Developer (the "Developer") in this zoning case, pursuant to §15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves and their successors or assigns, proffer that the development of the Property known as Chesterfield County Tax Identification Number 707-700-7988; 708-702-1722;709-701- 7328; 710-700-7596;710-703-3345; 711-699-3470; 711-700-1144; 711-701-5180; 712-699-7663; 713-703-4194; 713-704-3412; 713- 705-5709; 714-703-2188; 714-703-7259; 714-704-1729; 714-705- 5728; 716-701-4130; 718-697-4548; 718-697-6844; 718-699-7719; 719-697-8012; 719-698-2822; 720-695-3288; 720-698-0178; 720- 700-0007; 721-695-9061; 722-697-0512; 722-700-4002; and 720- 695-9506 (the "Property") under consideration will be developed according to the following conditions if, and only if, the rezoning request for rezoning to R-TH and C-3, with a conditional use planned development and a conditional use, are granted. In the event the request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the Developer, the proffers and conditions shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. If the zoning is granted, these proffers and conditions will supersede all proffers and conditions now existing on the Property. Exhibit C - Plan titled "Proffered Roads Network," (the "Roads Network"), prepared by Roseland and last revised October 12, 2007. Exhibit D - Plan titled "Access Plan" prepared by Timmons Group and last revised October 15, 2007. 1. Master Plan. The Textual S1 as amended by the addendum be considered the Master P development plan shall be containing a mixture of re: uses. The conceptual dev those requirements of the Zc plans and shall replace the addition, the Planning Comm regulating the location of compatibility of uses anc insure a traditional deve: suggestions of the genera] Statement. If sufficient atement dated July 11, 2008, sated August 12, 2008, shall .an. A separate conceptual submitted for each Tract idential and non-residential lopment plan shall include ning Ordinance for schematic schematic plan process. In _ssion may impose conditions uses, transition of uses, additional guarantees to opment consistent with the conditions of the Textual detail is provided through this process, as determined by the Director of Planning, individual conceptual development plans shall serve as J J 08-601 08/27/08 the overall conceptual subdivision plan, master site plan, tentative subdivision plan, or site plan. (P) 2. Timbering. Except for timbering approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or diseased trees there shall be no timbering until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Environmental Engineering Department and the approved devices have been installed. (EE) 3. Maximum Transportation Density. The maximum density of the Property shall be 3,111 single-family dwelling units; 2,543 multi-family dwelling units (including townhouses, apartments, and condominiums); 428,000 square feet of retail uses; 769,382 square feet of office, two (2) 600-student elementary schools, a 480- room hotel; 20,000 square feet of community recreation center, and a 17-acre park, or equivalent densities as determined by the Transportation Department. (T) 4. Dedication. Prior to any site plan approval, in conjunction with recordation of the initial subdivision plat br within ninety (90) days of a written request by the Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, the following rights of way shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. The exact locations of these rights of way shall be approved by the Transportation Department but are generally shown on Exhibit C. A. One hundred and twenty (120) feet through the Property for a north/south major arterial ("Woolridge Road. Extended") from Route 288 to Old Hundred Road. B. Ninety (90) feet through the Property for an east/west major arterial ("Roseland Avenue") from Old Hundred Road to Woolridge Road. C. Forty-five (45) feet, measured from the centerline of Old Hundred Road immediately adjacent to the Property, along the entire Property frontage. D. Sixty-five (65) feet, measured from the centerline of the existing right of way for Center Pointe Parkway immediately adjacent to the Property, for the entire Property frontage. E. Ninety (90) feet from Woolridge Road Extended to the northern Property line for "Watkins Center Parkway Relocated." (T) 5. Access Plan. Direct vehicular access from the property to Woolridge Road, Roseland Avenue, Old Hundred Road, Otterdale Road, Hallsboro Road, and Center Pointe Parkway shall conform to Exhibit D, unless approved otherwise by the Transportation Department. (T) 6. On-Site Transportation Improvements. To provide an adequate roadway system, the Developer shall be responsible for the following improvements. 08-602 08/27/08 A. Construct Woolridge Road as a six (6) lane, divided facility, with innovative stormwater management facilities located in the median as approved by VDOT, designed to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial standards with a 50mph design speed, unless the developer, Transportation Department and VDOT mutually agree on alternative design standards that permit slower posted speeds that improve safety, from Route 288 to Old Hundred Road. At any time after four lanes of Woolridge Road have been constructed through the property the developer may submit a supplemental traffic study, acceptable to the Transportation Department, to demonstrate the additional two lanes are not required to achieve acceptable levels of service at the projected full build out of the property as defined in the accepted traffic study dated October 12, 2007. If the Transportation Department agrees the additional lanes are not required at the projected full build out of the property to provide acceptable levels of service, the developer shall be relieved of the requirement to construct the two additional lanes. B. Construct two (2) lanes of Roseland Avenue to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial standards with a 40mph design speed, with any modifications approved by the Transportation Department, from Old Hundred Road to Woolridge Road, C. Construct two (2) lanes of Watkins Center Parkway Relocated to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial standards with a 50mph design speed, with any modifications approved by the Transportation Department, from Woolridge Road Extended to the northern property line, D. Construct two (2) lanes of Center Pointe Parkway Extended to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial standards with a 50mph design speed, with any modifications approved by the Transportation Department, from Old Hundred Road to the eastern property line, including realignment of the intersection of Center Pointe Parkway Extended with Old Hundred Road, E. Widen/improve Old Hundred Road adjacent to the property to provide an eleven (11) foot wide travel lane, measured from the centerline of the existing pavement, with additional one (1) foot wide paved shoulders and seven (7) foot wide graded shoulders and overlaying the full width of the road with one and one-half (1.5) inches of compacted bituminous asphalt concrete, with modifications approved by the Transportation Department, F. Construct adequate left and right turn lanes along Woolridge Road Extended, Roseland Avenue, Watkins Center Parkway Relocated, Old Hundred Road, and Hallsboro Road at each approved access and intersection, based on Transportation Department standards, and as identified in the accepted traffic impact study. J J J 08-603 08/27/08 G. Provide the full cost of traffic signalization and construct intersection improvements, including adequate storage and receiving lanes as determined by the Transportation Department, and as identified in the accepted traffic impact study at: i. Woolridge Road Extended and Watkins Center Parkway Relocated. ii. Woolridge Road Extended and Roseland Avenue. iii. Woolridge Road Extended and Old Hundred Road. iv. Roseland Avenue and Old Hundred Road. H. Dedicate, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County, any additional right-of-way (or easements) required for these improvements. (T) 7. Phasing Plan. A. Prior to each site plan approval and/or tentative subdivision plan approval, a Phasing Plan for the required road improvements as identified in Proffered Condition 6, with supporting traffic analysis, if required by, and acceptable to the Transportation Department, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. B. All roadway improvements set forth in Proffered Condition 6 are required to be completed, as determined by the Transportation Department, in accordance with the Phasing Plan approved by the Transportation Department. If requested by the Transportation Department, the developer shall provide the Transportation Department with additional traffic analyses, in accordance with the Transportation Department's "Policy for the Analysis of Phased Development Impacts" and the "Procedures for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analyses", upon the completion of each phase. Improvements to the roads and/or intersections identified on Figures 31 and 31A, shall be increased by the developer, as required by the Transportation Department, if these studies demonstrate that traffic generation rates and distribution solely from this development are materially higher, as determined by the Transportation Department, from projections set forth in the traffic impact analysis prepared by Timmons Group dated October 12, 2007, or subsequent studies approved by the Transportation Department. If satisfactory improvements cannot be provided, the Planning Commission may reduce the permissible densities to the extent that acceptable levels of service are provided as determined by the Transportation Department. (T) 8. Utilities. A. Public water and wastewater systems shall be used, except for temporary sales facilities and/or construction offices. 08-604 08/27/08 B. The required Overall Water/Wastewater Systems Plan for the development, accompanied by a Utilities Infrastructure Phasing Plan, shall be submitted to the Utilities Department prior to the final approval of the first tentative subdivision, site, or construction plan for the request site. The overall plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements as outlined in Appendix 12 of the Chesterfield County Water and Sewer Specifications and Procedures Manual. Phasing of improvements shall be included in Overall Water/Wastewater Systems Plan. C. The Developer shall be responsible for providing a minimum two (2) acre site at a ground elevation of 270 feet or higher, acceptable to Chesterfield County Utilities Department, for the purpose of constructing a water tank ("Water Tank Site"). The Developer shall be responsible for all costs of acquisition, right-of-way/easements, appropriate water line extensions to the Water Tank Site, and documents relating to the Water Tank Site acquisition. The Developer shall convey the Water Tank Site to Chesterfield County prior to the release of more than 1,000 building permits that require utility connection fees. D. The Developer shall pay a contribution fee equivalent to the cost of a water tank based on the tank size necessary to meet the water storage requirements for the development prior to the release of more than 2,000 building permits that require utility connection fees. (U) 9. Density. A. The maximum number of principal dwelling units developed on the Property shall be 5140. Single family independent dwelling units that are internal to any age-restricted facility, including continuing care retirement communities and active adult communities, shall be considered a principal dwelling unit and shall count toward the overall density. B. The maximum number of secondary dwelling units that are separate from the principal dwelling unit (second dwelling unit on a lot) shall be 400 (i.e.: Carriage Houses that qualify as a second dwelling unit on a lot). C. Of the total maximum, a maximum of 1247 principal dwelling units shall be permitted in North Hallsley and West Park. D. The minimum non-residential square footage within Roseland shall be 500,000 gross square feet. Of this total, a minimum non-residential square footage within North Park shall be 400,000 gross square feet. These minimums may be phased. E. Until construction has begun on a minimum of 40,000 gross square feet of non-residential uses in Old 08-605 08/27/08 J J J Town, no more than a cumulative total of 50 principal dwelling units shall be permitted in Old Town. Any multi-family residential dwelling units that are part of a mixed-use building (i.e., office or retail as ground floor uses) shall not count toward the 50 principal dwelling unit restriction. F. At no time shall the total gross square footage of retail uses located within North Park exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total gross square footage of North Park. (P) 10. Age Restriction. Except as otherwise prohibited by the Virginia Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and such other applicable federal, state or local legal requirements, dwelling units designated as age- restricted shall be restricted to "housing for older persons" as defined in the Virginia Fair Housing Law and no persons under 19 years of age shall reside therein. (B & M) 11. Senior Housing. Any dwelling units designated for senior housing as defined in Proffered Condition on age- restriction shall be noted on the site plan and/or on any subdivision plat. Such dwelling units shall be grouped together as part of the same development section(s) (P) 12. Stormwater Management. A. Low impact development ("LID") stormwater management techniques, recognized by Environmental Engineering, shall be used in all Districts of the Property and included in the calculations of the post-development phosphorous loads. B. (Intentionally omitted - not accepted by the Board . ) 13. Cash Proffers. The Developer, subdivider, or assignee(s) agrees to pay the following to the County of Chesterfield or provide the specific public facilities and/or improvements set forth below. If .any payment is made prior to July 1, 2009, such payment shall be the amount approved by the Board of Supervisors for each specific amount per dwelling unit; or if paid after June 30, 2009, the amount approved by the Board of Supervisors as adjusted annually in accordance with the cash proffer policy. As the development of the Property is anticipated to take 10-20 years, it is difficult to precisely identify the detailed public facility needs of the County for this area at this time. Despite this limitation, the Developer has anticipated the need to directly assist the County and provide for an elementary school, parks, a fire station, and a library at some point during the development of the Property. In order to provide to Chesterfield County the best possible location(s), at the best possible cost, and delivery of these facilities in a timely manner that will best benefit Chesterfield County and its citizens who will utilize these facilities, the Developer is willing to provide the funds for and construction of these public facilities as outlined below. The selection of the 08-606 08/27/08 appropriate timing and location of the Alternatives (as set forth below) for each public facility shall be based on the actual need for the specific public facility and not by any arbitrary date. A. Schools. The Developer shall be responsible. for one of the following alternatives as agreed to by Chesterfield County Public Schools. i. Alternative S.l. The Developer shall pay $6,149 per dwelling unit if paid prior to July 1, 2009. Provided, however, if any building permits issued on the Property are for senior housing, as defined in the proffer on age- restriction, the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay $0.00 per unit. Alternative 5.1. shall be the default alternative unless Alternative 5.2. is selected as described below. ii. Alternative 5.2. (a) If upon mutual agreement of the Developer, Public Schools, and Chesterfield County in lieu of cash proffers, Developer shall: (i) Design and construct a multi-story neighborhood style elementary school ("Elementary School") consistent with the recommendations of the Public Facilities Plan approved by Chesterfield County. The Elementary School shall be located generally east of Site Road A (Woolridge Road) or another site within the Property mutually agreeable to the Chesterfield County Public Schools and the Developer. The design of the Elementary School shall be coordinated between the Developer and Chesterfield County Public Schools to ensure the conformance to programming needs and building quality standards of Chesterfield County Public Schools (as defined by the materials and systems, but not architectural design, equal to or greater than the Chesterfield County Public Schools' latest elementary school), constructed to LEED Silver standards, and the architectural and site design criteria of the Developer. Upon completion of the Elementary School, the school and its associated property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to Chesterfield County. (ii) Reservation of an additional site ("Reserved Area") located generally west of Otterdale Road or another site within the Property mutually agreeable to the Chesterfield County J J J 08-607 08/27/08 Public Schools and the Developer. This acreage shall be used for the sole purposes of constructing an additional elementary school designed and constructed similarly to the Elementary School described above. The reservation of the Reserved Area shall be for a period that is ten (lo) years and one (1) day after completion of Proffered Condition 13.A.ii(a)(i) [dedication of the Elementary School] (the "Reservation Term") If no Elementary School has been constructed within the Reserved Area during the Reservation Term, at any time following the Reservation Term, the Developer may make a written request to the School Board for a determination as to whether the Reserved Area will be used for a public educational purpose. Within sixty (60) days of the Developer's written request, the School Board shall inform the Developer, in writing, of its determination. If the School Board determines that it has no plans to use the Reserved Area for said purpose within ten (10) years of the School Board's determination ("Extension Period"), the Reserved Area shall be conveyed back to the Developer, free and unrestricted, and the Developer shall have no further obligation to reserve or restrict the Reserved Area. If at the end of the Extension Period no site plan has been approved for construction of a school on the Reserved Area, the Reserved Area shall be conveyed back to the Developer, free and unrestricted, and the Developer shall have no further obligation to reserve or restrict the Reserved Area. During the Reservation Term and the Extension Period, but before any actual construction occurs on the Reserved Area, the Developer may develop the Property adjacent to the Reserved Area provided all structures (except those structures permitted in the rear yard setback under the applicable section of the Zoning Ordinance) shall be set back at least one hundred (100) feet from the boundary of the area designated as the Reserved Area. At any time during the Reservation Term but prior to any construction of an additional elementary school, the Reserved Area shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to 08-608 08/27/08 Chesterfield County, within one hundred and eighty (180) days from a written request by the Chesterfield County Public Schools. If an additional elementary school is constructed in the Reserved Area, the Developer shall not be responsible for design and construction of the additional elementary school,- but shall review the external architectural elements of the school for compatibility any prior to its construction. The school should be similar to and compatible with any existing public school located within the Property. Compatibility may be achieved with the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors and other architectural features. If the Reserved Area is dedicated to Chesterfield County during the Reservation Term and an additional elementary school is not constructed prior to the end of the Reservation Term, then upon a written request from the Developer, the County or the then owner of the Reserved Area shall execute and deliver a special warrantee deed conveying title to the Reserved Area to the Developer. (b) Until such time as Alternative 5.2. is chosen or rejected, the Developer shall, at the time of each building permit, deposit into an escrow account acceptable to Chesterfield County, $6,149 per dwelling unit (excluding any senior housing units). The escrow account shall be subject to an escrow agreement with the appropriate parties (such as the escrow agent and any contractors), the Developer, and Chesterfield County. All contributions shall be held in escrow until written confirmation has been received by the Developer from Chesterfield County that the construction contract for the Elementary School has been executed, after which, the escrow funds shall be released to the Developer. If Alternative 5.2. is rejected by the Chesterfield County School Board and written confirmation of the rejection from the School Board has been received by the Developer then all funds held in escrow for the schools (or an amount equivalent to the schools portion of the cash proffer for each building permit released prior to the choice of Alternative 5.1. or 5.2.) shall be released to Chesterfield County. 08-609 J J J 08/27/08 iii. Accelerated Construction of School Improvements. If the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors approves alternative funding sources for the construction of public improvements described in Alternative S.2., including but not limited to, a Community Development Authority (CDA), the Developer shall enter into an agreement with Chesterfield County to commence design of the Elementary School within twenty-four (24) months of availability of the proceeds or by request from Chesterfield County Public Schools to begin design of the Elementary School, whichever is later. B. Parks and Recreation. The Developer shall be responsible for one of the following alternatives as agreed to by Chesterfield County. i. Alternative P.1. The Developer shall pay $853 per dwelling unit if paid prior to July 1, 2009. Alternative P.l. shall be the default alternative unless Alternative P.2. is selected as described below. ii. Alternative P.2. (a) If upon mutual agreement of the Developer and Chesterfield County, in lieu of cash proffers, the Developer shall build a park ("Roseland Park") that is publicly accessible. Roseland Park shall include following components. (i) Garden Park. (1) The Garden Park shall consist of a minimum of twenty (20) acres located at the northwest intersection of Site Road A (Woolridge Road) and Site Road B (Roseland Avenue) or another site within the Property mutually agreeable to the Chesterfield County and the Developer. The Garden Park shall be built as an actively landscaped garden such as, but not limited to, English Garden, Japanese Garden, Rose Garden, and/or Herb Garden. (2) The Garden Park shall have hours of operation and gates for limiting vehicular access when the park is closed. (3) The Garden Park shall connect to the trail system of Roseland. (ii) Roseland Greenway. 08-610 08/27/08 (1) The Roseland Greenway shall consist of a minimum of forty (40) acres of connected greenway system along Tomahawk Creek. The Roseland Greenway shall generally run along Site Road A and south of Site Road B or another site within the Property mutually agreeable to the Chesterfield County and the Developer provided it is along Tomahawk Creek. (2) The Roseland Greenway shall connect to the trail system of Roseland. (iii)Active Recreational Areas. (1) Two (2) play areas that can be used as soccer fields. (2) Two (2) little-league sized baseball fields (which may include any field that is adjacent to the Elementary School) . (b) Until such time as Alternative P.2. is chosen or rejected, then the Developer shall, at the time of each building permit, deposit into an escrow account acceptable to Chesterfield County, $853 per dwelling unit. The escrow account shall be subject to an escrow agreement with the appropriate parties (such as the escrow agent and any contractors), the Developer, and Chesterfield County. All contributions shall be held in escrow until written confirmation by the Developer has been received from Chesterfield County that the construction contract for Roseland Park is has been executed, after which, the escrow funds shall be released to the Developer. If Alternative P.2. is rejected by Chesterfield County and written confirmation of the rejection from the County has been received by the Developer then all funds held in escrow for the parks (or an amount equivalent to the parks portion of the cash proffer for each building permit released prior to the choice of Alternative P.1. or P.2.) shall be released to Chesterfield County. iii. Accelerated Construction of Park Improvements. If the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors approves alternative funding sources, including but not limited to, a Community Development Authority (CDA), for the construction of public improvements described in Alternative P.2., then the Developer shall J J 08-611 08/27/08 enter into an agreement with Chesterfield County to commence design of Roseland Park within twenty-four (24) months of the availability of the proceeds. C. Fire/EMS. The Developer shall be responsible for one of the following alternatives as agreed to by Chesterfield County. i. Alternative F.l. The Developer shall pay $419 per dwelling unit if paid prior to July 1, 2009. Alternative F.1. shall be the default alternative unless Alternative F.2. is selected as described below. ii. Alternative F.2. (a) If upon mutual agreement of the Developer and Chesterfield County, in lieu of cash proffers, the Developer shall design and build a Fire/EMS station ("Fire Station") within the Property at a site mutually agreeable to the Chesterfield County and the Developer. The Fire Station may be designed to include space for a police satellite office. The design of the Fire Station shall be coordinated between the Developer and Chesterfield County to ensure the conformance to programming needs of Chesterfield County Fire Department (as defined by the materials and systems, but not architectural design, equal to or greater than the Chesterfield County's latest fire station) and the architectural and site design criteria of the Developer. Upon completion of the Fire Station, the Fire Station and its associated property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to Chesterfield County. (b) At the time of construction of the Fire Station, the Developer shall provide funding to purchase a fire truck. The fire truck shall meet the current standards of the Chesterfield County Fire and EMS, provided that the total cost to the Developer shall not exceed $500,000. (c) Until such time as Alternative F.2. is chosen or rejected, then the Developer shall, at the time of each building permit, deposit into an escrow account acceptable to Chesterfield County, $419 per dwelling unit. The escrow account shall be subject to an escrow agreement with the appropriate parties (such as the escrow agent and any contractors), the Developer, and Chesterfield County. All contributions shall be held in escrow until written confirmation has been received by the Developer from Chesterfield County that the construction 08-612 08/27/08 contract for the Fire Station has been executed, after which, the escrow funds shall be released to the Developer. If Alternative F.2. is rejected by Chesterfield County and written confirmation of the rejection from the County has been received by the Developer then all funds held in escrow for Fire/EMS (or an amount equivalent to the Fire/EMS portion of the cash proffer for each building permit released prior to the choice of Alternative F.1. or F.2.) shall be released to Chesterfield County. iii. Accelerated Construction of Fire Station Improvements. If the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors approves alternative funding sources, including but not limited to, a Community Development Authority (CDA), for the construction of public improvements described in Alternative F.2., then the Developer shall enter into an agreement with Chesterfield County to commence design of the Fire Station within twenty-four (24) months of approval the availability of the proceeds or by request from Chesterfield County to begin design of the Fire Station, whichever is later. D. Libraries. The Developer shall be responsible for one of the following alternatives as agreed to by Chesterfield County. i. Alternative L.1. The Developer shall pay $192 per dwelling unit if paid prior to July 1, 2009. Alternative L.1. shall be the default alternative unless Alternative L.2. is selected as described below. ii. Alternative L.2. (a) If upon mutual agreement of the Developer and Chesterfield County, in lieu of cash proffers, the Developer shall design and build a library ("Library") The Library shall be built as a community building with a minimum of 20,000 square feet of total space and building quality standards of Chesterfield County (as defined by the materials and systems, but not architectural design, equal to or greater than the Chesterfield County's latest library). The design of the Library shall be coordinated between the Developer and Chesterfield County to ensure the conformance to programming needs of Chesterfield County Libraries and the architectural and site design criteria of the Developer. Upon completion of the Library, the Library and its associated property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to Chesterfield County. J J J 08-613 08/27/08 (b) Until such time as Alternative L.2. is chosen or rejected, then the Developer shall, at the time of each building permit, deposit into an escrow account acceptable to Chesterfield County, $192 dwelling unit. The escrow account shall be subject to an escrow agreement with the appropriate parties (such as the escrow agent and any contractors), the Developer, and Chesterfield County. All contributions shall be held in escrow until written confirmation by the Developer has been received from Chesterfield County that the construction contract for the Library has been executed, after which, the escrow funds shall be released to the Developer. If Alternative L.2. is rejected by Chesterfield County and written confirmation of the rejection from the County has been received by the Developer then all funds held in escrow for libraries (or an amount equivalent to the library portion of the cash proffer for each building permit released prior to the choice of Alternative L.1. or L.2.) shall be released to Chesterfield County. iii. Accelerated Construction of Library Improvements. If the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors approves alternative funding sources, including but not limited to, a Community Development Authority (CDA), for the construction of public improvements described in Alternative L.2., then the Developer shall enter into an agreement with Chesterfield County to commence design of the Library within twenty-four (24) months of approval the availability of the proceeds or by request from Chesterfield County to begin design of the Library, whichever is later. E. Transportation Contribution. The Developer shall pay to Chesterfield County prior to the issuance of each building permit the amount of $10,467 per dwelling unit (the "Transportation Contribution"). The Transportation Contribution, if approved by the Transportation Department, may be used to construct the following off-site road improvements ("Off-Site Improvements") or as may be otherwise permitted by law: i. Reconstruction of Old Hundred Road from Route 60 to the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial standards with a 50mph design speed, with any modifications approved by the Transportation Department (estimated cost $6,400,000). ii. Construction of two (2) additional (i.e. the third and fourth) lanes of Woolridge Road Extended to VDOT Urban Minor Arterial standards with a 50mph design speed, with any 08-614 08/27/08 modifications approved by the Transportation Department, to provide a four-lane divided facility from Old Hundred Road (intentionally omitted - not accepted by the Board)). iii. Construction of two (2) lanes of Powhite Parkway Extended to VDOT Rural Principal Arterial standards with a 60mph design speed with any modifications approved by the Transportation Department, from its current terminus at Watermill Parkway to Woolridge Road Extended (estimated cost $5,600.000). iv. Reconstruction of the intersection of Watermill Parkway and Powhite Parkway Extended, including adequate storage and receiving lanes as determined by the Transportation Department (estimated cost $l,ooo,ooo). v. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, of any additional right-of-way (or easements) required for the Off-Site Improvements identified above. In the event the Developer is unable to acquire any "off- site" right-of-way that is necessary for the road improvements described in this Proffered Condition, the Developer may request, in writing, that the County acquire such right- of-way as a public road improvement and the Transportation Department will present and support the request to the Board of Supervisors if the Transportation determines that the request is consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan. All reasonable costs associated with the acquisition of the right- of-way shall be borne by the Developer. In the event the County fails to assist the Developer in acquisition of the "off-site" right-of-way, the Developer shall be relieved of the obligation to acquire the "off-site" right-of-way and shall provide what road improvements are possible within available right-of-way, as determined by the Transportation Department, and the Off-Site Improvements provided within available right- of-way shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement in the approved phasing plan. F. Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as otherwise permitted by law. i. Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees or a similar funding program for public infrastructure improvements at any time during the life of the development, the amount paid in cash by the Developer shall be in lieu of or credited toward impact fees or other similar payments, as determined by Chesterfield County, in a manner such that the Developer is not subject to both fees. J J J 08-615 08/27/08 ii. Each Alternative described in Proffered Conditions 13.A.ii.(a), 13.B.ii.(a), 13.C.ii.(a) and (b), 13.D.ii.(a), and 13.E. provides that if such Alternative is chosen it shall be provided by the Developer in lieu of cash proffers, impact fees, or any other similar funding program payments for infrastructure improvements approved by Chesterfield County. (B & M & S) 14. Transportation Contribution Credit. Except as specified in Proffered Condition 17, at such time that any of the Off-Site Improvements described in Proffered Condition 13.E. above are completed by the Developer, as determined by the Transportation Department, the County shall grant the Developer a credit towards the Transportation Contribution and/or reimburse the Developer in an amount totaling the estimated cost of the improvement as identified above. Any reimbursements shall be subject to the appropriation of funds by the Board of Supervisors. (T) 15. Funding. To the extent any of the transportation improvements required in these Proffered Conditions are financed through a Community Development Authority or other funding mechanism approved by the Board of Supervisors and are constructed as described in these Proffered Conditions, the requirements for the specific transportation improvements that are the subject of the approved funding mechanism shall be deemed satisfied. (T) 16. Covenants. Prior to or in conjunction with the first tentative plat or site plan approval on the Property, the Developer shall prepare and record restrictive covenants (the "Roseland Charter") with respect to each portion of the Property. Such covenants shall provide for review of the architectural treatment of the buildings by an architectural control committee (the "Roseland ARC"). Review by the ARC shall be required for all construction in Roseland and such review and approval shall be outlined in the Roseland Charter. (P) 17. Off-Site Woolrid e Road Credit. In order for the Developer to be eligible for a Transportation Contribution credit or reimbursement, as defined in Proffered Condition 14, for construction of two (2) additional lanes of Woolridge Road, as defined in Proffered Condition 13.E.ii, the improvement identified in Proffered Condition 13.E.ii shall be completed, as determined by the Transportation Department prior to the issuance of building permits for a cumulative total of 1,000 principal and secondary dwelling units, exclusive of any building permits in Old Town. (B & M & S) 18. Off-Site Woolridge Road Phasing. Prior to the issuance of building permits for a cumulative total of more than 2,000 principal and secondary dwelling units inclusive of Old Town, the improvement identified in Proffered Condition 13.E.ii shall be completed, as determined by the Transportation Department. (T) Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, and Holland. Nays: Durfee. 18. REMAINING MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND ZONING REQUESTS There were none. 08-616 08/27/08 17. PUBLIC HEARINGS 17.A. TO CONSIDER THE FY2009-FY2014 SECONDARY SIX YEAR r~rpunvFMENT PLAN, FY2009 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT BUDGET, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE CHESTERFIELD ROAD FUND, AND DESIGNATION OF FY2009 CHESTERFIELD ROAD FUND PROJECTS Mr. Stan Newcomb stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider the FY2009-FY2014 Secondary Six Year Improvement Plan, FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget, Project Development Schedule for the Chesterfield Road Fund, and designation of FY2009 Chesterfield Road Fund Projects. He further stated Ms. Durfee requested staff to add Timberbluff to the project list. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms.. Durfee, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) have conducted a public hearing on the FY2009 through FY2014 Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board concurs with the proposed projects identified in the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approves the FY2009 through FY2014 Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan as presented by VDOT. And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has submitted its proposed FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget to the county; and WHEREAS, the Budget represents the implementation of the first year of the FY2009 through FY2014 Six Year Improvement Plan adopted by the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approves the FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget as presented by VDOT. And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia permits the Commonwealth Transportation Board to make an equivalent matching allocation to any county for designation by the governing body of up to $1 million of funds received by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972" for use by the Commonwealth Transportation Board to construct, maintain, or J J 08-617 08/27/08 improve primary and secondary highway systems within such county; WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has appropriated $1 million for the Chesterfield Road Fund (VDOT Revenue Sharing Program) with the adoption of the FY2008 and FY2009 Appropriation Resolution; WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has notified the county that $1 million is the maximum amount of Chesterfield County funds that will be matched by the state during FY2009. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors appropriates $1 million for the FY2009 Chesterfield Road Fund (VDOT Revenue Sharing Program). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the matched funds shall be allocated to the following projects: $130,600 Old Bon Air Road at Groundhog Drive: Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way, and Construction ($65,300 VDOT and $65,300 County) $1,869,400 Beach Road at Brandy Oaks and Timber Bluff Parkway ($934,700 VDOT and $934,700 County) And, further, the Board approved the FY2009-FY2014 Chesterfield Road Fund Project Development Schedule; transferred from the FY2008 and FY2009 adopted Chesterfield Road Fund account, $65,300 to the Old Bon Air Road at Groundhog Drive project and $934,700 to the Beach Road at Brandy Oaks and Timber Bluff Parkway projects; and authorized the County Administrator to enter into the customary VDOT/county/consultant/contractor, design, right-of-way acquisition, environmental permits, and/or construction agreements, acceptable to the County Attorney, for the projects indicated in the Plan. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 17.B. TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE PLANTING, REPLACEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF TREES IN THE SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR WATERSHED Mr. Scott Flanigan stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider amendments to the zoning ordinance as it relates to the planting, replacement and preservation of trees in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed. In response to Mr. warren's question, Mr. Flanigan stated the Roseland project would be required to have a 20 percent tree save that does include RPA, floodplains and wetlands so those projects that have those areas are included. In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Micas stated the ordinance itself is optional but if the Board adopts it would have to comply with certain standards. 08-618 08/27/08 Mr. warren called for public comment. Mr. Jamie Shelton presented data on the economic value of trees to include saving money on water treatment, energy savings, reducing county taxes and reducing the health costs of bad water. He stated he supported the tree .save ordinance. Ms. Andrea Epps spoke in support of the proposed tree save ordinance. Mr. Tom Pakurar stated trees are the most valuable resource in water quality protection and the proposed ordinance is a good start for the county. Ms. Norma Szakal spoke in support of the proposed ordinance and stated it will assist with reducing run-off. Dr. Betty Hunter-Clapp spoke in support of the proposed tree save ordinance saying it is a good step in the right direction. Mr. Peter Martin urged the Board to approve the proposed ordinance and to try to increase the tree cover requirements in the future. Mr. Warren closed the public hearing. In response to Ms. Durfee's question, Mr. Flanigan stated the Planning Commission passed the ordinance with a vote of 5 to 0. In response to Mr. Gecker's question, Mr. Flanigan stated the decision to strike the commercial, R-MF and R-TH came about during some work session meetings with the Planning Commission due to a concern over the interaction with the ordinance with commercial development. He further stated after consulting the Planning Department, staff felt there was potential conflict with the ordinance and commercial development and the commercial component may be brought back at a future date. He stated the R-MF and R-TH zoning go through a commercial review process. Mr. Gecker stated he does not understand why the county would exempt out the commercial, industrial, R-MF and R-TH zoning. He further stated R-MF and R-TH are residential products. In response to Mr. Gecker's question, Mr. Flanigan stated there could be some conflicts with what is already required for those types of developments with the amount of trees and what is required as part of landscaping. Mr. McElfish stated the commercial component was dropped out because of conflicts with the landscaping and the R-TH and R- MF have landscaping requirements, and that was a concern between Planning and Environmental Engineering. In response to Mr. Gecker's question, Mr. Micas stated the ordinance was advertised to provide the Board with the full option. Mr. Gecker stated he wanted to understand why the commercial, R-MF and R-TH components were excluded. He further stated he has the preference to go as far as the state code allows. Ms. Durfee stated she agreed the county should follow the state code. J J J 08-619 08/27/08 Mr. Gecker stated if there are conflicts between the landscaping ordinance and this ordinance, they should be resolved before a new ordinance is passed in conflict. He further stated the state code requires the county to exempt schools and playing fields, but it does not require the county to exempt public facilities and other public improvements from the calculations. He inquired why the Planning Commission approved a version that exempts more than the state code requires the county to exempt. He requested that staff present a reasoning for what they did, with the idea to go with the state code if the reasoning is not good enough. On motion of Ms. Durfee, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board deferred decision on amendments to the zoning ordinance as it relates to the planting, replacement and preservation of trees in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed to September 24, 2008. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. Mr. Holland made the motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to suspend its rules at this time to allow consideration of additional items after 11:00 p.m. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 17.C. TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO INCLUSION OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVIEW FOR PROCESSING OF SUBDIVISION PLATS AND SITE PLANS Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider proposed amendments relative to inclusion of Virginia Department of Transportation review for processing of subdivision plats and site plans. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 17-32, 17-33 AND 17-45 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND SECTIONS 19-265, 19-268 AND 19-269 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SUBMISSION OF SUBDIVISION PLATS AND SITE PLANS TO STATE AGENCIES AND THE DEADLINES FOR THE COUNTY TO ACT ON SUCH PLATS AND PLANS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended by amending and reenacting Sections 17- 32, 17-33, 17-45, 19-265, 19-268 and 19-269 as follows: 08-620 08/27/08 Sec. 17-32. Procedure for lot subdivision approval. (a) Following is a summary of the approval procedure for subdivisions. 000 (b) (9) If approval of a feature of a plat or construction plans by a state agency or public authority authorized by state law is necessary, the director of planning shall forward the plat or plans to the appropriate state agency or agencies for review within ten business days of receipt. If the County has not received written comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation within 90 days after the Department of Transportation receives the plat or plans from the Director of Planning, the County may assume that the Department of Transportation has no comments and the County may act on the plat or plans. Procedure for approving tentative plats, adjusted tentative plats and tentative renewals. (1) Unless otherwise required, completed applications and plats submitted by subdividers to the director of planning, shall be reviewed and approved under the administrative review and approval procedure set forth in subsection (a) of this section unless the subdivider elects to submit the completed application and plat for review and approval under the planning commission review and approval procedure set forth in subsection (b) of this section. During the administrative review procedure, the subdivider or director of planning may amend the application and refer the plat to the planning commission for approval. The submission to the director of planning of a completed application shall grant the county and its agents the right to enter the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the property in conjunction with the review of the proposed subdivision. a. The following procedure shall be followed for administrative review and approval of tentative plats and adjusted tentative plats: 1. The subdivider shall prepare a tentative plat for all proposed subdivisions excluding minor subdivisions in accordance with the provisions of division 2 of this article, and submit such plat to the director of planning who shall determine that the plat is in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, and obtain recommendations from .the applicable departments and other public entities. The subdivider shall have the right to defer receipt of the recommendations for a maximum of 90 calendar days from the date of submission. The deferral request shall be made in writing to the director of planning. After receipt of such recommendations, the director of planning shall: J J J 08-621 08/27/08 (i) Approve such graphically correct tentative plat submission with or without conditions. Approval shall be made not less than 22 calendar days nor more 30 calendar days after receipt of a complete tentative plat submission or, if a response from a state agency pursuant to section 17-32(a)(9) is necessary, the director of planning shall act on the plat within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state agencies unless the subdivider requests a deferral, or (ii) Disapprove the tentative plat providing written findings giving specific reasons for disapproval to the subdivider within 30 calendar days after receipt of a complete tentative plat submission unless the subdivider requests a deferral. Such reasons shall relate to issues which prevent the approval of the plat. If a response from a state agency pursuant to section 17-32(a)(9) is necessary, the director of planning shall act on the plat within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state agencies. (iii)Refer the plat to the planning commission for review, if the director receives written request from an adjacent property owner or property owner directly across the street from the property or an adjacent property owner within 15 calendar days of the date of the sign posting and such request relates to the proposed location of streets, water, wastewater, stormwater conveyance systems, and stormwater facilities or to the implementation of conditions of zoning required to be complied with at time of tentative plat approval. (iv) If the director of planning fails to approve or disapprove a tentative plat, adjusted plat or tentative renewal within 60 90 calendar days after submittal of the tentative, unless the subdivider requests a deferral, the subdivider may petition the Chesterfield Circuit Court in accordance with state law. 000 b. The following procedure shall be followed for planning commission review and approval of tentative plats: 1. The subdivider shall prepare a tentative plat which is in accordance with the provisions of division 2 of this article. The director of planning shall obtain the recommendations from the applicable departments and other public 08-622 08/27/08 entities and submit a report to the planning commission outlining the recommendations. After receipt of such report, the planning commission shall make one of the following two decisions. (i) Approve such tentative plat with or without conditions within 60 calendar days after submission of the completed application including a referral of the final approval to staff to insure that any required graphical changes are made. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. (ii) Disapprove the tentative plat within 60 calendar days after submission of the completed application. Written findings giving specific reasons for disapproval shall be reported to the subdivider at the time of disapproval. Such reasons shall also state the modifications or corrections as will permit approval of the plat. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. If a response from a state agency pursuant to section 17-32(a)(9) is necessary, the planning commission shall act on the plat within 45 days of receipt of the approvals from all state agencies, provided however the commission shall not be required to approve a tentative plat in less than 60 days from the date of its original submission. If the planning commission fails to approve or disapprove a tentative plat, adjusted plat or tentative renewal within 60 90 calendar days after submission of the completed application the subdivider may petition the Chesterfield Circuit Court in accordance with state law. Any deferral at the subdivider's request shall be deemed to have extended the decision deadline date. 000 e. Procedure for review of final check plats. 1. Prior to submitting final check plats for subdivisions that require construction plans, subdividers shall submit those plans and obtain approval from the director of environmental engineering. 000 3. The director of planning shall review the final check plat and all necessary J J J 08-623 08/27/08 certificates to determine its conformity with the approved tentative plat if applicable and the requirements established in this chapter and obtain comments from other departments and public entities within 30 calendar days of its submission unless the time is extended by written request of the subdivider. He shall act on any plat that he has t~rPVi rnicl ~, u1~aNNLVVea wiLnin 45 clays after the plat has been modified, corrected and resubmitted for approval. If a response from a state agency pursuant to section 17-32(a)(9) is necessary, he shall act on the plat within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state agencies. The director of planning shall notify the subdivider of required changes to incorporate in the preparation of the record plat; or send such plat to the planning commission for their recommendation as to final action thereon if the subdivider and director of planning differ as to the plats compliance with requirements of the Code or tentative conditions. 000 Sec. 17-33. Procedure for appeals. (a) If the director of planning or the planning commission does. not act upon the proposed tentative plat within 60 90 calendar days from the date the completed application has been submitted, the subdivider, after ten calendar days written notice to the planning commission, may petition the circuit court of the county to decide whether the plat should or should not be approved in accordance with state law. Deferral of approval of the tentative plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. (b) If the director of planning or the planning commission takes action on a tentative plat and the subdivider contends that such action was not consistent with this chapter, or was arbitrary or capricious, an appeal may be filed with the circuit court of the county in accordance with state law. (c) If the director of planning or the planning commission does not act upon the proposed final check or record plat within 60 calendar days from the date the application was submitted, or within 45 days after it has been officially resubmitted after a previous disapproval or within 35 days of receipt of any agency response pursuant to section 17-32(a)(9),the subdivider, after ten calendar days written notice to the planning commission, may petition the circuit court of the county to decide whether the plat should or should not be approved in accordance with state law. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. 08-624 08/27/08 (d) If the director of planning or the planning commission takes action on a final check or record plat and the subdivider contends that such action was not consistent with this chapter, or was arbitrary or capricious, an appeal may be filed with the circuit court of the county in accordance with state law. 000 Sec. 17-45. Procedure for residential parcel subdivision and parcel property line modification approval. All completed applications and plats shall be submitted by subdividers to the director of planning to be reviewed and approved administratively as set forth below. During the review, the subdivider or director of planning may amend the application and refer the plat to the planning commission for approval. The submission to the director of planning of a completed application shall grant the county and its agents the right to enter the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the property in conjunction with the review of the proposed subdivision. If approval of a feature of the plat by a state agency or public authority authorized by state law is necessary, the director of planning shall forward the plat to the appropriate state agency or agencies for review within ten business days of receipt. If the County has not received written comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation within 90 days after the Department of Transportation receives the plat or plans from the Director of Planning, the County may assume that the Department of Transportation has no comments and the County may act on the plat or plans. 000 Sec. 19-265. Site plan processing. (a) At the time a site plan is submitted, the applicant shall elect whether to seek approval under the minor site plan review process, set forth in section 19-267, the administrative site plan review process set forth in section 19-268 or the planning commission site plan review process set forth in section 19-269. If the applicant fails to make a selection, his application will be processed under the administrative site plan review process unless a condition of zoning approval requires the site plan to be submitted to the planning commission. (b) The director of planning shall send written notice of site plan submission to adjacent property owners by registered, certified or first class mail as soon after site plan submission as practicable, but in no event less than ten days prior to approval or disapproval of the site plan. The minimum period for site plan approval shall be extended to 21 days when an aggrieved person, as defined by section 19-268.1, files a written request with the planning department within ten days after written notice is sent. If such written notice is sent by first class mail, the director of planning shall make affidavit that such notice has been sent and shall file the affidavit with the application. This subsection J J J 08-625 08/27/08 shall not be applicable to those site plans which are approved pursuant to the minor site plan review process. (c) If approval of a feature of a site plan by a state agency or public authority authorized by state law is necessary, the director of planning shall forward the site plan to the appropriate state agency or agencies for review within ten business days of receipt. If the County has not received written comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation within 90 days after the Department of Transportation receives the plat or plans from the Director of Planning, the County may assume that the Department of Transportation has no comments and the County may act on the plat or plans. 000 Sec. 19-268. Administrative site plan review process. (a) All site plans which are properly submitted for administrative review in accordance with the county's site plan application and checklist shall be reviewed and recommended for approval or denial by: (1) The director of planning relative to: a. Compliance with the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to, setbacks, side and rear yards, building height, lot area and lot coverage, fencing, screening, landscaping, lighting, architectural design, pedestrian access and conditions of zoning approval. 000 (c) The director of planning shall approve or disapprove site plans in writing, giving specific reasons in accordance with the reviewing authorities' recommendations. He shall notify the applicant of his decision to approve or disapprove the site plan within 30 days of the date of submission of the plan, if practicable. He shall act on any proposed site plan that he has previously disapproved within 45 days after the site plan has been modified, corrected and resubmitted for approval or, if a response from a state agency pursuant to section 19-265(c) is necessary, he shall act on the site plan within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state agencies. If the director of planning fails to approve or disapprove the site plan within 60 days after it has been officially submitted for approval, or within 45 days after it has been officially resubmitted after a previous disapproval or within 35 days of receipt of any agency response pursuant to section 19-265(c), the applicant, after ten days' written notice to the director of planning, may petition the circuit court to decide. whether the site plan should or should not be approved. (d) If the applicant disagrees with the final decision of the director of planning, he may file a written appeal with the planning commission within 15 days of that decision. In addition, any aggrieved person may file a written appeal of the final decision of the director of 08-626 08/27/08 planning with the planning commission within 15 days of that decision. The appeal must explain how the site plan will adversely affect the person and is limited to the following matters: (1) Designation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation areas; (2) Access and internal circulation; (3) Improvement sketch processing; (4) Location of water and sewer lines; (5) Buffers and screening; (6) Land use transitions; (7) Drainage; (8) Conditions of zoning approval; (9) Architectural treatment; (10) Development features affecting public safety; or (11) Development features affecting nearby residential areas. The commission shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the appeal and decide the same within 60 days of the applicant's site plan submission as extended by any time periods applicable pursuant to section 19-268(c). The commission may affirm, modify or reverse the decision. Until the planning commission renders a decision, neither a building permit nor a land disturbance permit shall be issued for any construction that could be affected by the appeal. In addition, the director of planning shall issue a stop work order to the applicant instructing the applicant to cease any construction that could be affected by the appeal. 000 Sec. 19-269. Planning commission site plan review process. All site plans which are properly submitted for planning commission review in accordance with the county's site plan application and checklist shall be reviewed and approved or denied as follows: (a) The appropriate departments and/or agencies shall review and make recommendations as outlined in section 19-268(x). (b) The director of planning shall post a notice of the site plan public meeting in accordance with section 19-26(b). (c) The director of planning shall submit recommendations to the planning commission. The planning commission shall approve, with or without conditions, or disapprove the site plan in writing, giving specific reasons in accordance with the reviewing authorities' recommendations. The planning commission shall act on any proposed site plan that it has previously disapproved within 45 days after the site plan has been modified, corrected and resubmitted for approval. If a response from a state agency pursuant to section 19-265 (c) is necessary, the planning commission shall act on the site plan within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state agencies. J J 08-627 08/27/08 (d) If the planning commission fails to approve or disapprove the proposed site plan within 60 days after it has been officially submitted for approval, or within 45 days after it has been officially resubmitted after a previous disapproval or within 35 days of receipt of any agency response pursuant to section 19-265(c), the applicant, after ten days' notice to the commission, may petition the circuit court to decide whether the site plan should or should not be approved. (e) If the applicant disagrees with the final decision of the planning commission, he may file a written appeal with the circuit court within 60 days of that decision. In addition, any aggrieved person may contest the planning commission's final decision if permitted by state law. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 17.D. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A SIXTEEN-FOOT ALLEY WITHIN BLOCK 8, REVISED PLAN OF RAYON PARK Mr. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider an ordinance to vacate a 16-foot alley within Block 8, Revised Plan of Rayon Park. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to DONALD W. HAMBRIGHT and BRENDA HAMBRIGHT, husband and wife; DONALD WAYNE HAMBRIGHT and BRENDA JOYCE HAMBRIGHT, husband and wife; PAUL N. PATTON and CAROLYN S. PATTON, husband and wife; AUBREY SPROUSE; AUBREY W. SPROUSE; and ALBERT W. MOORE and PAULETTE S. MOORE, his wife; HENRY MATED; SANDRA D. BALDWIN and C. L. BROWN, ("GRANTEE"), a 16' alley within Block 8, Revised Plan of Rayon Park, BERMUDA Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 4, at Page 150. WHEREAS, DONALD W. HAMBRIGHT, petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 16' alley within Block 8, Revised Plan of Rayon Park, BERMUDA Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 4, Page 150, by W. W. LAPRADE & BROS., dated JULY 5, 1928, and recorded 08-628 08/27/08 SEPTEMBER 7, 1928. The 16' alley petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 16' alley within Block 8, Revised Plan of Rayon Park, the location of which is more fully shown on a plat made by W. W. LAPRADE & BROS., dated JULY 5, 1928, and recorded SEPTEMBER 7, 1928, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.2- 2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as .amended, by advertising; and, WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the alley sought to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid alley be and is hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.2-2276 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.2- 2274 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title of the alley hereby vacated in the underlying owners Block 8, Revised Plan of Rayon Park free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and DONALD W. HAMBRIGHT and BRENDA HAMBRIGHT, husband and wife; DONALD WAYNE HAMBRIGHT and BRENDA JOYCE HAMBRIGHT, husband and wife; PAUL N. PATTON and CAROLYN S. PATTON, husband and wife; AUBREY SPROUSE; AUBREY W. SPROUSE; and ALBERT W. MOORE and PAULETTE S. MOORE, his wife; HENRY MATED; SANDRA D. BALDWIN and C. L. BROWN, or their successors in title, as GRANTEE. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 17.E. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE AN EIGHT-FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 6, EDGEWATER, SECTION 5 Mr. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider an ordinance to vacate an 8-foot easement across Lot 6, Edgewater, Section 5. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the request, the public hearing was closed. J J 08-629 08/27/08 On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to DAVID J. SWEERUS and ROXANNE D. CYBART, ("GRANTEE"), an 8' easement across Lot 6, Edgewater At The Reservoir, Section 5, MATOACA Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 131, at Page 20. WHEREAS, DAVID J. SWEERUS and ROXANNE D. CYBART, petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate an 8' easement across Lot 6, Edgewater At The Reservoir, Section 5, MATOACA Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 131, Page 20, by TIMMONS, dated JULY 9, 2002, and revised AUGUST 30, 2002, and recorded JANUARY 7, 2003. The easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 8' easement, across Lot 6, Edgewater At The Reservoir, Section 5, the location of which is more fully shown on a map, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.2- 2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and, WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the easement sought to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid easement be and is hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.2-2276 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of 2274 is to destroy the portion of the fee simple title underlying owners Section 5 free and this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.2- the force and effect of the recording of plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest of the easement hereby vacated in the of Lot 6, Edgewater At The Reservoir, clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and DAVID J. 08-630 08/27/08 SWEERUS and ROXANNE D. CYBART, or their successors in title, as GRANTEE. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 17.F. TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM AN UNIMPROVED VARIABLE WIDTH COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO 6170 CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD Mr. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider a request to quitclaim an unimproved variable width county right of way adjacent to 6170 Cedar Springs Road. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Ms. Durfee, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate unimproved variable width county right of way adjacent to 6170 Cedar Springs Road. Ayes: Nays: 17.G. Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. None. SIXTEEN-FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 29, BLOCK A, PROVIDENCE PINES SUBDIVISION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A Mr. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 16-foot easement across Lot 29, Block A, Providence Pines Subdivision. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Gecker, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to EVELYN V. KEENEY, ("GRANTEE"), a portion of a 16' easement across Lot 29, Block A, Providence Pines Subdivision, CLOVER HILL Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 30, at Page 58. WHEREAS, EVELYN V. KEENEY petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of a 16' easement across Lot 29, Block A, Providence Pines Subdivision, CLOVER HILL Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of J J J 08-631 08/27/08 said County in Plat Book 30, Page 58, by J. K. TIMMONS & ASSCIATES, INC., dated JANUARY 10, 1978, and recorded FEBRUARY 1, 1978. The portion of easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A portion of a 16' easement, across Lot 29, Block A, Providence Pines Subdivision, the location of which is more fully shown on a plat made by BALZER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., dated JUNE 24, 2008, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.2- 2204 of the Code of Vir inia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and, WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of easement sought to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of easement be and is hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.2-2276 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.2- 2274 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title of the portion of easement hereby vacated in the property owner of Lot 29, Block A, within Providence Pines Subdivision, free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and EVELYN V. KEENEY, or her successors in title, as GRANTEE. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 17.H. TO CONSIDER THE QUITCLAIM OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG AND ADJACENT TO ABANDONED STATE AVENUE Mr. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider the quitclaim of right of way along and adjacent to abandoned State Avenue. Mr. Warren called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the request, the public hearing was closed. 08-632 08/27/08 On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute quitclaim deeds to vacate right of way along and adjacent to abandoned State Avenue to Rivermont Development Company, LLC. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 17.I. OF DELIVERING WORKFORCE SERVICES TO THE REGION CAPITAL REGION WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PURPOSE INVESTMENT AREA AND CONSORTIUM TO BE KNOWN AS THE TO CONSIDER THE CREATION OF A NEW REGIONAL WORKFORCE Ms. Dickson stated this date and time had been advertised for the Board to consider the creation of a new Regional Workforce Investment Area and Consortium to be known as the Capital Region Workforce Partnership for the purpose of delivering workforce services to the region. Mr. Warren called for public comment. Mr. Bill Leighty spoke in support of the request. There being no one else to speak to the request, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Ms. Durfee, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AND APPLY TO THE GOVERNOR TO CREATE A CAPITAL AREA WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP FOR REGIONAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING WHEREAS, the Workforce Investment Act (the "Act") provides federal funding for workforce development activities including employment and training activities for adults and dislocated workers and services to eligible youth, rapid response and services designed to meet the workforce needs of business and economic development, and WHEREAS, the Act authorizes the establishment of workforce investment areas incorporating multiple jurisdictions that must be approved by the Governor, and WHEREAS, under the Act, localities that choose to establish a regional workforce investment area are required to develop an agreement among the partnering jurisdictions as to how the activities of the regional workforce investment area will be administered and services provided, and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond, and the Counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, New Kent and Powhatan wish to form a regional workforce investment area to more effectively and efficiently deliver workforce services to job seekers and business and economic development, and J J 08-633 08/27/08 WHEREAS, the localities wish to provide for the joint planning and delivery of workforce services in these localities through a workforce development consortium; and, WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 15.2-1300 permits localities to enter into agreements with one another for joint action and requires the agreements to be approved by ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the parties have developed an agreement to establish procedures for the governance and operation of the consortium, including the creation of a consortium board; and, WHEREAS, the governing body of each participating locality must authorize the execution of the agreement by the chief elected official of the locality by ordinance to create the consortium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors authorizes the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Chief Elected Official Agreement in a form approved by the County Attorney for the creation of the Capital Area Workforce Partnership and to submit an application to the Governor for approval of the newly configured regional workforce investment area. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. 19. FIFTEEN-MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS Ms. Norma Szakal requested that Board restore civil discourse to the public hearings and not allow outbursts from the public. 20. ADJOURNMENT. On motion of Ms. Durfee, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adjourned at 11:23 p.m. until September 24, 2008. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland, and Durfee. Nays: None. a es J! Stegma' r Arthur S. Warren unty dministrator Chairman 08-634 08/27/08