The URL can be used to link to this page

10-10-90 MinutesBO_Zd~l~, OF SUPEi~.VTSOI~S MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1990 Supervisors in AttEndance: Mr. C. F. Coffin, Jr., Chairman Mr. M. S. Sullivan, Vi¢~ Chairman Mr. G. H. ~pplegate Mr. Barry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayas Mr. Lans B. Ramsay County Administrator Ms. Amy Davis, Exec. Assr, to Co. Admin. Mrs. Doris DuHart, Assr. Co. Admin., Legis. Svcs. and Chief Robert Banes, Jr. Fire Department Mr. Bradford $. Hammer, Deputy CO. Admin., Mr. William H. Howell, Dir., Planning Dept. Dir., Accounting D~pt. Mr. Richard MoElfish, Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, ~r. Richard Sale, Deputy CO. Admin., Developmen~ Dir. of Budget & MSt, Dir. of ~arks &Rec. Mr. David Welchuns~ Dir. oS Utilities Mr. Currin salled the meeting to order at 2:00 the A~h~inistr~tieu Building COnf~r~ne~ Room (Roo~ Mr. Ramscy requested, if time permitted a£ter th~ $chedui~d work session, that on Executive Session be added ~o the agenda. 1.A. FAiONOMIC DEVELOPMENT P~O~P/~ Mr. Gary ~oLaren, Director of Economic Dsvelopment, introduced his staff to the Board and ~s. Sharon Brooks, Preaide~t of Sharon Brooks and Ammcciates, who~a firm is working with the 90-730 10/10/90 m marketing, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to booklet entitled Chesterfield County, Virginia Where ~ro~tivity Is A Natural Resource. ~e presented a detailed which included information relative to factors affecting in the County; the departJ~ents goals and objectives regarding attrastie~ of business/industry to the County; the importance Chesterfield county's median household income, projected income~ income production by employment sector, etc., as rates~ tax base ratios of residential versus commercial/indus- trial development County-wide; otc. (It is noted a copy of said booklet is filed with the papers of tkis Board.) importance of communicating to th~ School System the bas~ level of educational understanding regarding crosstraining skills cn the technical level that is currently not present in the S~stem; the importance of exploring/i~proving the real estate Chesterfield with neighboring jurisdictions; what efforts were to develop public facilities infrastructure to attra¢~ businesses/light industry to the Matoacs District; the importance of access from ~he east-west/north-south corridor to the need fez planning and implementation of fundiag ~or tho acquisition of land for the next .major publicly controlled industri=l park in the County; the maximi~iag cf effcr%~ %c develo~ specific initiative~ to attract foreiqn companies to Chesterfield; etc. The ~uard commended staff for a well-prepared, informative presentation, requested that ztaff keep the ~oard abrea~t of relative to escnomic development marketing initiatives. It was generally agreed to recess for five (~) minutes. Reconveninq: 1.B. 1991 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Mr. Ramsey stated, in addition to the druft ~r~posed 1~91 Legislative Program, an addendum of other items to be discusse~ would be distributed to the ~oard. He noted the Board was not b~inq asked to formally adopt the Program at this time. Mr. Micas and Mrs. DeHart presented oaoh program item and discussion ensued a~ to the type action to b~ taken on each proposal, etc. {A oep7 of the draft Proposed Legislative ~rogram and addendum is ~iled with ~ke papers o~ this ~oard.] Discussion, qusstio~ and comments ensued relative to various proposed legislative items, which included the closure of a road for "over use"; authority to restrict through truck traffic on clearly defined residential subdivisio~ streets; verbiage of advertlaements of public notices for rezoning type actions; free passage on Route 28S f~om Powhite Parkway to 90-731 10/10/90 Route 360; clarification of current law to place the County in establishment of transportation districts; etc. Mr. sulliva~ returned to the meeting. After further discussion~ the Board requested that staff convey to the School superintendent the need for prouiding a listing of all school projects needing funding that may potentially impact the general county budget; that a Legislative committee meeting be scheduled in the near future; tha~ ~he General Assea~ly restudy/reevaluate the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act to include all State jurisdictions; that the General Assembly consider vetoing the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board and establish an Over~igbt Committee to ~onitor regulations; tha~ the actions requested regarding the Chesapeake Ba~ Preservation A~t he ~c~posed as two separate le~islative documents; and tha~ staff provid~d the Board with all compiled information/data for review a~d any necessary medifioaticn$ prior =o it being prepared for discussion with the County's Legislative Delegation. Mr. Currin stated those items, with the exception of these dmleted or deferred, specifically agreed upon by the Board of ~upervis~rs as the draft Legislative Program packet be pre,shr- ed'to the General Assembly for 1991~ BON~ FOR T~L~NSFORTATION Mr. Micas presented a brief overview of the proposed constitutional am~ndmen~ concerning local pledge 'bonds for transportation improvement~ and explained the criteria for There was brief di~cusslun regarding the advantages and disadvantages of pledge bonds versus other financing mechanis~; etc. Messrs. Sullivan, Applegate and Daniel stated they felt new funding initia=ives were needed but could not support pledge bonds as the mechanism for doing so. Mc. Mayes stated he could support nhe pledge ~ond process if it were for water and sewer improvements~ not solely for transportation. ~r. Cuzrin stated he did support the Dlmdge bond process since it related to transportation improvements. Due to tim~ constraints, it wa~ generally agreed the Executive Session would not be added to the agenda. 2. DINNER The Eoard recessed at 5:15 p.~. (DST) to travel to tho Sunset Ca~e for dirhner. Mr. Currin introduced Mr. Frederick w. Willi~, Jr., Director of Human Resource Management, who gave the invocation. 90-732 10/10/90 m PLEDGE OF aLLEGIANC~ TO '~'~ FLAG OF THE U~ITED STATES OF ~rs. Lucille Moseley, Director of the Chesterfield C0u~ty 5. APPROVAL CFM INUrES On motion cf Mr. Applegato, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved th~ minutes of September 26, 1990, aS a~ended. Vote: Unanimous 6. COUNTY ADF~NISTRA~OR'S COMM~TI~ Mr. Ramsay stated the~e were no County Administrator comments at this t~me. 7. BOAI~O0~41'rr~R~PORTS Mr. ~aye$ reported he attended the ABIDCO meeting~ for which now officers will be elected et the next meetln~ and attended the ~vaL~ation at the Matoaca Migh School at which the students presented u deY~onstration for the evaluation 8. REQUEST~ TO POSTt~N~ACTION, ~C~NCYADDITIONS OR CI~ANGE~ TN ~ O~ OF P~S~ATI~ On ~o~ion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by ~. Applegate~ the Board deferred ~til october 24, 1990, Item 13.~.A., Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of ~36,500,000 in General Obligation Bond~ for County Ca~ital Improvements; and moved out of se~enos It~ 12.G., Public Hearing To Consider Leasing the Old Courthouse Building to :he Chesterfield Historlc=l Society and MUSe~ Board, to b~ heard prier to Item 12.k.; ~nd adopted the agenda, as ~ended. 9. RESOLUTIONS ~ SFECIAL RECO~ITIONS There were no resolutions and special recognitions at this time. There were no h=ari~g~ of oitizens on u~$ehe~uled matters or claims. 11. D~aRRED IYENS O PUBLIC HEARINS TO CI~$II~R AN ORDINANCE TO ~STABLISH THE Ro~TE 10 SEWER ASSESS~{EFf DISTRTCT; AND SET I~BLIC ~ TO AUT~C~IZE ISSUAN~EOFREVENUEHC{~DSANDTOAPPROPRIATE B[~D PROC-RRDS~ A~D TO APP~0VE IN'r~KI~ LOAN F~-J2)M $~ ~ BALANCE Mr. Micas stated the Board deferred on severat ocea~ions Assessment Distri~ ~o~e~ that staff has been working for se~e time with developers in the Beute t0 area attempting to create a sewer assessment dis%ri0t with various modifications ~e the ments~ however, there is insufficient financial inUerost at thi~ ~i~e to continue with th~ district. Eu stated staff ~0-733 10/lQ/9( recommends the ma%tar be tabled indefinitely; noted that the practical effect of tabling or rejecting this matter is ne different~ and that the matter could be brought back to the Board for future consideration under either action. Mr. Currin disclosed ko the Boaxd ~hat he owns property that lies within the Route lO Sewer Assessment District, declared a conflict cf interest ~uranant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict o~ Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. When asked, Mr. ~icas indlcat~d the public h~azing process had Mx. Mayas moved to table the e~tir= issue regarding the p~oDosed ordinance to establish the Route 10 Sewer Assessment District, the setting of the public hearing to authorize issuance of revenue bonds and hhe appropriation o~ bond p~oceeds~ and approval of an interim loan from the ~ewer FuJad Ayes: ~Lr. Sullivan, Mr. A~Dlegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr~ Mayas. Absent~ ~r. Coffin. Mr. sullivan stated he had met on $everal occasions with staff and those involved wi~h the proposed district and noted that~ at that time, the majority of those perEon~ present were of ~ke opinion that the district was not feasible and had urged the Board of Supervisors to table the matter, ~r. Currin returned to the ~eeting. Mr. Micas s=ate~ this ~ate an8 time had been ~cheduled fo~ a public hearin~ to consider leasing the 01d Courthouse Building to the Chesterfield Historical Society and Museum Board. No one came forward to speak in favor of or a~ains= the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded bM Mr. ApDlegate, the Board authorized the County Administrator ~o execute a lease agreement between Chesterfield Count~ and the Chesterfield Mistorical SoQie~ and ~useum Board to I~ase the Old Courthouse Building to be used as a museum, visltor's center and cezemonlal courtroom, with the understanding tha~ the facility would remain available for County use ~onsi~t~nt with its other functions and the ceurtrcom itself remains usable ae a courtroom. (k copy o~ said Lea~e agreed~c~t is f~ied wi~h the papers o£ thi~ Board.) 12.A. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANC~ TO AM~iD 'r~{~ CODE OF THE COOB'i~ OF CHES~£m~FI~nn, 1978r AS A~iDWn~ BY AMENDING $~CTION 7.1.1. ~L~TING TO CENTRAL ABSI~FTE~ V~rWal DISTRICT Fir. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing tO consider an ordinance to amend ~he Code o{ the County o~ Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to the No One c~me forward to speak i~ ~avor of er against the matter. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following Ordinance: 99-73~ 1~/10/90 .m AN OI~DINANC~ TO AM~2~D ~ CODE OF C~E~TERFT~?.~, A~[KNDED~ ]~¥ A~DIN~ -qEC~ION ~.1-1. RELATIN~ CENTRAL A~SEm-£~ VOTER DISTRICT BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors Of Chesterfield county that ~he code of the coLuat~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, iu ~mended bM amending section 7.1~! as fo!lowsz Sec. 7.1-1. Central absentee voter district. There is hereby ~tablished a central absentee voter election district in the first floor courtroom of the old historic Chsster£ieid Tsunt¥ Courthouse Building for the purpose of receiving, counting and recording all absentee ballots in all e!ec~iuns cast within the county. Such central absentee voter election district shall receive, count and record all absentee ballots in accordance with the requirements of section 24.1-233.1 of the Code o~ Virginia and all ether applicable provisions of law. Vote: Unanimous ~.R. TO CON~IDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF 'A'~m COUNTY OF ~ST~F!Rr..~.....1978, AS A~]9~D, BY A~H~NDINGAND REENACTIN6 SEUEION~ 7.2-1, 7.~i~ 7.2-9r 7.2-10~ 11-5~ .!8-~-~=__1.~...lr24, 21-1, 21-37, 21.1.-t, 21.1-3, 2i.1-273, THROUC~H 21-223 A~D 21.1-229,t THi%OUGH 21.1-229.~ A~D 21-1-279,1 THRD~H 21.1-279.6 RE~ATLNG GEN~%AE~YTOT~E CHESAPEAKE BAY pRESE~ArATIO~ ACT; ud 12-C- TO CON$IDER ANORDINAN~TOAM~D THE CODE OF -x-~n~ COUNTY OF CH~'r~I~LD~ 1978~ AS A~ND~D~ ~Y P.~NDI~AND REENA~TIN8 SECTIONS 21-~4, 21.1-229.5 AND 21.1-229.6 AND ~Y ~DD~NG S~CTXON 21.1-212.t RELATING G~ERA~LY TO 'r~u~ CHESAPEAKE BAYi~R~.~F~A_~/ONACT Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider ordinances to amend the Code of the County el Chesterfield, ~978, ~$ amended, relating gsnerall~ to i~ple~entation of ~tate mandated legislation regarding the Chesapeake ~ay Preservation Act and presented a brief overview of the proposed ordinances. He stated the Planning Commission recemmendgd approval cf the proposed ordinances, as ~ub~itted, which are in compliance with state law and established regulations. Mr. Russ Cunningham, a member of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Citizens' Committ~, referenced a minority paper from himself and ~r. Bill Day, another member of the sams committee, addressing concerns relative to the final draft of two proposed ordinances being considered ~or adoption to implement the Chesapeake Bay ~reservation Ac~; stated i~ is their belief the committee's proposals a~e weak and will neither preserve or protect Co~t¥ wa~ers; and urge~ thc Board :o take every precaution and safeguard availabt~ to protect the quality and quantity of water in the County. The ~oncrable John Watkins, member of the chesterfield County Legislative Delegation to the General Assembly, stated he had voted for ~he Chesapeake Bay P~eservatlon Act legislation and would de so again but f~lt there were some aspects Of the Act which may need medi£ioa%ien. He sddressed noncern~ regarding the misapplication Of the Act, the dual negative impact as it relates to chesterfield County and other juri~dictions if the Act were to be misapplied, and definitionai aspects of wetlands as applicable in the Chesapeake Bay. He noted his involvement in a~riculture and efforts to preserve the environment and stated the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act was never intended to be a la~d ~$e act but rather a water q~allty act. 90-735 10/10/90 Delegate Watkins indicated there wam ne deadline at this time relative to the Board adopting Ordinance II; that the Beard should only adopt that whioh was required of them which were maps delineating protected areas and criteria for new land use measures; referenoed the dual negative impacts et the Act relativ~ to the definition efa '~takinG" and the that Gould follow if enacted and the potential fox re. moval of wetlands from tax rolls, resulting in leas taxes which could cause either the raising of the value of land Surreundlng the wetlands Or the %axes on it~ referenced the Wetlands Delineation Manual, some text ~f which was u~ed to define wetlands and make aszumption$ in composing the Chusapeake Bay Preservation Act standards; indicated that he felt ~he State Legislature needed to restudy the chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and provide a more clear definition for local jurisdiotions to utilize in determining resource management areas, resource protections areas, etc.; and requested that thc Board consider adeption of only the maps and criteria at fhi~ time, that the Board seek the Attorney General's opinion, taking specifically as it relates to the Chesapeake Say ~reservatlon Act, as to the definition of a "taking" and if it is cempcnsabla, and that the Board of supervisors ~onslder in its ~egi$1ative Progra~ ~e~islative action to more clearly define wetlands and their categorization a~d approval. Mr. Russ CunninGham Submitted a copy of his report te th~ Beaxd for ~heir review, which copy is filed with the papers of this Board. Ms. Carolyn Powers, repre~eBti~g Chesterfield Citizens for the ~nvirer~ent, pre~ented a brief history of the organization, outlined its goals ar~ objectives, listed members of the or~anizatio~ with expertise in environmental issues and indicated the CCE's endorsement of ~he first draft ordinances a~ prepared by ~faff. When asked, approximately iPdivi~uals steed to indicate theft support of the endorsin~ a Strong approach to the implementation of Chesapeake Bay ~e~ulations. She stated, with the exception of recommended administrative change~, th~ CCE supportz the proposed draft ordinances and wsu/d like to have the wo~ding modified to pe~mit any ~itizen to have the right to appeal Ms. Leslie cohen, Conservation Chair of the Falls of the Richmond Sierra Club, representing approximately 1,200 members, voided support for the original draft ordinances as written by County Planning Department staff. Ms. ~eg Donovan, representing Crestwood Farms Residents' Association, voided their Board's support for an effeotive Chesapeake Bay Ac=; stated a mechanism oould he initiated and a oo~mit~ent made to ~nsure that the Ches%peake ~a¥ erdinance will function effeotively and efficiently in the future; indlcat~d provisions need to be made for monitoring ef best management practices to determine if ~uch practices are working and if modificafiGns are necessary; and s~ggested a citizens' advisory eemmittee be established to monitor adherence fo the regulations and identify problem areas. Mr. Bernard Savage, speakin~ on behalf ef the Richmond Association of Realtors, urged the Board to support the recommendation of ~he Planning Commission to reduce the scope of the Chesapeake Ba~ Act ordinances an~ adept only %he minimum confusion/ uncertainty regarding the effectiveness/effieieno¥ of the law and referenced its potential impact on budgetary ~r. George Beadles, Jr. voiced support for adeption of Or~nance I and deferral of Ordinance II am it is not required 90-736 Mr. $. J- Jewett reeon~ended that, prior to the adoption of any ordinances, a map bo made available indicating what lands will and/or will not be affected; indicated citizens of the County have ne idea how much of their land will be impacted by thc Act; if Laud is taken~ compensation should be provided to the individual &fleeted; etc. Fir. Tom Cole, representing Friends of the ~iddle James, of which he is a member as well as the Chesterfield Citizens for ~vironment, voiced support for the original Chesapeake Bay Ordinances I and II a~ written and slightly modified by the Gou~ty ~lanning Department staff; opposed any deletions and rewisiens Of the drafts that weaken these ordinances and protect the wetland and tributary streams cf the James and Appomattox Rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. Me. virginia Justice, a land owner and moderate environmenta- list, expressed concern relative to some of the regulations ix the Chesapeake Bay A~t and the Upper Swi£~ C~eek Plan. Mr. Jim Hayes with J. K. Timmons and Associates voiced support for the protection of the envircr~eDt and particularly the Chesapeake Bayl however, he urged the soard no~ to pass a law and/or ordinance unless they have studied and fully understand alternatives ~o same, review ordinances adopted by o~her localities prior to adoption o~ a local Ordinance and realize the ramifications relative to implementation and enforcement as it af~¢k~ County residents. Mr. Clark p~axco ~ith the Planning and Design Collaborative displayed an illustration indi=ating %he impact of the original ordinance, as proposed b~ staff containing thc more stringent standards of the Chesapeak~ Ba~ preservation Act, had it been in effect at the time Brandermill was developed; noted that if said criteria had been ~n place at that time 45% of Brander- mill~s acreage would have been affected by the definition of the RPA~S and setback and 50% o£ the existing hemes could not have been built; urged that the Board not further exacerbate ~taDdards set forth by the State legislature by confusing it with glowth ~anageme~t issues and adopting more Stringent standards; referenced the additional 20 foot setback recom- mendations and crated s~me should be reviewe~ on a case by case, ~ite plan by site plan basis; referenced a requirement, which he felt zigaifi~an~, that it is more essential ~orform/sub~t a water ~u~lity impact assessment at the time of site plan review/approval as opposed to the time of zoning; and encouraged the Board tO adopt leqizla:ion and ordinances in the County that are in keeping with the intent of Stat~ legislation. Mr- ~eter cl~al, Chairman of the chesterfield Cuunt~ B~$iness Council, stated the Board of the ~si~ss Council acknowledges and endorses the intent of ~he Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act =e preser~- the environment and Or,hanes the quality of life in the county; stated ther~ would be ample opportunity in thc f~t~r~ for further evaluation of the imp!e~entation of the Act and any appropriate re~tructurin~ that may be encouraged the Board to carefully examine the implementation the Act in recognizing the need for a balance in the preserYa~ion of the environment and properly planned land development; noted the ~ull impaot of the Act is unknown at the present time; and urged the Board's adherensa to the minimum standards as adequate for the proper preservation of Mr. ~us~ ~arker, p~esident Of Parker and Lancaster Co~peuation add Chairman of the Legislative Committee for the Home Builders Association of Richmond, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to address =he Board; commended the Board for its foresight in the e~tabliehment o~ the chesapeake ~ey citizens' 90-737 Committee to review this important legislative doc~ment; referenced a letter in which the ~BAA~ indicated its support of the Planning Commission's recommendation with the exception of several aspects which ha indicated to be the additional 20 foot setbauk to the 100 foot setback requirement, the designation of the entire County as a Resource Management Area (9AWA} and the vested rights issue; and suggested the Board adopt only Ordinance I as required at this time and address the imple- mentation procedures (Ordinance II) during the next twelve mouth period as allowed by the State. Mr. Juh~ Cugbi11, a resident of Chesterfield County and member of the Chesapeake Bay Citizens' Committee, pre~ented an overview of the inception of the Chesapeake Bay Preservatfon result of i~le~entation of ~he Ac=, which included a 4-6% increase in th~ cost of living for Tidewater Virginia, as local governments could expect a net decrease in revenues, and that there would be a significant reduction in the availability economi~ impact of the Chesapeake Bay Act in the Peninsula and insufficient State level fundin~ available te satisfy the raq~ixe~e~t~ of ~he Act; poi~ed 0~t that the small ~roperty owner that may have to bear a disproportionate cost for foot setback to the existing 100 foot setback requirement imDose~ by the Planning Co~issiun is arbitrary aad capricious and should this be challenged in court, he felt the County would lose; referenced the major water quality impact assessment which he felt mun~ersome and should not be adopted at this time; and asked that the Board not adopt th~ ordinances until the Act could be better defined and ramifi- cations explored. Mr. Dan Slosh, with the firm o~ McGuire~ Woods~ Battle and Heaths, represen=in~ landowners in ~h~ County, voiced his clients' support for a clean water concept but who are concerned with the impact of the proposal being considered, particularl~ the aspect regarding a ve~ting provision; requested the Buar~ consider ~roviding a "grand£athering" provision as opposed to a "v~stin9" provimien in the ordinancem~ and referenced a Home Hu£1dera Assouiatio~ proposal which he requested the Hoard ccnslder incorporating into the ordinances. Mr. Ran Bcyd, with the Williamsburg Envlronmenal Croup, voiced support for adoption of minimal standards and i~dioa~ed he felt the criteria disseminated by the State i~ fair a~d flexible. Mr. Daniel ~oted that both he and Mr. Joe Tennent are employed by Philip Morris. Inc., stated many of their work activities are inter-related, particularly in the enviroD~ental field, and inquired if a conflict of interest eMisted. Mr. Micam mtated, in his oplnloa, there was no conflict, and Mr. Daniel could participate i~ receiving Mr. Tennent's comments. Mr. Joe Tennent voiced s~pport for adoption of staff's original draft of the proposed ordinances; addressed issues he felt were bein~ circulated as scare tactics; urged the protection of the C0unty~m water quaIity which he felt required the implementa- tion of a strict ordinance; displayed maps Co,piled by Henrice required by =he Act, which he fel~ Chesterfield County should also be able to produce~ etc. 90-738 relative tn potential water shortages and indicated he knew of no evidence in the County to indicate that such situaticn~ exist. Mr. Ramsay indicated the County utilizes three major sources of water and those sources are projected to provide Chesterfield County with water into the yeas 2020 and beyond. ~r. Mark Anderson, with Chesterfield Citizens for the Environment and a resident cf Dale District, voiced support for stringent requirements to protect net en!y the Bay but water quality throughout the County; read a portion of a letter from MS. Shawn Smith of the Local Assistance Department regarding water ~nal~ty impact assessments and other aspects of the ordinance; submitted to the Board for their information handouts regarding hydrologic cysle~ and sample subdivision designs; dieplayed schematics of wetlands ty~es including groundwater tables and antecedent moisture conditions; etc.; a~d urged the Board to adopt ordinances with stringent requirements and enfercemen[ Mr- Philip ~alsey, a regis=er~ architect, resident of Chesterfield County and president of the Upper Swift Creek ~ruperty Owners Association, stated that Chesterfisld'a contribution to Bay pollution wa~ minimal and he felt it neoe~ary for the Board to adopt only th~ minimal r=q~lired b~ State law to comply with the preservation of the chesapeake ~ay. ~e u~ged adoption e~ the Planning Commission's r~oommendation with the exception of the additional ~0 foot s~tbaok requirements and stated he endorsed adoption of the various parts of the Act in the phaKes recommended by the Btate. Mr. Roy A. Hoaqland, a resident of Chesterfield County and the Virgin&a staff attorney of the Chemapeake Bay Foundation, ~resented a history cZ the foundation and programs and outlined its goals and objectives toward protection of the Bay; addressed previous comments regardinq misinformation being circulated regarding the economic impacts occurrin~ aa a of implementation of the Act, the SDN Marketing analysis, various aspects of the proposed ordinances, con~ri~uting factors to Bay pollution, etc.; submitted an informational handout regarding a ~eview of the co~ of the Preservation Act on subdivision d~velcpment as well a~ SDN Marketing analysis £o~ ~he ~oa~d'a perusal; indieate~ the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is a water quality act that focuses on land development and the problems that land development creates; addressed aspects of the County's proposed ordlnance~ aS they related to steep slopes, P/~A~s, etc.; and urged the adoption of ordinances that go beyond minimum requir~4~e~ts. When a~k~d, ~r. Mi~a$ ~n~ioated the ~ate wa~er control Board exercises Drlmary responsibility for the navigable waters of the Commonwealth; however, under the Chesapeake Preservation Act, the Board has a concurrent abilit~ to protect water quality that affects th9 Chesapeake say. Mr. Headland stated the Board ha~ an obligation, as Opposed tc an ability, to protest water quality that affectm the Chesapeake say~ the reason being that the State Wate~ Control Board does not have jurisdiction over local zonin~ and subdiwlslon decisions and land disturbance activities which will affect water quality. There was brief discussion relative to the inception of the Act~ the various processes related to the development and reviewing o£ the Act, who made decisions as to the standards, It was ge~eraliy agreed to recess for five (5) minutes. 90-7~9 Mr. R. E. Collier, a County resident and builder, exprsssed concern that adoption of stringent criteria for tho tion o~ the chesapeake Bay would unfairly encumber the economy and ultimately the County taxpayers, indicating that a very high percentage of homes he had constructed in the County would have been impacted by more stringent RMA ~tandards; urged the Board to take the most conservative position possible in this matter and delay action until such time as more definitive ~/idanee from the ~tate could be provided. Mr. Tom Cauble, a landowner and t~ilder in the County, addressed concerns relative to the additional 20 to 40 feet 0f setbacks beyond the mandated 100 fQot setback from streams; vesting enO/or grandfathering based on permits, which action he felt could be challenged in court; and application of the County-wide and that these ozi~eria will increase the cost of development. He stated local govsrnmen= has geed intentions, however, the actions of local government raise the cost Of housing more rapidly than inflation, ultimately cost resident8 more money and precludes affordable housing for future generations. thousands of persons in the County who do no~ know what impact of the adoption of the Chesapeake Bay ~reservation Act is going to have on them and in~uired wha= guidelines would be applicable and how they would be administered if the Board were tO adep~ the proposed ordinances at this time. Mr. Sale briefly ~xplained the procedures- ~r. ~ill Hastings, a member of Chesterfield Citizens for the poilu:ion in vaIious areas of the Couaty; depicting the Upper Swift Creek tidal wetlands, the juncture of the Appomattox and James Rivers, Po=ebon%as State Park, marshes within the photograph of the chesapeake ~ay; and voiced supper= ior the staff's originally proposed draft o~dinances as he felt it the best proposal for =he environmental protection of the County- ~rotection Areas (RPA} and Resource ~nagement Areas (~)~ the voiced supper= for th~ preparation of the required ma~s criteria established for new land us~ measur~ and tha~ a cosu analysis be Mr. Do~g Woo~folk, a Coun=y ~v~10p~r, expressed concern that stringent regulations could stifle gr~th and severely impact the County's ~conomy and xe~ested that the Board adopt only the minim~ standards required at this time a~d 0ontinue Mr. Hazold Matthews, a consulting soil scien~im=, emphasized the need for better 9rosi0n and sediment cuntrOlZ to protect th~ enviro~ent and stated he did not ~e=l the proposals under considers=ion were in an approDriat$ posture for adoption at this time. expressed concern that ther~ kaz been a slight development slow-do~ due to previously implicated policie~ (i.e., cash proffers) and fee increases bo= indicated he felt adoption of th~ pr0po~ed ordinances would further sl~ down development the Count~. He stated he felt the issu~ of "~randfathering" should be placed befor~ a comit%ee c~prised o~ the dev~lo~ent co~unity~ County plannin~ and Coon%2 u~gineering ~taff, and a reasoaable, equit~!e "grandfathering policy" established and incorporated i~to the ordinance. He asked =hut i i i the Board not approve the proposed ordinances at this time bur request that the State provide a c!earez definition of the criteria prior to any implementation. When asRed~ Mr. Micas briefly e~plained the requixu~ent~ of the State maps and land uae measures, the intent 0~ beth Ordinance I and Ordinance II, why both oxdisances were being cen~idered simultaneously, etc. Mr. Daniel seated aa a member of the Chesapeake Bay citizens~ Committee he had attended every meeting conducted; felt the Chesapeake ~aF Act i~self was cumbersom~ legislation and very difficult ~o understand and contained a lack of legislativs definitions; that the General A~sembly passed the Act and now placed ~he responsibilit~ for implementation of the criteria with the localities; indicated he had never discussed wi~h anyone the idea that thi~ law or any C~unt~ ozdinances be used ag a gr~th management mechanism but rather had strictly ~ocused on the County's responsibilities to meet what was legislated; referencad issues hs felt needed to be further addressed by the ~en~raL Assembly i~eludin~ vesting, which he asked tO be included in the Ge%/~ty's leglslativ¢ progra~ and stated that th~ Act itself does not provide guidelines permitting allowances for jud~T~en~s relative to econOmiC ordinance, with said model i~dicating differences in Ordinance I, including %he plannimg Commission and citizens reccmmen~a- tions/Co~ents, etc., and compare sa~e with other jurisdictions differences may be and what can be compiled with so~e individual~ tegislatcr$ intended, but what the law actually Mr. Mayas stated he felt the State had Given the County the responsibilit~ for resolving a problem without being provided an adequate meshanism for solving that problem; that he had tion but, after having listened to all the public input, he felt the Board had some but not all of the essential factors on which to render a decision. Mr. Applegate stated h~ also served on the Chesapeake Bay should reconsider the ramifications of the Act; expressed concern that those most adversely affected by the proposed Act is the ~eneral public who is not in the position to under~tand the implications of thim Act on their financial well-being; tonight, he felt the Board should, as a part Of the County's General Assembly to muk~ the decision, incorporate it into the State Code, making it uniform State-wide and not require localities to bea~ the responsib£1ity of the decision: and requested that the vesting at the time of zoning be included in Mr. Sullivan expressed to ~hose present for their diligent efforts in the process; stated he supports the chesapeake Bay Act and feels it is important to the Bay and the citizens of should lurch into this matter and that was what the County was being asked to do; that he felt other neighboring jurisdiction~ ~hat he felt by adopting minimal sta~dards~ the County would b~ in compliance with state law without burdening itself unnecessarily with rules that may be 10110/9( excessive or unrealistic; that he did not feel such action was indicative that the County did not appreciate nee wa~t to protect the Bay but that it wanted to approach this matter in an intelligent step-by-step method; and, at the appropriate time, h~ would like to make a motion for approval. There was further discussion regarding a ruling that the ChesapeaKe Bay Local Assistant Beard*s re~uIatiens were invalid and the impact of said ruling on implementation of the criteria; vesting and/or grandfathering measures to protect property owners; RMA's and P~A's; the Supreme Court definition of vesting; enforcement procedures~ etc. Mr. Currln stated he felt this ~oa=d was very concerned with the County's quality of water; expressed e0nee~ns regarding the ramifications of implementing the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act on local jurisdictions; felt the mandat~ should be restudied/amended ~y the General Assembly; fel~ neighboring jurisdictions should also be included in the Act; and that he felt the minimal standards should be adopted at this time and requested that "v~sted rights" be included in the motion when made. Mr. Maye~ questioned approving what he felt poorly defined measurms, the Board's inability to an~weZ procedural ~/estion~ difference between vesting and grandfathering processes, thc inabilit~ of localities to redefine vesting, etc. ~r~ ~i¢a$ indicated vesting and grandfathering were one in the ~s and that theme terms had been clearly defined and could not be cha~ped wi%bin the ordinance. After further disoussicn~ it was on motion of Mr. Sullivan~ seconded by Mr. Applegate, re$0ived that the Board appropriate $75,000 in additional revenues due to the increase in erosion and sediment con~rol program administration fees; and to appropriate $8,950 from thc Board's Contingency Account to fully fund the program adminis=ration costs for FYPl; and adopt the following ordinance: AN Oi~DINANCE TO ~ '£.u.~ 00DE OF THE COUNTY OF u~u~ST~FI~LD, 1978, ~ ~, ~ ~G ~ ~ACTING SE~I~S 7.2-1t7.2-8, 7.2-9, 7.2-10, 11-5, 18.1-21, 2~-1, 21-Z7, 21.1-1, 21.1-3, 21.~-273, ~1-1-17~ ~ 21.1-281 ~ BY ~DIN8 SE~IONS 21-215 T~D~ 21--223, 21.1-229.1 ~DGH 21.1-229.9 ~ 21.1~279.1 ~GH 21.1-279.~ BE IT ORDAINED b~ the Beard of Supervisors of Chesterfield county= (1) That Sections 7.2-t, 7.2-8, 7.2-9 and 7.2-10 of Chapter 7.2 of the Code of the County o~ Chesterfield, 1978, ~nded, are ~nded and reenacted to read as S~c+ 7.2-1. Definiei~n~. The following tu~s, whe~ever ~sed o~ referred to in thi~ chapter, shall have =he res~c~iv~ meanings set foruh below, =nless the context clearl~ re~irus a contka~ meaning or any such te~ is expressly de~in~ to =h~ contrary elsewhere in thi~ chapter: Q O Q m Land disturbin~ activity. Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and %he movement Q£ sediments into waters or onto lands in the county or adjacent jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, clearing, grtlbbing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, and the installing of water, sewer, gas or oil lines, drainage pipes and storm sewers, unless occurring on a hard surfaced road, sires% er sidewalk; except, that the term shall not include: O O O (3) Septic Tank Lines or drainage fields unless such lines or drainage fields (a~ are located in the chesapeake Bay ~reservation Areas described in chapter 21 or chapter 21.1 or (bi are included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity relating to construction of a building to be served by a septic tank system; O O O (7) Preparation for single family residences separately ~reserv~tion A~eas described in chapter 21 or chapter 21-1 or (b) are built in aonjunetion with multiple construction in subgivision development; (8} Disturbed land areas ~o~ uses located in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation A~eae described in chapter 21 or chapter 21.1 which are less than two thousand five hundred (2,508~ square feet in size and disturbed land areas for uses of less than ten thousand (1O,00O} square feet in size which are located outside of such Areas; Sec. 7.2-8. Submission of plans. (a) Any person who applie~ for approval of an erosion and sediment control plan shall submit to the environmental engineer t~o (2) copies of such plan accompanied by the administration fee, identification of any Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas described in chapter 21 or chapter 21~1 a~d other support information which meets the requirements set forth in the Chesterfield County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Sec. 7.2-9. Poss. (a) A program administration fee of one hundred ($~0.00) shall be pai~ to the county at the time of filing each erosion and sediment control plan for review in connection with ~i~turbed land areas for uses~ other than singl~ family residences, which ar~ tes~ than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in s~ze. The progra~ administrative fee for single family residential uses which are lose than ten thousan~ square feet in size shall be twenty-five dollars plan shall be a~epted for r~view unless accompanied by tko appropriate (b) A program administration fee of eight hundred dollars ($$00.00) shall be paid to the county a= the time of filing of ~ach erosion and sediment control plan for review in connection with disturbed land areas for uses which are ten thousand (10,00O) square feet in size or larger. No plan shall be accepted for review unless accompanied by this ~ee. (o) upon reapplication for a land disturbance permit after revocation of such permit pursuant tu this chapter, an administrative fee in an amount e~ual to one-half of the 90-743 10/10/90 original application feb must accompany such reapplication, see. 7.2.10. issuance cf land disturbance permit. (a) The environmental engineer shall issue a land disturbance permit upon submission of a properly completed land disturbance permit ap~lioatio~ and if he determines that: (4) Where land disturbance has occurred, pro,er implemen~atlo~ er maintenance o~ erosion and sediment control measures has occurred; (5) Where site plan Or improvement she=ch approval that any such approval has b~n received; (6) Wh~re tentative subdivision approval is required under chapter 18.1 that any such approval has been received and road and drainage plans have been approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the environmental engineer; and (7) Where wetlands permits arc requi/ed by federal, state or local laws, that all such permits have been received, o 0 0 (2) T~at Section 11-5 cf Chapter 11 of the Code of the Count~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as mended, i~ a~ended and reenacted to read as ~ollow~: Sec. 11-5. Approval of sewage dispose! iacilities prexequisite to issuance o~ buildin~ per,it. Every lot or parcel e~ land proposed for new development shall have and provide a primary an= secondary sewage disposal site except in cases where sewer is provided; where sewer is planned a~d its availability within a reasonable time can be established: where such lot or parcel was recorded prior to OctOber 1, 1989, and iS not sufficient in capacity to aceo~odate a secondary sewa9~ ~iSposal site, as determined by ~he Health department; or when the county health director files a waiver of necessity Of the secondar~ site with the b~ildinq official, The Secondary sewage disposal sits shall have ~apacity at l~ast equal to that o~ ~..he primary sewage disposal site. (3) That ~ctiens 18.1-21 and 18.1-24 of Chapter 18.1 e£ th~ Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended and reenacted to read as ~ollowS: Sec. 18.1-21. Tentative plat. The tentativ~ plat shall be ~raw2 at a scale no greater than one (1) inch equalling fifty (50) feet fei townh0use for sale subdivisions; other residential subdlvisicns shall be at a scale of one (1) inch equallin~ one hundre~ (100) feet. Variations in ~cale may be made upon request at the discretion cf the department of planning. The plat shall show correctly on its face th~ following infcrmatlun: ( 18 ) Chegapeake Buy preservation Areas described in chapter 21 or chapter 21.1. 10/i0/90 i i twenty-four (24) inches and shall be prepared by a certified prefoseional engineer er land surveyor. Tho final plat of the subdivision shall conform to tho approved layout of the tentative pla~ unless changes are approved and shew en its face the following info~ahion: chapter 21 or chapter 21.1. Preservation Areas describe~ in {4) That Chapter 21 of thc Cede of the Count~ ef Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, i~ a~ended and reenacted ~y add~n~ the following sections to thc table of contents: Article YSfIII. Chesapeake Bay ~reservation Area~. see. 2i-215. Reso~roe pro~ootion area boundaries. sec. 21-216. Resource management area boundaries. Soc. 21-218. Soc. Sec. 21-220. Sec~ 21-221. Sec. 21-222. sec. 21-223. chesapeake Bay preservation areas maps. ~oun~ar¥ adjustments. Resource ~rotec~ien area regulations. Resource management area regulations. Exemptions. Exceptions. (5) That Sections 21-1 and 21-37 of Chapter 21 of the Code of the County cf Chesterfield, ~978, as amended, are a~ended a~d ~e~nacted to ~ad a~ ~ellews: Sec. 21-1. Purpose of chapter. This chapter is enacted fez the general purpose of promoting the health, safet~ or qeneral welfare cf the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of section 15.1-427 of the Code of Virginia. To these ends~ this chapter is designed: o e o (6) To pro,eot against one (1) or more of tho following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in r~lation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel a~ transportation, er loss of life, health, or property from fire~ flood, panic or ether dang~rs~ (7) To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (8) To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection o~ the natural environment; and (9) To protect surfac~ water a~d groundwater. 90-745 10/10/90 (t) Ne nonconforming use shall be enlarge~, e~tende~, reconstructed, substituted or structurally altered, except when required by law or lawful order, unless the use thereof changed to e uae permitted in the Rrea in which located, except QQO (2) In addition to the requirements Of th~ B and Districts a~d ~bsection 1 above, no nonconforming use in chesapeake ~ay Preservation Ar~a shall b~ enlarged, reconstructed, substituted cr structurally altered unless the director of eavlronmental engineering gran~e a development waiver after findinq that: a. There will be no net increase in nonpoint source pollution load; and b. Any development or land disturbance exceeding an area of 2,~00 square feet complies with all erosion and sediment control requirements o~ chapter 7.2 and division 5 of Article IV of Chapter 21.1. such a development waiver shall become null and void if no substantial work is cadenced within twelve months ~rom the date such waiver is issued or if commenced, such work ia diligently pursued to completion. (6) That Chapter ~1 ~f the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted by adding A~ticl~ XXIII, Sections 21-215 through 21-22~, as follows: Article X~IiI. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas Sec. 21-215. Re~o=rce ~rotection area boundaries. Th~ prov~ions of neet:on 21.1-229.1 of chapter 21.1 are hereb~ incorporated herein b~ reference. Sec. 21-216. Re~ource manaqement area boundaries. The provisions of section 21.1-229.2 of chapter 21.1 are hereby incorporate~ herein by reference. Sea. 21-217. Chesapeake ~a¥ preservation areas maps. The provisions o~ section 21.1-229.3 of chapter 21.1 are hereby incorporated herein by reference. ~ec. 21-~. ~oundar¥ adjustments. The prey:siena of sectio~ 21.1-229.4 of chapter 21.1 are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Sec. 21-219. Resource ~rotection ales regulations. The provisions of section 2t.1-229.5 of chaptzr 21.1 are hereby incorporate~ here~n by re~er~nce. Sec. 21-220. Resource manaqement area regulations. The provlsions of section 21.1-229.6 of chapter 21.1 are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Sac. 21-221. Supplemental requlations; more .~9~ictive apply. 90-746 10/10/90 i i i The provisions uf section 21.1-229.7 of mhapter 21.1 are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Sect 21-2~2. Ex~metlons. The provisions Of section 21.1-229,B of chapter 21,1 are hereby incorporat~ here±n b~ reference. See. 21-223. Exceptions. The provisions of section 21.1-229.9 of hereby incorporated herein by reference, chapter 21.1 are (7) That Chapter 21.1 of the Code of the County Chesterfield, 1~78, as amended, is amended and resnacte~ addln~ the following sections to the table of contents: Article Iv. Development 5tandard~ O O e Smc. 21.1-229.1. Resource protection area boundaries. of Sec. 21.1-229.2. Resource management area boundaries sea. 21.1-229.3. Sec. 21.1-22~.4. Sec. 21.1-229.5. S~e. 21.1-229.6. seo. 21.1-229.7. Chesapeake ~ay preservation area~ maps. Bounda=y adjustments. ReseuTce Drcteetian area K~gulatiens, Re,surge management area re~ulatio~$, Supplemental requlations; more restrictive apply. sec. 21.1-229.8. Exemptions. Seo. 21.1-229,9, Exceptions. Article IX. Schematic Plans, Site Plans an~ Improvement ~ke~ches o o o Division 3. Improvement Sketches Sec. 21,~..1-279.1 Uses requirinq impr_~.v,.e..m~n~, sketch approval See. 21.1-279.2. Preparation and submission o~ Lmprovement See. Sec.21.1-27~.4. ~ec. 21.1-279.5. Sec. 21.1-279.6. ~ke~cho$, Imprevemsnt sketch prooe~sinq. Period of imDrovemen= sketch validity. ~inor or major s~jus~men~ in approved improvement sketch. Development to be in accordance with improvement sketch~ prerequisite to issuance o£ bu£1dinq permit. (8) That Seationa 21.1-1, 21.1-3, 21,1-273, 21.1-275 and 21,1~281 of Chapter 21.1 u~ the Code of the Co~Ilty of 90-747 lO/lO/~O chestcrfiel~ 1978, ae a~ended, are amended and reenacted to read as follDws: See. 21.1-1. ~urpose of chapter. This Chapter is enacted for the general purpose cf promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of £ect~on 15.1-427 of the Code of Virginia. To these ends, this Chapter is designed: (1] to provide for adecf~ate light, air, convenience o~ access, and safety from fire, ~lood and other dangers; (2) to reduce er prevent congestion in the public streets; (3) tc facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive sad harmonious community; (4) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, waste water, flood protection, schools, parks, forost~, playgrounds, recreational fa0ilities, airports and other public requirements; (51 to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon crowding of land, undue density o~ population in relation to thc community facilities existing er available, obstruction u~ light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life; health, or property ~rom ~ire, ~locd, panic or other dan~er~ (7) to encourage economic development activities that provide de~irabl~ employment and enlarge th~ tar b~e; (8) to provide for the preservation of agricui=ural an~ forests1 lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural envirenmen=; and I9) uo protect surfac~ wa~er and groundwater, s o o Sec. 21.1-3. Ncnucn~ormieq uses. (b) No ~0~0onfsrmi~g ~se shall be enlarged, extendad, recon~tr~otpd, ~bstit~ted or str~0t~rally altered, except when required by law or lawful order, unless the use thereof is changed to a use permitted in the area in which located, except (S) In addition to tho requirum=ntS Of subsections 1 through 5 above, no ~enoonfor~ing use in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area shall he ~nlarged, extended, recOnst~Ueted, substituted or structarally altered unless tho director of environmental engineering grants a development waiver a~ter finding that: a. There will be no net increase in nnnpoint source pollution load; and b. Any development or land disturbance exceeding an area of 2,500 square fe~t complies with all erosion and sediment control requirements cf chapter 7.2 and division 5 of Article IV o~ this chapter. Such a development waiver shall become null and void i~ no substantial work is commenced within twelve months from the d~t~ s~ch waiver is issued or if con~nenced~ such work i~ net diligently pursued to completion. o o e Article IX. Schematic Plans~ Site Pla~s and Improvement Sketches i Division 2. Site Plans Sec. 21.1-275. Preparsfion and submission of site plans. coo (o) Every site plan shall be prepared in tko following manner and Skew tho following information and location of land uses where necessary and appIicabL~: (31) Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. (32) Any citer feature of the development which is reguired by this ~hapter to be shown on a site plan. ooo sec. 21.1-275. Administrative review (a) All site plans which are properly submitted as provided in this article for administrative review and approval shall be reviewed and recommended far approval or denial ooo (4) The director of environmental ~ngine~ring or his agents, relative to: coo d. Compliance with tho regulations and roquir~msn%s of th~ chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. o e o (e) In the event the applicant disagrees with the final decision of the directo/ of planning, he may file a written appeal with th~ plannin9 corm~ission within fifteen (151 6a~s of =hat deoisiog. In addition, adjacent property owners, and other aggrieved persons who desire to appeal issues pursuant to division 5 of Article IV, Article VII or Section 21.1-279.3(b) of this chapter, may appeal the final deci$io~ of the dlreotQr of plannin~ Dy filing a wrlt=en appeal with the planning commission within fifteen (1~) days oi that decision. Other than issues appealable by any aggrieved person pursuant to division ~ of Article IV, Article VII or section 21.1-279.3(b) of this chapter, appeals by adjacent property ownerR shall be limited to conditions which directly affect the property owners and include access, utility location~, buffers, condition~ of zoning, architectural treat_men~ in the c-1 and O-1 Districts a~d land ~se transitions. The commission shall fix a reasonable time for hearing of the appeal a~ ~ecide ~he ~sme witSi~ sixty (601 days. The commission may affirm, modify o= reverse the decision. Durin~ =his period the director of planning shall not approve the site plan or the building permit. Article XI. Definitions S~c. 21.1-281. DefinitiOnS+ For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: O e c 90-749 10/10/90 Agricul=ural lands. Those lands used for the planting and harvesting of crops or plant g~OWth of any kind in the open~ pasture; horticulture; ~%airying; floriculture; or raising of ~ultry and/or livestock. C O O Best Management Practices or BMPs. A practice, or a combination of practice~, that is determine~ by a state or derigna=ed area-wide planning agency to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reduoin~ ~he amount pollution generated by hotpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. Diameter at breast height. The diameter of a tree measured outside tke bark at a point 4.5 feet above ground. Dripline. A vertical projection to the ground from =he ~urthsst lateral ex%ant of a tree's leaf canoD!z. Highly credible soils. Soils (excluding vegetation) with an credibility ~ndex IEI) from sheet a~d rill erosion sc/ual to or greater than eight. The credibility index for ~ny ~nil is dc~ined az the product of the formula RKLS/T, as de£iDed by the "Flood security Act (F.S.A.) ~anual" of August, 1988 in the "Field office Technical Guide" cf the U.S. Department cf Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, where K is the soil susceptibility to water erosion in the surface layer; R is the rainfall an~ runoff; LS is the OC~f~ined effects of ~lope length add steepness; and T is the soil loss tolerance. }{ighl¥ permeable ~oils. soils with e given potential to transmit water through the soil profile. Highly permeable soils are identified us any soil having a permeabili=y e~al or greater than six inches of wa=er ~ove23ent per hour in part of %he soil pro~ite to a depth of 72 inches {~rmeahility group~ "rapid'~ and "very rapid") as found in ~he "National sails Handbook" cf July, 1983 in the ~'Field Office Technical Guide" of thc U.S. Department of Agriculture soil Conservation Service. e o o Impervious cover. A surface composed cf any material that significantly impedes or prevents nattrfel infiltration cf water into the soil. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to: roofs, buildings, ~treets, parking areaS, and any Nonpcint source pollution. Pollution consisting of agriculture and urban land development and use. Nontidal wetlands. Thos~ wetlands other than tidal water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil Agency pursuant to section 404 of ~he federal Clean Water Act, in 33 C.F.R. 328.3b, da~ed November 13, 1986, aS a~ended. 0 o o Redevalopment~ The process of developing land that is or has haan previously developed. 0 0 0 Steep slope. Any land area which rises or ~atls at a rate of 20 fee~ or more per 1O0 feet as measured in =he horizontal plane. Tidal shore or shore. Land contiguous to a tidal body of water k~tween the mean low water level and the mean high water level. Tidal wetlands, Vegetated and nonvegetated we=lands as defined in Section 62.1-13.2 cf the Code of Virginia. Tributary stream. Any perennial stream that is SO depicted on the moat recent U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute topographic quadr&~gla map (scale 1: 24,000). Water-dependent ~acility. A development of land that cannot exist outside of a resource protection area and must be located on the shoreline by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operation. These facilities i~elude, but are not l~ited to (i) ports; (ii) the intake and outfall structures of power plants, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, and storm sewers; (iii) marinas and ether Boa= docking structures; (iv) beaches and other water-oriented recreation areas; end (vi fisheries er other marine resources facilities. W~t~and$. Tidal and n0ntidal we=lands. (9) That Chapter 21.1 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~/n~nded~ is ar~ended and rseD~%¢tad by adding Division 5, Sections 21.I-229.1 through 21.I-229.9, to Article iV and by adding Division ~, Sections 21.1-279.1 through 21.1-279.6, to Article IX as follows: Article IV. Development Standards Division 5. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas Sec. 21.1-229.1. Resource protection area boundaries. Resource protection areas consist of (a) tidal wetlands; (DJ nontldal wetlands sonnected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands or tributaz-f streams; (o) t~daI shores; and (dj a vegetated conservation area not less than 10O feet in width located adjacent to and landward of tb~ environmental ~eatures listed in subsections a through c above, and along both ~id~s of any tributary strea~. Se=. 21.1-229.1. Resource management area boundaries. Resource management areas consist of (a) 100-year floodplains; (h) ~ighly erodible soils, including steep ~lopes; (c) highly permeable =oi15; and (dj nontidal wetlands not included in resource protection areas. A re~ourc~ ~anageme~t area not less than 100 feet in width shall be located adjacent 90-751 10/10/90 to and landward of every resource protechion area even if environmental feature~ l~sUed in subsections a uhrough d above are not present, ~ec. 21.1-229.~. Chesapeake Bay preservation areas maps. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas include resource adjustments which The direc:or of environmental engineering may make pursuant to eection 21.1-229.4, the boundaries of such areas are established as shown on the Chesapeake Bay Prose:ration Areas Maps, which are hereby adopted By re~erence and which shall be kept on file in the office cf %b~ director of enviroD,~ental engineering. FO~ purposes of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, Va. co~e Ann. Sections 10.0-2100 through 10.1-~II5, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Depart-merit, VR173-02-01, the resource protection ar~as created by this Article are hereby declared to be "Resource Protection Areas" and the see. 21.1-2~9-~. Boundar~ ad~ustl~ents. (a) The delineation of any cf the boundaries of resource by the director o~ environmental engineering where an featuree listed in sections 21.1-229.1(a) through (d) er 21.1-229.2(a) through (d), respectively. Any such environmental site assessment shall be drawn to scale and shall clearly delineate such environmental ~eatures. Wetlands delineations shall be performed consistent wiUh proeedu=e~ specified in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1989. (b) Any p~r~on aggrieved by a decision ef the ~irec~or of in sec=ion (a) Allowable Development, Land development within a resource protection area may b~ allowed only if it is water (1) A new or expanded water-dependent ~acility may be allowed provided that~ a. It does not conflict with The Plan for Chesterfield~ set forth in s~otions 21.1-229.5(b) and 21.1~229.6; c. Any non-water-dependent component is d. Access will be provided with miaimum access will be provided. (2) Redevelopmen~ shall conform to applicable criteria set forth in section 21.1-229+5(b), section 21.1-229.6 and chapter 7.2. shall be buildable (1) A conservation area of veqetation that is effective in retardlnq runoff, preventing erosion, and ~iltering nenpoint source pollution from runoff shall be retained if present and established where it does no% exist. The conservation area shall be located adjacent to and landward of the enviror~nental ~eatures listed in section 21.1-229.1(a) through (~) and along both sides of any tributary stream. The vegetated conservation area shall extend not less than 100 feet in width from such environmental features and tributary streams. The full conservation area shall be deemed to achieve a 75 percent re~uction of sediments and u 40 percent reduction of nutrientS. A cohabitation of a conservation area not less than ~O feet in width and appropriate best management practices located landward of the conservation area which collectively achieve wa~r q~ality protection, pollutant removal, and water resource conaervatien at least the equivalent of the full conservation area may be employed in lieu of the conservation area if approved by the director of envircmnental engineering after consld~ration of a water gua!ity impa=t assessment submitted pursuant to section 21.1-229.5(c). (2) The conservation area shall be ~aintai~ed to meet the following additional performanse standards: e. In order to maintain the func=ional value of the consurvatio~ area, i~d~genoua vegetation may be removed only to provide fcr reasonable sight lines, pedestrian ways~ ~e~eral woodlo~ manage2~ent, add best management practices, as follows: necessary to provide ~er sight lines and vistas, provided ~hat where removed, they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering nenpoint scuroe pollution from ii. Any path shall be constructed and iii. Dead, diseased, or dyin~ trees or shrubbery may be remQve~ at the discretion of the landowner, and silvicultural thinninq may b~ conducted based upon the iv. For shoreline erosion control con~rul techniques employed, and appropriate vegetation established to protect or stabilize the shoreline in accordance with the be~t available technical advice and applicable l~armit conditions cr requirements. h. ~rnen the required conservation areas would result in the lose of a buildable area on a lot or parcel recorded prior to October 1, 1989, the director o~ planning or planning co~issien may modify the width of the conservation area at the time of ~ubdivision plat, s~hematlc plan, sate plan or imprOVement sketch approval in accordance with the reoo~endatien of the director of environmental enqineering based upon the following criteria: i. Modifications to the conservation area~ the minimum necessary =o achieve a reasonable ii. Where possible, an area equal to the established elsewhere on the lot or parcel in a way tc maximize water quality protection~ and 90-753 10/I0/90 iii. In no ease shall ~hs reduced portion of the conservation area be less than 50 feet in widtk+ c. Redevelopment o£ lots o~ parcels on which prior development has left so little of the natural environment that establishment of all or part of the conservation area otherwise required b~ this subsection is impractical, may be exempted from all or part of such rmq~irement by the director oi planning or planning comission at the ti~e Of ~u~division plat, mchematic plan, site plan or improv~n= skf=ch approval in accordance with th~ reco~ndutio~ of th~ director anviro~ental engineering base~ upon ~he following criteria: i. A~y ~Hch lot or parcel has ~ore than ii. P~lis ~ewer and water is constructud and currently serves aRy ~ch lot or parcel; or iii. Housing density on any such lot or parcel is equal to or greater than 4 dwslllng units per acre. d. On a~ricult~al lands, the conservatio~ area shall be managed to prevent concentratmd ~low~ Of s~face water f~om breaahing the oon~ervation ar~a and noxious weeds item invadiag the co~ervati¢~ area. The a~ricultural sonservatio~ area may be reduced as follows: i. TO a mimlm~ width of 5~ f=~ when the ~unded aqricultural be~t manaqement practices Drogr~, provided that the c~ination o~ the x~duced conservation area and the pollutant removal, and water reaource conservation at least th~ equivalent of ~he f~ll conservation area; il. To a minim~ width of 25 feet when a soil and water quality conservation ~laa, as approved b~ the J~s Kiver soil and Water Conservation District, has been implementud On the adjacent land. Suoh pl~ shall be based upon the Field Office Technical ~u~de of the U. S. Depar~unt of Agricult~u Soil Conservation S~rvioe a~d accomplish water ~ality ~rotu=~io~ oo~siste~= with =his Article. ~ii. Th~ cunservation ar~a i~ not re~ired for agricultural drainage ditche~ if the adjacent agricultural land has in plac~ b~s~ m~nagemen= practices in accurdance with a conservation plan approved by the J~z River Soil and Water Conserv=tio~ District. [c) Water ~ality impact assessment. (1) A water quality impact assessment prepared by a qualified ex~ert shall be s~mitted to, and ~pprovud by, the director o~ enviro~ental enginee~i~ for any proposed develc~ent within a resouro~ proteotion area, including uny conservation are~ modification or reduction authorize~ by section 21.1-229.5(b). S~ch water ~ality impact assessment shall identify the impacts ~ the proposed development u= conservation area modi~iuatio~ or reduc=io~ o~ water quality and la~4~ i~ resource protection ar~a~ a~d demonstrate cumptia~ce with the re~iTements of %his Az~ic!e. (2) If he determines that potential i~acts crea=~ by the proposal ar~ no~ ade~a~ly mitigated, the director of enviro~ental engineering may re,ire additional mitigation muaaures a~ a condition of approval. I~ ~uch impacts cannot be adequately mitigate~, the diructor of enviro~ental ~gin~ering shall disapprove the proposal as inQonsistent with the pur~e and i~te~t of the resource protuction area, Any D~r~on Aggrieved by a dec~aion ~f =he director o~ enviro~ntal ~ngineerlng co~cpr~i~g a water quality ~pact assessment ~ay 90-75~ 1011~1~0 in section 2!.1-775(o). Bec. 21.1-229.6. Resource management area rcq~Ietion~. Any use, d~velopment or redevelopment of land shall muut the ~ollowing performance criteria: (a) No more land shall he disturbed than is necessary provide for the desired use or development. lb) Indigenous v~g~taticn shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible consi~fen~ with the use and development allowed. (o) Land development shall minimize imperious cover consistent with the use or devel0p~ent allowed. (d) (1) For any use, develo~ent or redevelopment, stormwater runoff shall be controlled to achiav= ~he following: a. For any new usa or development, post-developme~t nonpoint source pollution runoff load shall not exceed the pre-develolmment loa~, based on the average land cover =onditi0n of Chesterfield County~ b. For redevelopment sites no% currently by water ~ality best management practices, the percent (10%) after c. For redevelopment sites currently served by water ~ali=y bumt mana~emen~ p=actices, the ~s~-deval0pmen~ nonpoint source pollution runoff load shall not exceed existing load. (2] The ~ollowing s=o~at~r manag~m~n: options shall be considered to comply with the remitments subsection a. Inter.ration on the site of best management practi=~s that achiev~ the rpquired control; ~tor~ater mana~ent pro~r~ incorporating Dfc-rata share pa~eatm pursuant to the authority provided in section 15.1-466(~) of the Code o~ virginia, 1950, as ~ended, that c. Compliance wi~h a s=a~e or locally ~plemented progr~ of stc~ater discharge De,its pursuant to 40 C.F.R. ~arts 122, 123, 124, and 504, dated DecOr 7, 1988. d. For a redevelo~ent site that is completely impervious a~ ourrentl~ developed, r~toring a minim~ of twenty percent (20%) of the site to vegetated open space. [3) ~y maintenance, alteration, use~ or improvement tO an ex~tlng struct~e which does not degrade the ~al~ty enviro~ental engineering, may be ex,prod from ~he remitments of this s~sectlon. ~y person aggrieved by a decision of the director of enviro~en%al engineering ~der procedures provided in ~ection 21.1-275(c). (4) Compliance with the remitments o~ subsection loads in sto~water runoff. The post-develc~eRt total 90-755 10/10/90 phosphorus loads in stormwater runoff shall not exceed the following: a. For non-residential uses and residential use~ at a density grea~er than 4 units per acre located in areas identified for such uses i~ The Plan for Chesterfield, the post-deveIot~ent total phosphorus load shall not exceed 0.50 pounds per acre per year. b, For all other Use~, the pest-development total phosphorus load shall not e~oeud 0.44 pounds per acre per year. (e) Where the best management practices utilized require regular or periodic maintenance in order to continue thei! functions, such maintenance shall be ensured by a maintenance agreement, ~e~d or other assurance satisfacter~ to the director of envlronmentat engineering. (f) Land upon which agricultural activities are being conducted shall have a soil and water quality conservation plan, Such plan shall be based upon the Field Office Technical Guide of the U.S. Department o~ Agriculture Soil Conservation this section, such a plan shall be approved by the James River Soil and Water CQnservation District by January 1, 1995. scs. 21.1-229.7. Supplemental re~ulations~ more restrictive apply. (a] The regals=ions ~oz resource protection areas and resource management areas shall serve as a supplement to the re~latlon~ ~ur the ~derlying zoning district. (b) where there is any conflict b~ween the re~ulations applic~!e in the resource protection area resource manag~en= area under ~his division and those applicable under any other provision of this chapter, the more sec. 21.1-229.8. Exemptions. Construction, inatallation~ operation, and ~ai~a~ce ~f ~l~ctri~, ga~, an~ telephone tra~i~sio~ lines, railroads~ and p~lic roads and their appurtenant structures in accordance with the Erosion and red,eat Centrol Law, Va. Code Ann. Sections 10.1-560 th=oug~ 571, or an erosion and sediment control plan approved ~ the Virginia Sell and Wa~er Conservation Beard will b~ deemed to constitut~ compliance with the ruquir=mun~s of ~his division. (~) Construction, installation, an~ ~intenance of water, r~ir~en~s of thi~ division provided that: (1) To the degree ~ible~ the locatio~ of [2) NO more land shall be diet--bed th~ necessa~ to provide for the d~sired utility ins=allation~ (3) Ail such con~t~ti~n, in~tallation, and maintenance of such utilities and facillti~s shall be in oompliance with all othe! applicable federal, state and local requirements and pe~it$ a~d designed and conducted in a manner that protects water quality; and (4} Any land disturbance exceeding an area c~ 2,5~0 square feet complies wi~h all ~ro~icn and sedimen~ retirements of chapter 7.2 and thi~ division. 90-756 ~o/lo/go m (c) gilVlcultural aotivitle~ are exempt from the requirements of this division provided that ~uch activities ad_here tu water quality protection procedures prescribed b~ the Department of Forestr~ in itc "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Opera,ions". (d) The folluwing land disturbances may be exempted from re~ource protection areu regulations: (1) water wells; (21 passive recreation facilities such a~ boardwalks~ trails, and pathways; and (3) historic preservation a~d arohaeological activities, provided that it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the director of ~nvirer~ental engineerin~ the=: a. Any required purmlts, except those to which this exemption specifically applies, shall have been issued; b. Sufficient and reasonable proof is submitted ~hat thc intended use will not deteriorate water quality; c. The in=ended use docs not conflict with nearby planned or approved uses~ and d. Any land disturbance exceeding an area cf 2,500 square feet shall comply with all erosion and ~ediment control requirements o~ chapter 7.2 and this division. Sec. 21.1-229.9. Exceptions. (a) A ~equ/e~t for an exceptiun to the requirements of thin division shall be made in writing to the director of environmental engineering, I~ shall identify the impacts cf the proposed exception on water quality and on lands within the resource p/erection area through the ~erforma~ee cf a water quality i~paet assessment which complies with the provisionn cf seotlon (b) The director cf environmental engineering shall review the request for an exception and the water quality impact assessment and may gra~t the exception with such conditions and safeguards as deemed necessary to further thc pnxpose an~ in=ent of this division if he finds: (1) Granting the exception will not confer upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied by this division to other property owners in resource protection areas or resource management areas; (2) The exception recfue~t is not based upon conditions Or circumstances that ar~ self-created or self-lmposed, nor does the request aris~ from conditionn or =ireumetanoes either permitted or nonconforming that related to adjacent parcels; {~) The exception r~uest i~ the minimt~ necessary to afford relie~; (4) The exceptlcn r~ques% wi!! be consistent with the purpose and intent of this division, and not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfarn; and (5) Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed which will prevent the exseDtlon request from causing degradation of water quality. [c) Any person aggrieved by a decision o~ the director of e~vironmental engineering scneer~ing a request for an exception to the rec/uirement~ of this division may appeal s~nh decision in accordance with the procedures provided in section 21.1-275(c]. 90-757 10/10/90 Article IX. Schematic Plans~ Site Plans and Improvement Sketches oeo Division 3. Improvement Sketche~. Sac. 21.1-279.1. Uses requiring improvement sketch approval. AD improvement sketch must be submitted and approved for any use in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area which exoeed~ 2,500 square feet of land disturbance and for which neither site plan approval pursuant to division 2 of this Article nor subdivision approval pursuant tO chapter 18.1 is required. Sac. 21.1-279.2. Preparation and submission of improvement sketches. (a) Requests for improvement sketch review and approval shall be accompanied by (1) the app!i~ant's certification that he will perform the measures included on the improvement sketch and (2) copies of t~o imD=ovement sketch am required by directo~ of e~vironmental engineering. Fo~ any land use development as described in section 21.1-279.1 r~quirin~ a building permit, the building permit application shall be accompanied by a re~uest for improvement ~ke~¢h review sad approval and the applicant's mignature on the b~ildinq permit application shall constitute his certification that ha will pcr~ox~ the measures included on the ~mprsvement sketch. For any other land usa or development~ the improvement s~otch be submitted directly to the department of environmental engineering for review end approval. {b) Every improvement sketch shall be prepared in the following manner and show the following information, where necessary and applicable as determined by ~he ~irector of environmental (1) Boundary o~ entire tract by mates and bounds. Parking areas and driveways. (3) Recreation areas and open S~aoe. (4) Area c~ entire tract and impervious areas. (5) Building restriction lines to i~el~de chesepeak~ Bay Preservation Areas, existing and proposed utilit~ easement(s) and setback(s) required by this oha~ter. (6] Existing and finished topography with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals. (7) storm drainage symtems to include natural and artificial watercourses. (8) Ail existing and/or propose~ improvements in¢lu4ing wells and primary and secondary drain~ietds. (9) Limits of any established 100-year ~loodplain. (1O) Buildings and structures. (11) Limit~ of land disturbance. (121 ~rosion control measures. (13) pollutant remQVal requirement calculatiens. (14) Best managemen~ practices satisfying pollutant loading requirements. 90-758 1~/10/90 {c) The director of enviroD3nental engineerin~ or his agent shall ~e responsible for reviewing the improvement sketch for general completeness And compliance with the regulations and requirements of the Chesapeake ~ay preservation Areas, See. 21~1-279.3~ Improvement sketch processing. (a) As agent for the planning director, the director of environmental engineering shall approve or dioapprove the improvement sketch in accordance with the re~/lations and requirements of the Chssapeake Bay Preservation Areas within t~irty (30) days of the date of submission of the improvement sketch, if practicable. Such approval or disapproval may be the environmental ~ngineer's approval or disapproval of tho building permit application. (b) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the director cf environmental cn~ineerin~ approving or disapproving an improvement sketch ma~ file an appeal in aCeordauce with the procedures provided in section 21.1-275(e), Sec. 21.1-279.~. Period of improvement sketch validity.. An approved improvement sketch shall become null and void if no oig~ifioaMt work io done or devele~ent is ~adu on the site withia six (6) months after final a~roval. There shall be no clearing or grading of any site without approual Of an improvement sketch by the director of ~nvironmental engineering. s~c. 21.1-279.5. Minor or major adSua~ment in, approved improvement sketch. (a) After an improvement sketch has been approved, miner a~jus~men~s of the sketch, which comply with the spirit of this division and other provisions of this chapter may be approved by tbs director of environmental engineering, Deviation an approved Lmprove~t sketch without the written approval uf the director o~ environmental engineering shall void the sketch and the director ef environmental engineering shall reguire the applicant to resubmit a ~ew improvement sketch (b) Any major revision o£ an approved improvement sketch 0hall be made in the same manner as originally upprovod. FOr such revisions, any requirements of thio division which are found by the directsr of e~vironme~tul ~ngiDeering to be unnecessary to assure compliance with ~he requirements o~ thio division ma~ be waived, See. z1.I-27~.6. Development to be in accordance with improvement sketch~ prerequisite t~ issuance cf building permi:. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to develop, change or improve any !and or ooestr~o~, erect er structurally alt~r a~y D~ilding or structure for which an improvement sketch im required eX¢Op~ in accordance with an approved improvement sketch. (b) NO Duilding permit shall be issued to construct, ~rect or structurally alter any building or structure that is subject te the provision~ of this division until an improvement sketch has be~n submitted and approved. 90-759 There was further discussion relative to the Context cf ordinances as race,ended by the Planning Commission versus the ordinances adopted by the Board; the legal ra~ifioaticns of the inclusion of "vesting" in the ordinance versus the verbiage '~grandfathering~'; completion date of the required delineation maps; that all property owners ir~Daoted by the adoption cf the ordinance be provided a letter ~rom the County informing them of the status of their property; etc. Mr. Gary Fenchuk reference an Attorney General opinion relative to an Isle of Wight regardiug ve~ting, the conclusion c~ which was that property was vested i~ there was & sUbstantial invest- ment in same at the time of Mr. Appl%gate called th~ Mr. Sullivan restated his motion, seconded by Mr. Applegate, that the Board appropriate $75,000 in additional r~venues due to the i~orease in erosion and sediment control program administration ~ees; and to appropriate $8,950 from the Board's Contingenuy Account =o fully fund the program administration coats for FY91; and adopt the followi~ ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO A~ND x~ CODE OF 'r~ C~ST~R~.n, ~978, AS ~DED, BY ~/~ENDING AND SECTIONS 7.2-1,7.~-8, 7.2-9, 7.2-1~, 11-5, 18.1-2~, 21-1, 21-37, 21.1-1, 21.1-~, 21.1-273~ 21.1-275 AND 2~.1-281 AND BY ADDING SECTIONS ll-21~ THROUGH 2~-2~, 21.1-229.1 · ?~C~JGH 21.1-229.9 AND 21.1-279.1 THROUC~{ 21.1-279.6 ~ATIN~ G~ERALLYTOT~U~t~$Ai~F~%K~BAY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of superv±~ors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 7.2-1, 7.2-8, 7.2-9 and 7.2-10 cf Chapter 7.2 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended and ~eenacted to read as follows: Sec. 7.2-1. Definition~. The following t~rms, wherever used or referred ~o in this chapter, shall have the respective meanings set forth below, ~nless the centex= Glearl~ requires a contrary meanin~ or any such =arm is expressly defined to the contrary elsewhere in this chapter: o o o Land d~s~u=hin~ activity. Any land chan~e which may result in soil ~rosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments in~o wa=ers cr onto lands in the county or adjacent jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, ¢lesria~, g~ubblng, grading, excavating, transl~orting and filling u~ land, and th~ installing cf water, sewer, gas or oil lines, drainage plpe~ and sto~m sewers, unless occurring on a bard surfaced read, street or sidewalk~ except, that the term shall net include: O O O (3) Septic Tank Line~ or drainage fields unless such 1ines or drainage fields (a) are located in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas described in chapter 21 or chapter 21.1 or (b) are included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity relating to constructic~ of a building to be served by a septic tank system; (7) Preparation for single family residences separately built, unless such r~sidenoes (a) are located in Chesapeake Bay Preser~atio~ Areas described in chapter ~1 or chapter 21.1 or 90-76~ 10/1~/90 J (h) are built in e~njunction wi%k multiple oonstructlan in (8) Disturbed land areas for uses located in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas described in chapter 21 or chapter 21.1 which are less than two thousand five (2,500] sc/~are feet in size and disturbed land areas for uses of less than ten thousand (18,000] square feet in size which are located outside of such Areas; Sec. 7.2-8. Submission of plans. (a) Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and sediment Control plan shall ~bmi~ tQ the environmental engineer two (2) copies of such plan accompanied by the program administration fee, identification of any Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas described in cha~ter 21 or chapter 21.1 and other support information which meets the requirements eat forth in the Chesterfield County Erosion and Sediment Control o o o sec. 7,2~. Fees. Ia) A program administration fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) shall be paid to the county at the time of filing each ero$io~ and sediment control plan for review in connection residences, which are le~a than ten thousand (lO,000) square feet in size. The program administrative fee for single family residential uses which are less then ten thousand (1~,000) square feet in siz~ shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00}. No plan shall be accepted for review unless accompanied by the apDropriute fee. (b) A program a~i~istration fee of eight hundred dollars (~00.00) shall be paid to the county at the time of filing of each e~esion and sedir~ent control plan for review in connection with disturbed land area~ for u~es which are ten thousand (10,000) square feet in size er larger. Nc plan shall be accepted ~or review unless accompanied by this fee. (c) Upon reapplicatfen fo~ a laud disturbance permit after revocation of such ~ermit pursuant to this chapter, an administrative fee in an amount equal to one-half of th~ original application fee must accompany su0h reapplieahion. SeC. 7,2,10. ~ssuanoe of land disturbance permit. (a) The environmental engineer shall iSSUe a land disturbance permit upon submission of a properly completed land disturbance per,it application and if he determines that: O O O {4) Where land disturbance has occurred, proper implementatiO~ Or maintenance of erosion and eedimunt control measures has occurred; (5) Where site plan er improvement sketch approval that any such approval he~ been received; under chapter 18.1 that any such approval ha~ been received and road and drainage plans have been approved by the Virginia I~Dartment of Transportation and the environmental engineer; 90-761 10/10/90 (7) Where wetlands permite are required by federal, or local laws, that all ~uch permits have been received. oeo (2) That Section ll-5 of Chapter 11 of the Cede of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 11-5. Approval of sewage disposal facilities Dr~req~isit~ to issuance of buildlnq permit, Every lot or parcel of land ~repcsed for new development shall have and provide a primary and secondary sewaqe disposal site except in cases where sawer ie provided; where cower is planned and its availability within a reasonable time can be established; where suoh lot or parcel was recorded prior to October 1, 1989, and is not suffieien= in capacity to aeco~odate a seoo~dary ~e~age disposal site, as determined the Health department; or when the county keal=h director files a waiver of necessity of the secondary site with the building official. The secondary sewage ~i~o~al ~ite ~hall have capacity at lea~t equal to that of the primary sewage disposal site. (8) That Sections 18.1-21 and 18.1-24 of Chapter 18.1 of the Cede of the County of Chesterfield, 1~78, aS amended, are Sec. !~.1-21. Tentative plat. The tentative pla= shall be drawn at a ~cale uo greater than one {1} inch ecf/a!iing fifty (50) feet for tewnhous~ for sale eubdtvisians; ether residential subdivisions shall be at a scale of one (!) inch equalling one hundred (lO0) Variations in ~cale may be made upon request at the discretion of the department of planning. The pla~ shall show correctly on itc face the follcwin~ information: (18) chesapeake ~a~ ~reservation Areas de$oribed in chapter 21 or chapter 21.1. sec. 18.1~24. Final plat. The final plat shee=(s} shall be sixteen (16) inches by twenty-four (24) inches a~d shall be prepared by a certified professional engineer cz land surveyor. The final plat of the subdivision shall conform to the approved layout oi the tentative plat unless changes are approved and show on its face the following information: (19) Cheaapeake Day chapter 21 ar chapter 21.1. o o e Preservation A~eas described in (4) That Chapter 21 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, I978, as amended, is amen~e~ and reenacted by adding the fellowi~g suctions to the table of contents: Ar=iota XXIII, Chesapeake ~ Preservation Areas. See. 21-215. Resource protection area boundaries. sec. 2~-216. Resource manaqement area boundaries. 90-762 10/10/90 Sec. 21-217. Sec. 21-218. Sec. 2~-219. Sec. 21-220. geo. 21-221. sec. 21-222. sec. 2~-223. Boundary adjustments. Resouzce protecgion area regulations. Supplemental Ee~ulatlons;. more restrictive apply. Exemptions. (.51 That sections 21-1 and 21-37 of Chapter 21 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1~7~, a~ attended, are amended a~d reenacted to read a~ S~o. 21-1. Purpose of This chapter i~ enacted for the general p~rpos9 of promotin~ the health, sa~ty or General welfare of the public and o~ further acc~plishing th~ objectives of section 15.1-427 of the Cod~ cf V~r~ni~. To the~e ends, this chapter (6) To prob$~t a~ainst one (1) ~r more of the followinq~ to the co~unXty ~cilities exi$~i~ or available~ obstruction of light and air, danqer and ~on~e~tion in tr ~ve% and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fir~, flood, pani~ or other (7) To encourage economic development activities that pxovide desirable emp!o~nt and ~lar~e the tax base; (8) To provide for ~he preservation o~ a~ri~ultural and ~ores~al land~ and other lands of ~ignifi~an~e for protection of the natu~ai ~nviro~ent~ mhd (~] To protecb s~z~a~ water and qroundwater. ooo ~ 1) NO nonconfo~in~ use shall be enlarqed, ~xtended, ZeCO~Struc%ed, a~s~ituted or stE~cturally altered~ except when zeGuizad b~ law or lawful order, unless the use thereof chan~$d to a use pe~itted in the area in which located, as provided in th~ B and M Districts or as follows: Districts a~ subsectio~ 1 above, no non,chrOming use in a reconstructed, subs%itChed or structurally altered unless th~ director of e~viEo~ental engineering gra~s a waiver after finding ~hat: a. Ther~ will be no ~et increase in nonpoi~t source pollution load; and b. Any development or land disturbance exceeding an area of 2,500 sGuare feet complies with all erosion and ~di~e~t control re~ir~sntE of chapter 7.2 and division 5 of Article IV of chapter 21.1. 90-763 Such a development wa~vmr shall become ~11 and void if nc substantial work is commenced within twelve months from the date such waiver ~e issued or if commeneed~ such work ia not diligently pursued to completion. (6) That Chapter 21 of the Code of :he Count~' of Ches%erfielcl, 197~, as amended, is amended and reenacted adding Article xxIII, Sections 21-215 throuqh 21-223, Az~iole }'QfIII. Chesapeake Bay PEeservaticn Areas The Drov~slons of section 21.1-229.1 of chapter 21.1 are hOreb~ mncorporated her~in by Sec. 21-216. ResourQ~ manaqemont area boundaries. The provisions of se=rich 21.1-229.2 of chapter 21.1 are Sec. 21-217. Chesapeake Bev Preservation ar~as maps. Th~ p~Ov~smonn of seotion 21.1-229.3 Of chapter 21.1 are hereby ~ncor~orated herei~ by ~eference. Sec. 21-~18. Boundary adjustments. The prov~slOnS of section 21.1-22~.4 Of chapter 21,1 are hereby lnco~por&ted herein by r~ferenee. ~c. 21-219. Resource protection area requlations. The provzszons of s~Gtlen 21.1-229.5 of chapter 21.1 are hereby ~ncorporated herein by reference. sec. 21-22~. R~source manaq~e~ area regulations. The provisions of not,ion 21,1-229.6 o~ =ha~ter 21.1 are hersby lnocrporated herein by reference. ~ec. 21-221. $~pplemental ze~ututions; more restrictive apply. Tbs provisions of ~ection 21.~-229.7 of chap%er 21,1 are hereby ~ncorporate~ herein by reference. S~c. 21-222, Exemptions. The D~ovislonS cf section 21,1-229.8 of chaptsr 21.1 are hereby ~ncOrDOrated herein by refere~oe. Sec. 21-223. ~xception~. The provis~ons of seution 21.1-229.9 of chapter 21.1 are herpby incorporated herein by reference. (7) That Chapter 21.1 of th~ Code of the county cf Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted by adding ~he following sectio~ to the table Of Contents: Article IV. Development Standards Division 5. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas Sec. 21.1~22~.1. Resource protection area boundaries. 98-764 10/10/90 ~ec. 21.1-229.2. Sec. 2%.%-229.3. Sec. 21.1-~29.4. sec. Sec. 2i.1-229.6. sec. 21.1-229.7. ap~ly. $e¢. 2i.1-229.9. Chesapeake Bay preservation areas Boundar~ ~dj.ustments. Resource protection area supplemental re~ulations~ more restrictive Ex~J~ptions. Exceptions. Sec. 21.1-279.1 Sec. 21.1-~79.2. Seo.21.1-279.4. Sec. 21.1-279.5. Sec. 21.1-279.6. Article IX. Schematic Pla~s, Site ~lans and I~roveamcnt Sketches o o e Division 3. Improvement Sketches Uses requirin~ improvement sketch approval. Preparation and ~ubmission of improvement sketches. Improvement sketch processing. Period of improvement sketch validity. Minor cz major a~]uat_ment in approved improvement sketch. Development to be in accordanc~ with ~_mprovement sketch~ prerequisite to issuance cf buildin~ permit. (8) That Sect~on~ 21.1-1, 21.1-3, 21.1-273, 21.1-275 and 21.1-281 of Chapter 21.1 of the Code of the County cf Chesterfield, 1978, aa amended, are amended and reenacted to read as follows: ~c. 21.1-1. P~pose of chapter. This Chapter is enacted for th~ general purpose cf promoting th~ heal,h, safety er general welfar~ of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of section 15.1-427 of the Code of Virginia, To these ends, this Chapter designed: (1) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and ma~ety from fire, flood and other ~=ngers; ~o reduce or proven~ congestion in the public streets; (3) to ~acilitate the creation of a convenienS, attractive harmonious community; (4) to facilitate the provision cf adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportstios~ water, waste water, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requlremunts; (5) to protect against destruction of or encroachment upo~ =rowding of land~ undue d~nslty of population in relation to the community facilities e~isting or available, obstruction cf l~ght and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or lo~s cf life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other da~gers; (7) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlargo the ~ax base; 18) to provide for the preservation of agricultural and iorestal lan~s and 90-765 other lands of significance for the protection of the natural enviroI~e~t~ and [9) to protect surface water and groundwater. o o o Sec. 21.1-3. Nonoonforminq uses. o o o (b) No nonconforming use shall b~ anlarqed, extended, recOnStrUcted, substituted or structurally altered, except when req~i~ed by law er lawful 0rder, unle~ the use thereof is changed to a use permitted in the area in which located, except ooo {6) In addition to the requirements of submectionm 1 through 5 above, no nonconformimg u~e in a Chesapeake Bay ~re~ervation ~ea shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substitutc~ Or s%ruOt~rall~ altered unles~ the director of enviror~ental engineering grants a development waiver after finding that: a. ~nere will bu no net increase in no,point source p011u%ien load~ and b. A~y development or land disturbance exceeding ~ area of 2,500 s~fuare feet complies with all erosion and sedimen% 0ontrol requirements of chapter 7.2 and divisio~ § cf Article IV o~ this chapter. Such a development waiver shall become null and void if no substantial work is co~%~enced within twelve months from %he dat~ such waiver is issued or if commenced, ~oh work is not diligently pursued to completion. Article IX. schematic ~la=s. ~ite Plane and Im~r0vement Sketches Division 2. Site Plans o o o See. 21.1-273. ~reparat~un and submission of site (c) Ever~ site plan shall b~ prepared in the followin~ manner and show the following information and loeatie~ of land uses where necessary and applicable: (311 Chesapeake Bay Preservatlo~ Areas. (32) Any other ~eature of the development which is required by this chapter to be shown on a site plan. Sec. 21.1-275. Administrative review (a) Ail site plans which are properly submitted as provided in this article for administrativ~ review a~d approval shall be reviewed and re0smmended for approval or denial by: 10/!0/90 l i i (4) The di:e~tcr of envirer~ental engineering or his agents, relative to: d. Compliance with the regulations and recuire~en%s e~ ~he Ch~aapeake Bay Preservation Areas, oeo (c) In the event the applicant disagrees with the final decision of the director cf planning, he may file a w~itten appeal with the planning commission within fifteen (15} days of that decision. In addition, adjacent property owners, a~d other a~rieved persons who desire to appeal issues pursuant ~e division ~ of Article IV, Article VSI or section 21.i-279.3(b) of this chapter, may appeal the final decision of the director of plannin~ b~ filing a written appeal with th~ planning commission within fifteen (1~) days of that decision, Other than isaacs appealabl~ by any aggrieved person purs~an~ to division 5 of Article IV, Article VI~ or section 21.1-279.3(b) of :~is chapter, appeals by adjacent proDert~ owners shall be limited to conditione which directly affect the property Owners and include access, utility locations, buffers, conditions of zoning, architectural treatment in tho C-1 and O-1 DistriCts and land u~e transitions. The commission sha~l fix a reasonable tim~ fat hearing of the appeal and decide the same within sixty (60) days. The commission may affirm, modify or reverse the decision. During this period the director of planning shall no% approve the site plan or the building pmrmit. Article XI. Definitions Sec. 21.1-281. Definitions. For the purposes Of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the mesnings respestivet~ ascribed to them by this section: Agricultural lands. Those lan~s %/sad for the planting and harvesting o~ crops er plant growth of any ki~d in The eden; pasture; horticulture; dairying; floriculture; or raising of poultry and/or livestock. Best Manaqement D~aotices o~ BMPs. A practice, or a oombinatio~ of practices, that is determined by a s~ate or designated area-wide planning agency to be %he muZt effective, DraeticaI means of preventinq or reducing t~e amount of pollution generated by hotpoint sources to a level compatible with water c!uality goal~. Diametel a~ breast height, The dia~aeter of a tree measured outside the bark at a point 4.~ feet ~bove ground. ccc Drip~ine. A vertical proj action to the ground surface ~rom the furthest lateral extent of a tree's leaf canopy. o o o Highl~ credible soils. Soils (excluding vegetation) with an credibility index (EI) from sheet and rill ~rosion equal to or greater than eight- The credibility index for any soil is 90-767 10/10/9( defined as the product cf the formula I%KLS/T, as defined by the "Flood Security Act (F.S.A.) Manual" of Aug,/st, 2988 in the '~Field Office Technical Guide" of the U.S, Department of Agriculture Soil Conserve=ion Service, where K is the soil susceptibility to water erosion i~ the surface layer; R is the rainfall and xuno~f; LS ia the combined effects of SlO~ length and steepness; and T is the soil loss tolerance. Highly permeable soils. Soils with a given potential to transmit water through the soil profile. Highly permeabl~ soils are identified as any sell having a per~eability ecg/al =o or greater than six inches.of water movement per hour in any part of the soil profile to a d~Dth of 72 inches (permeability group~ "rapid" and '~very rapid") as found in the "National Soils Handbook" of July, 19~3 in the "Field Office Technical G~ide" cf the U.6. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation $~rvice. o o o significantly impedes or prevents natural infiltration of water limited ~o: roo~s, buildings, streets, parking areas~ and any Nonpoint so~cu pollution. Pollutlcn oo~isting of constituents such as sediment, nutrients, and organic and toxic substances from diffuse sources, such as runoff agriculture and urban land development and use. Nontidal wetlands. Those wetlands other than tidal wetlands that are ~nundated or ~aturased by sur~ase or ground water at a frequency and d~ration ~ufficient to support, and that under ~or~al circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Pro~ection Agency pursuan~ to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, iR 33 C.F.R. 328.3b, dated Nove~er 13, 1986, as amended. Noxious weeds. Weeds that are difficult to control effectively, ~uch as Johnson StasH, Kudzu, and mollifiers rose. R~developmen=. The process of developing land that is or has been previously developed. steep slope. Any land area which rises or falls at a ra~e of 20 feet ox more p~r 100 feet as measured in the horizontal plane. Tidal shore or shore, Land con~ig~ou~ to a tidal body of wa=er betw~e~ the mean low water l=vel and the mean high water level. Tidal we=lands. Veqeta=ed and nonvegetated wetlands as ~e~ined in Section 62.1-13.2 of the Code of Virginia. Tributary StZ~a~. Any perennial stream that is so depicted on the most r~cent U.$. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute tepograDhic quadrangle map (scale 1: 24,000). o o o 90-768 Water-~ep~ndent facility. A development of land that cannot exist outside cf a resour~ protection area and mu~t be located on %he shoreline by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operation. TI~eae facilities include, but are not 1/mited to (i) p~rt~3 (ii) the intake and outfall Structure~ oi power plants~ water treatme~ plants, sewage treatment pla~ts, and storm sewers; (ii~) marinas and ethe~ boat docking strueturo~; (iv) beaches and other wat~r-orienued recreation areas; and (u) fisheries or other ~arine resourcus facilities. Wetlands. Tidal and nontidal wetlands. ooo (9) That Chapter 21.1 of the Code o~ %he County of Chesterfield, 197~, as ~e~ded~ is a~und~d and reenacted ~y a~ding Division 5, Sections 21.1-229.1 through 21.1-229.9, to Article IV and by adding Division 3, Sections ~1,1-279.1 through 21.1~279.~, to Article IX a~ Zollcws: AEticle IV. DeveloDmena Standards o0o Division 5. Chesapeake Bay Preservatio~ Areas Sec. 21.1-229.1. Resource protection area boundaries Resource protection areas con~ist of (a) tidal wetlands; (b) nontidal wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands or tributary streams; (e) tidal shores~ and (d) a vegetated conservation area nut less than 100 feet in width located adjacent =e and landward o~ the environmental feature~ listed in eubsectlon~ a through e above, and alonq bo~h sides of any tributary stream. Sec, 21.1-229.1. Resource management area boundaries. Resource ~anagement a~eus consist of (a) ~0O~year floodplains~ (b) highly erodibte soils, including ~teep slopes; (c) h~ghly permeable soils; and (d) nonti~al we~tands not i~cluded in r~$eur~e protection areas. A re~ource management area not less than lO0 ~eet in width shall be loca=sd adjacent to and landward oi every resource protection area even if the environmental features listed in sub~ections a through d above Sec. 21.i-229.3. Chesapeake Bay preservation areas maps. protection areas and resourGe management areas. Subject to any adjustr~ents which the director of environmental englneexing may make pursuant to section 21.I-229.4, the boundaries Of such areas a~e established as ~hown on ~he Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas ~apS, which are hereby adopted by reference and which shall be kept on file in %he office of the director of environmental ~gi~eering. For purposes of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act~ Va, Code Ann. Sections 10.0-2100 through 10.1-2ii5, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by ~he chesapeake Bay Looul Assistanc~ Department, VR173-02-01z th~ resource protection areas created by this Artiole are hereby deolared to b~ "Resource Protection Area~" and the re~ource management ar~as created by this Article are hereby Sec. 21.1-229.4. Bohuidary adjustments. (a) The delineation of any of the boundaries of resource by the director of environmental engineerinq where an environmental site assessment prepared b~ a qualified expert 90-769 10/10/90 indicates a need for such change baaed upon the environmental features listed in ~eetion$ 21.1-229,1(a) through (d) or 21.1~29.2(a) through (dr, respectively. Any Such environmental site assessment shall be drawn te scale and shall clearly delineate such environmental features. Wetlands delineations shall be performed consistent with procedures specified in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional wetlands, (b) A~y person agg~isved h~ a decision of the director cf environmental engineering concerning the boundaries of resource protection area or a resource management area may appeal such decision in accordance with the procedures provided in section 21.1-275(c). Sec. 21.1-229.5. Resource protection area regulations. [a) Allowable Development. Land development within a resource protection area may be allowed only if it is water dependent or constitutes redevelopment. (1) A new or expanded water-dependent facility may be altewed provided that; a. It does not conflict with The Plan for Chesterfield; b. it complies with the performanse criteria set forth in sections 21.1-229.5(b) end 21.1~229.6~ o. Any non-water-dependent component located outside of resource protection areas; and d. Access will be provided with minimum disturbuncu n~c~ssary. Wher~ possible, a singl~ point of access will be provided. [2) Redevelopment shall conform to applicable stormwater management criteria and erosion and sediment control criteria set forth in section 21.1-229.5(b), section 21.1-229.6 and chapter 7.2. Ih) Conservation ar~a. (1) A conservation area of vegetation that is effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering nonpoin~ source pollution from runoff shall be retained if present and established where it do~s not exiet. The conservation area shall be located adjacent to and landward of the environmental features listed in section 2].5-229.~(a} through Icl and along both sides e~ any tributary stream, The vegetated conservation area shall extend net less than 100 feet i~ width from eueh environmental featuree and tributary streams. The full conservation area shall be deemed to achieve a 75 percent reduction of sediments and a 40 percent reduction of nutrients- A combination of a conserver&on area n~t 1~ than 50 feet in width and appropriate best management practices located landward of the ~onservation area which ¢ol!eo~ively achieve water quality protection, pollutant removal, and water resource conservation at leas~ the eguivalen~ of the full conservation area may be employed in lieu of the full conservatio~ area if approved by the director cf environmental engineering after consideration of a water quality impact assessment submitted pursuan= tc section 21.1-229.5(c). (2) The conservation area shall be maintained to meet the following additional performance standards: a. In order tc maintain the functional value of the conservation area, indigenou~ vegetation may be removed only =o provide for reasonable sight lines, Dsdes=rian ways, 90-770 18/10/90 buildable follows: necessary to provide for sigh~ lines and vistas, provided that where removed, they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally e~factive in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and iiltering nonpoint source pollution from runoff. ii. Any path shall be constructed and surfaced so as to effectively control erosion. iii. Dead, diseased, or dying trees ar and silvicultural thinning may be conducted based upon the recommendation of a professional fore,tar or arborist. iv. For shoreline erosion control projects, trees and woody vegetation may be removed, necessary control techniques employed, and appropriate vegeca~ion establiZhed tO protect or stabilize the shoreline in accordance with the 5e~t available technical advice and applicable permit conditions or requirements. b. When the required conservation areas would result in the loss of a buildable area on a lot er psroel recorded prior to October 1, !989, the ~irector of planning or planning commission may modify the ~idth of the conservation area at the time of subdivision plat, schematic plan, site plan or improvement sketch approval in accordance with the re¢ommpnda~ion of the director of environmental engineering ba~ed upon the following criteria~ the minimum necessary ~o achiev~ a reasonable area for a principal structure and necessary ~i. Where possible, an area equal to the area encroaching ~ntc the cunservatlon area shall be ~stablished elsewhar~ on the lot er parcel in a way to maximize water quality protection; and iii. In no ease shall the reduced portion of the conservation area be less tha~ 50 feet i~ width. c. Redevelopment of lots or parcels on which prior develo~men~ has left so little of ~he natural en¥irozment that e~tablishment of all or part of the conservation area otherwise required by this subsection is impractical, may be ex~nmptud fram ali or part of such requirement b~ the director of planning or planning commission at t~e time o~ ~ub~ivlsion plat, schematic plan, site plan or improvement ~ketch approval in accordance with the reooK~endation of the director environmental engineering based upon the following criteria: i. ~y such lot or parcel ha~ 50% imperviou~ ii. Public sewer and water is constructed and currently ~erves any $~¢h lot or parc~l; or iii. Housing density on an~ such lot or parcel is equal to or greater than 4 dwelling units per acr~. d. on agricultural le~ds, the COnServation area ~hall be managed %o prevent concentrated flows of ~urfaoe water from breaehin~ the conservation area and noxious weeds from invading the conservation area. The agricultural conservation area may be reduced as 90-771 10/10/90 i. TO a minimum width of 50 feet when the adjacent land is implementing a federal, state, or locally funded agricultural best management practices pro,ram, provided that the combination of the reduced conservation area and the best management practices achieve ware= quality protection, pollutant removal, and water resource eo~servatlon at least the equivalent of the full conservation area; ii. To a minimum width of 25 feet when a soil and water q~ali=y conservation plan, as approved bF the hnplemented on the adjacent land. Su0h plan shall be based upon the Field Office Technical Guide of the U- S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and accomplish water quality protection ~en~istent with this Article. iii. The conservation area is not requited for agrioultural drainage ditches if the adjacent agricultural land has in place best manag~ent practices in accordance with a ~o~servation pta~ approved by the James River Soil a~d Water Conservation District. (c) Water quality impac~ assessment. (1) A water quality impact assessment prepared by a q~alified expert shall be sttbmitted to, and approved by, ~he director of enviroD~en~ai engineering for any proposed development Within a r~source protection ar~a, i~cluding an~ Section 21.1-229.5(b]. Such water q~ality impact assessment shall identi~y the i~pa0ts o~ the proposed development or compliance with th~ requirements of this Article. (2) If he determines %hat putsntial impacts created by the proposal are not adequately mitigated, the director of enviro~ntal engineering may require additional mitigation adequately mitigated, ~he director o~ envlro~antal mngineering and intun~ of the resource protection area. An~ per,on aggrieved by a decision of th~ director of envlro~en~al appeal ~uch decision Xn aGcordance with the Droc~du=es provided in section 21.1-273(~). Sec. 25.1-219.6. Reso~r¢~ management area requlatlons. Any ~se, development er redevelopmen~ cf land shall mee~ the following perfOrmunce criteria: (a) No mcr, land shall he disturbed than is necessary to provide for the desired use er development. (b) Indigenous vegetation ehall be preserved to maximum extent possible consistent with thc use and development allowed. (c) Land development shall minimize i~perious coveI consistent with the use or develol~ment ailows~. (~) (1) For any u~c, development Or redevelopment, st0rmwater runoff shell be controlled tc achieve %he following: a. For any ~ew use or development, the pest-development noapoint source pollution runoff load ~hall not exceed the pre-development load, based o~ ~he calculated average land cover condition of Chesterfield county; 90-772 10/10/90 m b. For redevelopment Sites net currently served by water ~uality best management practices~ the existing nonpoint source poll~tio~ load shall be reduced b~ at least ten percent (10%) after redevelopment. c. For redevelopment sites currently Served by water quality b~et management practices~ the post-development nonpoint source pollution runoff !Qad shall not exceed the existing load. (2) The following etormwater management options shall be considered to comply with the requirements of a. Insorpcration on the site of best management practices that achieve the required control; b. Compliance with a locally adopted regional sto~wuter management program incorporating pro-rata share pa!n~en~s pursuant to the authority provided in section 15.1-466(j) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that reaul=s in achievement of equivalent water c/~ality protection; c. Compliance with a ~tate or locally implemented program of stoz~ater ~ischarge permits pursuant ~ection 402(p) of the federal Clean Water Act, as set forth in 4~ C.F.R. Part~ 122, 12~, 124, and ~04, dated December 7, 19~8. d. For a redevelopment site that is completely impervious a~ c~r~e~tly developed, re~toring a mi~i~ Of twenty percent (20%) of the site ~Q ve~Htated open space. (3) ~y maln=enancs, alteration, use, or improvement to an existing structure which does ~o% degrade the quality of surface wa~er discharge, as determined b~ the director e~vi~o~untul engineering, may b~ exempted from the requir~ents of %his subsection. Any person aggrieved by decision of the director of enviro~ental e~qi~eering under this subsection may appel such decision in accordance with the proc,dures provided in section (4) Complianc~ with ~he retirements of (d)(1](a) shall he dete~ined by reference to total phosphorus loads in stormwater runoff. Th~ post-development total a. For non-residential uses and residential use~ at a density greater than 4 units per acre located in areas identified for such uses in The Plan for Chesterfield, the post-dev~lo~ent total phosphorus load shall not exceed 0.50 pounds per acre per year. b. For all other ~es, ~he total phosphorus load shall not exceed 0.44 pOB~S per acIe Der (e) ~ere the best management practices utilized regular or periodic maintenance t~ order to con:inue their agreement, bond or other assurance satisfacto~ =~ the director of enviro~ental engineering. (f) Land upon which agricultural ectlvlties are being conducted shall have a soil and water ~ality conservation plan. Such plan shall be based upon the Field Office Technical Guide of the U.S. D~par~en= of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service end accomplish water ~ality protection consistent wi~h this section. Suoh a plan shall be approved b~ the J~es River Soil and Water Conservation District by January 1, 90-773 10/10/90 Sec. 21.1-229.7. Supplemental re~ulations~ more restrictive (a) The regulatlon~ ~or resource protection areas and resource management areas shall serv~ as a suppleme~t tO the re~ulatione for the underlying zoning district. (b) where there is any conflict between the reg~Iatie~s applicable in the r~ouroe protection area or ~esonrce management area under this division and those applicable under any other provision of this chapter, the more restrictive regulations shall apply. se~. 21.1-229.8. gxe~p%ions. fa) Constr~ction, installation, operation, maintenance of electric, gas, and telephone transmission lines, railIoads, and public roads and =heir appurtenant structures in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law~ Va. Code Ann. Sections 10.1-~0 th~ouqh 571, or an erosion and sediment control plan approved Dy the Virginia Soil and Water conservation Bo~rd will be deemed to constitute compliance with the requirements of this division. (b) Construe=ion, i~s~aila~ion, and malntenance of water, sewer, and local ~as lines shall be exempt from the requirement~ of this division provided that: ~1) To the degree possible, the lc=ation o£ such utilities and facilities should be outsi~e ~esourca protection areas; (2) Mo more land shall be distu=bed than is necessary ~o provide for th~ desired utility installation; (3) All such oon~truetion, installation, and maintenance of ~uch utilities and facilities shall be in compliance with all other applicable ~ederal, stets ~nd local requireme~%~ and permits and designed and conducted in a manner that protects water ~nality; and (4) Any land disturbance exceeding an area of square feet complies with all erosion and sediment control requirements of chapter 7.2 and =his division. (c) Silvicultural actlvi=ies ar~ exempt from the requirement~ of this division provided that such uctivities adhere to water quality protection procedures ~rescribed by the Department of Fores%fy in ~ts "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations". (d) The £olluwlng land disturbances may be exempted from resource protection area regulations: {1) water well~ passive recreation ~acilities such as boardwalks, trails, and pathways: and (3) historic D~eservatien and archaeological activities, provided that it is demonstrated to the ~at~sfaction of the director of environmental c~ineering that= a. An~ required permits, except ~hose to which this exemption specifically applies, shall have been issued; b, Sufficient and reascnabl~ proof is submitted that the intended use will net deteriorate water quality; c. The intended use does not conflict with nearby ~lanncd or approved uses; and d. Any land disturbance exceeding an area of 2,500 square fe~t shall comply with all erosion and sediment control requirements of chapter 7.2 and this division. i (a) A request for an exception to the requirements of this division shall be made in writing to the environmental engineering. It shall identif~ the impacts of the proposed exception on water quality and on lands within =he resource protection area through the performance of a water quality impact assessment which complies with the provisions of section (b) The director of environmental engineering shall review the reques~ for an exception and the water quality impact assessment and may grant the exception with such purpose and intent of this division if he finds: (1] Granting th~ exception will not confer upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied by this division to o~her property owners in resource p~otentlen areas (2] The exception request is not based upon conditions or circumstances ~hat are self-created or self-imposed, nor does the reqUest arise cireummtanoes either permitted ox nonconforming that are related to adjacent parcels; [3] The exception ~equest is the minimum necessary ~o afford relief; (4] The uxceptlon request will be consistent with the p~rpose and intent o! this division, and not injurious tc the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and (5) Reasonable and appropriate COnditions are imposed which will prevent the exception request from cuusin~ degradation of water quality. (c) Any person aggrieved by a decision enviroD/dental e~gi~eering ~oneerning a r~quast for an exception to the requirements cf this division may appeal such decision in accordance with the procedures provided in section 21.1-275(o). Articl~ IX. Schematic Plane~ Site Plans and Improvement Division 3. Improvement Sketches. Sec. 21,1-279.1. Uses ~9..quir~_~_~ i~rovumen= sketch approval. An improvement sketch must be submitted an~ a~proved for any use in s Chesapeake Bay ~r~servatio~ Area which exceeds 2,500 square feet of land disturbance an~ for which neither site plan approval ~ursuunt to division 2 of this Article nor subdivision approval p~rs~ent to chapter 1~.1 is required. Sec. 21.i-279.2. ~re~araticn and submission of improvement sketches. (a) Requests for improve~en~ sketch review and approval shall be accompanied by (1) the applicant's certification that he Will p~rform the measures included on the imprcvemen= sketch and (2) copies of the improvement sketch us required by the director cf environmental engineering, For any land use or development as described in section 21.1~279.1 requiring a building permit, the building permit application shall ha accompanied by a request for improvement sketch review and 90-775 lO/1U/90 approval and the applicant's signature on tho building permit application shall constitute his ceztlfioa~ien that he will perform the measures included on the improvement sketch. For any other land use or development, the improvement sketch shall be s~bmi~ted directly to the department of environmental engineerlnq for review and approval, (b) Every improvement ~kotch shall be prepared in the following manner and ~hew the following information, where necessary and applicable as determined by the director of envlremmental enginee~in~ Boundary of entire tract by metes and bounds. (2)Parking areas and d~iveways. (3} Recreation areas and open space. (4}Area of entire tract and impervious areas. (5) Building reatrictlon lines to include Chesapeake ~sy Preservation Areas, existing and proposed utility easement{s) and setbackls) requi~ed by this chapter. (6) Existing and finished topography with a maxim%~ of five (~) foot contour intervals. (7: Storrfl drainage systems to include ~atural and artificial watercourses. (8) Ail e~isting and/or proposed improvements including wells and primary and ~eoondarW drainfie~s. (9) Limits of an~ established 100-year floodplain. (10) BUilding~ and s~ruc%ures, {1I) Limits of land disturbance. (12) ~rosion control measures. (13} Pollutant removal requirement calculations. (14) Best m&naqement practices satisfyin~ pollutant loading requirements. (e) The director of ~nviror~Sen~al engi~eerlng or his agen~ shall be zesponslble for reviewing the improv,ment sketch for general completeness and compliance with the regale=ions an~ requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Pres*rvation Areas. Sec. 21.1-279.3. Improvement sketch processing. (a) As agent for the planning director, the director of enviror~ental engineering shall approve or disapprove the improvement sketch in accordance with the regulations and requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area~ within thirty (30) days of the date o~ submission of the improvement sketch, i~ practicable. Such approval or disapproval may be the environmental engineer'~ approval or dizapproval of the building permit appl%catien. (b) Any person ~ggrieve~ by a decision o~ the director o~ environmental engineering approving or disapproving an i~provement skePeh may file an appeal in accordance with the procedures provided in section 21.1-275(c). Sec. 21.1-~79,4, ~eried o~ improvement sketch validity. An approved improvement ~keteh shall become null a~d void 90-776 lO/lO/gO m if no significant work is done or development is mad~ on th~ site within six (6) months after iinal approval. There shall be ~o Clearing or grading of any site without approval of an improvement sketch by the director of environmental engineering. Sec. 21.1-279.5. Minor or major adjustment in approved improvemen~ sketch. (a) After an improvement sketch has been approved# minor adjustnnent$ of the nk~teh, which comply with the spirit of this by the director of environmental engiaeering. Deviation from an approved improvement sketch without the written approval of the ~irestor of environmental engineering shall void the sketch and the director of ~nvironmental ~ngineerinq shall require the applicant to reaubmi~ a n~w improvement sketch for consideration. (b) Any ~a~or revision of a~ approved improvement sketch ~hall be made in the same manner as ori~inally approved. For nuch revi~i©ns, any requirements of this division which are found by the director o~ envi=onmental engineering to be unnecessary ~o assure compliance with the requireme~t~ of ~his divi~ic~ may be waived. sec. 21.1-279.6. Develo~nent to be in accordance with ~mDxovement sketch; prerequisite to issuance o~ buildinq (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to develop, change or improve an~ land or construct, erect or structurally al~r any building er strue%ure ~or which an improvement sketch is required except in accordanc~ with an approved i~provement sketch. (b) No build~nq permit shall be imsued to construct, ~rect or ~tructurally alter any building or structure that is subject =o ~he previsions of this division until an improvement sketch has b~cn submitted and approved. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. ~ullivan, Mr. Applegate a~d Mr. Daniel. Abstention: ~r~ Meyes. After further disoussiun, it waz on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan# resolved that all owners of Preservatio~ Act be identified, through the Count~ Asseaaor~ office, and notified by letter of any potential impe¢= the adoption of said ordinance may have on their property, It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minutes. R~conveninq: 12.D. TO CON~ID~T~I~ ABOLITION OF THE J(LHNsc~q's Cl~K. SUB]]IVISIOI~ANDDEVELOPMENTDRAINAGEDISTRI~-~TABLIS~ PUP~UAN~ TO SEUTION 15.1-4~6 OF ~'~U~ COD~ OF VIRG~I~IA AND SECTION 7.2-1 OF 'riu~ COUNTY SL~DIVISION ORDINANCE ~ RESOLUTION OFT HE,CArD OF SUP~%VISORS ADO~r~uONOCTOBER 26{ 1977~ AS AS~END_E~...pN APRIL 25r 1979 Mr. MiC~ stated thi~ date and time had bee~ adverti~e~ ~or a public hearing to consider the abolition cf the Johnson's Creek subdivision and Development Drainage District. 90-777 I0/10/90 Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he ow~s approximately three-fourths of an acre which may be within the proposed Johnson's Greek Drainage District and drains to Johnson's Creek, declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. George ~mer~o~, Jr., Mr. Jim ~ishop, Mr. Gene Miles, Ms. ==hal Blahs, Mr. John Srover, a~d Ms. Mildred Emerson voiced support for the abolition of the proposed Johnson's Creek Subdivision and Development Drainage District as they felt it adversely i~pac~d the value of their property, pr0~ibited th~m from being able to sell their property and placed an unfair tax burden OR ~hem. ~r. George statbos voi~ed opposition to the abcllt£on of the proposed District as the development was created in the Johnson's Creek drainage ureu to finance the cost of constructing drainage improvements in =hat area, he felt a eormmitment had been made for th~ development of tko District and the County had a moral/economi= responsibility to ~hose who wished to develop their property. Mr. sullivan closed the public hearing and brought th~ matter back ~for~ th~ ~oard. ~r. Sullivan stated he had attended several meetings with area individuals a~fected by the propose~ development district and stated there was overwhelming support for abolition of same; noted commercial/industrial properties within the Dis=riot are ~evelopi~g more slowly than anticipated; that it does not appear likely that the balance of the total estimated cost of drainage faci!i:ies serving the District will be within the foreseeable future; and that said District would place an unnecessary financial b~den on those affected. Mr. Daniel suggested the ~atter be deferred until ©ctob~r 24, 1990 to allow staff an opportunity to compile maps and data to bs presented to the Board regarding the impact on developable land, affected location~, etc., if the proposed District not implemented, the legal ramlflcation~ of abolishing the District, the economic impact on the County if the District were net implemented, the potential impact abolition cf Development Districts may have relative to Transportation Districts, etc. Mr. Maye~ q~s~ioaed ~he lack of presence of other Iandow~ers within the District who may wish to develop their property within the criteria of the development distr~et and stated he felt the matter should be deferred tO allow tho~e individuals an eppor~Lu~i=y to be present and express their Mr. Applegate stated thaf all those individuals within the District affected by the proposed development district were notified ~y tett~r of impending sct~on on this matter and were provld~d an opportunity to attend the meeting to indicate whether Or not they 4esired the District; noted that Mr. sullivan had met on several ocoasion~ with those affected individuals regarding thi~ matter; stated those individual~ in attendance had waited several hours to voice their concerns/opinions and he fel5 the Dis~rict should be abolished. When a~k~d, Mr. ~laha stated a two week deferral was accept- able. on mn~ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board deierred until October 24, 1990, consideration of the abolition of the Johnson's Creek subdivision and ~evelopment Drainage District and requested sta~ to provide the Board with information regarding the impact on developable land, affected locations, if the ~rcpn~ed District were not implemented, the legal ramifications of abolishing the District, the eoon0mi0 impact on the County if the District were not i~plemented, the 90-778 10/10/90 potential impao$ abolition of Development DistricSs may have retativa to Traesport~tlon Districts~ There was further di~u~$ion relative to cash flow data, land location, legal ramifications, the economic impact on the County if the District were abolished, etc. Mr. Sullivan stat~ the public hearing was closed. Ayes; Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and ME. Naye: Mr. Apple~ate. Absent; Mr. Currin. 12.E. TO CONSIDER AN O]~)INANC~ TO ~ TH~ CODE OF T}~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIRn~, 1978, AS A~ENDED~ ~ A~DING SECTION 15.1-3~ /E~A~DING ~O~$ESSIO~ OF ~C0~OL IN COUNT~ PARKS Mr. Micas stated thi~ ~ate and time had been advertised to considmr an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, regarding the possession of alcohol in County parks. Mo one came forward to ~peak in favor of or against the matter. On motio~ of ~ir. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITL~ 15.1 OF ~ ~E OF r~ CO~ ~E ~A~ IN P~IC BE IT O~AINED Dy the Board of Supervisors o~ Chesterfield Co~y: (1) That =he Code of the county o~ Chesterfield, 1978, as ~nded, is hereby amended by adding a new Eeo=ion 15.1-~2.1 as s~c. 15.1-31.1. Possession of oD~ed Alcoholic Beveraqe Containers. It ~hall b~ unlawful for any person to possuss o~ned alcoholic beverage oontainers in a count~ park, playground public Vote~ Unanimous When asked, ~r. Micas stated that possession of opened alcoholic beverage containers (~., ch~p~ne for r=c~ptions, Etc.) would be prohibited in accordance with ordinance. 12.F. TO CONSIDER AN ORDTNANCE TO A~I~DTHE CODE OF '£~ COUNTY OF C~STRRFIECD, 1978~ AS A~N~ED~ BX ~E~EA~ING SECTION 1-10.5 REGARDING THE Eli~TION OF ~ERTAIN BUIDINSS public hearing to con~ider a~ ordinance to ~end the Cod~ Of th~ Co~ty of Chesterfield, 197S, as ~end~, regarding the exemption of certai~ b~itdin~s from utilizing smoke d~t~c=ors, No One came forward to speak in favor of or against ~he proposed ordinance. 0n mo%ion of ~r. sullivan, s~conded by Mr. Mayas, the Board adopted the following ordinance: 90-779 10/10/RU ~ ORDEN,~'C E 9.1-10.5 ~NG ~M ~gI~ INST~ION OF BE ~ O~AINE~ by Co~hty: ( 1 ) That Chaptar 9. Chgste~fiel~, ~978, Se~. 9.1-1~.5. Reserved. 13.A. AW~ OF C~ FOR CONS~UCTION OF After brief discussion, it was on motion of ~r. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board ramolved to award a contract for construction cf the Youth GrGup Home to Keo_bridg~ Building systems in tho amount Of $631,108 which facility will bo oonstruGted northwest of tho existing JuvonZle an4 Dom~gti~ Relation8 Court B~ildinq. lit i~ noted funds are available in the FYgl operating Capital Improvement ~rogram in tko amount of $814,500; that state funding {approximately 50%) will be reimbursed to the County tkrough an appropriation by the 199I session of the Genera2 Assembly as the State has already appropriated funds to begin construe%ion cf said group homes: and the city of Colonial Heights has also agreed to fend one-sixth (1/6) of the County's share on a contractual basis.) 13-B- ~ROV~ OF N~I~OR~OOD{~) FOR ~ITX3T CURB~IDE REC~CLIN~ 0R ~otio~ of ~r. ADpl~qate, ~econded by Mr. Sullivan~ the Board Air/~tand S~it and Su~re~ood, with Woodlake* and BrandermilI* designate~ as altex~ates, for inclusioa in the 9ilot Curbsid~ Recyclying Proqr~ under tha sponsorship of thc Central Virginia Waste ~anagement Authority, which pxogram to begin in January 1991, will includ~ the participation approximately 1,000 homes from the neighborhoods, will f~de~ b~ reallocation of funds within the Sanitation budget, and which so~t is anticipated to ran~s between $2.00 and $3.00 $18,000 in operating Capital Improvement project fund~ from the Leaf Compostin~ Project into the Sanitation operating Dodger for ~ke Pilot curbside RecyGling Proart, Brandermill were race, ended a~ alternate~ for possible restrictive covenants prohibitin~ curbaid~ placement of trash and ~his issue must b~ resolved before they can participat~ the pro,ram.) 13.c. AWARD OF CONH1U~CTS FOR HEAL~H CARE AND DISABILITY /IISUEANCE FO~ '£~ Cou~l~ ~ FK~D, CALI~TDAR ~ 1991 Mr. Hammer noted that County and School staff had met on g~veral occasions with the Health Care Committee appointed by the Beard of Supervisors and School Board and e~plained vaxious 9recezee~ conducted by the Committee to evaluate proposed health care options. Mr. ~amsey stated ~he Committee's 90-780 10/10/90 with the County paying full-cost for individual employee On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Danielt the Board approved and a~tho~ized the County Administrator ~Q execute the necessary contracts with E~ui~or Health Plan, Inc., Southern Kealth Services, PruCare of Richmond and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Virginia (Dental Plan and Medicare Extended Plus) to provide health care options for the County and School employees and retirees for the calendar year 1991; and further, awarded a contract for an Employee-Funded Disability Insurance Plan to The Hartford Insurance Group, sub,eot to a mandatory enrollment o~ no less than 65% employee participation, at which participa- tion level the rate would be $0.1S5 per $100 cf payroll and higher participation level were attained. (It i$ noted no County funds will be required for ~hi~ plan.) 13.D. APPOINTMENTS 13.D.1. CENT~ALVIRGINIA WASTE F~%NAGE~T A%F~HO~ITY - BOARD OF On motion of Mr, Ceftin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomina~ion/appoint- me~% of two additional members to serve un the Central Virginia Waste Management Authori~'s Boar~ O~ Directors. Vote: Unanimous ~n motion of ~r. Ceftin, seconded by ~r. Apple~ate, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Robert L. Du~n ~o serve on the central Virginia Waste ~anagement Authority's Board of Directors, whose term is effective i~ediately and will expire on December 31, 1993. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated Mr. Stuart Pouliot is employed by the a~ ~irm as he, Philip Moxris, Inc., and therefore, he would disqualify himself from nominating and/or voting on his nomination/appointmen= to a peri=ion on the central v~rqinia Waste ~aaa~e~e~t Authcrity'~ Board Of Directors pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Inter~st Act. ~e stated, however, he endorse~ Mr. ~ouliot's qualifications ~or nomination/appointment to the Central Virginia Wamte Management Authority Board o~ Directors as he has seventeen years experience as a career environmentalist, is strongly qualified for the position and e~tremely knowledgeable in the field of Environmental Science and felt he would be an ascot to the On ~oti~ of Mr. Curri~, seconded by ~r. Applegate, the Board ~imultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Stuart Pouliot to serve on the Central Virginia Waste ~anagemen: Authority~s Board of Directors, whose term is effective immediately and will expire on December 31, 1993. Ayes: Mr. Ceftin, Mr. ~uilivan, Mr. Ap~legate and Mr. Kayos. Abstention: Mr. Daniel. l~.D.2. CEB~I%%AL VIRGINIA SOLID WASTE ~%NAG~9~T PLAN - ¢ITIZ~ AI~;ISORY CO~TTF~ ~r. Applaga~e recommended ~. Ben~ie Anderson and Mr. recommended ~$. Ann Scett. ~r. ~ic&~ in~icate~ the would be ye=ed upon ~n the order uominated. 90-78i Sullivan On motion Of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board suspended it~ rules to allow simultaneous nomi~aSion/appoiat- Bent of a representative to the Central Virginia ~olid Waste Management Plan - Citizens Advisory committee. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Apple~ate, seconded By Mr- Mayes, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Ks. Bonnie 7~%dorson to serve on the Citizens Advisory CO~mittee for the Central Virginia SoLid Waste Management PleD, whose tel%~ is effective i~ediately and will expire July I, 1991. Vote: Unanimous 13-~. CO~$~T IT~4S 13.E.1. STAT~ ~OAD ACCEPTANCE 9This day the County ~nvironmen~al Engineer, in accordance with directions from thie Board, made r~port in writing upon his examination of singer Road in Clover Hill Farms, Section Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, end on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconde~ by Mr. Daniel, ~t is resolved that Singer Road in Clover Hill Farms, Section G in Matoaea District, be hereby is established as a public a road, And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Tran~portaticn, be and it hereb~ is requested to take into the Secondary System, Singer Road, beginning at existing Singer Road, State Route 1292, and going westerly 0.29 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adja=~nt slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. And be it further resolved, that the Board cf Supervisors guarantees to the Virgini~ Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this rca~. This section of Clover Sill Farms is recorded am follows: ~eotion G. ~lat Sock 62, ~a~e 10, July ~, 1988. Vote: Unanimous This day the CoBnty E~vironme~%al Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Bseada Drive and Esoada Court in Sleepy Hollow, Section B in Matoeca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Escada Drive and Escada Court in Sleepy Hollow, Section B in Matoaca District, be and ~hey hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the virginia Department of Transportation, be an~ it hereby is requested to take into the ~eoondary system, Escade Drive, heginnin~ at existing Escada Drive, State Route 4122, and going ~asterly 0,11 mile to intersection with Escada Court, then turning and going northerly 0.3~ mile to end %n a cul-de-sac; and gscada c~urt, be~inninu at the inter~ection with Eseada D~ive and going southeasterl~ 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. 90-782 10/10/9§ This request is inclusive of th~ adjacent slope~ sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. Those roads serve 27 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for Secede Drive and a 40' right-of-way ~cr Essada Court. This section of Sleepy Hollow is recorded as follows: Section B. Plat Book 56, ~ages 19 and 20, January 15, 1987. Vote: Unanimous This day the Count~ Environmental Engineer~ in accordance with directions from this Board, made report ~n writing upon his examination of Woodlake Village Parkway, Clover Hill District. UPOn consideration whereof, and on .motion of ~_r. Applogate, ~eonnded by Mr. Daniel, it i~ resolved that Woodlake Village Parkway, Clov~r Rill District, be and it hereby be established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of TranspQrta~ion, be ~nd i~ hereby is requested to ~ake in~o the Secondary System, Woodlake Village Parkway, Beginning at the intersection wi~h Chatmoss Road, Sta~c Route number to be assigned~ and existing Woedlake Village Parkway, State Route 3600, and going southwesterly 0.11 mile to the interscGtloa with Beacon ~ill Drive, then turning and qoing w~st~rly 0.09 mile to the iat~rsootion with Lake ~iuff Parkway, then turning and going southwesterly 0,08 mile to the intersection with Ridge Point Road, then continuing southwes~eriy O.ll mile to the i~tersectio~ with G~ove For=st Road, then turning and going westerly 0.08 mile to end at existing Woedtake Village Parkway, State Route 360Q. Thi~ request i~ inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department Of Transportation drainage This road serves as access to adjacent residential properties. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department o~ Transportation a variable width 7~' to 110' right-of-way. Woodlake Village Parkway is recorded as follows: ~lat showing a variabl~ wld~h strip and adjacen~ VDR&T slope easements lying north of Woodlake Village Parkway te bo dedicated to the County of Chosterflel~. Deed Book 1857, Page 1~3, April 24, I987 and Deed Book 1861, Page 466, May 25, ~987. 13.E.2. P~,~ESTFORBINGO/RAFFLE P~IT$ On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approve~ requosts for bingo/raffle permits for the following organizations for cale~dar year 1990: OI~GANI ~-ATION Phillips Vol~mt~r Fire Dept. ~affle 90-783 lO/lO/gO Zttrick Youth Sports Associa%ion Raffle CO~TY OF C~s=~-'~ff.~...or 1978, AS A~mZ~DED, BE A~DIN~ AND I~E~ACTING ~CTIONR ]fclO.1 AND 21.1-5.1 ~RnATING TO CIVIL PENALTIES On motion e£ MT, Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date of November 14, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. for R public hea~inq to consider an ordinance ~o amend ~he Code o~ the Count~ c~ Ch=s%er£ield, 1978, as a~nded, relatinq to civil penaltie~ for ~on±ng. Vote: Unanimous 13.E.3.D. TO C[~NSIDE~ AN OP~DINANC~ TO AMEND ~ COD~ Off TH~ COU~P~ OF ~H~aTa~FIELD, 1978, AS Af~qD~)~ BY AM~ING AND ~ACTING ~TI~$ ~1.1-125 ~ 21.1-1~8 ~TING ~ ~AC~ E~S IN A~C~ DIS~S On motio~ of MI~ A~plegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, tke ~oaxd s~t the date of Nov~D~ 14, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. for a hearing to consider an ordinance to a~e~d the Co~e County of Chesterfield, 1978~ a~ ~Dded, relating to manufactured homes in A~ricultuxal Vote~ Unanimous 13.E.3.O. TO CO~P~IDER AN ORDINAN~4~ ~0 A~ND '£~u~ CODE OF T~ C(~UNTY OF C~TF/qFIRLDr 1978r AS AB~ND~, BY AM~PDING AND REE~4ACTING SECTIONS 21-) AND ll. 1-281 ~-ATI~ TO On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date of November 14, 1990 at 7:~ p.m. for a Dubiio hearing to consider an ordinance to amend th~ C~de of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to group homes. Vote: Unanimous 13.E.3,d, TO CONSIDER Ai~OPRIATZNG FY91 BOND On ~otion of ~r. Applegat~, seconded by ~r. Damiel, the Board set the date of November 1~ 1990 at 7~00 p.m. for a public hearing ~o consider appropriation o~ FYPl general obligation bonds and interest for Count~ and School projects and issuance Vote: Unanimo~ 13.E.5. ACCEPTANCE OF DR~DTO A SINGLE FAMILY ~SIDENC~ AND LOT IN SATISFACTIO~ OF A I~LIN~U~T PATI~ ACCGLrNT AT ~ LU~ C~IN~ ~ On mo~ion o~ ~r. Appl~ga~e, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board authorized the Co~t~ A~inistrator to auc~Dt on behalf of the county a d~ed to pro~r~y owned by ~s. ~lady$ o. Clary located at ~415 Loqandalc Ave~e, Ric~ond~ Virginia in zatisfaction of Mrs. Clar~'s debt in the ~ount of $34,0O5.08 to th~ Luc~ Corr Nursing ~om~, Chest~rfi=ld County, Virginia, p~nding veri~ica- 9Q-754 10/10/90 tion that no adverse liens or encumbrances of record exist and pending an appraisal verifying the value of the property. (It ie noted if the deed were accepteds the County will sell the property to recoup funds.) Vote: Unanimous I3.E.6. SCHOOL ~/~D ~ - Pl~Oa]~c~ YES (DROP~3T pt~F~T~ION) On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr- Daniel, the Board accepted the ~rcject YES {Youth Experiencing Success) grant from the Virginia Department of Education and appropriated funds in the at,cunt of $34Z,786 to the School Grant Fund for revenues and expenditures for the prcgr~ which targets intervention primarily at the middle school level to address the needs of at-risk student$~ to ame~es eech student's individual needs and to provide students wit~ additioaal support or alternative proqram need~. (It is noted this grant will not be affected by State funding reductions; local funds involved with this grant are included in the FYel Adopted School Financial Plan incl~din~ salary funds for ~he PrQj~G~ Director and five conmulting (apecial education) teachers.) Vote: Unanimou~ on motio~ of Mr. Applegete, s~conded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administra=or to execute all necessary document$ to ~ecure a lease-purchase agreement in t~e amount of ~96,500 for the ac~i~ition in FY91 of computer ecf~i9ment (a ~ini-ccmputsr, hardware and updated software) for the Department of Mental Health/Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse (D~5~RSA] to replace the currently lea~ed 10-year old system whic~ cannot sufficientl~ accommodate the needs of the d~partment; and appropriated $~6,500 for said equipment from the proceede from the financing. {It is anticipated financing can be paid-off in two years, one year prior to maturity; D~A's current bndget has sufficient funds to cover ~a~m~nt for FYel which is non anticipated to exceed $1],~00; and that, if the financing is approved, payments are scheduled to begin January 15, 1991, with =o=al DaY, onto for FY92 estimated =c be $37,000 and ~or F¥93, $54,000 (early Day-off). 13.F~l. CliENT 13.F.l-a- ACC~/~CE OP pARCELS OF ~ 13.F.l.a.1. OLI%-F~R D...~.UDY, ~OST~E~ FOR Ei~T~d4SION OF JUSTICE Re'J) ~MD%P~LDROSE COURT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board accepted on behalf of the County the conveyance of a 0.8176 acre paroe~ of land from Oliver D. Rudy, Trustee, for the ex~Dsion of Justice Road and Wyldroee Court; and authorized the County Administrator to execute the n=cumma~ deed. (it is noted a copy of s~id plat ia filud with the papers of this ~oard.) 90-785 10/10/90 13.F.l.a.2. DONALD D. PAPiSt PRE~IDKNT OF I~T(~4OND VA cm.~'r~M-FIELD $~AKE OF ~ C~u~CH OF JKSUS ~TST OF LA%-£~K-DAY~AINTB, ALON~ BATLRY~LIDGE ~O~ On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, Board accepted on behalf of the County the conveyance of a 0.1192 acre parcel of land along Bailey ~ridgs Road from Mr. Donald D. Davis, President of the Richmond VA Chesterfield Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Sainfs~ and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary d~d. lit is noted a coD~ of said plat i~ ~iled with the papers of this Board.) Vote= Unanimous %3.F.l.a.3. RICe. fOND ~TIR~{~I~T RESIDENCE ?.T~T'rMu ]~ART~TERS~Ip[ On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. currin, tho Board accepted on b~half of the County the conveyance of a 5 fOOt strip of land along Twlnri~ge Lane from Richmond Ketirsment Residence Limited Partnership, An Oregon Limit~ ~aztnership; and authorized the Co~t~ Administrator to e~eo~te ~he ~ecess~ry deed. (It is noted a ~op¥ of said plat is filed with the papers of thin Board.) Vote: Unanimous 13.F.l.b. C(~RYANCE OF ING~ESS AND ~G~t~SS ~%~I~]9~T TO A~OMATTOX P, IV~R WATER A~rTHO~IT~ ACROSS LAND ADJACE~T TO U~"~qDIN ROAD On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~econded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and county Administrator to execute an easement agreement between Chesterfield ~ounty and the Appomattox River Water Authority conveying the right Of in,ross and egress tO Appomattox River Water Authority acro~a land adjacent to chesdin Road, Route 669 so titl~ insurance can bu obtained. Vote: Unanimous 13.F.i.c. REOU~ST F~O~F/R. AND [~{S. WT~T~/~ A. VARnAvoTOA/J~)W ~0OL TO ENCROACH ON DWJ~INASE EASEMENT A~OSS ~OT 50, On motion cf Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved a request from Mr. and Mrs. William A. Vardaro to allow a per%ion of a pool ~O SnCroach on an existing 26 foot drainage easement across Lot 50, Block B, Nuttree, SeQtiOn ~, subject ~o the execution nfa license agreement. (It is noted a copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.F.t.d. REpUEST FR(t~ ~R. ~OB~RT K. CARTER 950 9~ITCLAIM & DP~KtNAGE EASI~T ACR0~M ~']~OP~TY OWNED BY NV LAND, 3=NC.r..~INGS FORESTr SIRC'I"ION 11 On motion of Mn. Appleg~te, aecond~d by Mr. Curzin, the Board approved a request from Mr. Robert K. Carter to ~uitclaim a 16 foot drainage easement across property owned by NV Land, Inc., in proposed Kings Forest, Section 11, and authorized tbs Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to ~xee~e %h~ necessary quitclaim de~d ~or said vacation o~ the drainage easement. (It ia noted a copy o£ said plat is filed with the papers of this ~oard.) 90-786 10/10/90 ,S~TI~ ~ere wa~ brief dlsc~icn relative to ~he requested ~ar~ort an~ driveway ~eing Iucated within an unimproved right-of-way; etc. denied a request ~rom Mr. J. Vernon Orrell to con~%ruct a carport and driveway within a portion of an ~xisting 50 foot Section 1. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. App!egade~ meconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator tO execute an easmment agreement between Chesterfield County and Virginia Elee=rio and Power Company to i~stull underground cable within a 40 foot easement along Cogbill Road ~or the re-routieg of service to the Airp0r%. (It is noted a copy of sai~ Dlat i~ tiled wi%h the ~apers oi this 13.F.~. ~PORT$ Mr, Sale presented the Bea~d w~th a r~port on the developer water and sewer contracts exeGuted by the County Administrator. 13.~. REI~OKTS ~r. Ramsay presented the Board with a status re~ort on tho Seneral Fund Contingency A¢cou~t, Ge~=ral Fund Balance, Reserve for Future caDital Projects, District Road and Street Light F~nda, Leasa Purchases an~ $oh0ol BOard Aqenda. Mr. Ramsay stated ~he Virginia Department Of Trans~crtatio~ has formally notified the County of tho acceptance of the following roads into tho Sta~e see0ndar~ System= ADDITIONS L~N~T~ EDGRR!LL NORTH (Effective 9/19/90) Route 2647 (Winding Way) - Prom 0.03 mil~ Northwest Route 2644 to 0.06 mile Northwest Route 2644 0.03 Mi. Route 2689 (old camp Road) - From 0.11 mile Northwest ~eute 2652 tc 0.22 mile Northwest Route 2652 0.11 Mi. AR~ORETU~ PARKWAY & PLAC~ (Effective 9/19/90) Route 755 (Arbcre~L~m ~arkway} - From R6~e ~0 Route 955 Route 955 (Arberetu~ Place) - From Route 76 to Route 672 0.42 Mi. 0.44 Mi, 9~-787 10/10/90 ~O~ACA~ HI~,~ - SECTIOi~ 4 IE~eotive 9/19/90 Route 3406 (Coralberry Way) - From 0.04 mile Northeast Route 3402 to 0.07 mile Northeast Route 3402 SO~ERVILLE COURT (Effective 9/26/901 Route 972 ($on~erville Coumt] - From Route 970 to 0.29 mile East Route 970 0.03 Mi. 0.29 Mi. 1~. A~JO~ On mo~ion of Mr, Daniel, seoonded by Mr. Mayes, the adjeurnsd at 1:20 a.m. (DST] on October 11, 1990 until a-m, on ©~tober 24, 1990. Vote; Unanimous 9:00 Chairman 90-7B~ lg/10/90