Loading...
10-09-91 MinutesAsmt. Dir., Utilihies Ms. J. Amy Davis, Aemt. to Co. A~mln. ASSt. CO. Admin., Legit. Sync. and Intergov~n. Affairs Building 0ffi~ial C~ief Robert L. ~ane~, J~., Fire Departmen~ Deputy Co. Admin., ~. William H. ~ow~ll, Dir., Pla~ing Daputy Co. A~n., ~an S~ices ~ir., Transportation ~. Richard ~. HcElfish, Dir., ~nv. ~ngine~ring County Attorney Dir., K~ws & Publio Mr. William D. Peele, ~i~f, Dev. R~view, Plu~in9 Mr. Richard F. Sale, D~Duty CO. A~mln., Co--unity Development ~r. M. D. Stith, Jr., Dir., Mr, Frederick Willis, Dir., ~n Re~ource Mgr. Mr. Sullivan called the ~gularly ~eh~duted ms,ting to order at 6:40 p.m. (DST}. Mr. Sullivan introduced Reverend Well Wheeler, Chester Christian chursh~ who gave the invosatien. Pastor of 91-656 10/9/91 Mr. Ramsay lsd the Pledge of A11eglmnce to the Flag of the united State~ of A~e~iea. 3. APPROVAL OF~INI~ES On motion of Hr. Applsgete, seconded by /~lr. Currinr the Board approved the minutes of September 2~, lggl, as s~itte~, Mr. Ramsay introduced ~r. Bradford Ha~mer who stated the Aooounting Department, for the tenth eonmeoutive year, had received the Certificate of Achievement for Exc.llen~e in Financial Reporting. B~ f~rther stated that the Historic Old Chesterfield County Courthouse and the Courthouse Square had been officially nominated and approved by the virginia Department of Historic Resources for the State of Virginia to Nr. Sale stated t~ere have been meetingm among the Building In~peotion ~taff, the Count~ Administrator, the Co~ty Attorney, ~. and ~s. Robert G. Ka~nes, and Mr. ~omam further stated Teac Co, oration has hired an englne~ing firm to r~view an~ r~cor~end corrective action to ~e home u~ed by M~. and ~. Ka~n~ a~d h~s a~r~ed to .undert~e the also retained an engineering firm to review and race--end correotive aotion, ~owever, lb differs from Tomac Co~p0~ati0~'u ungin==ring firm's reco~endation; and that at this tine, ~. and ~rS, Kamas have not granted p~is~io~ fo~ Tome= Corporation's ~ngineer to meet with County staff. in~i=utad staff has r~co~en~ to ~. and ~s. Kamas that bo~ enqinee~ing repo~s be submitted to the ~tat~ Building reportz could be zubmitt~d to the Buildisg C~ Appeals Beard whioh is the process followed when re~olvlng the~e t~e~ of disputes. E9 note~ all building pe~its and ~lans for homes fiv~ y~ar~, appruximatel~ 15,000 dw~lliag units an~ over 200,000 in~pectionm hnve been conducted in ~e County; that only two dwelling unit~ have encountere~ severe problems; that th~ B~ilding Inspection Dep~rtment has extensive, in-service n~ou~ traininq ~e~ion~ on Code re~i~ement~ to a~ea buil~er~, el~ctrician$, plumber~, e%c. and al~o has a quality staff randomly reinspect five percent of the inspections already conducted which ensures the Code is being complied wi=h; an= that he Salt the Co~ty has an excellent ~uilding Inspection Department and program. He f~rther noted the to review the Building Inspection Department and, particular, wi~ regar4 to ~uil~ing De, its aha plans and Board would be advised of the result~ upon completion. the upcoming budget in the near future. 9i-657 10/9/91 Mr. Mayas stated he had attsnded a meeting at Manchester High school, chaired by Delegate Ball, regarding environmental is~ue~; the Education and Advisory Committee for the Council on Infer~atlen and Managnment; ~he monthly m~etlng of tbs Youth Services Commission at Virginia State University in wAieh he was a speaker addressing the needs of the youth for the County and Matoaea District; a workshoD of the Ethnic Minority Section of the virginia Parks and Recreation Society in w~ic~ he was als0 a speaker; t.~e dadica=ion ceremony for the world-wide headquarters for com~mi~sarles for Ft. Lee; and the dedluetlou ceremony for thc new building at John Tyler Co--unity College to replace the ~ilding which was d~stroymd by fire last year. 6. ~.UE~T~TO ~OST~ONE ACTION. ~R~EN~YADDITION~ OR ~GES IN 'r~ o~ OF P~S~ATION 0A ~otion of M~. Daniel, seconded by ~. Maye~ ~he Board added It~ ll.K,, AdoDtion of a Resolution Approving ~e Refunding of $16,83~,000 of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1985A an~ Authorizing the Cowry ~ministrator to Seek Approval of the Raf~d~ng from the State Council on Local Debt to follow Item 11.D.5., ~ang~ 0r~rs to Kenbridge Con~t~ct~on Contract for Mental ~ealth/Mental ~etardation/~=tance ~use ~uildin~ and a~ded It~ ~.C., ~r. Baird G~D, Regarding B~ilding Practices in ~e County to ~ollow Item 8.B., ~. Thomas G. Cauble, Regarding Tome= Corporation and, adopted the u~nda, u~ amended. Vote: Unanimous 7. ~SOL~TIONS AND SPECIAL i%ECOGNITIONS 7.A. ~o~ SCOUTS ATTAINIq~GK~KOFEAGLE S~OUT O~ motio~ Of ~e Board, the following resolution was adopted: ~S, The Boy Scouts of ~ica was incorporated by Mr. Willi~ D. Boyoe on Februa~ %, ~910~ ~, The ~o~ Scuut~ of ~rica wa~ founded to pronot~ citizenship training, personal development and fitness of individuals; an4 ~$, A~er ~arning a~ l~a~t twenty-one merit in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a ~oo~, c~rryin~ out a servi=m project benm~iclal tc co--unity, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout ~=R~S, ~. Shawn Rich~r~ K~ltey, Troop 800, Baptist Ch~ch, has accomplished ~hose h~gh s~andards of cedi%merit ~d has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by le~ tha~ two percent of indivi~al~ entering the scouting mermen=; and ~S, Growing throug~ ~is e~eriences in Scouting, l~arning the le~son~ of resDonsible citizenship and priding himself on the ~eat accomplishments of hi~ County, Shawn cf whom we can all be very proud. County Board of Supe~isors hereby extendm itm con~atula=ions it~ ~itizen~. 10/9/91 aecampanled hy members of h~s family, and aongratulated him on his ont~ta~di~g achievement. 7.A. 2. MR. N. LYL~ On motlen of ~_he Beard, the following resolution was adopted: W~EREAS~ The Boy Secure of A~erioa was incorporated Mr. William D. ~oyce on February 8, 1910; citizenship training, personal develoD~ent and fitness of individuals; an~ WHeReAS, A£~er earnin~ at least twenty-one merit badge~ in a wide variety of fields, se~ing in a l~adership pOSition ~n a troop, carrying out a service project b~nefioial to hi~ co--unity, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit and living up to th~ Scout Oath and Law; and accomp!i~hed ~o~e high standards of ~itment and has by less than two per¢e~ of =hose individuals entsring the Scouting me. emit; and ~ER~S, Growing through his e~rlence~ in h~lf o~ the ~reat aCc~plis~ents of his County, Lyle County Board of Sup~isors hereby ~=ends its congratulations to ~. N. Lyle Sutherland and acknowledge~ the good fettle Vote: Unanimous Mr. Apple~ate presented ~e ~x~cuted reEclutlon to Suth~rland, accompanied by ~e~rs of his family, and congratulated him on hi~ outstandin~ achievement. ~r. Willis ~tated ~m. Reid has retire~ from the Juven~l~ re~olution to Mr. Chiles Tucker, the Assistant Director Of the Juvenile Detention ~ome. On motion of th~ Board, the following resolution ~a~ ~S, ~s. Theresa Reid retired from ~a ~este~fietd County Juvenile Detention ~e O~ 0¢tob~r 1, 199~; ~$, ~$. R~i~ was ~mployed July I, 1973 an~ has been an s~et to the Juvenile Detention Home ~taff and p~o~am; and displayed on a regular ~a~i~ ~uch as a caring attitude, mo~erly influence, understanding, and a~ove all, the ability 91-659 10/9/91 to get youth ts thinx positively and feel good about themselves; and WMERF~ Mrs. R~id ha~ taken th~ initiative to complete bulletin boards and seasonal displays throughout the Detention Home. Through this process many talented youth have come forth and assisted. There have been n~erous compliments from parents and visitors regarding the displays and creativity, and Mrs. Reid was higRlighted in County Comments regarding these displays; and WHEREAS, In October, 1985, Mrs. Reid attended the National ~Tuv~nile D~tention A~ociation'~ ~ational Ccnferens~ in Louisville, K~ntucky to receive the "Bob Radar Award" for being voted the Line Worker of the Year at the Che~terfleld Detention Center; and WHEREAS, Host importantly the ceils, letters and vieits fro~ former detainees about their progress and ~heir expressions of thank~ fe~ advice and service, givee a true indication of the type o~ employee and person Mrs. Reid is; and 9~tEREAS, F~r~. Reid will be truly ~i~ed, ~he i~ wished good luck amd good health in her retirement. NOW, THEREFORE ~E IT RESOLVe, that the Chesterflel~ county Board of supe~vi~er~ 9ubliely recognizes Mrs. T~eresa Reid and extend~ en behalf cf it~ m~beTe and the c~tizen~ of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her dedicated and diligent ~erviee to th~ County and extends best wishes to her in her retirement. A/~D, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a =spy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Reid and that this re~olution be permanently recorded a~ong the papers of this Board uS Supervisors of chesterfield County, virginia. vote: Unanimous Mr. sullivan presented the executed resel~tion to F~r, T~cEer requesting him to express thanks to M_~s. Reid for ~er dedicated ~=rvic= to the County and to wi~h her well in h~r retirement. oDDor~unity to speak. He stated he felt the ayste~ designed to protect ho~eowner~ in the County has experiensed ~tructural 1991. ~e further stated he had unwittingly purchased his home which had been approved by the county; that he felt the pictures he had submitted were indicative oS the Code vlolatlon~ and ~truct~ral defects of his home; that hie family had experienced physiological, psychological, financial and the builder, Fir. Thence Cauble, to meet with him in an attempt the Board to protect both the homeowner and the builder as he requested the Board to assist his Iamily by assuming control of their case. 91-660 10/9/91 ~L~. eatable stated he had ~eque~ted to ~p~ak in o~der ~o represent Tomco Corporation's position in response to Mr, Names~ statements to the Beard. He £~rth=r stated that Tomco Corporation strives to build quality homes and makes every effo~t to satisfy thc homeewners and they had repeatedly sought to resolve Mr. Karnes' concerns but felt Mr. Karnes ~ad prevented them from doing so; that Mr. ~arnes had refemed to meet tm seek solutions with representatives of Tomco Corporation, Tomco Corporation's engine~rlng fir~ an~ ~Lr. Karnss' engineering firm; that he felt Mr. Karne~' allegation~ ho Richmond newspapers were u~afounded~ that ~emao Corporation has been and would continue to be Befitted to q~ality and Mr. sru~b e~pressed appreciation to the Beard f6r amending the Agenda and allowing him the opport~ity to ~peak. ~e stated he had previously discussed with the ceunty Administrator hi~ concerns regarding the Building Inspsotlon Department; that his home also has similar prohlsn~ ts =he Kar~es' and felt these types of situations were not isolated; =hat he had been informed ~y s~aff in the Building Inspection Department that si~ty percent of the homes in the County do not receive on- site inspections ~ut rather drive-by inspections; and that due to safety rea~ens, he f~lt the Building Inspection Department she~ld requi~e on-site inspections. There were no de~erre~ items at this =ims. Mr. Bale ~tate4 thi~ date and time had been advertised for a Dubli~ h~arlng to consider an ordinance relatin~ to applio~i0n f~ in connection with land u~e and devmlopment. and ~division application fees. He reviewed the chronology of ~vents regarding the study and the proposed fee r~mtruct~ing an~ ~tated ~e Pla~ing Co~;;~on wa~ r~co~ending ado~ti0~ of ~e zoning and appliQatlon fee schedule ordinance amen~nt~. H~ no~d the last major revision to the County zoning and mubdivi~ion fee Discussion, co~ent~ and ~e~t~on~ ensued relative to initiation of th~ mt~dy; whe~er the tax base ha4 been taken into consideration ~eqar~i~g th~ proposed fee schedule; the polioy of th~ Boar~ re~arding fees in the ~lanning propomed fee schedule~ the comparison in fee= charged by ~r~dlng jurisdictions; whe~er all t~e prepar%d per zoning r~uest was necessary; ~e gro~h the CounSy has e~erienced sincu the lust fees; the decline in the current economy and the proposed increase in fees at this time; ~he Planning Department operating on a fee basis; whether there was a budget available addressing the amount of fees that needed to be raised; whether the increase in fees was being proposed to meet the budget; whether a list of budge~ outs was available for the Board to address if the proposed fee structure was not passed; etc. Mr. D~ni=l requested the County Administrator to prepare analysis outlining the reductions in costs, including the fixed costs, and stated he felt a decision on the proposed available for the Beard to review. When asked, ~r. Ste~maier stated the Planning Department's budget was based on estimated revenues anticipating the increase would take place on July 1r 1991 but ~ince the fee increase did not take place, the budget was running behind in terms of actual revenue year to date. He further stated it had been e~ti~at~d that by January t~ 1992~ the budget would be a minimum of SSO,O00 short and if there was ne fee increase adopted for this fiscal year, it would be $100,000 short depending on the rat~ of activity. Me no,ed the proposed fees were designed to o~ver the Planning Department's estimated whom asked~ Mr. Ramsay sta~ed when zoning activity declined last year, adjustments in the Planning Department were made by employees being lai~ schedule and how it would affect the small landowner. Mr. George Beadles stated he felt property which was zoned did increased for variances; that d~f~rral~ requested by applicants should be paid by the applicant after the request; that a f~e ~hould be charged for substantial accord determinations; that ~gn requests ove~ a o~rtain s~ze, such a~ a billboard, should co~t mere than a small siga request; and that the fees should be reviewed and set each year; etc. ~_r. Don Pavell stated he iea resident and owns a business in the County; that he is concerned with County events and, owned a ho~e in the County, be was not a landowner; tha~ he felt if the proposed fee schedule were adopted, the County would be requesting t_he landowner tu pay a user tax when he that private ownership of property was a fundamental right of citizens and should not bs surrendered by entering into organized government; that he f~lt properny ewner~' right~ were not being taken into consideration in that the County ordinance. M~. Clem Carligle, representing the Chesterfield Legislative commlt%es of the H~mebuilders of Richmond ~n hla capacity aa Chaises, stated due to ~iffioult economic times, they felt the County should reduce costs in term~ of axpesdit~eE; that they felt the study WaS accurate but the fees which were 10/9/~1 calculated by the Planning Department to review the information were greater in some cases than the ongalng costs to pFepare the information; Oat they felt When information was received by professional engineers, the infoI~a~ion should not be reexamined by ~taff~ that the Planning Depax-t~ent was needed since it serves various functions even if there were no new zoning requests but should be supported by tax =hat the proposal would triple the cost of a small zoning request; that there were other fe~ in place ~uch as tax assessments end cash proffers~ etc. and; therefore, costs for operating the Planning Department, to reduce the amount of materials provided to the Board and the ~lanning hearing was closed. ~r. Daniel ~tated th~ zoDiDg process WaS constitutional and citizens have a right to appea~ before thei~ locul government body to voice their opinion. He further stated he felt it might he feasible for the Plan~ing Department to be managed on a billable hourly basis which would be more equitable in that stain9 requests which were complicated and time consuming weul~ cost more but small zoning requests would not. Me noted cash proffers were implemented to provide services and not to ~ecover cost~ of the actual rez0ning and that zoning requests hand,ed administratively. Be further state~ he was not equal the cost; that the fees should be incrsamed on an annual basis, ets; ahd that the fee s~ructure should support the minimum amount of work effort requlrsd. Mr. Mayes inquired as tn the status of the data base, once established, could be used by the Depart~aent and others. F~r. ~ammer ~tated he felt th~ be used by other depart~ent~, including %%he Plannlng Department, within three years. Mr. Mayes ~tatod he felt technology in the County had b~en upOated to decrease the rate of hiring employees within the County and, therefore, after the Geographic Information System was completed and used for zoning requests, he did not feel there would be a need to ~dr. A~plegate stated he felt when property was rescued, the ~urther reducing job opportunities and would also reduce being spent withi~ the Co~ty. Re stated he felt the additional increase ~rom ~he ~ax base shoul~ absorb the costs of managing the Planning Department and, therefore, did not back to the Board during budget di~cu~slons in order to give staff an opportunity to analyze tho entire equation. Mr. Currin stated the Board was addressing not only residential but commercial and industrial zoning as well and that other parts of the country were experiencing similac problems but were increasing their tax base. He further ~tated he felt the Planning Department wa~ doing an excellent job and, in particular, felt they assisted citizens when ~pecial circ~stanees regarding zoning arises, that the policy of ~he board needed to he uddresse~ when deciding how the fees consideration. 91-663 10/~/91 Mr. Sullivan stated he felt the proposal needed to address other areas of concern ouch as thc Budget shortfall if the proposed fee schedule was not implemented and inquired as to the status of the ~lanniag Departmsnt'~ budget. Mr. Stegmuier clarified ~hat if the proposed fee s~hedule was net implemented~ the County would fall $100r000 short of projected revenue; and, if the ordinances were adopted new, the County would still fall approximately $50,000 short of revenu~ Mr. Sullivan res/nested the County Administrator to review the fee schedule proposal and examine other means as to where funds would come from to compensate the shortfall, and at that poin~ in time, tn bring to the ~eard a paper outllning recommendations. He stated he felt the ordinance should be deferred until ~he appropriate time and the recommendation should include either eliminating the increase in fees and/or the Beard being advised as te where the fua~s would come from to compensate the shortfall in the Planning Department's Mr. ApDle~ate stated he felt a deferral would net change hi~ view regarding the increase in the real estate tax base and the economy being in a decline and would only complicate the ~atte~ further. ~ further ~tated he felt the ordinance should be included as pert of the budget process and, therefore, made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mayas, to demy an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1975, as amended, by amending and reenacting Sections 21-9, 21.1-17 and 21.1-288 relating to application fees in connection with land use and development. ~r. Daniel requested Mr. A~legate to consider an amendment to hi~ ~otion instructing the County Administrator to review the comments received at the mss~ing, including but not limited to, addressing the budget shortfall concerns amd the proposed fee structure being based on billable hours. Mr. Applegate stated he felt stuff could addres~ thos~ concerns with direction £r~m the Board. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the status of the Plannlng Department'~ budget; the County Administrator addressing the budget shortfall~ the elimination of duplicate services within the County; the fixed costs for the Planning Department; end the p~opo~al being addressed during budget dis~sslens; etc. Mr. ~ullivan ~tated that although he did not agree with the proposed fee schedule~ he felt the projected budget shortfall should be addressed before deciding On the ordinance. He further ~tated he felt the pelicy of the Board regarding fees charged to cover the cost of services sheuld be reviewed and, therefore, felt d~ferral of the paper was appropriate. F~r. Applegate stated he felt year end adjus=men~s could be ~de to Cover th~ Planning Department's projected budget shortfall and, therefore, called £or the vote on the made by him, ~econded by Mr. Mayas, to deny an ordinance to amend the code cf the County o£ Chestsr£ield, 1978, as amended, by amending and reenacting Sections 18.1-9, ~1-9, 21.1-17 and 21.1-280 relating to application Sees in connection with land use and develo~ent. Mr. Daniel again requested Mr. Applegate to reconsider his motion to deny an~ instead to defer the ordinance indefinitely in order to give staff an opportunity to addres~ the concerns expressed. 91-66~ 10/9/91 When esked, · Mr. Micas stated based on Board pol~c~, an individual Beard member could revisit the issue at a later date. Y~. ADplegate ~e~tated he felt ~ deferral would not resolve the concerns e×prcsse~ by him regarding the increase in the tax base and again called for the vote on the motion, made by him, seconded by Mr. Mayes, te deny en ordinance to emend the Code of the County of Cheaterf~mld, 1978, a~ amended, by amending and reenacting Sections 18.1-9, 21-9, 21.1-17 and 21.1-280 relating to application fees in connection with land use and development. Ayes: Mr. Currin, ~. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Muyes. ~. Micas stated ~is date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider a service agreement wi~ the Central Virginia wast~ ~na~ent Authority (~) and Co~ty for %he servicing of ~ix recycling drop-off centers t0 weekly piokup~ m~ six identified locations. He further mtated the contrao= Wo~ld ~ for t~ee year~, ~e beginning cost would ~ approximately $100 per w~k per mite, and the cowry a~d between ~ and Chambers Waste Systems, !nc. (the ~rket the materi~l~.) as he felt ro~y01abl~ ~ent~s in ~e proposed ar~as were ugainmt the Zoning Ordinance and that recycling WaS o~ly S~11 ~art of ~ sol~d waste management problem. There ~e~ng no one el~a to address ~ ~ue, the public hearing was cto~ed. ~en asked, Kr. Mica~ in,ica=ed that ~e recyclable contain~s being in violation of the Zoning ordinance was ~elatad t0 the i~sue ~ could be h~dled a~inistraUively. ~r. Maye~ stated he felt th~ cost of ~e contract was excessive and addressed only a part of the wa~temtre~ and inquired a~ tO th~ current cast of recycling. ~. Ha~er stated ~e proposed oontract would cost approximately $$4,000 ~e noted three of ~e %~tatlv~ site~ are located in landfill the o~er mrmam tenta=iv~ly identified were areas in which trash receptacles were already located. He f~er mtated o~er co~t~ r~la~d to recyolinq in g~e~al wa~ a~p~oximately $350,000 including , ~e C~rbsid~ R~cycling Program and a~infstratlon costm ~or ~. Mr. Maye~ stated he felt it Was inappropriate to provide ~i~ typ~ of $~ic= for a select part of the County and not th~ ent~r~ County, ~at ~e re,est did not addr~ the ~eeds tho~ who ar~ concerned with recycling an~ mol~d waste, and that ~e e~tire wastestream i~ue zhould be add~esmed and not just re=ycllng. ~. Ha~r ~tated that through t~e proposed contract, recycling cemters would be emtablishe~ ~roughout th~ County, would greaUly enhance the County's recycling efforts, and that ~e request was part of a regional solution. 91-665 10/9/91 Authority, that recycling and solid waste were discussed among all of the jurisdictions in¥olved, and felt that the proposed twenty-five persent recyclable by 199s and felt the proposal On motion of Mr. Daniel, =econded by Mr. kpplegate, the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into a recycling service agreement with the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority for the servicing of ~ix recycling drop-off centers Agreement is filed wit~l% the papers of this Board and the sites tentatively identified for servi=e are: Northern Area Landfill~ southern Area Transfer station, Wintcrposk Dumpst~r Site, Huguenot Park, LaPra~ Library and a site to b~ identified in the Woodlake area.) 11.A. CONSXDE~ RESOLUTION FOR I:~)I~IA]TION Mr. Daniel disclosed to the Board that Philip Morris is his employer, declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant sxcu~ed himself from the Board. Mr. Sale stated Philip Morris Companies, Inc. was re~uesting refinansing of pollution control bonds which were previously issued by the In~ustriaI Development Authority (IDA) in the amount of $35,750,000, He f~the~ stated the IDA was recommending adoption of the re=olu=ion. On ~otion e= Mr. Applegats, seconded by Mr. Currln, the ~oard adopted the following resolution: ~R~S, the Industrial Development ~uthority of county Of Chesterfield (%he Authority) has sonsider~d application of ~hilip Morris Companies Inc. (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's pollution control refunding revenue bondm in an a~o~nt not to e~ce~d Bonds), to refund prior bonds issued by T-he Authority for the b~nefit of the Company for th~ acquisition, construction and installation of ~ertai~ air a~d wate~ pollution control and soli~ wamte and sewer disposal facilities at the Philip Morris Incorporated ~anufmett~ring plants in Chesterfield County, Virginia and the City of Rishmond, Virginia (the Projects), and has held a public hearing thereon on September 25 1991; W~EREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors (the Board) oS Chesterfield County, Virginia (the County), approve the issuance of the Bonds in orde~ to comply with Section 147(f) of ~he Internal Revenue amended (the code}~ and section 15.~-t378.1 of the Cods of Virginia of 195~, as amended (the Virginia Code)~ 'WHEREAS, a copy of th~ A~thurity'm rssalutlon the issuance of the Bonds, subject to ter~s to be agreed upon, a record o£ =he ~uhlic hearing and s "fiscal impact stat~ent" with respect to the Projects have been filed with the Board; 91-666 10/9/91 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHeSTeRFiELD C0~TI, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hersby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company to the require~by Se~ion 147(f) of the Code and section 15.1-1378.1 of ~e Virginia Code, to pe~it ~e Authority to assist in the refinanoing of =he ~rojec=~. 2. Approval of the issuance of the Bond~, as ~e~ired 8eotio~ 15.1-~380 of the Virginia C~e, the Bonda shall provide ~a~ neither th~ uounty nor the Authority s~all obligated to pay the Bonds or ~e interest thereo~ or oth~r pledged ~erefore~ amd nei~er the faith or credit nor taxing power of ~e Co~onweal~, the County no~ the Authority shall be pledged 3. This resolution shall take effect i~diately upon its adoption. Ayes: ~. Sullivan~ ~. coffin, ~. Applegate and ~. Absent: ~. Daniel. ~. Daniel returned t0 tho ~oard. On motion of ~. Daniel, seconded by ~. Mayes, the Boar~ Jcsuup Road, between Hu~ney Road and Eallmark Drive, and ~ installation o~= of $~71.oo for ~e i~tersaction of Pane Drive and Shilcutt Road with said funds to be e~en4~ from =he Dale Distri=~ S~ree% L~ght Account. On motion cf ~Ir. Currin, secunded by Mr. ARplegate, the Board approved obtaining cost e~t~mates fo~ the installation of ·=reet lights at the int=rsection of Bethssda Drive and s:ilten Drive, and at the intersection of Stilto~ Court Stilton Drive, in ~e~u~a ~agisterial District; an~ at intersection of Tall ~ioko~y Court and Tall ~i~korM Drive, in Clover Kill ~gi~t~rial Distich. An~, further, =he Board deferred indefinitely the following requests, in Clover ~ill the 1ocatio~s with the Supervisor: Intersection of Acorn Hill Court a~d Tall Hickory Drive Interse=tlon of R~ ~e~tnut Court and Red Chestnut Drive Cul-de-sac, Tall Hickory Dr~ve Cul-de-sac, Pecan Terrace Cul-de-sac, Acorn Hill Vote: 91-667 10/9/9I Medical Services A~visory Coan¢il by the Ceu~ty Administrator and not the Board and, therefore, requested withdrmwal of the paper. On motion of Hr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board Services Advisery Council, f~om the Agenda. ll.D.1. A14~%~ENTTO14IN~TES OF ~EI~dBER2§, 1991 On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board amended the minutes of the Septe~d~er 25, 1991 Board meeting am "AN ORDINANCE TO A~END T~= CODE OF THE COU~Y OF BE IT ORDAINED by th! Board of Supervisors uf Chesberfield County: (1) That Sections 7.2-1 a~d 7.~-7 o~ Chapte~ 7-~ of the Code of the County of C~esterfleld, 1978, as amended, are amended and reenacted to read as follow~: 8eogion 7.2-1. Definitions. The following te~s, wherever used or referred to in this chapter, shall have the respective meanings set forth below, unless the context clearly require~ a contra~-_; meaning or any such term is expressly defined to the contrary elsewhere in this ehaptur: Applicant. A~y p~rson submitting mn erosion and sediment con,Tel plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land disturbing aotivlties o o o Ero6ion Impact Fee. An area of land not associated with current land disturbing a~tiv~t¥ but subject to persimtent soil a~osion r~sulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring propertXes or Xnto state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land of one acre or less used £sr residential purpoee~ ~r to ~horeline~ where the o o o Land dieturbin~ activity. Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water er wind and the movement of ~ediment~ inte waters or onto lunds in the county cr =djacent jurisdictions, including, but no= limited to, clearing, gl~bh±ng, grading, ~cavating, ~ansportlng and filling of land, and the installing of water, sewer, gas or oil lines, drainage pipes and ~torm ~ew~rm, unle~ occurring on a hard su=faced road, street mr sidewalk; e~cept, that the term shall not include: 0 0 0 91-66B 10/9/91 (5) Tilling, plantlnq os harvesting of &~ricult~ral~ horticultural or forest crops or liYestock operations, terraces, terrace outlets, cheek' dame, desilting basins~ dikes, ponde? ditnhee, strip cropping, i lister furrowing, csntour cultivating, contour furrowing, land Orainage and land o o o (12) Shore erosion control projects on tidal waters when the projects are approved by local wetland~ beard~, the Engineers. o o o Ow~e~. The owner or owners of the freehold of the promises or lesser estate th~reln, a mortgage or vendee in possession, assignee of ramie, receiver, executor, trustee, Permitt~e. ~e person to whom the permit authorizing land disturbing activities is issued cr the per,on certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed. o o o sta~e Waters. All waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially withia or bordering the C~onwealth or within its jurisdiction. Subdivision. The term subdivision shall be defln~d a~ ~et forth i~ Section 15,1-~ of the code o£ Chesterfield county, virginia, 1978~ as amended. 0 e o Sec. 7.2-7. Exammtinn for L~__..diaturbinc actlvitie~ involvin~ more than one 4urls~ict~on. Any permon whose land disturbing actlv~ties involve land~ which ~xtend into the jurisdiction of another local erosion and ssdiment control pro,ram and who chooses to have a conservation plan apprOVed by the virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board shall not~fy the environmental engineer of such plan approval by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. Th~ environmental enginee~ shall accept ~uch approved plan as fulfillment of the requirements Of ~eetions 7.2-8 and 7.2-9. Such a~proval notwithstanding, a land disturbance permit must st~ll ~ obtained from the county. (7~27-88, o o o Vcte~ Unanlmous~ "AR ORDINANCE TO AMEND TMR CODE OF THE C0~NT¥ OF CHESTERFIELD, 1~78, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REEnACTiNG SECTION~ 7~2--1 AND 7.2-7 RELATING GENERALLY TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 91-~9 10/9/91 ~o~e of the County of Chesterfield, 19?R, as amended, are Section 7.2-1. DefJnltions. The following terms, wherever used or referred to in this c~hapter, shall have the respective meanings set forth below, mnless the context clearly requires a contrary meaning or any such term ie expressly defined to the contrary elsewhere in t/~is chapter: ADDl.ic. ant. Any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for apprsval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when requir.d, authorizing land disturbing activities Erosion Imnaot Area. An area of land not associated with current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent SOil erosion resulting in the delivery Of sediment onto neighboring properties er into state waters. This definition less used for residential purposes or to shorelines wh~re the erosion results from wave action or other ¢oastal 9reCesses. Land distumbin~ activitY. Any land c~ange which may result in soil erosion fr~m wa~er or wind and the movement of ~di~ents into waters or onto lands in the COunty O~ adjacent jurisdictions, including, but not limited tn, slearlng, grubbing, grading, excavating~ transporting and filling of land, and the ins=ailing of water, sewer, gas or oil lin~s, drainage pipes and ~turm s=wer~, unless oc~u=ring on a har~ not include: o s o ($) Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops or liYestook operations, including engineering opera=ions am follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, pon~s, ~itehes, strap croppimg, lister furrowing, contour cultivating~ contour furrowing~ land drainage and land irrigaaisn. oeo (12) s~ore erosion control projects on tidal waters when the project= are approved by local w~tlandg boardg, the Marine Resources Commission or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. property. ~ermlttee. Th~ per-on to whom tho permit authorizing certifle~ that the approved ~rosion and sediment control plan will be followed. o o o 91-67~ 10/9/91 ~tate Waters. All wat~r~ On the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the Co~u~onwealth or within it~ J~rlsdi~ti~n. ~uhdixision. The tern subdivision nhall be defined as set forth in ~ection 18.1-3 of the Code of Chesterfield County, Virginia, i978, az amended. sea. 7.2-7. Exemption for land disturbin~ activitie~ Any per=on who~e lan~ ~isturbing aotivitie~ involve lands whio~ extend in=o the jurisdiction of another local erosion and ~d~m~nt Control program and who chesses to have a conservation plan approved by the Virginia soil and Water Conservation Board ~ha11 notify the environmental engineer of such plan approval by the virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. The environmental engineer shall accept such Dian as fulfillment of the requirements of sections 7.~-S and 7.1-9. Such approval notwithstanding, a lan~ disturbance permit must still be obtained f~om the County. Section 1) O S O ~D_.~_=_A~PROPRIATION OF F~NDR FRON ~H~ I~D~TI~IAL PA~K ~RO~~R Wwl'~S S~Y OF A~ On motion of ~. Applegat~, ~econded by ~. C~rin, ~ ~oar~ appropriated $28,900 fr~ ~e Tndustrial Park Improvement ~d f~r a wetlands study of ~a Ai~urt Indu~al Park by Espey, ~st0~ & Associates to identify and verify wetland~ lo~ations and the size of these ar~a=. Vote: Unanimous ll.D.3. STATE I~OADA~c~_~AMCE This day th~ County Environmental ~ngimeer, in accordance with directions ~rcm this Board, made report in writing upon hi~ examination of Brandy Oaks Drive, Brandy Oaks Place~ Brandy Oaks Terrace and Brandy Oak~ Way in Brandy Oaks, Section 1, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of ~r. Applegata, seconded by Mr. Currin~ it is ~¢solved that Dran~y Oaks Drive, Brandy Oaks Place, Brandy oaks Terrace and Brandy Oaks Way in Brandy Oaks~ Section 1, l~atoaca District, be and they hereby ar~ established as public roa~$. And b= it further resolved, that the virginia D~partment of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the S~condary System, Brandy oak= Drive, beginning at thc inter~ection with Beach Road, State Ro~te 69~, and going northeasterly 0.0~ mile =o tke in=ersection with Brandy Oak~ Place and Brandy oaks Terrace, th~ turning and goin~ easterly 0.15 mile to the intersection with Brandy Ouks Way and continuing easterly 0.1~ mile to ~d in a tmmporary turnaround; Brandy Oaks Place, beginning at the i~tersection with Brandy Oaks Drive, going westerly 0.lQ mile, =h~ t~rning and going northerly 0.11 mile to end in a O~l-de-sac; Brandy Oaks Terrace, be~innin~ at the intersection with Brandy Oaks 91-67i 10/9/91 Drive and going southeasterly 0.31 mile to end in ~ cul-de-sac; and BraDdy 0ak~ ~ay, beglr~Ing at the intersection with Brandy Oaks Drive and going northerly 0.19 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Th~s request is inclusive of ~.he adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department cf T~an~portation drainage easements. These roads serve 64 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an unrestricted rlqht-of-way of 50' with necessary easements f~r Beach Road and Brandy Oaks Place and Brandy Oaks Terrace which has a 90' right-of-way. This section of Brandy Oaks is recorded ns follows: Section 1, Plat Book 65, Page 32, February 15, 1989. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in socerdance with directio~e from this Board, made report in w~iting upon hi~ examination of Barrow Place and Stcnegato Road in Salisbury - Barrow Place, Section 1, Midlothian District. Upon conmideration wheruof, and on motion of M~. Applegate, seconded by Mr. currin, it im r~solved ~at Barr~ Place and Midlothian District~ be and ~ey h~eby are e~tablished as p~lic roads. ~d be it f~ther resolve~, ~at the virginia Department secondary system, Barrow Place, begi~ing at existing B~row Place, St=to Route 1244, and going nor~eusterly 0.17 mile to ~xi~ing H~on~g~te Road~ Stu~e Rou~e 1008, an~ going sou~easterly 0.16 mile to end in a t~porary turnaround. This re,est is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distan=e and deanna%ed v~in~a Depar~en~ of Transportation ~ainage easements. The~e reade ~erve 15 unr~tricte~ right-of-way of D0' with ~ecessary eas~ents for Th~m ~c=ion 0f Salisbury Barrow Place i~ recorded as follows: Section 1, Plat Book 60, ~g~ 83, April ~, 1985. Vote: 11.D.4. d~K~SO~_DAVIS HI--AY STR~T LI~T ~ On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board transferred $16,986 £ron the Oaklawn Rural Addition Proja~t and $14,220 from the Willis/Coach Road Industrial Access Project for the installatlon cf ~treot lights on Jefferson 91-672 10/9/91 Davis Highway, between Alcott Road and Tower Road; authorized staff to proceed with the installation of street light~ including authorization to enter into ¢~nstruction agreements/ contracts/permits with virginia Power and/or the Virginia Department of Transportation; and authorized the annual naintenanoe cost of $4,4Do be included in the County,~ Street Lighting Program. vote: Unanimous On motion of ~. App~egate, ~eco~d~d by Mr. ~in, ~he Board au~orized the County A~in~strator to execute Change Orders, ~e mechanical room, and in the ~o~t of $32,639.00, for waterproofing for ~m mechanical area, for the new Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse Building, fro~ the Mental Health/~e~tal Retardation/Sub,tahoe Building Pr0j~ct.) Votc~ Un&ni~ous ADQ.~T3~O~I...OF A R~SOL~TIOW A~OV~N~ T~E ~u~G ~_~ ~. Micas stated %hat current favorable interest raaco in ~h~ =unioipal bond market would pe~it the County to refund the Of $926,248 which was in excess of ~e 5.5 percent of the ~ntere~t rate for ~e refunding would be ~.65 percent, the antiolpated sale date was Nove~er 13, 199~, an~ at that time, the actual salu resolution would be brought to the Board for approval. He stated staff's reco~ndatio~ was' for ~e Boa~d to au~orize ~e cowry A~inist~ator to =e~ approva~ of refunding from ~e State council on ~cal D~bt and would also adopt ~e rezolution agp~Oving the ref~ding of ~e 1985 water and sewer revenue bonds. On motion of ~. ADplegate, seconded by Mr. Cu~rin, ~e Boa~d authorized the County A~ini~tr~tor =o ~emk approval of the refunding Stem the State Council on ~oal Debt and a~opted the ~otl~ing resolution: A RESOL~ION O~ THE 80~ 0~ S~VISO~ OF ~ C~EST~FIELD, VIRGINIA, ~PROVING THE REF~ING 0F THE CO~TY~ ~ $16,8~ 0, QQ0 Q~ST~DI~G PRINCIPA~ ~O~T OF WATER ~D S~ ~E BONDS, S~IES 1985A, DATED AUGUST 1, ~I~G OR NOV~BER 1, 1996 TO ~000; BOTH I~CLUSI~, ON NOV~ 1, 2003 ~ ON NOV~B~ 1, 2010 ~ A~ORI~IN¢ Ta~ CO~Y ~HINIST~R ~ OTH~ CO~TY 0FFICIAL8 TO SEEK THE APPROV~ OF THE STAT~ CO~CIL ON ~ D~BT WITH RESt=CT TO S~ION 15.1-2~7.4S OF ~E COD~ OF VIRginIA 19~0 "G~D~IN~S FOR ~PROV~ OF REF~DI~G BONDS BY ~E STAT~ CO~CIL ON ~L DEBT" ~0~TED BY THE STATE ~dIL 0N ~CA~ ~e~terfi~ld, Virginia, has d~te~inad ~at it wo~ld desirable to refund ~n advance of their ~tated maturities the County's $16,~30,000 outstanding prlnuiDal amo~% of Hater and 91-67] 10/9/91 maturing on November 1, 1996 fo ~600, both inclusive, on November 1~ 2003 and on Nove~ber 1~ 2010 (collectivelyr the t¢lgs5 Bonds"), for the purpose of realizing debt service cost savings; and ~REA~, the Board of ~upervisor~ hu~ determined to seek the approval of %he Skate Council On Local Debt (the "State Cou_~cil") of the issuance of the refunding bonds for the p~ese of refunding the 198~ ~onds, as reguire4 by Section 15.1-227.46 of the Code of Virginia, 1950; NOW, T~EPd~FCRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of supervisors of the county of Chesterfield, Virginia, as follows: SECTION 1. Approval of Refunding of 1985 ~Q~. The Board hereby authorizes the refunding of 1985 Bends. SECTION ~. State Council on Local Debt .A~p~oval. The County Administrator and other appropriate official~ of the County are hereby authorized and directed to present a plan of refunding with resDe=t to the I9~ Bonds to the State Co~nei~ and tO ~e~k the a~proval of the State Cot%~eil of the i~suanca of refunding bon~ p~rsuant to Section 15.1-227.46 of the Cod~ of Virginia, 19S0, and the "~uidelines for Approval of Refunding Bonds by the Stats Council on Local Debt" adopted by the State Council on Local Debt on July 16~ I98~, aa amended on June 22, 1988, The County is hereby authorized to pay any fee~ and ~pe~e~ of th~ Rtat~ Council in connection therewith. SECTION 3. Effectiveness of Resolution. This resolution ~hall take effect upon it~ a4eption. Vote: Unanimous ll.E. ~TILITIESDEP~ ITEMS F1F~'~ FOOT ANDVARIABLEWIDg~OR~ON OF O?~.~ ~. Sale ~tated this date and time had been advertised for a p~llc h~ing ~o conside~ an ordinnn=e ~o vn=a=e ~ f~fty foot and variable width portion of 0'Hera Drive within Glen Tara s~ivision, Section "5-A". ordinance. adopted the following ordinance, subject to ~e retention of f~led wi~ the papmr~ of th{~ Bnard.) ~ O~IN~CE whereby ~e CO~TY OF ~E~T~IELD, VIRGINIA, ("G~TOR") vacates ~o REIDS ~INTE ASSOCIATES~ INC.~ C~S W. WI~S0N ~d S~0N L. WI~SON, (husband and wife), and GEORGE E. SHIPSHINSKI, ~. and a 50' and variable wid~ port,on of O'Mara Drive, in Glen Tara $u~ivislon, Section Virginia, am shown on a plat th~of duly recorded in ~e Clerk's office of the Circuit Co~= of Chesterfiel~ C~nty in Plat ~ook 44, Page 48. 91-674 10/9/91 of Supervisors of Chesterfield CoUnty, Virginia to vacate a 50' and va~iabl~ width pc~tio~ of O~ara Drive in Glen Tara Subdivision, Section '~-At, Natoaoa Magisterial Dietrict, Che~te=field CoUnty, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat dated April 24, 1991 recorded in the Clerk's offics of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Bock 44, ~age The road petitioned to ~e Vacated is more fully described as follows: A 50' and variable width portion of O'Hara Drive th~ location of which ~s more fully shown on a plat by J. K. Timmons & Associates~ dated May ~2, 199~, a copy of which is stt&che~. W~=R~AS, notice has ~ given ~suant to Section 15.1-431 of ~e Code of Vi~qinia, 1950, a~ ~eBded, by a4v~rti~ing; ~ER~S, no public necessity ~xi~t~ for %he continuance cf the ~ortion of road sought to b~ vacated. ~a~ p~suant to section 15.1-48~(b} o~ th~ Cod~ of Virq~nl~, 19~0, ~s amended, the aforesaid portion of road ~ Grantees hereby convey unto the Grantor an4 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect accordun=~ with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Cod~ o ~ inia, 1950, as am~n~e~, an~ a certified oopy of this Ordinance, together wi~ ~e plat atta~ed hereto, mhall be r~orded no sooner than thlrky ~uys hereafter in the Clerk'm office of the C~rcuit Co~t of Chesterfield Co~ty, Virginia pursuant to Se=~ion 15.1-485 of th~ ~ode of Virq~n~a, 1950, ~a~ am~ded. The effent of thlm Ordinance p~suant to sectio~ 15.1-~83 is to destroy ~e force and effect of ~m recording of portion of the plat vacated. Thi~ ordinance ~hall ve~t ~imple title to ~e c~nterllne of ~e road h~eby vacated Seotion '~-A', free and clear of any rights of p~l~c Accordingly, ~im Ordinano~ shall be in~e~ in =h~ Of ~e County of Chesterfield as gra~tor and ~IDS and MICHELLE T. SHIPSHINSKI~ (hu=band an~ wife), or their ll.E.2. CONS~T l/...E..2.a. SET DATE FO~ P~BI~IC HEA~ING TO ~N~ID~ -x~ 0n motion of Mr. Applegate, s~con4e~ by Mr. c~in, ~ Board ~dopted ~e following rezolutio~ Getti~ a public h~aring Nove~er ~7, 199~ at 9:~ a.m. an~ authorized ~osting and p~blisBing of public notic~ of the Co~ty~ inteRt tO abandon a Do. ion ~f S~a~iew Lane: (It is noted a copy of ~e plat is filed with the papers of ~i~ Board.) 91-675 10/9/91 Reeolutlen cf the County of Chemterfield's intention to sonsider a Rssolu%£0n and Order ~o a~andon a portion of Starview Lane. Pursuant to Section 33.1-1§1 of the ~_d9 oZ~__V~r~inia, 1950, a~ amended, De it ~esslved that the C~e~te~fisld County Board of ~upervi~ors hereby gives notice that at a regular meeting to be held on Norther 27, 1991, it will consider Resolution and Order to abandon a per%ion of Statview Lane, more fully described as follows: A portion of starvlew Lane~ Route 687, Clover ~ill ~agisterial Diztri~t, Chesterfield County, Virginia as shown on a plat prepared E. Lewis & ~seiates, P.C., dated ~uly ~l, 1991, a espy cf which is attached to this resolution. A~ccrdingly, the Cl~rk of the Board ~hall ~eud a copy of this resolution to the State Transportation Commissioner thereof. Thc Clerk shall furthe= cause to be published and posted the required notices of the Board's intention to abandon this portion of Statview Lane. Vote: Unaninous SET DATEFORiK~I~%P~IN~TO ~ONSID~RAN ORDTN;~N~ TO ~ ~ ~0~ ~TT~ TTI~ SECTION 20-69 OF 'mn CODE OF ~BT~FIELD. 1978. A8 A~END~ On motion of Mr. Applegate~ seconded by Mr. Currln! the Board set th~ date of hearing to eonside~ an ordinance to a~end the Code of the County of C~est~rfield, ~978, as ame~lded, by amending and reenacting Section 20-69 relating to charges for wastewater service. Vote: Unanimous POW~COMPAN~ATT~RAIL~"~BRT~K~ ~I~ 9~ ~ HOUSE ~ ~ ~ On motion of ~. Applegate, seconde~ by ~r. Currin, the Board authorized the Chai~an of ~e Board and the County A~ini~trator to e~ecute an ~a~ent agre~nt w~th V~rgin~a Elect=lc and Pow~ Company to install und~round oable within a l~ foot easement for ~e ~ailey ~ridg~ High ~chuul field house and ~tad~ a~ea. (It ~ noted a ~opy of ~e plat i~ filed with ~e pa~er~ of ~i~ Board.) Vo~e: Unanimous X1.E.2.d. ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL ALONG OL~LAN~ROAD AND~ILLY_R. XOUNG On motion of Hr. Applegate, se=ended by Mr. Currin, the Board accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.0al acre along old Lane Road from Billy R. Young a~d Elizabeth 8. Young and authorized the County Administrator to execute t-he necessary ~eed. (I~ is no,ed a espy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 91-676 10/9/91 ll.E.R.e. REOD'EST FO~ I~ER~KIS~ION ~ ~ ~o~,~,ION O~ ~otio~ Of M~ Applegate, seconded by ~. Coffin, the Board approved a r~st fr~ ~. and ~. steve C. Deck~ to cons~ct a portion of a dri~eway within a 16 foot drainage eas~men= in ~exley West Re~ubdivi~ion of ~ts 44-47, Blo~ A, S~ction 1, s~ject to the exertion of a (It i~ note~ a copy of th~ plat is filed wi~ ~e papers of ~is Board. ) Vote: UD~Di~ou$ On metion ~f M~. Applegate, ~econd~d by ~r. ~rrin, ~h~ Board au~orlzed %he County Administrator to ~xe~ute a Change Order, in the ~o~t of $40,~0, for "~hase I ~ngin~rlng se~ice~ - Improvements for Compliance with safe Dri~n~ Water Act ~endments", (SH-5R170-880161R), to the existing Englneerin~ semites Agreement with Hazen and Sa~er. (It i~ noted funds for this project are appropriate~ in th~ Cmpltal Improve~t 11.E.2.q. CHANGE OI~DERNO. ~_JA/4ES~V~K~UNK On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~e~o~ded by Mr. C~rin, ~e Board authorize~ =he County A~inistrator to execute Chan~e Order ~0. 1~ i~ an amount not to exceed $169,709.00, for the River Tru~ Sewer - A~itional ~cheology, Project ~88-0132, to J. K. Tigons und Associates. (It is noted fundn for Drojeot are appropriated in the Capital Improvement Budget.) Vote: Unctuous l~.~.~, a~o~$ ~r~ ~ale pr~eat~d the Board with a report on the developer water and sewer contracts ~ecuted by the CoUnty A~Lministrator. 11.~. F~Y. Ram~ey pre~ented the Board wlth a ~tatus report on the District Road and ~treet Light ~unds; Lea~e ~:hool ~oard A~enda. following roads into the State Secondary ~D~IONS ~_I~ITC~IE, SECTIOW ONE - (effective 9-I8-91) Route 4~20 (Gi!rltQhle Drive) - From Route 36 to 0.12 mile North Route 36 0.12 Routa 4521 (O~l~itchie Court) - Erom Route GLEN OAKS - SECTION 4 - Route 4475 (Glen Oaks Ceu~t) - F~om 0.05 mile East Route 3585 to o.1o mile East Route 3585 0.05 Ki On motion of ~. Daniel, ~econded by ~r. Mayas, ~e Board w~nt into Executive Session, pursuant to Section 2.1-~44(~)(7) of the Cod~ of Vir~inia~ 195~, as ~mnded, for comsultatio~ legal counmml ~taining to litigation r=garding Turner versus Frazier. Raconvening: O~ motion of ~. Daniel, ~econded by ~{r. Currin, the Board adopted the follow~ng resolution: W~HEREAS, the Board of Supervi~or~ ha~ th~ day adjourned into ~xecutive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the Board, and in accordance with the Drovisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and W~ERMA$, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective July 1, 1989, p~ovides fo~ certification that ~uch Executive Session was conducted in osnformity with law. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ~LE$OLVED, that the Board oS County member's knowledge~ i) only public business mat=ere law£ull~ exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act were d~ou~d ~n the Ex~cu=~ve Session to whi=h this certification applle~, and ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the Metio~ by w~i¢~ t~e Executive Session was convened dissents fro~ this certification. The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: ~r. Daniel: Aye. /(r. ~ayes: Aye. Mr. Apptegate: Aye. F~. Coffin: Aye. Mr. Sullivan: Aye. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Euar~ adJott~ned at 9:15 p.m. until October 13, 1991 mt 9:00 a.m. Vote: Unanimous County Administrator/ 91-678