Loading...
05-08-91 Minutes~r. M. B. sullivan, c~airman Mr. C. P. Currin~ Jr., Vice Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. Lane B. Ram~ey County Administrator Ms. J. Amy Davis, Exes. Asst. to Co. Mrs. Doric DeMart~ Asst. Co. A~lmln., Legis, BrOs. and Intergov~rn. A£~airs ~. Joan ~. ~olezal, Ch~f Robert L. Eanes~ Jr. Fire ~. B~adfo~d S. D~uty Co. Admln., Management Services Mr. W~ll~a~ ~. Howell, Dir., Gen. Services Dir,, Planning Dept. Ms. Mary LOU Lyle, Dir., Acccuntiqg D~pt, Deputy Co. Admin., ~an Service~ Transp. Director ~r. ~ichard ~. Mc~lfish, Dir., ~nv. ~ng. Dept. Mr. Steven L. Mioam, Attorney ~s. Paullna A. Mit~all, Dir., News & Public Info. Services ~. Richard F. Sale, Deputy Co. Adm~n.~ Development ~. Jean S~i~, Dir. Social Smrvic~s ~. James J. L. ~ta~ai~r, Dir., Budget & Mgr. Mr. David H. Wel~hon~, Dir. of utilities Fnf, Sullivan called the ~e~larly scheduled meeting to order at $~10 p~m. (DST). ~r. Sullivan stated that the purpose of the work $oeslcn was for ~he Board to review its policy on cash Droffer~. Mr. Ramsey stated that staff had reviewed the cost of thos~ ~acilities associated wi~h cash 9rcffers and that the Bear4 had previously adopted an ordinance that permits the proffer Dolicy7 and that staff would be rmvi%wing t~a policy MS. Becky Thomas, Fiscal Impact Analyst, presented am overview of the current Cash Proffer ~ollcy and then presented facility cost and credit information for schools, parks~ libraries, and £ir~ stations. Discussion, questions, and comments ensued relative to tho most recent data changes; how the credit nu~er was calculated for saheols; percentages to credit; the real estate tax revenue as a baseline; operating eo~t~; ~mrvice level and credit o£ new homes versus existing homes; and the formula u~ed for p~r=entage to credit and the real growt~ rate; etc. ~4=. John MoCracken, Director of Transportation, presented an overview of the methodology developed for cash proffers relating to transportation needs. Discussion, questions, and comments ensued relative to the development of the North/south and East/We~t Freeway; cash proffers used as credit; the co.tm for construction of existing and ~la~ned roads; the epprepriato time to obtain right-of-way; the increases im the co~t o~ oon=tructlon; the percentage of purchased land versus proffered land relating ts =~e Zas~/west Freeway; the need for a consistent ea~h proffer r~lating to transportation needs or improvements; gasoline tax being uEed as a baseline; etc. ~r. Ramsay s~at~d that by ~o~ining ~ net co~t of school~, libra=ins, park~, and fire ~tution~ ($3031) wi~h ~ ~et of roa~, the total calculate~ facility cents would be $5425, if in the t~an~o~ation ~h~d nor~ of Route 360 and $5265, if in the tr~nsportatlon ~h~4 ~o~k of RQut~ 3~0, ~e further stated that these co~t~ were ~imilar to last ymar'~ costs and ~at staff would rmco~end th~ Board mov~ to the ~ecu~d of the Cash Proffer Policy~ as adopted las~ year, ~o per lot. Discussion, cements, and que~tion~ ensued relative to the actual ~o~t of money collected lust year for cash and projections o~ cash proff=r~ ~or ~Y92. Mr. Currln and Mr. Daniel inquired am to ~e reoorda=ion$ lot= and when ~e actual time ~e cash proffer is collected. time a building permit is obtained or wi~in two years ra~ord plat approval, whi~ever oc~rs first. Mr. Sullivan stated ~hat lots recorded prior %o July 1, 1989 pro~fering construction improvements equivalent to abou~ ~t500 per lot for transportation ne~ds and inquired as to that that the County had obtained significant improvements ~is way and ~a= transportation i~ currently receiving its cash proffers plus. ~r. Applegate state~ that h~ felt based oa th~ general economy and ~e recent increase in assessm~ts, the oa~h proffer ~hould remain at ~,000 per lot. ~r, ~aye$ stated that he felt ~he c~$h proffer system was $~rvice~ an~ %o hel~ Day ~or ~ro~h and ~at should not overlooked. There was brief discussion r~lative to upc~ing zoning January, 1992. 91-29s Mr. Currin stated that he felt since the estimation of new zoning eases was minimal and based on the downtur~ in the Daniel stated that he 'felt a compromise would be acceptable he understood there is an $S,000 per dwelling unit service Mr. Sullivan stated that he felt the ictus needed to be r~olu~d; that when the Board agreed to the $2,000 per lot, t~he service cost; that the Board did net realize the amount of money being discussed was relatively small for a sams on $2,00~ Der lot and review the policy again in JRnuary, Kr. Ramsay stated that he felt it was the Board's intention that if impact fees were approved by the ~eneral Assembly it would replace the cash proffer system and suggested befor~ taking any sstion on thi~ i~sue. After brlsf d~mcusslan, the Board generally s~reed to defer any decision of the Cash Proffer Policy to }{ay 22, 1~! at 9:00 a.m. 2. EXE~uTzv~ SF~$EON On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Kr. Maye~ the Board suspended the rules to amend the agenda to ad~ to ~xis~ing Ite~ 2., anothe~ Executive session Pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a)(3), Code of Virginia, 19~0, as A~ended, to Discuss =he Condition, Aoq~isiticn and use of Real Property for Public Purposes Relating to the Use an~ Development of $chool Sites. Vote; Unanimous On motion of Hr. ApDlegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Boar~ went into Executive Session pursuant S~tion ~.1-344(a)(7), Code of Virginia, 19~0, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel p~taininq to actual litigation and other s~eclflc legal mat~ers requiring the provision of legal advlca by counsel regarding Dyke~ verbum Northern Virginia T~ansportation District Co--lesion and ~ur~unnt to Section ~.1-344(a)(3), Cod~ Of Virginim, 1950, ~ amended, to discuss the oondi~ion~ ac~i~i~ion and use of real property for public purposes relating to the use and developm~t of ~ohool ~ite$ Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Applegntm, seconded by Mr. Currln, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of ~up~rvi$ors has ~his day adjourne~ into Exeoutivs Session in accordance w~th a formal vote of the Board, and in a~cordanc~ with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Ant; and W~EREA$~ the virginia Freedom of Information Act, effective July 1, 1989, provides for certification that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. 91-~99 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that t2%e Board Of County Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of ~ach member'e knowledge, i) only public business Matters lawfully Information Act were discussed in the Executive ~ession to which this certification applie~, and ii) only zumh public busino$~ matters as wer~ identified in the Motion by which t~ Executive Session was convened were heard, diecuseed or considered by ~he Boar4, ~o me,er dissenta from this certification. The Board being polled, the vote was ae follows: /tr. Daniel: Aye. ~r. Mayes: Aye. M~. Applegate: Aye. ~r. Currin: Aye. ~r. ~ullivan: Aye. The Board recessed to travel to Magnolia Grange for dinner with the Volunteer District Pire C~iefm. Reconvening: 3. D~ERWITH~OLUNTE~DISTR~CTFIRE CHIEFS ~r. ~ullivan e~res~e~ appreoiation fo~ ~e opportunity to meet with the Volunteer District Fire chiefs and introductions were made of those present wi~h dinner following. ~i~f Lonnie Miller outlined the volunteer district fire ~its accomplishments during 199~ relative to company generutad actlv~ volunteers from last year~ the inorease in th~ n~b=r of members responding per call County-wide; the increase in tremendou~ increase ~n ~ amount and ~ality of training for firafigh=ers. He f~ther stated that due to the financial conditions and economic constraints placed on ~e County, ~m VOl~taaE fi~e deponents would not have any budget requemts impl~m~tation of reduced personal property tax rate for active fire an~ r~scue ~m~erm; the au~or~zation to ~ill ~a vacant Rec~itm~nt and Retention Coordinator position d~ing loan~ to ~ome 0f the fire companies to allow ~ to purchase emergency r~mponse apparatus during the year; and stated they we~ appreciative of the funding for the paging ~y~t~ d~ing difficul= budget times and ~e~ested that du~ to ~a i~p0~ta~ce of th~ ~y~t~, that the Fir~ Depa~ent be au~orized to p~oha~ an~ impl~men= ~ sy~=~ ms ~oon as pOssibl~. Mr. Applegate re~ested that the accomplis~entm of ~e T~erm was ~rief ~iscu~ion relative to how the fire companies ea~ generated funds. ~ Board a~nowledged and e~ressed their appreoiatlon for the citizens and stated the County is proud of its fir~ Thc ~oard recessed to travel baok to the courthouse for its ~egularly scheduled meeting. Sullivan calked the meeting to order at 6:55 p,m- (DST). 4. II~;OCATION ~. S~llivan in%~oduced Mrs. Doris De, artt Amsi~tant Coanty A~minietrator for Intergovernmental Relatlons, who gave the 5. PLEDGE OF A?.?.R~I~NCE TO ~'~ FLAG OF Tn ~NITED ~TATES OF Ragle Scouts of Troop ~I and Troop ~9~ led the Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United State~ of America. ~f 6. i%PI~VALOFMIN~TES on motion of ~r. Currin, saaondc~ by Mr. Applega~e~ =he soard approYed thc minutes of April 14, 19~1, as ~ubmitted. Vote: Unanimous On motion ef ~Lr. Currin, ~eoond~d by Mr. Agplagate, the Board approva~ the minut~ of May 1, 1991, as eubmitted. Vote: Unanimous 7. ~O~]~TX AD~INT~RATORSS ~ON~TS ~. Ra~ey introduoed Mr. Sale who stated the American Planning Aeeoci~tion, who produces eight special reports each year as paut of thu National Planning Advimcry ~erwi=e, had inoluded the County in their ~ozt recent report which fccuse~ om villu~= planning featuring design a~pects, development e~an~ar~s oS zoning, etc. u~ bath the Chester Village Plan and the Midlothian Village Plan. Ke stated that the cover of th~ r~part ~eatured the Che~ter Village Plan and that qraphics of the Midlothian Village Plan were al~o included, 8. BOARD COMMITTEEPJ~PORTS NL~. Daniel stated he had attended several school informational meeting~ and found the meetings to be well a%%ende~ by involved oitizens fromm his Die, Jct. ~. Mayas stated he had attended th~ Education and Adviso~ Co~ittee ~or the Counuil on Info~atlon and Management which variou~ levmls of ~u~lic s~uols in order to cuntinue~ support instruction ourriculum~ ~at he had attended t~e Great Coastal ~xpre~ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony and had enjoy~ all of ~ offioial festivities; and ~at he had also attended the Crater 91-301 S/R/91 Planning Di~=rict Commission meeting in which r~hey have recently organized ~ Citlzen~ Advisory Council to the Commission which will be composed of leading citizens in the business, industry and financial fields. Mr. ADpleqate ~tate~ he had attsndsd ~he Capital Region Airport Commission and repo~t~d that t~e=~ ba~ been a recent decline in paseenge~ enplanemen=s across the country and that the co~ission had approved a long-term plan which will possibly inulude RiChmond being established as a major distribution hub for the Ra~t Coast. F~r. Currln stat=d h~ h~d attended the Regional Water Task Force Co~r~ittee ~eeting in rmgardm to a regional treatment plant and that they are working to develop ~ report which he felt is progressing positively. He f~rther stated that the pablie h~aring ~e r~eognize School Board candidates for Bei~muda District had been held; tha= he is anticipating th~ date of May 22, 1991 for nomination/appointment of the candidate; that he and several other Board members had inte=viewed t~e candidates; and further stated he felt all of the ~andldate~ were w~ll qualified. Mr. Sullivan stated he had r~ntly und~rgon~ ~urgery and was looking forward to a~aln attending meetlnqs. CIA%NGES IN THE ORDeR OF PRRSENTATION On me, ion of ~r. Appl~ga~~ ~cond~d by Mr, Daniel, ~e Boa~d deferred Item 12.A., Authorization to Exercise ~in~nt Domain f~ ~e Ao~iaitioh Of Eama~ent~ fo~ the phy~io H~I1 Elevated Water Tank - Thews J. Smith, et als., until May 2Z, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.; d~red It~ 13.c.~ Public Hearinq to Consider ~aslng a ~,DOQ Squar~ FOO~ ~arcel and Access Road at Manche~te~ Fi~e HOUSe NO. 2 to Ric~ond cellular Telephone company and Au~orize ~xecution of a ~ease Agrmem~t, until Ju~e 26, 1991 at 9~00 a.m.; ad,ed It~ 14.B.14., to follow Item 14.B.13., A~thorization for the county Attorney =o file an ~ious c~iae ~r~ef in Oyke~ vs. Nor~ern Virginia Transportation Co~ss~on; added Item 14.8.15., to ~cllow Item 14.B.14., Au~orlze Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Building Pe~it to b~ Obtained by the ~i~torical 9ooig~y for th~ R~ooD~truo~ion of W~ll ~ou~m at Magnolia Grange; and adopted t~e agenda~ a~ amended. Vote: un~imous 10. RF~OLUTIONS AND SPECIAL /%ECOGNITION$ 10.A. RECOGNIZING SOuTaEASTR~CYCLINGCOP~0RATIONAND~S. RECYCLIN~ IN ~ST~3~n~ ~. Howell introduced s~. Wands ~oGe~ and briefly outlined effort~ of ~ne southeast Recycling Coco=etlon unde~ ~e~ on motion of the Boa=d, ~e ~otlowing resolution was propumalm to provide al~inum and newspaper recycling drop-off · itum at fifteen elementary ~chools; and ~ER~S, S~ool ~ildren, oo~uni~ groups and r~sidents w~re encouraged to bring their al~in~ and newspap~ to the schools ~o b~ ~cycl~d, with th~ mon6y fr~ ~he bai~g ret~ed to the individual schools; and 91-302 WHERZJ~S, Southeast Recycling CorDoration proposed to provid~ this ser¥ice at no cost to the County after the first W/{EREAS, This ongoing project has resulted in n~ne hundred eighty-five tons cf newspaper and twenty-six tons of aluminun being recycled and thus diverted from ~e Co~nty'~ landfill; and ~S, Nineteen thousand, two hundred and forty-nine dollars has b~en r~t~ned to th~ participating ~ohools in the =ir~t year o~ opa=ation Ior use at the individual school'~ discretion. county Board of supervisors gratefully a~owledge~ the support of Sou~east Recy=ling C~oration ~der the manag~en~ of Ms. Wanda McGee. the continued corporate support vital to Droviding ~is purti=ipunt in the program; and ~ressed his apprsGiaDiou to 10.B. F~LE E~O~TS 0n motion of the Board, the Hollowing resolution was adopted: Nr. William D. Boyoe on Februa~ 8, 1910; and ~S, The Boy Scout~ of ~rica wa~ founded to promote individual~; and ~AS, After earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership po~itlon in a troop, carrying out a service projact beneficial to hi~ cu~nfty, being activ~ in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit and living up to the $~out Oath and Law; and accomplished ~ose high standards of co~itment and ha~ reaohe4 ~e long-sought goal o~ ~agle Scout which i~ received by 1~ ~an two percent of tho~e individuals entering the ~ZR~S, Growing through his e~eriencms in scouting, learning th~ le~sonm of responsible citizenship and priding indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can =11 be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield to ~. W~lllam R. Stea~an and acknowledgas the ~ood fortune it~ citizen~. Vote: Unsnimous Mr. Sullivan presented the executed r~solutio~ ts Mr. Stca~man, ac¢ompanlsd by m~mbers of his family, and congratulated him for his outstanding achievement. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts of America was incorpsrated by Mr. willlam D. ~syce on ~ebruary 8, 1910; and W~EREAS, The Boy Scouts of ~erica was founded t~ promote citizenmhip training, pe=So~al development and fitness of individuals; and ~REA$, After earning a% lea~t ~wenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of field~, sarving in a leadership Deli%ion ~n u troop, car~ing OU~ a service projec= beneficial =o his co--unity, being active in ~e troop, demonstrating Scout spirit ~nd living up to the Hcout Oath an~ ~w; ~ER~S, ~. J. Kyle Kin~, St. Edwar~'~ Ch~oh, has Meaohed the lon~-sought goal of Eagle Scout whioh r~ceived by le~ than =we p~rcent of thos~ entering ~e Scouting muVe~e~t; ~R~S, Growing through his =~u~ie~ce~ i~ la~rning th~ lessons o~ responsible citizenship and DriVing himself on th~ great accomplixhments cf his cowry, Kyle in~ee~ a m~ber of a new generation of p~pa~e~ young citizens of whom we can all be very p~oud. county Board of supervisors here~ e~nds its County to have such an outstanding young man as one cf citizans. ~. sullivan 9rasenCed the ~ecutmd resolution to Mr. King and congratulated him for his outstandinq achievement. On mckicn of 9.he Board, ~.he following resolution was adopted: ~. William D. Boyce on Feb~ary 8~ ~10; ~S, The Boy Scouts of ~erica was founded to promote oitlzenshi~ ~aln~nq~ personal devalopm~t and fltne~ of individuals; and in a wide variety of field~ me~ing in a leaderm~ip 9ssi=ion in a troop, carrying out a ssrvice project beneficial to his spirit and li~ing up to ~e Scout Oa~ and Law; and ~S, ~. kn~ew O. ~y~r~ ~t. Edward'~ ~r~h, Troop 893, has accomplished those high ~tandard~ of oo~itment and has reached the lon~-~ought gsal of =agl~ s=out which received by les~ t~an two De=cent of ~0se individual~ entering th~ Scoutlng mov~mn=; and ~S, Growing ~ough his experienoe~ in Scouting, learning the leSsOns of ruuponsible citizmn~hip and priding 5/8/91 indeed a membur of a new generation of prepared young citiJens of whom we can all be va~y proud. ~OW, THEREFORE B~ IT RESOLVED, that the Chemtmrfield County Eoard of ~upervisors hereby extends its congratulations tm Mr. Andrew O. Meyer and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan' presented the executed re~olution to Mr. Meyer~ accompani=~ By m~mhera of his f~m~ly, and congratulated him for hi~ out-tending achievement. · O=B.4. ~R. ADANPENN On motion of the ~oard~ the following resolution Was adopted: WI~EREAS, The Boy Scouts of ~erica was inco~orat~d by ~. Willi~ D. Doy=e on February S, 19~0; and W~R~S, ~e Boy S~o~t~ of ~rica wa~ founded to individual=; ~ZR~S, A~=er earnin~ a~ leas= ~wen=~-one merit badges in a wide variety of field~, se~ing in a leadership position in a ~roo~, carrying ou~ a service project ~eneficial to him c~unity, b~ing active in the troop, demonstrating R=out s~irit and livin~ u~ to ~ Scout Oath and Law; and ~ER~S~ Mr. Ada~ Pe~n carter, st. Edward~ Church~ Troop ~gS, ha~ a~compli~h~ t~o$~ high standards of co~itment and has reached the lonq-soug~t qoal of Eagle SCout which received by l~ss than two percent of those in~ividuals ~ER~S, Growing t~ough hi~ e~riences in Scoutlng~ himself on the g~%at accomplis~ents of hi~ County, Ada~ ~ndeed a member o~ a new generation of prepared young cltlzan~ cf whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R~SOLVED, that the Co~ty Board Of supervisors hereby e~nds ~ts congratulations to ~. Ad~ Penn Carter an~ ~c~owl~dg~s th~ good fortune of the county =o have such an outstandinq ysung ~n as one of its citizen~. Vote: Unanimous ~. 2ullivan pre~e~ted th~ ~x$cuted resolution to Er. Carter, accompanied by me~a~ of his family, and congratulated him ~4s. Jean Smith reques%e~ the Eoard to adopt the resolution om children who are unable tc live at home smd introduced Ms. WI~EREAS, Our society depends upon family life to prepare each n~w g~nera~ion ~f children to b~ responsible cltlzans; 91-305 ~/8/91 able ts safely care for their children while resolving problems at home; and WHEREAS, Many families in Chesterfield County have opened their homes to these children by bennmlnq foster families who work with the public an4 private agencies which serve troubled families in our community; and WHEREAS, Fe~ter fa~iliez improve the quality of life for their fostsr children, our ¢o~unlty and future generations by providing love, guidunce and positive life ek~eriences to the children placed temporarily in ~helr care. WHEREAS, The citizens of chesterfield County wish to families to children in our ccmmunlty. NOW, TI{EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield 1991 as "Foster Parent Recognition Month" in Chsstsrfleld County and call= ~his proclamation to the attuntlon of all its citizens. M~. knd~ews and expressed appreciation to all foeter parents for their hard work and efforts. 11. H~J~INGS OF CITIZ~S ON UNSta~U~L~D ~ATT~ O~ CLAlq~S =laim$ scheduled at this time. O~ ~otio~ Of M~. Applegat=, seconded by F.r, Eeyes, the Board reappointed General william D. Curry to the John Tyler c0m~nity Colle~u Bourd, representing the County ut-lurge, Whose ter~ is effective July 1, i991 through June 30, 199~. Vote: Unanimous ~. ~al~ stated thi~ date and tame ha~ b~n adv~is~ for a public hearing =o consider adoption o~ the E%~ri~ Village ~lmn. ~s. Barbara ~a~liss, Principal ~lanner, presented an overview of the plan. ~. Mayes ~a~ed Ms. Cha~lfss for a job well done and stated that she had ~elped fo~ the grou~, "Ettri~k on ~e Hove" in which he felt they had t~en on a tremendous ta~k and achieved go~d results; ~at ~e group plans on developing a finance corporation whouc pursue would be to buy empty or deteriorated hom~s and carry out a plan =o improv~ the area. ~e recognized Hr. stackhouse, Mr. Hawkins, Dr. Howard and ether coi~mittee members for their hard work and untirin9 change to Page $ of tkePlan regarding zoning conditions. community orqanizatien~ "Ettrick on the Mnve"~ stated that ha to improve the quality of life in the village; and re~ueste~ the Board to give favorable consideration to the Plan and to its timely implements%ion. Dr. vivian Howard, Virginia State Univsrsi~y Liaison Chalrp~r~on, thanked the Board for inviting the University to participate in tho process for the Plan; stated that everyone needed to work =ogether for the better~nent of the coca, unity and that the community has had input into the Plan; t~at Virginia State University supports adoption of the Plan; that t~ey feel t~e Plan addressed essential concerns; that they are committed ts supporting the economic development of ~ttriok Villaqe; and requesta~ that the Board give favorable consideration to the Plan. hearing was closed. After brief discussion, on motion of Nr. Mayas, seesawed by F~. ~urrin, %~e ~oar~ a~op~sd ~he following resolution with the recommended chang~ to Page 8 of t~he Plan (a copy of which WI~EREAS, The Board of Supervisors requested that the Transportation Plan, a part of the Plan for Chesterfield, as amended, and determine whether amendnents to said par~ would be needed~ and WHEREAS, 1~o Plahning Commission hu~ recommendsd adoption of the Ettrick Village Plan as an amendment to said part. Supervisor~ of C~esterfield County do~s hereby adopt the Ettriok village Plan as an amendment =o =ha Southern Arsa Land Use a~d Tra~po~tatio~ Plan, and part of the Plan for chesterfield, as amended, LO guide and accomplish a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory covered by t~ Plan. Vote: Unanimous ~ ~.~'~ ~[[~lOH~ 7 ! 2--1 r 7. 2--~ · 7. 2--9. 7. 2--10 · 11--5. I8'1--21. 18+1--24. 21--1. 21--37. 21--215 '£P2(OUGH 21--223. 21.1--1. 21.1--3. 21.t--229.1 ~0~ 21.1--~29.9. Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a publt~ hearing to conside~ an ordlnan~e revising ~e eff~otive date to the Chesapeake Bay ~reservatiun Act to November 15, 1991 and to change a t~chnicaI reference, Mr. Ci~ Carlisle stated he was in favor of deferring the ~f~otiv~ ~ate to th~ ~ap~ak~ ~ay Preservation A~t b~au~ he felt that it wn~ implemented in such a way that it did not allow exit%lng property owners an opportunity to obtain building permits; ~at if property owners already had building permits before the ordinance was adopted, they would have reserved some type u£ grand£atheriag for those sites; that there should be an opportunity for property o~ers to be able to obtain their building Dermlts mince the Act only property that is currently plated; and r~q~ested the Board to give favorable consideration to tho effective da=o Of the ordinance, Mr. Phil Halsey stated ho was in favor of tho ordinance regarding its effective date because he felt that it was not fair to private property owners since the County comprises les~ than 6/10 of one percent of Virginia's portion of the Bay's watershed; that only sight percent of =11 pel!utlon comes from deVelOpment; that be felt future growth is being deprived; that although he is in support of ~hs Act, he that the ordinance should be chungad tO not e~ly include future development but already developed property, particularly existing homes, to provide equity in that everyone would have te comply and not just a salec= group. Mr. Russ Parker stated he was e builder and that heQa~$~ the coverage ratio standard of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act~ he was experiencing problems with house plnns that were not acceptable under the Act; that buildln~ permits that wore previously being approved in a relatively short time worn now taking longest; that he felt in the future it would be easier to comply with the Act in r=gards to the coverage ratio and that tho equation should allow fo~ these types of house plans to be built in co--unities; and requested the Board give favorable consideration to the effective ~ate and that the Board also consider grandfatherin~ all previously ~eeorded lots. which was affected by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation ACt in that it could only be used as eno building lo=; that he had brought the property for investment purposes and felt that t_he Act had decreased the value of his property; that he is a private property owner and not a developer; that ho felt thoro were probably other citizens in the same position that wore net aware of the restrictions of the Aotl that hn would lik~ the opportunity to subdivide his property in order to recoup his investment; and reguested the Board to give favorable consideration to the proposed effective date of ~he Act. ]~r. John Co~biI1 stuted that he felt the Chesup~e Bay ~reser~ation AO~ a£~eo~od not only developers ~t citizens as well; that the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board had determlns4 the Act weald a~versely impau~ a~erdahle housing, would increase regional cost of living by four to six percent and decrease local government rareness; that the Act had ~een implemented to improve the water quality in Virginia; that by ~evlog the date of the ordinance hack it would allow private property owners an opportunity to recoup some of their investment; that he felt grandfathering should be included in the ordinance; and rnquosted the Board to give favorable consideration to the proposed effective date of the Act for economic purposes and for the protection of the citizens and that by changing tho effective date of tho Asr, he felt would not increase significantly the amount of pollution entering the Bay. Mr. George Beadles stated he felt that since the Board had already adopted the ordinance and people had already complied with the ordinanne, that relief should he provided to those who have already complied; that developers are not specific when it hOmOS to requesting grandfathering; and that if grandfathering were to bo implemented, it should be very specific. Ms. Carolyn Powers, Coordinator far ChesteTfield Citizen~ for the Environment, stated they supported the o0ntinuation of the equity, sound environmental strategies, and 0onsis%eney in the process and that the group feels the Board should refer to the judicial and legislative branches to determine what constitutes vested property rights; that the Board made a commitment by adopting the ordinance; that buildinq permit renewals have mioim~lm requirements; that the developer~ have the resources to ami ~ulckly where as the small property owners do not; that by leaving the time-frame open~ would ha approximately 30,000 to 40,000 lots that could apply for building permits; that it creates inequity for those developing in the future; that a decision ~hould be based On that it~ standards a~a m~re relaxed than other jurisdictions for development in relation to r/%~ Aet~ a~d r~quested support hy the majority and not the few, to leave the effective date Dr. Richard Belgrad stated that ha wax spaaklnq for e group Of concerned residents who live on Swift Creek Reservoir; requested that the Beard sot delay implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act which he felt would effect the deterioration of the quality cf the Re~e~vcir; that the Board had adopted minimum standards to protect the County's water and health Of its citizens; that property values hsve increased in other states who hays implemented the Act; that no small property owners have been denied building permits under the regulatloms; that he had reviewed the report and £elt that it indicate~ that the pollutants should mot exceed a certain, maximbun limit and that the average llmlt in the swift Creek Reservoir previously indicated it was almost to the maximum allowable level; that the situation with the continue to maintain the Aot in its present form. Mr. Applegate stated that the Reservoir had been monitored for ~veral year~ and it did ~0t s~bstantiate that there was a deterioration of the quality of water and that if there was, it may have b~en caused by the County when it installed a inch mower line, which may have poe~ibty caused sedimentation. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the deqradetiom of the quality of water of the ~wlft Cr~k Reservoir; the timeframe involved as it r~lat~d to the swift Creek Plan. Dr. Hugh Woodall addressed the studies ~revlou~ly made on the the water ~uallty of the Swift creek R6servoir was good~ davelepmem~ at th~ density exl~erienced at that point in time; that the Woodlake Devolopment began after the study and~ that only forty percent of ~randermil! drains into the contributed fifty-five percent of the to,al phosphate nsminq to th~ Re~r¥oir; that he felt if the uncontrolled development continued, the Reservoir woul~ cease to ~e usmful 6arlier than the county could afford. wa~er systems in general an~ the impact of time regarding the Swift Creek Reservoir. Mr. Applegate stated that the Upper Swift Creek Plan provides water quality standards that are incorporated in the Chesapeake Bay preservation Act and that the quality of water in the Swift Creek Reservoir falls %%~der the ~per Swift creek Plan, which has stricter standards tha~ other parts of the County, and that hy keeping the impl~ntation date the same, it would not a~versely impact the swift Creek Reservoir- Mr. Joe Tenhet stated that he felt there were issues of pollution and zoning that netded to be addressed; that the Swif~ C~eek Reservoir had been closed for three days due to degradation; that to provide opportunities for others is not fair to t~e people who have already complied under the oz~inanoe; that propertie~ in the same area will develop different pollutant values if 9-randfathered; and ~hat if grandfathering was to bs considered, hQ felt it should be limited in terms of building permits and expiration dates. Ma. Francem Meadow~ ~tated that she felt people who bought land for investment purposes should have been aware of standards imposed by the ordinance; that the water quality for the future was too important to change the effective date in that there ara too many questions regarding the water q~ali=y oS ~/~e swift creek Reservoir; and that she wa~ concerned about the people who hud invested in their ho~es~ llke herself, who ha~ remaine~ in the County where others had not. Dr. Betty Buntsr-Clapp statsd that she felt the time frame would make a difference to the degradation of the water quality of Swift Crnek Resmrvclr; that the Reservoir had been els=ed once before; that there was increased siltation in the Reservoir; t~a~ %~e County was already toying for being overcrowded in other ways; that previously in 1975, citizens had circulated a petition to limit the development around the Reservoir; and that ~ltho~gh she had empathy ~or tho~e people who were not aware of the ordinance, she felt the County's water quality should not be put in d~nger. There being no one else to address the ordinance, the public h~aring wag eloped. ~dr. ~aniel stated that he felt the merits of the chesapeake Bay Preservation Act wars onc~ agai~ add, eased; that the issueB w~re split; that the ordinance sriginat~d with the General Assembly in that they created the Board who set the regulations and that the readdress should be with th~m; that the grandfathering issues needed to b~ addressed by the ~egislatlve Delegation; and that in order to conform to the state regulations, he could s~ppor~ November 15, 1991 am effective date but could not support any other change in the ordinance than already presented. F~r. zayee inquired that under the "Pillion Rule" if the State's date was the date that is required by law and wo~ld the ?'Pillion Rule" supersede what has already been approved. /dr. Micas stated that the Beard was obligated to adoD~ the Che~upeuke Bay ordinance in the manner that th= Stat= dictates; that the current rule is that the Board is not obligated to impe~e th~ ordinance until NOV~D~ I5, 1991; and that whatever action is approvsd by the Board would be within Fm. Keyes stated t~at ~e felt there was a proble~ ~eqarding those who have already complied and those wac have net e0mptied having ~n advantage and that hc hud concerns relative to what had happened to tl~e ~al~ing Crs~2~ Reservoir and was concerned as to the timeframe for water quality of the Swift F~r. Applegate ~tated that when the Swift Crash Reservoir had been clo~ed it wa~ not due to degradation b~t due to lack of water a~d had been closed for cost effective measures; that 91-31~ prewlcusly in 1975, the County had a contract with Chesterfield Land and Timber Corporation in which they had water; and that the agreenen~ wee that the landowners aro~nd the Re~e~of~ would have a ~ight to dog, lop ti%eir property. He stated that the Upper Swift Creek Plan incorporated the ~ta~da~ds of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and that the cluallty of water is protected by T/tat ~lan; grundfutherin~ was un issue in which it could not be ~de an Act, not only have deve]oDer~ been impacted but that he has as well, and provided the Board w~h a copy of a petition the property o~ers; and ~tated he ~upp0rted the ~. ~rrin SDa=~ ~a~ he had re~emted the Board to re, nd ~e ordinanc~ back to the Planning Co~ission for ~em reconsider the effeotlve date; ~at th~ Board ~en decided ask the Planning Co~ission to al~o reconsider th~ ordinan=e w~thout limitation; that there are countle~ who have not implemented the Act and that Chesterfield is doing its the small land c~ers and that he has had numerous from s~ll property owners to chan~e the e~fect~ve date, and that based on that, he would s~pport ~ change in the effective date of t~e ordinance. ~. S~lliva~ stated that he had in~i~ed of staff and was affected; that the Board had a duty to pro%eot all that the total watershed r~presents 6/1o of one percent 0f ~ ~ay~ pollutants; that he hud concerns for the Bay but did not ~ality over ~he long term; and that he supported postponing until November. On motion of ~. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Curr~n, ~a Board ~ O~IN~CE TO ~ND ~E CODE OF THE CO~TY OF CHEST~FI~D, · 97~, AS ~D~, By ~DI~G ~D REENACTING S~CTIONS 7.1~1, 7.2-B~ 7.2-9~ 7.2-10~ 11-5, 18.1-21, 18.1-24, 21-1, 21-37, ]1.215 ~OUGH 21-223, ~1.1-1, ~.1-3, 21.1-~29.1 ~1.1-229.9, 21.1-273, 21.1-Z75, 21.1-279.~ THROUGH 21.1-279.6 ~D 21.1-281 RE~TIN~ GEN~LLY T0 ~= C~ES~E~E BAY PRESERVATION ACT. BE IT ORDAINED by the Beard of Supe~isors of Che~terfleld (~) ~a% Sections 7.2-!, 7.2-8, 7.~-9 an~ 7.2-10 cf Chapter 7.~ of the Code of the County of Chesterfi~ld, 1978, Th~ following te~s, wherever u~ed or referred to i~ this unless ~e context clearly re~i~es a eontrar~ meaning or any Land diztuYbinc activ~V~_ Any land chmn~ whi~ may jurisdioti~ns, including, bus not l~mlted to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, transportimg and filling 91-311 5/~/91 land, and the installing of wa=e-~, sewe~, gas o~ oil drainage pipes and storm sewers, unless ocearring on a hard surfaced feud, street or sidewalk; except, that the tern shall nat include: (3) Septic Tank Lines or drainage fieldm unless such lines or drainage fields (a) are located in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation A~eas described in chapter 21 or chapter 21.1 or (b) are included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity relating to construction of a building to be served by a z~ptlc tank system; o s o (7) Preparation for single family residences ~¢parately built, unless such residences (a) are located in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas described in chapter 21 or chapter 21.1 or (b) are built in conjunction with multiple construction in (8) Disturbed la~3d areao fo~ usgs located in the Chesapeake ~ay Preservation ~rea= de=crlbed in chapter 21 or (~,~00) s~are feet in ~iz~ and dlnturb~d 5and area~ for uses located outside of such Arean; Section 7.2-8. Submission of clans. (a) Any psrsun who ep~lles fur a~preval cf an erosion and sediment cont~ol ~lan shall ~u~Ymit to the onviron~sntal engineer two (2) cop~es of such plan accompanied by program administration fee, identification of any Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas described ~n chapter 21 er chapter 21.1 and other support information which meets the requirements set forth in the Chesterfield County Erosion and Sedinent Con~rol Handbook. O O O (a] A program a~lmlni~tration fee of one hundred dollar~ ($100.00) mhall be paid to the county at the time of filing each erosion and sediment control plan for review in connection with disturbed land areas for uses, oth=r than (10,~00] sq~aare f~et in size. The progra/~ administrative f~e for single family residential uses w~ich ara less than ten thcumand (10,000) square feet in size shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00). No plan shall be accepted for r~view unless acconpanied by the appropriate fee. (b) A program administration fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) shall be paid to the oounLy at the time of filing of each erosion and sediment control plan for r~view in ~onnectlon with disSurbed land areas for uses which are ten thousand (1~,000) square feet in size or larger. ~o ~len shall ~e a~uep=sd for review unl~ aoc0~psnied by thim fee. (c) %~on reappliaatien for a land disturbance permit original application fee mu~t accompany s~ch reapplioatio~. (a) The ~nvironmental engineer shall issue a land disturbance permit upon submission of a properly so,plated 91-312 5~8/91 lend disturbance permit application and if he detsrmlnes that: (~) ~Tnere land disturbance has occurred, proper implementation or maint'emance of erosion and sediment control mea~ure~ ha~ ocourred~ (5) where site plan or improvement sketch approval is required under chapter 21.1 that any such approval has been received; (6) where tentative subdivision approval is required under chapter 18.1 that any ~uch apprQval has been received and road and drainage plums have been approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the environmental sn~ineer; and (7) Where wetlands permits are required by federal, state or local laws, that all such permits have been recslvsd. ooo (2) That Section 11-5 of chapter 11 of t~e Cede of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is a~en~ed and prerequisite tc issuance of building permit. ~very let Or parcel of land proposed Ior new ~eval~pment planned and its availability within a reasonable tim~ can be accommodate a secondary sewage dlspssal site, aa deber~ine~ by files a waiver of necessity of the s~oondary site with the building official. The secondary sewage disposal Site shall have sapaoity at least equal to that of the primary sewage disposal site. (~) That ~ec~ion$ 1~.1-11 and la.1-14 of Chapter ~ended and reenacted to road as follow$; Section 18.1-11. Tenta~K~_Rlat.' Th~ tentative plat shall be drawn at thah eno (1) ine~ egg/ailing fifty (50) fe~t for townho~se for sale subdivisions; other residential sub~ivisions shall be u scale of one (1) inch equalling one hundred (100) feet. on its face the following informat~om: (18) Chesapeake Bay P~ese~vatien Areas described in chapter 21 er chapter 21.1. Section 18.1-14. Final Dtat. twenty-fo~ (~4) incbe~ and ~h~ll b. pr.pored by u certified profss~lonal engineer er land surveyor. The final plat of the subdivision shall confo~ to the approved layout of the 91-313 5/8/91 face the Sollowing information: (19) chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas described in chapter 21 or chapter (4) That C~apter 21 of %he Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and teens=tad by adding the following sections to the table of ArtiQi~_XXIT_. Chesauaake Bay Preservation Areas. Seotfon ~1-216- Resource management area boundaries. s~ction ~1-217. ~esu~eak~ ~ay preservation areas ma~s. Section 21-218. Boundary adjustments. Section ~1-2~9. Resource protection area Section 21-~zo. Reso~ce management ar~a regulations. section 21-221. Supplemental regulations; more apply. Section 21-222. Exemptions. Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~ amended, are ~ende4 and reenacted ~o read as follows: section 21-1. Purpose of chapter. This chapter is enacted for the general purpose of promoting the health, ~afsty or general w~lfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of section i~ d~s{gned: ooo (6} To protect against one (1) or more of the following: overcrowdin~ of lan~, undue ~ansfty of ~o~ulation in to ~e co--unity facilities existing or available, obst~ction transportation, or Isms of life, health, or property from f~r~, ~lood, Danic or other (7) To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable emplo~ent and enlargm the tax bame; (8) TO provi4e for ~he preservation of a~ioultural foremtal lands and o=her lands of ~i~ificanoe for the protection of th~ n~tural environment; and (9) To protect murface water and gro~dwator. O 00 Section ~1-37. ~nlar~ement. extenslo~ (1) No nonconfo~ing ~se shall b~ ~larged, r~oons~ruoted, ~ub~ti~uted o~ s~ot~ally al~e~ed~ except when re,ired ~ law or lawful ord~, ~less ~e is changed to a use permitted in the area in which located, Except as provided in the B and M District~ or am follcw~; O O O (~) In addition to the requirements uf the B and Di~trict~ and ~uhaectlcn 1 above, no nonconforming use in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted or structurally altered unless t_he director of environmental engineering grants a development waiver after finding that: a. There will be no net increase in nonpuint source ~cllution loads and b. Any development or land disturbance e~oeeding an area of 2,500 square feet complies with all erosion and sediment control rec~/iremonts of chapter ?,2 and division 5 of Article IV of C~apter 21.!. Such a development waiver shall become null and void if ns s~batantial work is commenced within twelve mcnth~ da~e auch waiver i~ issued or if cormmencsd, such work is not diligently pursued to completion. (6) That Chapter ~i of the Code of the County of adding Article XXIII, Sections ~1-215 through follows: Article XXIV. Chesameake Bay p_~e~r3.~tion Area~ Section 21-215. Resource protection area boundaries. The previsions of sec=ion ~1.1-229.1 of chapter 21.1 ar= hereby incorporated herein by reference. Section 21-216. Resource management area boundaries. The provisions of suction 21.1-229.2 a~ chapter 21.1 are hereby xnccrperated h~ein by reference. The provisions of section 21.1-~9.M of chapter ~.1 are hereby ~neorDorated herein by reference. Section 21-~18. Soundaryadjuetments. The provisions of section ~1.1-229.4 of chapter ~1.1 are hereby incorporated hero~n hy reference~ ~tlon ~-~9. R~souree ~roteo~ion area regulations. The provisions of section 21.1-229.~ of chapter 21.1 are The provision~ of section 2t.1-229.6 of chapter ~l.1 are hereby incorporated herein ~y reference. Sectip~l_~t-222. E~emDticns. The provisions of section 21.1-129.8 of chapter 21.1 are he~eDy incorporated herein by r~ference, Section 21-223. E×eeDtion~. The provisions of section 21.1-119,9 of chapter 21.1 are hereby incorDorata~ herein by ra£erenoa, (7) That ChaD=er 21.1 of ~.ha Coda 0£ the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as a~e~d~d, i~ amended and reenacted by ~dding th~ following sections to th~ table of contents: Artiole IV. Developmen~ standards Division 5. Section 21.1--2~9.1. Section 21,1-229.Z. Section ~1.~-RR9.3. Section ~1.1-229.4. Section 21.1-2~9.§. Section 21.1-229.9. o o o Ches.aR~BDv Press~-zation Areas Re~ource protection area boundaries. Resource management ar~a boundaries Che~upxuke Bay pr~ser~atio~ a~eas maps. Boundary adjustments. Resource protection area regulations. Resource manag~e~t area regUlatieh~. Supplemental regulations; more restrictive apply. Exemption~. Exceptions. Article IX. Schematic Plans. Site Plans and Im~rovemsnt sketche~ o o o Imorovam~n~ skatch~s resulting improveneng Division ~. Sec~ien ~1.I-~79.1 Uses approval. a~et~ Section 21.1-279.2. Preparation and submission of improvement sketches. Section 21.1-179.3. Improvement sketch Section 21.1-279.A. Psrlod of improvement sketch validity. Section 21.I-27~.5. Minor or major adjustment in a~praved improvement sketch. Section ~1.1-279.6. Development to be in a¢¢ordanoe with improvement sketch; prerequisite to issuance of buildin~ p~rmit. ($) That sections 21.1-1, 11.1-3, t1.1-273, 21.1-275 and 9~.I-281 of Chapter 21.1 of the Code of the County of Chestmrfleld, I978, as amended, are amended and reenaate4 to Suction 11.1-1. Purpose of chapter. This Chapter is enacted for the general purpose of 5/8/91 and of further accomplishing the o~jeetives of section 15.1-427 Of the Code of Virginia. TO these ends, this Chapter is designed: (1) to provide for adequate llght, air, convenience of access, 'and safety from fire, flood and other ~treet~; (2) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonlou~ come,unity; (4) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuationw civil defensej transportation, water, waste water, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports mind other public requirements; (5) to 9rote¢% against daatructlon of or encroachment upon crowding of land, undue density of available, obmtruction of light amd air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or lo~s of life, he&l%h, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; (7) to encourage economic devetopmen= activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (8) to provid~ for ~e prese~ation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of ~a natural Section ~1.~-9. Nonccnfe~nq (b) No no~conforming use shall be enlnrged, extended, reconstructed, s~s~i~u~e~ or s~rusturally altered, except when required by law or lawful order, unless the use thereof ia change~ to a use permitted in the area in which located! except as follows: (6) In addition to the requirenents of subsectionm 1 thro~qh 5 abovs~ no nonconforming use i~ a Chesapeake B~y Prp~ervation Ar~a shall be enlarged, extended, substituted e~ ~tr~ctll~ally altered unless the director of environmental engineering grants a development waiwer after findinq that: a. There will be no net inereaee in ~onpoint source pollution load~ and b. Any development or land disturbance ~xceedin~ area of 2,500 square feet complies wXth all erosion eedimont control requirements of chapter 7.2 and division 5 Of Article IV of this chapter. Such a developmsnt waiver shall become null and void if no substantial work is commenced within twelve months from the date much waiver ig imn~ed er i~ co~enced, much work is not diligently pursued to completion. o o o Article IX. Schematic Plans. Site ~lanm and Improvement Sketohea c o e Divimi~n 2. Site Planm o o o section 21.1-273. Preuaraticn and submission of_s3~9, plan~. o o o (~) Every site plan shall 91-3t7 be prepared in the following manner and show the following information and location of land uses where necessary and applicable: (31) chesapeake Bay Preservation (32) A~y ether feature of the development which is resulted by this chapter to be shown on a site plan, eeo Section 21.1-275. A~mlnis~ratlve review (a) All site plans which are properly submit=ed as provided in thi~ article fur admini=trative review and approval shall be reviewed and recommended for approval or denial by: eeo (4) The director of envlrora~ental engineering or hie agents, relative to: d. Compliance with =~s regulations and requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areus. OOO (c) Tn the event the applicant disagrees with the final decision of the director cf planning, he may file a written appeal with th~ planning ¢Qmmi~sion within fifteen (~S) dayE of that deolsion. In addition~ adjacent property owners~ and other aggrieved persons who desire to appeal issues pursuant to division 5 Of A~tiele IV, Article VII or section 21.1-279.3(b) of this chapter, may appeal the final desision of the director of planning by filing a written appeal with the planning commission within fifteen (l§) days of that decision. Other than issues appealable by any aggrieved person pursuant to division ~ of ~rtiele IV, Arti¢le VII or suction ~1.1-279.3(b) cf thi~ chapter, appual~ by adjacent property owners shall be ~imitud to conditions which directly affect the property owner~ and include access, utility locations, buffers, conditions Of zoning, architectural treatment in the C-1 and O-i Dis%rict~ and land use transitions. T~e eom~issio~ Shali fix a reasonable time for hearing of the appeal and decide the ~a~e within gi~ty (60) days. The co~nissisn may affit-m, modify er reverse thc decision. During thlg period the director of planning shall net approve thc site plan or the building permit. Article XI. Definitlenm Section 21.1-2Sl. Definition~. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by t/~is section: A~ricultural lands. Those lands ~ecd for the planting an~ harvesting of crops or plant growth cf any kind in the open; pastnre; horticult~e~ dairying; florlculture; or raising of poultry and/or livestock. Best Mana~emcn= Fractices or BMPS. A practice, or a Combinution of practices, that is determined by a ~tate or dsslgnated area-wide planning agency to be the most effective, practical mea~s of preventing or re~u¢ing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sou=cos to a level compatible with water quality goals. o o c Diameter at breast heicht. The diameter of a t~ee measured outside the bark at a point 4.5 feet above ground. coo Dripl~ne. A vertical projection ~o the ground sur£aee from the furthest lateral extent of a tree'~ leaf canopy. o o o Hi~hlv erodiDie soils. Soils (excluding vegetation) with an credibility index (EI) from sheet and rill erosion equal to or greater than eight. The credibility index for any sell is defined as the product of the formula RKL$/T~ as define~ by the "Flood Security Act (F.S.A.) ~4anual" of August, 198~ in the *~Field office Technical Guide" of the U.S. Depa/~amont of Agriculture Soil conservation Service, where K is the soil susceptibility to water erosion in the surface layer; R is the rainfall and ~unoff; LS i~ the combined effects of ~lepe length and steepness; and T is the soil 10ss tolerance. Hichlv oer~eable soils. Soils with a given ~oten~ial to transmit water through the soil profile. Highly permeable ~oil~ are identified a~ any soil having a permaabillty equal to or greater than six inches of water movement per ho~r i~ (pe~eability groups "rapid" and ~'very rapid") ss found in the "National' soils Handbook" ef July, 1983 in the "Field Office Technical Guide" of the U.s. Department of Agriculture Soil Caneervatlcn Service. o o o v'o s cover. A surface co~poscd of any materi~l that ~ignlficant]y i~pede$ or 9revent~ natural infiltration of water into the soil. I~perv~cu~ surface~ include, but are not limited to~ roof~, buildings, streets, parking areas, and any conerete~ asphalt~ Or compacted gravel surface. Ncnos~nt ~aurce uollution. Poll~tion consisting of uonstitusnts such a~ sedlmsnt, nutrients, and organic and toxic substa~ce~ from diffuse sources, such as runoff from agriculture and urban land d~velu~ment and use. orlando. Those wetland~ other tha~ tidal wetlands that nrc inundated or saturated by ~urface or ground water at a frequency and duration e~ffioie~t to support, and that under normal clrcum~t~Qe$ do ~upperD, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in satu=ated soil conditions, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Pro,es=ion Agency pursuant to ~a~ion 404 Of the federal Clean Water Act, in ~ C.F.R. ~25.~b, dated November 13, 1986, as amended. ~oxious weeds. Weeds that are dt~isult to control effectively, such as Johnson Grass, Kudzu, and multiflora Redevelopment. The process of devels~ing land that ~s or been previously develops4. Steep slop~. Any land area which rises or falls at a horizontal plane. e o o Tidal shore or shore. Land conttSuous to a tidal body of water between th~ meun 1OW wats= level and the mean high water level. Tidal wetlands. Vegetated an~ nonvegetated wetlands as defined in ~ectiom 62.1-13.2 of the Cods of Virginia. Tributarst3~- Any perennial stream that is so depicted on the ~o~t recent U.S. Geelegioal Survey 7-~ m~nute topographic quadrangle map (scale 1: 24,000). oeo Water-dependent facility. A development of land that cannot exist outside of a resource protection area and must be located on the shoreline by reason o~ the intrinsiG nature of it~ operation. These faoilitie~ include~ but are not limited ~o (i) por~$; (ii) ~/le intake and ou%fall structures of power pl~t$, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, and ~to~m sewer~; [iii} marinas and ot~er ~ea~ ~o¢~ing structures; (iv) beaches and other water-oriented recreation areas; and Wetlands. Tidal and nontidal wetlands. (9) That Chapter ~1.1 o~ the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197S, ae amended, is amended and reenacted by adding Division 5, Sections 21.1-229,1 ~ough 21.1-229.9~ to Article IV and by adding Division 3, Sections 21.1-279.1 through ~1.1-279.6, to Article IX as follows: Article IV. Development Standards o o o Division ~. Che~ape~ke Bay Pre~ervatlon Area~ ~sction 21.1-2~9.1. Resource protection area boundaries. Resource protection areas consist of (a) tidal wetlands; (b) nont~dal wetlands connected hy snrface flow and ¢ont~uous to tidal wetlands or tributary streams; (c) tidal shores; and (d) a vegetated c~nservation area not less than 100 feet in width located a~jac~nt ~o and landward of the environmental features li~ted in subsections a through c above, and along both sides of any tributary stream. Section 21.1-229.2. Resource manaoemant area boundaries. Resource management a~saa consist of (a) ~00-yea~ floodplains; (b) highly erodible soils, includ~n~ steep slopes; (o) highly pe~maable soils; and (d) nontidal w~hlands not included in resource protection areas. A resource management area not l=~u than ~00 feet in width shall b~ located adjacent to and landward of every re,ounce p~oteetion aras even if the environmental features listed in subsections Section ]1.1-219.3. Chesap~a~9_.Bay. preservation areas maps. Chesapeake ~ay Pre=ervat~on Ar~as include re~ource protection a~eas and resource management areas. Subject to any adjustments which the director of environmental engineering may make pursuant to section ~1.1-22~.4, the Chesapeake Bay Prsservatien Areas Maps, whish are hereby adopted by reference and which shall be kept on file in the office of the director cf environmental engineering. For ~reas eraatsd by this Artlola are hereby declared to be created by this ~_rtlcle are hereby ~eclared to be "Resource (a) The delin~atlon of ~ny ef the boundaries of reseurc~ by the 4irectcr of ~nvironmental engineering where an envi~ornnental ~it~ a~me~t ~repared by a qualified expert indicates a need for such change based upon the environmental features li~t~d in ~e~tion~ 21.1-229,1(a) through (d) or 21.1-229.2(a) through (d), respectively. ~2~y such shall clearly ~lin~ate sash environmental features, wetlands ~pe=iff=~ in the ~aderal ~anua~ ~or Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1989. (b) ~n~y person aggrieved by a d~eigion of the director of environmental anplnaerlng oonoernlng the boundaries of appeal such deoimion in accordance with the procedures provided in section 21.1-275(c). (a) Allowable DeveloQment. Land d~v~lop~ent within resource protection area may be allowed only if it i~ water (1) A new or expanded water-dependent facility may be allowed provided that: Chesterfleld; b. It complies with the performance criteria get forth in gectlons ~.~-~9.5(b) and d. Access will be provided with minimum disturbance necessary. Where possible, a single point of access will be provided. (2} Redevelopment shall conform to ~pp!ic~ble stermwater management criteria an~ erosion and sedimen= control criteria set forth in section 21.1-~9+5(b)~ section (b) conservation ar~a (1) A conservation area of vegetation that is effective in retarding runoff, preventing ~rosion, and filtering nonpofnt source pollution fro~ runoff shall be retained if present and established where it does not exist. The c~nservation area ~hall be located adjacent t~ and landward of tbs environmental features llsted in section 21.1-z~9.1(a) ~hrough (c) and along bo~h ~i~ee of any firlbutary stream. The vegetated conservation area ~hall extend not less than 100 feet in width from such environmental features and ~ributary streams. The full conservation area shall be deemed to achieve a 75 percent reduction of sediments and a 40 percent reduction of nutrlente. A combination of a conservation area not les~ t~an 50 feet in width and appropriate Pest ~anage~ent practices lo~ated landward of the conservation area which collectively achieve wate~ ~ality protection, pollutant r~oval, a~d Wate~ reso~ce conservation m~ 1~$~ th~ e~ivalsnt of %h~ full con~vation ~ea may be employed in lle~ of the full con~ervatlon areu if approved by th~ director of enviro~en~al engineering after of a water ~ality impact assessment s~bmitted p~rs~ant to section 21.1-229.5(c}. (2) ~e cons~vatlon area ~hall be maintained to meet thc following ~dditional ~e~fo~a~oe ~ta~da~ds: a. In order to maintain the functienal value only to provide for reasonable ~ight line~, pedestrian ways, follows: i- Tr~e~ may be p~ned cr removed necessa~ to provide for sight lines and vistas, provided ~a% where r~ov~d, ~ey shall ~ r~placed with othpr vegetation ~at i~ e~ally effective in ~eta~ding ~noff, preventing erosion, and filtering nonDoint source Dollu~ion from ~noff. ii. Any pa~ shall be oons~cted and iii. Dead, dise~sed~ O~ dying t~e~m s~bbery ~ay b~ r~oved at the discretion of =h~ landowner, and ~ilvicult~al thinning may be conducted bused upon the iv. For shoreline ~osion control projects~ trees ~d woody vegetation may be r~oved, necessary control te~niques employed, and appropriate vegetation acoordance with the best avaiI~ble technical advice and applicable p~it conditions or b. ~n the required =~nservation areas would ~esult in t~e loss of a buildable a~ea on a lot o~ parcel recorde~ prior to October 1, 1989, the direotor of 91arming or ptaR~i~q oo~iuuiun may m~dify thc width of ~e conservation area at the time of subdivision Dlat~ sche~tic plan, site pla~ or i~prov~ent sketch approval in accordance wi~ th~ reco~endation of the director of environmental engineering based upon ~e followinq criteria: i. Modifications to the conservation areas shall be ~e minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable b~ildable aruu for u principal s~ucture and utilities; ~reu encroachin~ into ~e conse~ation area shall be n~imize water ~ality protection; and iii. In no cas~ shall the reduced portion o. Redevelopment of Iot~ or parcels on which prior development ~a~ left ~o ii~tl~ of the natural environment that establi~ent of all o~ pa~t of 51819~ conservation area otherwise required by this subsection is impractical, may be exempted from all or part of ~uch improvemen~ sketch approval in accordance with recommendation of the director environmental engineering based upon the followlnq criteria: i. Any such lot or parcel has more than $0% impervious ~rface; ii. Public sewer and water is constructed and cufrrently serves any ~uch lot or parcel; or iii. ~ou~ing density on ~ny ~uch lot or ~arcel is equal to er greater than 4 dwelling units per acre. do on agricultural landm~ the conservation area shall be managed to prevent concentrated flow~ of water from b~eec~i~g the conservation area and noxious from invading the conservation area, The a~rlsultural conservatien area nay be reduced a~ fcllow~: i. Ts a minimum width of 50 feet when the adjacent land is implenenting a federal, ~tate, or locally fl~nded agricultural best ~anagement practices program~ ~rcvid~ that the ~ombination of ~he reduced ccneervaDlcn area end the best management practices achieve wuter quality at leust the equivalent ~f th~ full conservation area; ii. To a minimum width of ~ feet ~hen a ~oil and water quality conservation plan, aa approved by the implemented on the adjacent land. Such plan shall be based Upon the Field o~ice Technical Guide of =he U. S. De9artment quality protection consistent with this Article. iii. The conservation area is not requi~ed for agricultural drainage ditches if the adjacent agricultural land has in place bas~ management practices in River soil and water Consarvatlon District. (c) Water quality impact assessment. (1) A water quality impact assessment prepared by qualified expert shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director cf environmental engineering for any development within a re~ource protection area~ inaluding any section 21.%-Z~9,5(b). Such water quality i~pact shall identify the impacts cf the proposed development or con~ervation area mcdi£1c~tion or reduction on water quality compliance with the requirements es this (2) If he determines that pa=entlal impacts created by the proposal are not adequately mitigated, the director of environmental engineering may require saditional mitigation mea~ur~ a~ a condition of approval. If ~uch i~pact~ cannot be adequately mltlgated~ the director of environmental enqlneering shall disapprove the proposal as inconsistent with person aggrieved by a decision of the director cf environmental engineering concerning a water quality impact procedures provided in section 21.~-~75(c). Se~on 21.1-229.6. Resource ~anac~ment area regulations. Any use, development or redevelopment of la~d ~hall meet t/~e following performance criteria: Ia) ~o mo~e land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for the desired use or development, lb) Indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximn~ extent possible consistent with the use and fo) Land development shall minimize imperious cov~r consistent with the n~e o~ development allowed. (d) (1) For any USe, development or redevelopment, stsrmwa~er runoff ~hall be controlled to achieve the following; post-development nonpoint source pollution runoff lead shall ~ot ~xeee~ th~ pr~-d~v~Iopment load, based on the calculated average land cover condition of Chesterfield County; b. For redevelopment sites not currently ~e~vad by water quality best management practices, the existing ncnpoint source pollution load shell be ~ednced by at c. For redevelopment si~es e~rre~tly served by water quality best management p~aetices, the poet-development nonpoint source pollution runoff lead shall not exceed ~h= (2) The following stoz-mwater ~nagement options shall be considered to comply with the requirements of a. Incorporation on the site of best management practices that achieve the required control; b. Compliance with a locally adopted regional stormwater management ~rogralu incorporating ~:e-rata ~har~ payments pursuant to the authority provided in section 15.1~466(j} of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that results in achievement of ~quivalent water quality protection; c. Compliance with a state or locally ~mplsmented progr~ e~ stormwatsr ~ssharge permits pursuant to section ~O~(p) of the federal Clean Water Act, as set forth ~n 40 C.F.R. Part~ 122, 123, 1~4, and 504, dated December 7, 19~. d. For a redevelopment site that is completely impervious as currently developed, re~torlng a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site to weg~tat~d Open space, (~) Any maintenance, alteration, use, or improvement to an existing s~ucture w~ic~ does not degrade the quality of surface water discharge, as determined by the director of environmental engineering, may be exempted frown the requ~r,ment~ Of thi~ subsection. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the director of environmental engineering under thi~ s~bseetion may appeal s~ch de~ision in accordance with (4) Compliance with th= r=quirem=nts of subs=orion leads in stormwot~r runoff. The post~develop~ent total ~hosphorus loads in etormwater runoff shall not exceed the following: a. For non-resJdentlal usam and residential umes at a density greater than 4 unitm per acre located in the post-development total phosphorus load shall not exceed 0.50 pound~ p~r a~re per year. total phosphorus load ~hall not exceed 0.44 pounds per acre Ce) Wh~re the best management practices utilized Cf) Land upon which agricultural aotivitles are being plan. Zuch plan shall be based upon the Field o~flce Technical Guide of the U.S. Depnrtment of Agriculture Soil Conservation ~erviee and accomplish water ~uallty protection consistent with this ~eetio~ Such a plan shall ~ approved by th~ James ~iver Soll and Water Conservation District by January ~, ~995. Sec%ion 21.1-~9.7. Supplement~ ~e.~latlons; more ~uppl~en% to the r~gulations for ~e underlyinq zoning district. (b) ~ere ther~ i~ any conflict betwmen the resource management area under t~is livision an~ those restrictive radiations shall apply. (u) Conm~=ticn, ~nstallation, operation, and lines, railroads, and public roads and thelr a~p~tenant structures in accordance with the ~rosion and S~dimen~ Contro~ and ~ediment control plan aDprove~ by the Virginia Soll and oompliaD~e with ~ requirements of thi~ division. (b) Con~tructlon, installation, and mainten~nc~ of requirements of ~is aivision provided that: utilities and facilities should be outside resource protection (2} No more land shall be disturbed than 'necessary to provide for ~e deslr~d utility i~$tallatlon; ($) Ali ~uoh con~truction, in~tallatlon, and ~{ntenan~ of ~uch util~tie~ and facilities shall be compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local require~ent~ and De~itz and designed and conducted in (4) ~y lan~ ~i~turbanoa exceeding an area of requirements of chapter 7.2 and ~i~ d~vi~cn. (o} silvicultural activities are exempt from the requireme~t~ of thi~ division provided that such activities adhere to water quality protection procedures prescribed by the Department of Eor¢~ry in it~ "Be~t Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Ope~atlonm". (d) The following land disturbances may be exempted from remource protection area regulations: (1) water wells; passive recreation faeilitiez much as boardwalks, trails, and pathways~ and (3) historic preservation and archaeological activities, provided that it is d~on~trated to the satisfaction of the director of snvironnantal engineering that: a. Any re~ired p~rmitm, except tho~e to which ~hi~ exemption specifically appl~em, shell have ~een b. sufficient and rea~onabl~ proof su~itt~ tha~ the i~de~ ~s~ will ~ot d~t~r~orate water quality; c. ~e intended use doe~ not confl~ot with near~y 91anne~ ur approved uses; and ~00 squar~ feet shall comply w~th all ~osiom and sediment control r~qu~rem~nt~ of chm~ter 7.2 an~ ~is 4ivision. (a) A request for an exception to th~ r=quir~m~n~s of this division shall be ma4e in ~iting to the director environmental engineering. It ~all identify ~e impacts the proposed ex=eptlon on water ~allty and on landm within the reso~ce protection ares ~ou~h ~e ps.romance of a water ~ality impact assessmmnt which complies wi~ the provisions of ~ection (b) Thc diractO~ Of environmental engineering ~hall impact a~se~sment and ~ay grant th~ exception with sUCh p~pome and intent of ~is division if he finds: (X) Grenting ~e exception wilt not confer upon the (2) The exception reques~ is no~ base~ upon oonditxons or ~ir~stan~ tha~ ar~ self-ordered self-imposed~ nor does the request arise from conditions circumstances either p~itte~ or nonconfo~ing that are related to ~djnc~t parcel~; (3) T~e exception request is t~e minimum to afford relief; (4) The exception request will be consistent with ~e purpose and intent of this division, and not injurious ~e neighborhoo4 or oth~wise de~imental to the public (5) Rc~sonuble and u~ropriute conditiomm a de~adation of water ~ality. (c) ~y per,on aggrieved by a decision of ~e director e~ception to th~ requirement~ of this division may appeal 91-326 5/8/91 Article IX, Schematic Plans~ S~e Plans and ImDrov~ent QQQ Divlsien 3. Improvement Sketches. Section 21.1-279.1. U~as 3~equlrlnq i~provement sketch An improvement sketch ~ust be submitted and approved for 2,~00 square feet of land disturbance and for which neither ai~e plan approval pursuant tc division ~ of this A~ti~le mubdivlmi~n approval pursuant to chapter ~8.1 is ske=ches. (a) Requests for improvement s~atch review and approval shall be accompanied by (1) the applicant's ce~ification he will perfo~ ~e mea~ur~ included on ~ i~p~ove~e~t sketoh and (a) copies of the improvement sketch as required by the d~ractor of e~viro~e~tal e~gi~eering. For any land use or development as described in section 21.1-~79.1 requiring a building pe~it, ~e building pe~it application shall be aooompanied Dy a r~qu~st for improv~ent ~ketch review and ~pproval and ~e npplic~nt'~ si~atur~ on the building 9e~it perform ~e measures included on the improvement ~ketch. For shall be su~itted directly to the department of (b) Every imp=ovement sketch shall be prepared in the following manner an~ show the following in~o~ation, where n~o~ssary and applicable as datelined by the director of environmental (2) Parkln~ ar~a~ and (3) Recreation areas and open space. (4) Area of entire tract and impervlou~ (5) Buitdln~ restriction lines to include Chesapeake Day ~re~e~ation ~eas, existing and proposed utility sealant(s] and setbacK(s) required by this chapter. (6) Existing and f~ni~h~d topoqraphy with a of fiv~ (5) fcc= contour in=ervals. artificial watercourses. (~) Ail existing and/or proposed improvement~ including wmll~ an~ 9r~m~ and ~acondary d~ainfield~. (9) Limits of any established 1D0-year floodplain. (10) Buildings and (11} Limit~ of land disturbance. Pollutant removal requirement calculatlon~. lua~ing r~qulremunts. (c) The director of environmental engineering or his agent shall be responsible for reviewing thc improvement sketch for general completeness and compliance with the regulations and rsc/uireman~s of t, he Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area~. Res=ion ~1.1-]79.3. Improvement sReteh ~e~_~D_(~.. (a) ~ agent for the planning director, the director of environmental engineering shall approve e~ disapprove the improve~$nt sk~toh in ac~ordanc~ with the regulation~ and requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas Withi~ thirty (30) days cf the date cf ~ubmlssion of the improvement sketch, if praoticable. Such approval or disapproval nay be the environmental engineer's aDRrovaI or disapproval of the building permit application. (b) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the director of environmental engineering approving or disapproving an improvement sketch may file an appeal in accordance with the procedures provided in section 21.1-275(c), Sac=lan 21.1-279.4. Period of i~nrovement sketch validitY, An approved improvement eke=oh shall become null and void if no ~ignifioant work is dona cr d~v~lopment i= made on the site within six (6) months after final approval. ?her~ shall ~e no clearing er grading of any site without approval of an improvement ~Retoh by the director of environmental engineering, Eeo=ion 21.1-~79.~. Minor or major adjustment in approved improvement sketch. adjustmsnts of the eke=oh, which co,ply with the spirit of this division and other provisions of this chapter may be ap~rovo~ by ~he director of environmental ongln¢~rlng. Devimtion from an approved improvement ~ketoh without the written approval of the director of environmental engineering shall void the sketch and the director of environmental engineering shall require the applicant to resubmit a new i~provement sketch £0r consideration. (b) Any major revision of an approved improvement sketch such revisions, any reguiremen:s of this division which are found by the director of environmental engineering to be unnecessary to amsura compliance with the requirements of this division ~ay b~ waived. Section 21.1-279.6. Develon~ent to be in accordance with (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to develop, chan~n or improve any land or construct, erect or structurally alter any building or structure for which an ~provement s~etsh iS required except in accordance wi~h an approved improvement sketch. (b) No building poi-mit ~hall be issued to construct, erect or structurally alter any building er structure that is subject to the provisions of thi~ di~islon until an imDTovement sketch has been submitted and approved. [i10) This 0rdinenoe shall he effective November 199I.] Ayes: Mr, Sullivan, ~r. C~rrin, 1dr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate Abstention: M~. Mayas Re¢onvening: 14. NEW 1A.A. FY-92 lq~SrF~u~ SF~%]~lq~G On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~. ~rin, the Board adopted ~he following r~solution and the up~ate~ R~venue Sharing Project Development Schedule (a copy of which is filed ~S, Section 33.1-75 of the Code of Virginia the Co~onwealth Transportation Board to make aD equivalen~ ~t~ing allooation to any County for designations by governing body of up to ~% or $$00,000 whiQh~ver i~ greater of funds reoelved by it during the ourrent fisoal year pursuant to "Stats and Local Fiscal A~i~tance Act of for use b~ the Co~onwaalth Tra~ortatio~ Board to construct, maintain, or improve primary and secondary highway within such County; and ~S, The ~eaterfi~ld County Board of Supervisors ag~rogriated $40~,~00 2or the Revenne Sharing Program with ~e adoption of the FY 1991-9~ Appropriation Ordlnanca; ~S, The Board previougly appropriated a~ $58,980 Sot the Genltu Roa~ improvement project; and ~S~ VDOT ha~ notifi~d the County ~hat $435,200 ~e maximum ~o~t of Chesterfield County funds that will be natch~ by the Stat~ d~inq FY 1991-92. ~OWs TH~EFORE BE IT RESOLED, =hat the ~eaterfield CouDty Board of Supervisors ha~ apgropriated $400,000 to be hatched by the State for the FY ~991-92 revenue sharing BE IT F~TK~R RESOLVED, that ~e ~oard deslgnate= $3~,200 of the Genito Road fund~ to b~ transferred to the~ p~oject~ for a ~o~ined total of $435,20~ to match the stat~ ~o~ ~e FY 1991-92 ~evanue zha~ing p~og~a~i and BE IT F~THER RESOLVED, that the matched f~ds b~ allocated t~ the following projscts: $410~000 Hopkins Road from Beulah Roa~ to Inca Driv~ Pha~ One construction ($~05,000 ~OT and $205,000 cowry). $41~,~90 C~ntr~ Ztr~t fro~ Route 10 to ~ester Road preliminary engineering and conatruotion ($212,600 ~OT and Sala,6oo county). ~reliminary engineering ($17,600 ~OT and $17,600 Co~ty}. Vote: Unanimous Mr, C~rri~ disclosed to %he Board that relating to Item 14,B,5,, R~v~nu~ Bon~$ f~r Cog~ntrix, his company is dealing with a ouhoidiary of Cegentrix and are in the negotiating ~rocess and also disclosed to the Board that relating to Item 15.B.9.b., Zoning Application for Public Safety Trai~ing Center, as indicated at a ~re¥1ous meeting, that he own~ a 91-329 $/8/91 portion of one of the sites located adjacent to the subject property which ~a~ conm~dcr~d fo~ purchase fe~ that projeot, ~ha~ one of his agents has had previous discussions with the land owner regarding maid site and the land ow~e~ nad indioated his intent to pay his agant a oommi~sion when he sold the subject property and he would declare a conflict of interest when these issues ars discussed. 14.B.1. ~IE~TS FOR~INGO~R~F~T~ os motion of }ir. ¢~rrin, ~¢onded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved a bingo permit for A1 Bartraw Jr., Chapte~ 50 (Disabled American Veterans) for calandar year 1991. Vote: Unaninous 14.B.2. STAT~ ROAD ACC~PTANCE This day the County ~nvironmental Engineer, in acco=dance with direotions from this Boar~, made reporb in writing upon his examination of Derbycreek Lane, Winners Circle, Furlong Terrace and Back Stret~2~ Lane in C~e~te~field Down~, Bermuda Dimtrict- Upon ~on~id~ratiun wh~f, and on motio~ of ~r. C~rin, seconded by ~. Applegate, it im remolved that Derbycreek Lane, Winners Circle, ~long T~race ~d Back Stretch ~n~ Chest~fiald Downs, B~muda District, be and they hereby are established as public road~. And b~ it further r~sulved, that the Virginia Degar~ent of T~ansgo~tation, be and it hereby in ~e~e~ted to take ~nto the Seconda~ syst~, Derbycrmek ~ne, beginning at the intersection with Bermuda Orchard ~ne, State Ro~te 828, a~d going was%erly 0.15 mile to ~e intersection with winners Circle, ~en continuing westerly 0.0S mile %o the intersection w~th ~long T~rac~, =hen continuing westerly 0.06 mile end at the intersection with Back Stretch Court; Winners cirole~ beginning at ~e interseotion wi~ D~rby=r~ Lane and going northerly O.04 nile to snd in a u~l-d~-~ao; ~long Terraoe~ beginning at ~e inte~seo=ion with Derbyoreek Lane and going northerly 0.0~ mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Again, Back St~etoh Court, beginning at the intersection with D~rby~e~ Lane and going southerly 9.03 mile to end ia u 4end This re~e~t is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance an~ designated Virginia Department of Transportation right-of-way for all of th~e roads. Chesterfield Do~ is recorded as fo11~s: Plat Book ~3, ~ages 53 & ~4, October 2S, Vote: Unanimous This day the County Env~ror~ental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this ~oard, sade repor~ in writing upon hie examination of Glen Oaks Conrt in Glen Oaks, Section 4, Bermuda District. Upon considsration whsreo~t and on Motion cf Mr. Cnrrin~ seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved ~hat Glen Oaks Court established as a public' rued. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of secondary System, Glen oaks court~ beginning at the intersection with existing Glen Oaks Court, State Rents 447~, and going easterly 0.05 mile to tie into proposed Glen Oaks This request is inclusive of the adjacent slo~s, sight This road serves 7 lots. A~%d be it further resolved, ~hat the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a ~0~ right-of-way for this road. This section of Glen Oaks is recorded as follows: This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with direotions fro~ this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Gray~o~S Road, Cray~ess Court, Gatelins Drive and Misty Hill Road in Irongate, Section 4 a~d a portion of Irongabe, section 1, Dale District. Ugon consideration Whereof, and on ~otlon of Mr. Coffin, me=onded by /~r. Applegate, it is resolved that Grs!rmoss Road, Graymoss Court, catalina Drive end Misty Hill Road in Trongate, ~ection 4 and a portion of Irongate, ~tion &, Dale Distrlc~, be and thsy hereby ar~ established as publlo roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virqlnla Department of Transportation, be and i= hereby is requested to bake into the Secondary System~ Gra~n~o~s Road, beginning at the with Irongate Drive, Sta~e Routs 30~S, and ~olng westerly 0.05 nile to the inter~ectio~ with Gra~os~ court, then continuing northwesterly ~.06 ~il~ to ti~ into existing Gra~oss State Route 3029; Gra~o~ Cou~t, b~ginning at the i~tersection wi~ Gra~u~s Road and going southerly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Gateline Drive, beginning at the continuing sou~wusterly ~.0~ mil~ to ~nd at the intersection wi~ Gate]in~ Drive a~d going westerly 0.14 to en~ in a temporary turnaround. Again, ~is=y Hill Road~ beginning at the intersection with Gatel~ne Driv~ and g0i~g Thi~ request i~ inclusive of ~he adjacent ~lope, drainage easements. The~e roads serve 91 ~d b~ it fu~the~ ~01ved, that the Board of SuperviEor~ guarantees to the v~rgfn~a D~Dar%~ of Transportation a 50' =igor-of-way for all of ~e~e roads. Geetien l, Plat Book 36, Pages 38, 39 & 40, June 19, 1980. ~e~tio~ 4, Plat Book 61, Page 50, May 11, 19SS. This ~ay the County Enviror~e~tal ~ngineer. An accordanc~ with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Twin Cedars Read and Cobble Glen Court in Cobble Glen, Mateaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion Of Mr. Currln, seconded by Mr. Applega~e, it is resolved that Twin Cedars Road and Cobble Glen Cou~t i~ Cobbl~ Glen, Mateaca District, And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take i~to secondary System, Twin Cedars Read, beginning a= the intersection with ~toney Creek Parkway, ~tate Route number to be assigned, and goln~ asuthwssterly o.o7 mile to intersection with proposed Foxwood Road and continuinq southwesterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Cobble Glen Ceurt, then turning and going westerly 0.04 milm to tie into proposed Twin cedars Road; and Cobble Glen court~ beginning at the intersection with Twin Cedars aoa~ and going northerly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Thi~ request is inclusive of the adjutant slope, sight The~e roads serve 17 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees ~o the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for both of these Cobble Glen is recorded as follows: Plat Book 67, Pages 28 & ~9, Suly 27, 19~9. Vote: Unanimous This day the County ~nvironmental ~ngineer, in accordance with directions from this seard, made report in writing upon ~ie examination of Foxwood Road in Foxwood, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by ~,~:'. Ap~legata, it is resolved that Foxwood Rca4 ~n FOXWood, Matoace District~ be and it hereby is established as a public road. A~d be it fu~--ther resolved~ that ~e Virginia Department of This request is inclusive of ~e adjacent slope, ~ight ~i~tance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage eas~ents. This road se~es ~ lots. ~d be it further resolved, that the Bo~d of SuDe~isor~ ~arantees to ~a Virginia Department of Transportation = 50' right-of-way for th~s road. 9~-332 Fexwoo~ is recorded as ~sllow~: Plat Book 67, Page5 62 & 63, Ae~NlSt 21, 1989. Vote: Unanimous This day the County ~nvironmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board~ made repol~t in w~iting upon his examination of Pointer Ridge Road in spring Trace, Section C, Katoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Curtis, eeosn~e~ ~y ~IT. Applegate, it is resolved that Pointer Ridge Road in Spring Trace~ Sectio~ C, ~atoscs District, be and it hereby is established as a Du~l~e road. And be it further resolved~ that the virginia Department of Transportation, be and i= hereby is requested to take into the secondary System, Pointer Ridge Road, beginning at existing Pointer Ridge R~ad, State Route 4719, and ~oing no~the=ly distance and designated Virginia Depa~tmen~ of ~arantee~ to the virginia Department of Transportation a ~0~ rlght-o~-way for ~s road. This section of Spring Trace i~ ~ecorded a~ follows: S~otio~ C, Pla~ Book 67t Pages 85 ~ 86~ ~ly 25, 1989. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental ~ngins~r, in accordance directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Pointer Ridge Road and Po~ntar Ridge Terrace in Spring Trace, Section D, Matoaea District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion Of Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Applegatc, it is resolved that Pointer Ridge Road and Pointer Ridge Terrace in Spring Treoe, Section D, ~atoaca Dietrict~ be and they hereby a~e established as public And be it further resolved, that the Virgi~i~ Dop~rtment of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the R~condary ~yntem, Pointer Ridge Road, beginning at the end of e~isting Pointer Ridge Road, State Route number to be assigned, and going northerly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Pointer Ridge Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Pelstar Ridg~ Road, State Route number to be assigned, and going northwesterly 0.~? mile to end in cul-de-sac. This request is ~ncluslve of the adjacent slope~ s~ght distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 22 lots. And be it furthe~ ~esolved, that the Board of Supervisor~ guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a right-cf-way for Pointer Ridge Road and a 40' right-of-way for Pointer Ridge Terrace. This section of Spring Trace is recorded as follows: section D, Plat Book 68, Pages 99 & 100, September 5, 1989. Vote: Unanimous This day the County ~nvironmental Engineer, in accordance with direetienm from this Ueard, mede report in wri=ing upon his examination of ~in Cedars Road, Twin Cedars Terrace, Twin Cllff~ Lane and Twin Cedars Co~ in Twin Cedmr~ and e Portion of Cedar Cllfft ~ectlon ~ Natoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Fir. Coffin, seconded by M~. Appleqate, it is resolved that Twin cedars Road, Twin cedars Terrace, Twin cliffs ~ane and TWin Cedars Court in Twin Cedaru and a Portion of Cedar Cliff, section 2, Matoaoa District, be and they hereby are established am public Secondary System, Twin Cedar~ Road, beginning at existing Twin Cedar~ Road, $~ate Route number to be assigned, and goln~ easterly 0.02 mile to the intersection with Twin Cedars intersection with Twin Cliff~ Lane, th~n continuing westerly 0.03 mixe ~o ~he in:ersec~ion wi~h Twin Cedars cour:, ~hen continuing westerly 0.14 mile to end in a temporary turnaround; Twin cedars Terrace, beginning at the i~terseotion with Twin Cadam ~oad and going ~outherly 0.04 mile to e~d iD a cul-de-sac; Twin Cliffs Lane, beginning at the intersection with Twin Cgdar~ Eead and going ne~herly 0.lO mile to end at the intersection with Cedar Cliff Road, State Route number to be assigned; and Twin cedars cou~t, beginning at the inte~ueetion with Twin Cedurs Roud and going southerly mile ~o end in a This request is inclusive of the adjacent mlope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage sasem~nt~. These roads serve 28 lots. And be it further ~esolved, that the Board of Supervisors gu=tautens ~o the Virqiaia Department o£ Transportation a right-of-way for all of these roads. Twin Cedars is recorded as fellowe: Plat Book 67, Pages 90 & 91, Septe~er 12~ Thi~ eeotion of Cedar Cliff i~ recorded a~ Section 2. Plat Book 63, Page~ $? & 38, October 6, 1988. Vote! Unanimous 14.B.3. $~A'A'I~T OF CLA/2~ OF ~OUIS c. COLLIER. INC.. CO]~A~TOI~RF~AI~]ING E~CAVATION ~ ~R ~ ~ ~ ~T~ FIL~TION P~ On motion of ~. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Apple~ate~ the Board collier, Inc., Contractor, in the amount of $10~000~ regarding Plant. (It is no,ed sai~ funds will come from the swift creek WateM Plant Project ~880160.) VOte: Ununimous 91-3~4 14. B. 4 · A~I~OFA~ OF C~AN~E On motion e£ ~4=. Curtis, ~eeonded by Mr. Ap~legate, ~he Board authorized th~ County Attorney to execute a Change Order, in the amount of $~5,~58 for oonstru~tlon changes, to Kenbridga Constrectiom Co~pamy for the new Courts Building. noted said funds w~ll come from the Courth0us~ Projec= Contingency Fund.) Vote~ Unanimous On motion of bit. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Attorney to execute a Change Order, in the a~e~t of $14,20~ for providing earth swale, additional ~eavatios and expansion joints in ~he brick work, to Kenbridge Construction Company for th~ Youth Group ~e~e. (It is noted said funds will come from the Youth ~roup ~eme Contingency Fund.) Vote: ~nanlmou~ ~4.B,6. AWARD OF ~)FI~A~ FOR A~DIT1]~ S~{~I~ On motion of ~. ~ri~, seconded by M~. Applegute, the Board awarde~ the Auditin~ services Go~ra~, i~ a~o~s no~ ~o exceed the following: $87,500 for the FY91 Audit; $91,~00 for tho FYi2 AUdit; $96,000 for the FY93 Audit; $100,000 for the FY94 Audit; and $10~,000 for the FY95 Audit, to Coopers and Ly~ran~ and au~ori~e~ ~e county A~inim~ra~or to execute a contract on behalf of the County subject to approval as to fo~ by ~e County Attorney. On motion of ~. Curtis, ~acond~d by ~. ADplegate, the Board accepted the do~ation of a 2.~2 acr~ ~arcel from B. Forace Hill and Ann J. Hill, on behalf of the Chesterfield ~storlcal sooiety, for the "aowlet~ Line" Civil War site, which ~arcel contains ~e ea~thwo~s 0f u ~ignificunt civil War fortification, and authorized ~ County Administrator execute ~e ~=ceuuu~ d~xd. (A copy of th~ plat is filed with ~e papers of =his On motion of M~. CUrtis, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set the date of Jklne ~2, ~99i at 6:Z0 p.m. fer a ~ublic County Of Chesterfield, 197~, as amended, by amending and reenacting sections 2~-56 and ~.1-227 ~elating generally t~ VetS: Unanimous 2?t.B.,D. 3~1',~F~'4'4 ~ ~G COl.[l,[I-C:~-Ol~' I~:.B...J.a. ZOI~IIN~ Ai:'P~CATION FOR '['m:iJ{ INDD~'x~AL PA~K FRO]( ~-1 TO I-1 ~ CONDITIONS AND On motion of MS. Cu~in, seconded by M~. ADplega%e, the Board application for the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Pa~, £~cm M~i to IL1 with conditions and I-1 with CUPD. Vote: Unanimous AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR JAIL ~DICAL S~5~IC~S TO ROB~TW. }"RY. M.D. Discussion~ oomments~ and questions ensued relative to the Jail ~dical Services Contract regarding tbs ¢~rrent provid, r; the solicitation of bids; what each of the services provide; =he cost of ~he existing and Drepcsed oontraets; ~edical liability; and the medical nurse positions; etc. to exceed $200,000 for the first year of the Contract, subject to a9grova/ by the County Attorney, to Rob~t W. F~, M.D. 14.B.11. DONA~$TO-r~C~OOL on motion cf Mr. Coffin, ~econd~d ~ ~. Applegate, the Board approved ~e donation u~ $7,100 to Eerie=an High S=hQul on behalf of those student~ w~o are competin~ i~ national events uppropriuted fund~ from the Clover Hill Ogstrict T~ee Cent District Thre~ Cent Road Fund in the amo~t of DEPAI~TM~2~T~RANT 0n ~otion of Mr. ~rrin, ~eoond~d by ~. Applegat~, the Board authorized =he County A~inist~ato~ Chesapeake Bay ~cal Assistanue DeDartment, in $40,000, fo~ grant funds for the Enviro~mntal Engineering DeDartm~t %o help offset existing costs of the Chasa~e~e ~ay Preservation Regulations for FY92, and f~ther appropriated said funds, if approved. Vote: Unanimous I4.B.13. A~LICATION FOR~I~GINIA_~TION._.G~__F~ FOR T~= On me,ion of M~. ~in, ~econ~ by ~. A~l~gat~, th~ a~thorizcd the County A~in{~trator to mnk~ application to the virginia ~w Fo~dation ~or the Pre-Troll Release Program, the amount of $~,~00~ for grant funds which will be used to restoring the cas~ manager position) and $5,000 to p~cha~e computmr for ~e pro,ram, and f~er appropriate~ maid f~d~, if approved. Vote: Unanimous 9i-~36 I4.B.14. AI1THOHIZATION FOR '~'ns COUNTY AT~OI~}IEY TO On mo~on of Mr. C~r~n, ~oon~ ~y ~. A~pl~gat~, the Boa~d ~=~orlzed th~ County Attorney to film an ~icus Curiae ~rlef in Dyke~ v~. Northern Virginia Transportation cotillion order to r~est the Virginia ~upreme Court, along with other Cent% ~o limit th~ effect of the decision to future lease- p~c~e financings. 14.B.15. AIT~HORIZE APPLICATION FOR A C~TIFICATE OF w~ H0~E AT ~GNOL~ 0n motion of Hr. Currin, seconded by ~. Applegate, %he ~oard approved initiation of application~ fo~ a C~rtifieat~ of Appropriatene~ and ~ building permit to reoonst~ct th~ W~ll ~ouse on County o~ed property located at ~0020 Road, better known as ~agnolia ~range and, f~mr, authorized ~. Bradford S. ~a~er~ Deputy Co~ty k~ini~t~ator for ~anagement ~e~ices, to act as the agent for ~h8 applloa~ions. (It is noted that the Historical Society has appropriated ~unds ~0 r~oon~o= ~ne Well House.) Vote: Unaninous ~. C~rin disclosed to the Board that relating to Ite~ I~.B.5., Revenu~ Bond~ for Coge~trix, hi~ company is dealing with a subsidiary of Cogentri~ and are in the negotiation prooess an~ al~o ~isolo~ =o the ~oard that relating %0 Ite~ 15.B,9.b.~ zoning Application fo~ P~blio Safer2 Training Center, as he indicated ~revioumly, ~at he owns a portion one of the sites located adjacent to the subject property which wa~ considered for purchase for that project, %ha% one of hi~ ag~nt~ ha~ had previou~ discussions ~ith the land regarding said site and ~a lan~ owner had indicated ~rop~rty; declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Inter,st Act and excused hlm~elf from the meeting. 14.D.5. REBOLUTION CONFIRHi~G PR0(~)INGS OF TH~ (~TB~I~X~n On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~tr. Sullivan, tho zoard adopted the following re~olu=ion: WHEREAS, the Industrial Davel0p~ent Authority of th~ County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") has censlde~ed the application cf CogeDtrix of Richmond, Inc~, a ~orth Carolina corporation (the "Applicant") which has it~ principal place of businos~ at 9405 Arrowpoint Boul~¥ard, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273, requesting the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of the City o£ Richmond, Virginia exceed $48,000,O00 (the "Bonds"). The proceeds of tho Bonds will be used to assist the Applicant in fi~a~ci~q the acquisition, cons%ruction and equipping of c~rtain components of a 220 megawatt (nominal nameplate rating) coal-fired cogeneraticn plant, The ¢ogeneration plant is to be situated on approximately 19 acres of land primarily in the City of Richmond, Virginia (the "City") on Commerce Road near Trenton Avenue adjacent to the ~. I. duPont de Nemours and Company Spruanoe Pla~t (the "duPcnt Plant"). The duPont Plant is located on the east side of Jefferson Davis Kighway on the ';County") and the City. WH~EA$, the cemponentn to be financed inslude without limitation, facilities for fly ash collection and disposal, bottom ash asllsctlon and disposal, coal collection, spent resin handling, recycling and disposal, and functionally related and subordinate facilities, and (2) local district heating or cooling, including the steam lines and equipment necessary to transport steam from the cogeneretion plant to the dopant Plant, and functionally related and subordinate facilities. Certain oemponentm of the coal unloading facility (which components comprise a portion of the solid waste dlsposal system) and certain steam lines from the cogeneratien pleat to t~a duPent Plant and related equil~ment (whic/~ steam lines and equipment comprise a portion of the local district heating or cooling system) will be located at the duPont Plant in the County (together, s~ch facilities are raf~rsd to herein ~ the 'lCha~rfield Projects'~) . The total cost of the Chesterfleld Projects is not expected to exceed $4.500,000; WHEREAS, the Authority held a pubtio hearing regarding this ~tter on April ZZ, WH~REA~, an Inducement Resolution for the issuance cf the Bonds was adopted by the Richmond Authority on October 25, 1990 following a public hearing held by t. he Richmond Authority; WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (~h~ "Code") and Section 15.1-1378.1 Of Cod~ of Virginia of 19~0, as amended (the "Virginia Code"). prcvlde that the governmental unit havinq jurisd~ctlon over the i~suer of private activity bonds and over th~ area in which any facility financed wit~ the p~oceeda of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance cf the WHEREAS, Section 15.1-1378 of t/la Virginia Cede p~ovide~ tha~ if a locality ha~ created an industrial development authority, ~0 i~d~strial development authority created Dy a ~econd locality may finance a iacility located in tee first locality ~nlass the governing body of such firmt locality concur~ with inducement resolution adopted hy t~a industrial development authority created by the second locality; WHEREAS, the County has created the Authority and the Chesterfield Projects will be located in the county; WHEREAS, following the public hearing held by Authority, the A~t/~ority adopted a re~olution in which it recommended that the Board o~ Supervisors ef the County Of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") upprowm of the issuance of the sends by the Richmond Authority and concur wit~ thc I~duce~ent Resolution adopted by the Richmond Authority. A Resolution; and WI{~RF3~, a brief written su~ary of the comments made at the public hmarlng h~ld by the Authority and the Applicant's Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. attached to thisResolution: NOW, THEREFORE, BE I~ RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF BUP~VISORS OF THE COURTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approvee the issuance of the Bonds by the Riohmcn~ Authority to finance the Chesterfield Projects, to the extent required by Section 147(f) of the Code an~ 1S.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code. 2. The Board conou~ with the InduCement Resolution adopted by the ~i~bmond Authority, as required by 15,1-1378 of the Virginia Code. 3. The upproval of the issuunce of th~ Bonds does not oonetituta an end0r~ement ~o prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Applicant or it~ cogenerat~on plnnt. Am required by Section 15.1-1380 of the virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon cr other costs incident thereto except the revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faitB and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County an4 the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. ~. Thi~ RemolRti0~ shall taka effect i~mediately upon its adoption. Vote: Mr, S~lliva~, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas Absent: ~r. Currin 14.~.~_.~_..MONTN~APP~ICATION FOR 9~BSTANTTALA~)RD Dwr~ATION~P~T A~LIC On motion of Nr. Applegate, se¢ond~d by ~. Sullivan, the Board re~estsd the Planning Co~immion con~ider a zoning application ~or Conditional U~ and Sub~tantlal Accord D~tm~nat~om to pe~it a public safety training center on the west lin~ of Allied Road, north of Route 10, as sho~ on Tax Map 136 (1) Pert of Parcel 1 and Ta~ Map and, further, authorized J. K. Ti~onm and Ammooiates to act mm thm agent for ~e applications. ~ment: ~. Currin 5ir. Currin returned to the meeting. On ~otion of /~nf. Sullivan, seconded by FEr. Applegate, the Bcar~ nominated for appointment ~lr. Richard M. McElfish, as the Boar~ representative, to serve on ~he Study committee of l~.D.l.a. TO C~NSIDER AN_O~D~NAN~_~ 15%~%~R_A_5_0 ~OOT ~ ~. sale ~tated thi~ dat~ and time had be~n advertised for a public heurin~ to con~ider ah ordinance to vacate a 50 foot and variable width righ=-of-way within Salimbury $u~ivi$ion, West Emmet ~ection, and presented an overview of ~e request, ~. Paul H~erman stated that he was ~e applicant and wa~ in ~avor ~f vaoating the stub rom~; ~at ~he issu~ had bean in existence for some tine; and asked the Boa~d to give favorablm consideration to the request. Ms. Faye Palm.r, representing the neighbors on Neth~field Drive. stated the re.est had bm~n in ~xlmtence for some time; that the Pla~ng Co~m~ion had he~d ~a original request and had denied arc.ss to Ro~ont Subdivision by way of the that ~e stub road is located betwe~ two homes and is ourrently b~ing u~ed as a driveway by %he a~plioan~; ~hat ~he originally been addressed; ~at the adjacent lando~er's with a r~newal; that ~. ~d will,y, who owns a piece o~ prop~ty nex% %o Mr. Sowers, had proffered on his zonin~ road vacated; that ~e road access had ~en denied tc ~. ~at for all purposes that road was closed and that they were thi~ ties. vacated, at some point in time, it could be reopened by the eminent ~omain procesa; that the County should no~ give u9 opportunities fo~ the future; and ~e~ested that the Board l~av~ ~e s~ub road as is. ~. Billie W~edon stated she was in favor of olosing =~e road; that there was support by ~e neighbors to vacate %he stub their concerns and support; that the Planninq Co~ission had stub road ~hould not be op~ned; that ~he felt the favorable oonsideration ~o th~ request. but ~at ~e attorney could not be ~resent at this time; that he Selt there may be a problem in the future as far as the for thi~y to si~y d~y~ in ord~r for hi~ =ttorney to hav~ an opportunity tc be Dre~ent. There being no one else =o ad,ess ~is o~dinance~ the p~lic ~. S~livan stated that he had di~cummm~ the matter with staff and had in. ired a~ to po~sible solutions for the situation. problem ~n th~ future but that it was difficult to dete~ine; that a preliminary decision has determined that it would not DS appropriate to put two hundred lOtS O~ tO Nstherfield Drive developer. Mr. sullivan stated that ~inoe Mr. so~er~ had retained an attorney and the attorney ~oul4 not be present, ho would and requested Mr. Sowers to have his attorney contact the County Attorney. On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board ~eferred the ~ublic hearing to allow further c~nsider~tton and input regarding ~n ordinance to vacate a ~0 foot and vsriabl~ width right-of-way within Salisbury Subdivision, We~t Kennet Section, until May ~, 199& at 9:00 ~4.D.l.b. TO CONSIDER A I2~$E OF C~NTY I&%ND IN I~OW~ATAN Mr+ Sale state~ thi~ date and %im~ hud b~en advertised for County aspired for the G~nito D~ site, Nr. G~orge Beadles stated he was in favor of the re~e~t he feI~ it would be a ~teD towards pro~oting regional cooperation. 0n ~otioD Of Mr, Applegate, ~econded by Mr. C~rin, ~e Board approved the leas~ of County owned property along Route~ and ~O4 in Hu~enot District, Pow~a~an CORR%y ~o= $350.00; approved ~e lea~e of 20 acres of tillable rostand along with the right to hunt ~e r~ai~d~r 0f =h~ county's 115 ~ acre track of tund in Powhatan County to Wachovia Fa~s; and agremment. (It ~ noted that the property had been l~a~ed for vote: Unanimous ~ATION ~. Sale ~tated thi~ date a~d ~im~ had been advertised ~or a Transportation. No on~ came forward to speak in favor of or against ~e approved the conveyance of right-of-way at ~e Swift Cresk Water Treatment Plant ~n~ authorized ~e Chairman of the Board and the County A~ini~trator to execut~ the ~¢~s~ary dee~ ~Don approval by %he Catty Attorney'~ offio~ to ~e Virginia Department of Transportation fo= roa~ improvements along ~ull Street Road. (It i~ noted that the County ha~ been requested %~ donate the necessary ri~ht-of-way along ~ull street Roa~ for road ~mprove~e~t~ c0~ected wish the Ro~t~ 36~ West Bouhd Vote: Unanimous 91-341 5/a/9~ 34.D.2. u'rl~ITIHS ECON~[IC rNDUC~dE~T POLICY On motion of Hr. Daniel, seconded by Hr. Applegate, the Board approved ~ revision to the Utilities Ee0n0mie Inducement ~olicy stating that the increased revenue resulting £rom utilities projects falling under the "Guidelines Relating to Extension Of Utility Lines to Promote Economic Development" will remain in the General Fund. 14.D.3. Au'r~ORIZATION TO ~X~CI$~ ~IN~NT DOMAIN FOR x~= ACOUIS3[T~ON CFA 1O~T~ORARY CONS'I~UC'~I~ON AND A VAP. IABLE P]~NANKNT WATER EASEMenT FOR 'r~ INSTAI~I~%TION OF A 16 IN~IiWA~qiRLINE 14.D.3.s. A~O$S ~ROP~ OF ~. LISA P. ~ 0n ~otion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board au~or~z~d th~ Co~ty AttorBey to prooeed with e~i~eBt d~ain on an ~erqency basis and exercise ~ediate r~ght of ent~ pursuant t~ Section 1~.1-25~.1 of the Cod~ of Virqinla fo~ the ac~ui~itio~ of a 10' te~p0~a~ oo~t~0tio~ ea~e~e~t and a variable ~e~anen= water easement across the pro~er=y of Li~a P. Ray (focally Lisa P~illipu), 2732 WilliumSWood Road, Tax Map 9-8(iS)~, for the installatio~ of a ~6" water lin~ to replace a~ existing S" line along Huguenot Read und authorized the County Administrator to notify the o~ur by umr~ified mail on May 9, 199~, of ~e Colby's int~tion to tak~ po~esmion with the paper~ of thim Board.) Vote: Unanimous 14.D.3.b. ACROSS PROPI~Y OF )iR. AND HRS. JOSEPH W. BKAHON On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Itt. Applegate~ the Boar~ auth0rize~ th~ County Attorney to proceed with ~minent de~ai~ e~ a~ eme=ge~ey basis and exercise imnediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-235.1 u~ the Code of ~irginia for the acquisition of a 10~ temporary co~tructio~ easement and a variable ~armanen~ water easement across tbs ~ro~erty of Jomeph W. and Peggy D. Beamon, ~0199 West Hugllenot Road, Tax Map 9-8(1)7, for tho ine=alla~ion of a 15" wa=er linc ~e repluce un existing 8" line along Huguenot Road and authorized the ~eun~y Administrator to no~i~y the owner by csrti~ied mall on May ~, I~91, of the County's intention to take po~se~slon o{ the aassment. (It is noted a copy of the plat ~s filsd with the paper~ of thi~ Board.) Vote: Unanimous 14.D.4. CONS~N~ IT~ 14.D.4.a. APPROVAL OF WASTEWA'r~ COW/~L%~T ~DR T~ OFF--SITE ~"lq~r$ION TO x~= ~ROW WHIT~ HOTEL On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~conded by Mr. Curtis, the Board approved Wastswatsr contract 90-0166 for th~ off-~it~ ~xt~n~io~ to the ~now White ~etel, as follows, which project includes the e~tension of ~08 L.F.± of 8" wastewate~ lines which will prmvide service to the adjoining properties and authorized the Co~ty Adl~i~istrater to ex. cute any necessary D~veloper: I.S. and Kamla I. Pate1 contractor: J. Stcv= Chufin, Inc. Contract Amount: Total =atimated County Cost: ~aetewater (off~ite) (Refund thru oonnsctisns) Estimutcd De,eloper Cost:' Code: (0ffsite) Vote~ Unanimous E~ti~ated Total - $14,250.0~ $14,2S0.00 5P-5835O-890733E 14.D.4.b. /%~OFA~ OF A ~tANGE ORDER FOR '~'~_= EN~IN~FNG On motion of Mr. Applegat~, seconded by ~r. Currin, the Board spproved the Change Order for the Engineering Contract for engineering services for the Proctor~ Cre~k Wa~tewater Treatment Plant Expansion (Project 88-0163E) with R. Stuart Royer & A~oe~ates, i~ the a~o~nt of $17,720.OQ, for addit~onaI ~ervice~ and authorized the County Ad~inistrutor to execute the necessary documents. Vote: Unanimous ~ AND G=%~t't~ W~'t'HIN AN ~XISTING 20 FO0~ On motion of Mr. Applegat~ ~e~end~d by ~%r. C~rrin, ~he D~d approved a request from Mr. and Mrs. ~arry Gell~s to ~o~r~c~ curb and cutter within an existing 20' easement on ~t 3~ ~n a~eem~t. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed wi~ the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimou~ 14.D.4.d. ~EO~T FRO/4 MS. BETTY R. ~-?-~S TO DR~Vh%4AY ~IN ~ S~ ~s~ ~D~S~ On motion of Mr. Applegat~, seoonde~ by driveway within unlmDrQved Snead Street in Che~ter ~bJedt to th~ ~x~tion of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of tbs plat ~s filed with the papers of this Beard.) Vote: Unanimous 14.D.4.e. A~ANC~ OF A PAR~L OF L%ND AtON~ c'Ok~'~-~ ROAD FROH GLEN ROY AND TUCKAHOE CARDINAL COP=~ORATION On motion of Mr. Applegste, seconded b~ Mr. Currin, thc Board accepted on behalf of ~he CoUnty, ~he conveyance O~ a 20' strip of land along Coalfield Road from Glen Ro~ and Tuckuhoe Cardinal Corporations and authorized t-he County Administrator to execute the necessur~ deed. (It i~ noted a copy of the ~lat i~ filed with the papers of this ~uard.) 14.D.4.f. ACCEPTANCE OF TWO PARCELS OF ~ FROM ROSLXN FA~H accepted on behalf of the County, the convsyanoe of 1.237 91-343 5/8/91 acres of land adjacent to Ruffin Hill Road ~nd 5.Z~4 sores Of land ex%endlng in an easterly direction from Ruffln Mill Road for proposed Port Welthall Drive f~om Roslyn Farm Corporation. The dedication of the 5,~4 parcel i$ require~ for the eon~t~uct±ea of Port Walthall Drive Industrial Access Project in the Ruffin Mill Industrial Park an~ the 1.237 ac~e is necessary to meet the ultimate reed width for the County Thoroughfare Plan and authorized tbs County Administrator to water assessment fees and sewer developmen~ fee, if any. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanlmcum 14.D,.4.q.,,,,,,CONVEYANCE OF EAS~ TO%~RGI~-A ELE(~TRXC,,AND On motion o~ ~. Appl~gate, seconded by ~. C~in, ~e Bo~d au~orized ~e ~airman of ~he ~oard and the County A~inistrator to execute an eas~ent a~eement with Virginia Electric and ~owe= Company %o install over,mad cable within a West Bo~d Lane Bridge Replacement Over Swift Creek. (It im Vote: Unanimous water and sewer contracts executed by the County Adminisgrator, General Fund Contingency Account; General Fund Balance; R~s~rYe for Future Capital Projects; Distric~ Road and Street Light Funds; Lease Purchases; and School Board Agenda. ~r. Ramsey stated the Virglni~ Department of Transportation ha~ focally notified the county of the acceptance of follcwin~ roads into th~ Ztate ~con~ary ~y~tam: BO~ AIR FOREST - SECTION "A" - (Effeotive Route 3845 (~ntersdell Lane) - From Route 718 to 0.16 mile No.west of Route 718 0.16 ROUte 3846 (Huntsr~dell Pl~o~) - Prom Route ~845 to 0.03 mile No,beast oS Route 3845 0.03 Mi Route 3847 (Huntec~dell Teccaca) - F~om 3845 0.17 WEAT~ERB~Y. S~TION 1 - (Effective Ro~te 604 to 0.5~ mile Nor~ Rout~ 604 0.~2 Mi 91-344 5/$/91 On motion o£ ~. ADplegata, aecon~ed by M~. Mayes, the B~ard adjourned at 10:00 p.m. until Nay 2~, 1991 at 9;00 a,m, Vote: Unanimous 91-345