The URL can be used to link to this page

10-14-1992 Minutes.BOARD OF SU~E~?ISORB ~ZNUT~ Octo~a= ~4~ ~992 Supervisors in ~ttendam~e= Mr. Barry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. Arthur S. Warren, vice ch~m. F~r. Edward B. Bar~r Mr. 9Cnaley M. Col~rt ~t=. J. L. McHa!e, III Mr. Lane B. ~ums~y County Administrator Ms. Sarb~a B~r~ett, Dir. office on Youth Ms. Marilyn E. Cole, Exec. Asst. to Co. Ad-min. ~r$. Doris R. DeHart Asst. Co. ~gi~. Svcs. and Intergovern. Affair~ Mr. Willlam D. Dupler, Building Official Chief Robert L, Eane~, Jr., ~. Hi~ael Golden, Acting Dir., Putts und R¢Creatio~ ~r. ~rad~o~d s. Deputy Co. A~in., ~. Willi~ ~. Howell, Dir., Planning ~. Ro~rt L. ~n ~ervices 0ir., Env. Engineering County Attorney Mrs. Pauline A. Mitchell, D~r.~ News & Publi= Information Services Police Department clerk to th~ ~oard Dir., Budget a Management Mr. ~. D. Stith, Acting Deputy Co. Co--unity Development ~r. David H. weluh0n~, Di~., Utilitie~ Credit ~ion Daniel called the regularly mcheduled m~eting to order at ~.m. (EST). ~, APPROVAL OF ~NUTE~ 0~ ~otio~ of Mr. ~eHale~ seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board approved the minutes cf September 22, 199~, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous 1,~, ~E~.~R 23, 1992 On motion o~ Mr. Mc~ala, seconded by Mr. Celhert~ the Bea~d Voter Unanimous 1.C. ~BPTE~BER 24, 1992 On ~otion of M~, ~oHal~, s=¢onded by Hr. Colbert, the Board approved the minutes of September 24, 1992, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous Time: ~. CO~Y ADMINISTRATOR'S CO~ENTS /4r. Ram~ey referred to a recent article in the Virgini~ Am~ociation Of Counties Mew~letter reg~ding twenty-eight Countie~ which hove maintained their "~" Bond rating and in which Che~t~rflel~ was ~ne of ~our co,ties in virginia year, 140 Bond ratings fo: varlsus localities had been down graded. He then introduced Chief Rob~ L. Chief Ea~e~ ~eviewed a cit~en ~elf-help pro~am the Fire DeDartment and stated in the Fa~l and the Spr~ng ~ossibility was ~eater for fo~est fires. He further the Fire DeDartment would ~e distributing a brochure to citiz~s ~nfo~in~ th~ of measures to prevent forest fires the Fire Depa~ment would be distributing the doorhanging bro~e at ~e homes of all residents residing in the 3, BOARD COMMITTEE R~ORT~ Mr. Mc~ale stated he had recently visited Schema County in ~allfurnia and tha~ counties in California wer~ experiencing significant budgetary shortfalls and w~re initiating a prouess in which County employees~ w~th the exception of police and fire, would be required to take five hanna=sty leave days without pay in order to save $2 million in their budget, He f~rther stated he felt Chesterfield ~hculd be commended for not having ts resort to the~e type~ of budgetary constraints. Mr. Barber stated he had held his "Fir~ Ho~ay" ssnstltusuts meeting with th= topis of discussion being i~mues related to shrink~swell soil~ and noted he had received input on the issue from many citizens. ~r. colbert stated he had ha]d his monthly eenstituuntx ~eeting in which the topic off di~cu~e~ had also been issues related ~0 shrink/swell soils and he had al~e received 92-759 10/14/92 significant input from citizen~ and noted he had attended the Cratsr Planning DistriGt Commission meeting. Hr. warren stated he had held his monthly constituents ~eeting in which the topi~ o£ 4isou~sicn had also Been issues related to shrink/swell soil~. He expressed appreciation to staff for noted he had the opportunity to partielpats in a panel discussion with et-her government officials from murrounding j~ri~dictions for the Institute of Emerging Leader~ which focuses on government ~seue~ aimed a~ ~igh school students. also focussing on i~ues r-laCed tO shrink/swell soils and indicated he had received significant citizen input which was q~ite different a~ ¢ompare~ to the input received by the other Supervisors who had else held similar meetingm. He further stated he had attended the Richmon~ Area Ketrupolitan Trenspertatio~ Planning Organization meeting and the Richmond Regional Planning ~istriot Commission meeting and a conference ~eeti~g with the Executive BO&~d for the Virginia Association of Counties and noted they were loe~ing forward to their annual conference in November. Time= 3:t~ p.m. 4. REOUE~T~ ~0 P~STPONE A~TION, EM~Cy ~DDITION80~ On motion u~ Mr. Colbert~ seconded by Mr. HcHale, the Board r=placed Item 6.A., Initiation of Rezonlng for 9801 H~ll Street Road from B-~ to C-~ with an item entitled~ Bea~d Actious Regarding the Regulations cf Business Uses in Close ~rex~m~ty to Residential Uses and added Item 6,E.17., Award of Construction Contract to A~AC virginia, Inc. £or Completion of Fairpi~es, Sections 4 a~d 5, to follow Item 6.R.Ig., Authoriaation to ~x~rcise Eminent Do,in So= ~e ~on Air Waterline Rehabilitatio~ Project and, adopted the agenda, as Vote: Unanimous T~me: 3:14 p.m. Mrs. De,art reviewed the legislative timetable and each proposed Charter a~endment. Discussion, comment= and questions en~ued relative addressed as general law; impaot f~e legislation ~ing similar to ~orth~n Virginia; an~ the i~ue of deferring revenue for a m~als tax whi~ r~v~nue would be dedicated t0 so~0ol Droj~ct~ until ne~t ~s. D~art th~n ~evie~ed the propos~ co~nlty development requesting the County ~ exempt from ~ub~taDtial accord review by any p~lic ~acility aDDrov~ by ~e Board of Supervisors followin~ a publie 5ea~ing pur=uant to th~ ~oning Ordinance; t~e specific projects re~e~ted by th~ governing b~y of a locality; whether ~he County could chang~ the proces~ conducting building inspection~ to e~ur= builders are held 92-760 10/14/92 / a~countabl~ for building violaticns~ and whether the County could require a bonding provision for builders. Mrs, De/{art then reviewed the proposed changes relatlve to the ad~inistraticn/s££ioien=y of government i~ea~s. ~r. basle1 stated he recently wa~ made aware of a particular locality petitioning the Virginia Department of Transportation to give legal statue to s ~etrepoliten planning organization and indicated ha felt the Board ~hould oppose such a request. After brief discu~mion, it WaS generally agreed to consider requiring a 7-year "roll back" period when the property comes out of the land use designation instead of the current 5-year "roll back" when the Board ~eet~ with the Legislative Delegation at their regularly ~cheduled meeting on November 12, 1992. T~ere was brief di~cussiun relative to granting members of local Crime Solvers ¢ommissicns immunity from liability. items and the proposed regional items. There was discussion relative to the proposed regional items a~d Mr. Daniel stated he felt an additional item should be included in the appropriate category t~ consider amending ~he autherity for the Richmond Metregslitan AUthority to ailow for a restructure of equal representation a~eng partlolpatlnq localities. Mrs. DeHart stated those items, with the exception of tho~e deferred, specifically agreed upon by the Board of Supervisors (l= is noted a copy of =he Oral= Proposed L~gielative Program is filed with the papers cf this Board.} Time: 3:§2 p.m. ~.~B. S,OLID WASTE K;u%'A~EMENT Mr. ~ammer stated solid waste ~anagem~nt Was a complex issue and the County was involved in the a~ea~ ef collection, disposal and recycling and ~o~id wa~t~ wa~ a regional problem. He reviewed the attributes of ~olid waste issues such a~ market~; state mandates with which the County I~/st comply; and hew; realigning existing services; Wh=th=r the service should be public or private; ~he cost to operate and muln~aln e~isting landfill~ and repairing closed landfills to meet environmental regnlations. He reviewed the number of homes recycling programs. ~e th~n introduced Mr. W~ll~am ~ewell, and stated the issues associated with the Collection proces~ were whether the servXGe Was required or needed, whether the cost und how. Ke further stated the County was exDerlmnclng a significant increase ~n denand for this se~vi~e; that the trash service duplicate~ what i~ ef£er~ by the commercial demand if the County Continues to provide trash collection ~-761 10/14/92 ...... ICl .L i ~L, L L thm m~vi~e was nmmded sin~s it is offered by the private sector end whether the service was based on need or location. F~r. Howell stated the private sector haulers view the "free~ service as ~nfair competition. Mr, Colbert stated the County has been in the collection service since the 1930's and was providing the service prior to it being offered by the private sector and he felt the County should continue to provide the service. Mir. Howell atated t~hs demand for r~he service was eprea~ throughout t/~e County in both urban and r~al area~ and he ~en reviewed the to.age collected by County forces and the increased demand for the ~ervlce which ha~ grown ~y ~,500 homes in ~e lust twelve months; the options available including continuing to provid~ th~ ~rvi=~ by ~xpanding elimination of the ~e~ice with ~e County utilizing sanitation, crews for other services such as yard~a~te, bulky waste and/6r r~oycling colleotion; ~arging for ~e ono~ inoluding wetly collection of leaves ~d grass olippings and the ~xtenmiv% leaf collection pro. am in ~e Fall and Sprinq; ~e ~ost o~ providing ~e once per month trash service; Friday bagged leaf collection and ~e seasonal leaf collection month trash se~ice~ the County wa~ lo,lng $900,000 annual revenue in tipping f~ms at =he landfills from the tonnage collected in County trucks. Ee then reviewed the disposal ~rvlces ~rovlded by the County ~nclud~ng the operation of th~ Northern Area Landfill, ~e S~uthern ~ea Landfill and the Winterpook Dumpster Site and noted there were imDendin~ State an4 fe~ral re~lation$ which would re.ir= significant up.ados to the Landf~ll~. of services bein~ provided by ~ County versus the private ~. Daniel in~t~cted ~taff to pr~pa~e a eo~t analy~i~ of No.em Area Landfill and noted ~i~ L~ndfill si~ficant an~al revenue for funding o~er progra~ ~¢h ~ea ~ndfill an~ th~ Winterpock Dum~mter Discussion, cc~ent~ and questions ens~e~ r~lative to capital r~overy and whether a reserve was set up fo~ closure cost and long te~ ma~nt~nanc~ of ~lOSed landfills. Mr. Howell ~en reviewed tho opera=ion of the southern Landfill and stated ~ Co~ty could di~po~e of it~ level of waste for the next thirty y~ar$ through red~$1gn the Northern ~ea Landfill and redesign and reconstruction of the Sou~rn Area ~fill. H~ fu~er stated there impending State and federal regulatiOnS which would ~$nsiv~ upgrades to the Landfills and reviewed ~e revenue and e~enditures a~sociated wi~ ~e Landfill~ and dlspo~al facilities. site so,iced a ~mall n~er of customers with the service being s~sidized by tipRing fee revenue Erum the Northern L~ndfill and qeneral ta~ revenues. 10/14/9~ site k~ing fully manned versus unmanned. Mr. Howell stated the Winterpock Dumpster site was not cost effective and reviewed the costs of recent ~epuirs to the closed C~ester and Fort Darling Landfills and the ~eed similar repairs to the Ban Air Landfill. Disoussion~ Oom~e~ts amd questions ensued relative to the Closed landfills being in compliance with State and federal regulations and the liability of the County when private landfills go out of business. Mr. Howell then reviswed the regional issnem ~elatin~ to solid waste management amd stated the County is an active member of the Central Virginia waste Management Authority and reviewed the County's obligation under the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. T~e~e was brief discussion relative to the mandate for the County to recycle certain percentages by designated dates. Mr. Howell then reviewed the cost per month for the drop-off centers and the options available for trash collection and reeysling programs. numiber of ho~es receiving weekly curb~ide recycling services; provide bulky waste and new~pap~r collection programs; the alternating recycling option~, ~eme of which provided for elimination of the monthly trash collection with the ~. ~ammer ~tated the issue of solid waste manaq~m~nt should needed to be addressed. ~e further stated the County should pT0vide some type of bulky waste amd yard waste ~ervio~ therefore, staff was recommending elimination of the once per month trash sea-vice or the implementation of a fee if the further Stated ~taff was recommending the initiation of a ourbside re=ycling program with a weekly or bi-w~ekly environmental pre=action program of repair±ag the closed Ban Air Landfill. He further stated ~taff Was recommending ee=~ing a public hearing to receive citizen input ~egardlng solid waste management. When a~k~4, he ~tated the solid Waste staff. There was brief dls~um$io~ relatlve to the cost of expanding the ourbside recycling program. Boar~ to $~t the date of ~cvember 24, 1~92 at 7:00 p.m, for a public hearing to consider the direction of the County's Solid Waste ~anagement Progra~ with proposals for 5he expansion or eli~inatio~ of the County's recycling, t~ash collection and landfilling operations. There was brief discussiun relative to =he public hearing~ already scheduled. p.m. for a public hearing to ce~sider ~lle direction of the 10/14/92 County's Solid ~aste Management Program with proposals for the e~p~nsion er revision of the ¢o~nty'~ recycling, tr~h collection and landfill oporation~. vote: Unanimous Time: 4:44 p.m. .~]~_~O~E PROXIMITY TO RESIDE~IAT. DSEB Mr. Daniel stated he recently attended a public meeting in which approxi~tely two hundred citizens were pre,ant and they had e~re~ed oonce~ns relative to land u~e~ zoned in 1967 longer ~eing appropriate for certain areas. ~e further stated ~e ha~ reoeived a petition with approxi~tely seven signat~es re~esting ~e Board to initiate the process for rezoning and he wa~ race--ending a ~ee ~tep proce~ the Play,hq Mr. Daniel then made a motion, s~conded by ~. Warren, for ~e Board ~o r~f~r ~he following maC,ers to ~he Pla~ing I. Initiation of a study of the appropriateness of rezoning C-1 zones in corridors where co~ercial zoning rmlat~vely n~ residential zoninq. This act/on would affect the undeveloped area~ ~etwe~n the motel on Route 360 a~ ~esidential areas; ~nd Initiation of a process fo~ t~e development of motel/hotel re~latory ordinance under ~e County ' poli~e powe~ ~at wo~ld more ~triCtly regulat~ operation of motels/hotels; and rezon~ng Tax ~p 49-8(1) Part of Parcel 1~ fr~ B-3 to C-2. ~en amkmd, ~. Wicas state~ a do~-zoning would be ~ubje~t to a higher test than the no--al zoning process and ~e re~e~t was 9or t~e Planning Co~ission to oon~ider ~e feasibility Mr. Daniel stated his motion did not do---zone the property b~t WO~I~ initiate ~e process fo~ consideration. He furor of the cowry in issuing building p~its if the appi~cant roll,ed the appropriate ~tep~. ~. ~ani~l repasted r~quest be considered at the Pla~i~g Co~i~ion~s re~larly motion ~de by him, seconded by ~. Warren, for the Board to refer ~e following matters to the ~lanni~g 1, Initiation of a .study of ~e a~Dro~riat~ess of rezonlng C-1 zones in corridors where oo~erclal zoning is affect the undeveloped areas between the motel ~n Route Initiation of a process for the development of a motel/hotel r~gulatory ordinance under the County's 92-764 10/14/92 police power ~at would mars strictly regulars the operation of motelm/hotels. Initiation of a ~tudy to determine the £easlbi!ity of rezoning Tax Map 49-8 (11 Pa~ of Parcel 14 fMom B-3 to Time: 4:50 p.m. E,~, DiREO~ P~I~ ~OF~ZSSZO~ TO QQ~BZDBR .~ONI~G AMENDMENT R~I~%TI~ T~ BITE ~L~NAPi~RO~/~L ~. ~ani~l ~tated initiation of directing ~e Dla~i~g cotillion to cunzider a zoning ordinance amen~ent relative to mite plan approval wa~ directly related to the Drevlous action an~ wo~ld allow chan~e~ in t~e site plan ~vie~ process to more sffectively involve affected nearby property o~ers and h~ was re~esting ~i~acting the Planning Co~is~ion to review and teen.end action re~iring ~at all site plans ~pprov~d ~ the Planning On motion of ~. Daniel~ ~c0nded by ~. McHale, the Board ref~rr~ tO the Planning Co~ission, for reco~endat~on~ a zoning ordin~ce amendmemt VOte: Unanimous On ~otio~ of Hr. Barber~ ~eco~ded by ~. Colbert, the Board, p~sunnt to Sections ~7-36 of the Code of Virginia, appointed Lieutenant Edward F. Fuzy as Assistant Fire Marshall ~Bd rsmovsd Dat~alion Chief Paul W. ~au~er, Captain Mark R. Nu~t and Cap~ain ~ond J. Burr a~ A~i~tant Fire Marmha~$ a~ they no longer hold pos~tio~ approprla~e fur r~tentlon of the appointment as Assistant ~i~e Mac,hal. Vo~e: Unanimous T/me: 4:~ p.m. ~.C.2, METROPOLITi%N RICH]4OND COL~F~NTT~i%ND VT~ITOR~ ~UREAU It WeS generally agreed to defer con~idmration of nemlnationa to the Metropulltan Richmond Convention a~d Visitor's Bureau Time: 4:52 &.D. ~TREETSX~T On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by F~r. Colbert, the Dnard de£erred the ~treet light installation cost approval for the intersection cf A=orn Hill Ceur~ and Tall Hickory Drive, in the Clover ~ill Maqister~al District, until January 13, 19~3. Vote: Una~im0Rs On motion of Mr. Colbert, deferred th~ street light i~stallation co~t approval i~ the lo/14192 vicinity of 19710 White Fawn Drive, in the Matoaca ~egieterial District~ until November 12, 1992, Vote: Unanimous (It was noted since streetligkt installation cost approvals for the intersection of Evergreen East Par~way and LUCKS Lane, the intersection of Bixby 5~n~ and Magerty Lane, and the intersection of Bixby Lane and Woodpecker Road were not a44ressed, the requests wold be considered at the next regularly ~chednled mooting on O~tober 28, On motion of Ffr. Barber, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board approved th~ ~treetlight installation eoet approval for the intersection of Aehburn Road and Penuche Drive, in expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Account. (It is noted ~ere was no cost to install the light.) Vote: ~animous Time: 4:54 p.m. approved estimated revenues and appropriations by increasing increasing the Attendance and Health appruprlatlon category by $50,000 to implement the school/community health clinic project; increased state funds by $~3,~o~ in the school ~oard category by $33,00o to implement Froject VITAL; increased $5,000 and increased the Instruction appropriation category by a like amount to implement th~ Integrating Technology with fu~d~ by $~,000 in the School Board Grants Fund and increased the Instruct{on appropriation category by $5,000 to implement the Career Development Gran~; and appropriated $38,900 in the Health Department to fund two positions for the pilot health services program. Vote: Unanimous 6.B.Z. APFROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR SCKOOL EO~D~RANT On ~otlon of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board approved reven~ and appropriate changes for ~Y1993 Headstart Grant by approving the additlonal Federal grant ewer4 of $27~152 a~d requested an increase in the Instruction appropriation by a like amount an~ FY19S3 carl Perkin~ Grant by reducing the esti~atsd revenues and the Instruction appropriation by $10,240. Vote~ ~nanimous 6.E.3. ~UTNOH~TXON TO EXPEND CLOFER KILL SPORT~ COMPLEX ~UNDE FON B~SEBALL;~OFTBALL.~IELD IMPRO~EHE~TS After brief discussion, on motion of ~. Mc~ale, ~ec~nde~ by M~. Warren, the Board authorized u~e of $~,000 from %h~ clover Hill Sports complex ACcount for renovation and lighting of ballf~elds primarily at Rockwood Park and Manchester High S~ool and di~oo~tinued coBsideration of the West P~ovidence Hill Sports c~lex. And~ further, the Board will take under Consideration restoring the $285,000 ballfield i~provement coats to the Clover Eilt Sports Complex Project as a part cf the i994 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Vets: Unanlmeu= ~,.E.4. Au-x-.ORI~ATION FOR COU)F~Y ADmINISTraTOR TO EXECUTE C~E PL~ On motion of ~. ~oHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, ~h~ Boa~ au~orized the Cowry A~ini~trator to execute h~alth care plan =Qntrac~s for calendar year 199Z with Southern Heal~ Se~ices, CIGNA, Pruca~e of ktc~ond, and ~tue Cross and Blue Shield of Vlr~in~a, subjec~ to approval by the County Attorney 6.E.5. A~EORZSATtON FOR ~OUNTY ADMINISTF6%TOH T~ ENTER i1qTO authorized the County Ad~ihistrutor to enter into special project servie~ agreement~ with the Central Virginia Waste Management A~tke~ity for yard waste compsetlng. Vote: Unanimous 6.E.6. ~ME~DMENT ~ CONTP,%CT ~ITMp~;kNGRA~IO~. IN~. FOR CON~TING ~ERVI~E~ R~L~T/N~.~0 THE ~O~ i~O~TION SYSTEM On motion of ~. MOHalk, Seconded by ~. Warren, ~e Board authorized ~ County Administrator to amend the existing contract with PlamGraphi=~ Inc., in an amo~t not to exceed $45,650, %o include addltional ~iCe~ related to Infection System. Vote: Unanlmou~ 6.E.7. APPROVAL O~ ~WARD OF CONTRACT ~OR .F=%ST~R ~L~N O~ EPPINCTON PL~Iq~T/ON After brief discussion, on ms, ion o~ ~. McHale, ~econded ~ ~. War~e~, the Soard awa~d%d a construction contra¢%, in the amount of $3~,900, to Carl~on ~bott and Partne~, P.C. for master planning ~ervioe~ of Eppington ~lantatlon. (I~ i~ noted said f~ds ar~ available in ~e Eppington D~nation Account.) Vote: Ununi~ou~ 6.E.S. SET DATES ~0R PUBLI~ HE:%RIN~S 6.E.S.a. TO ~NRIDER A ~RO~lqD L.F~%$E WITH S~TC~I~ I~. ~OR ~ T~LECOMHUNI~TIONE ~QW~R On motion of ~. McHale, ~con~e~ by ~r. Warre~, t~e Board ~e date of Nove~e~ 12, 199~ at 7:00 p.m. for 92-767 10/14/92 hearing to consider a ground lease with ~m~rlcan Tower~,Ine. for a telec~mmunioati0ns tower, Vote: Unanimous 6,E,S,b, TO CONBIDER AN ORDINANCE TO ~KEND THE CODE OP ~NDING ~ REE~TIN~ ~E~ION8 ~-2 ~ RELATING TO ~INE A~D, ~E~I~X~LY, ~E~EB~ P~- BELLIED PI~8 On motion of Mr. M~ale, zecond~d by M~. Wa~, t~e Board the date of Nove~er 12, 1992 at 7:00 n.m. for a hearing to consider an ordinance to ~end the Code of the cowry of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, Dy amending and r~acting Sections 5-~ and ~-3.1 relating to swine and, Vo~e: Unanimous ~E...$.c...TO CONSIDEBTHE ~PPROPRI~TION OF BEM~ININ~ 19~8 BOND th~ dat~ of October 28, 1992 at 7:OO p.m. ~or a public hearln~ bond proceeds and interest. Vote: Unanimous Dm motion of Mr. McHalet seconded by ~r. ~arren~ the Board approved a bingo/raffle ~ermit for st. Edward-Epiphany Home and School A~ociatlon for calendar year 1995, This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordunc~ with directions ~rom thi~ Board, made report in ~riting upon bis examination of Old LeWi~ton Road and Vollie Road in Ashley Wood~, Section I and a portion oS A~hley Woo~s, Section Clover Bill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of seconded by Mr. Warren, it is resolved that old Lewie%on Road amd Vollie Road in Ae~ley Wood~, Section I and a portion of hereby a~e e~tabliShed as public roads. A~d be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Traoeper~a~ion, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, 01d Lewieton Road, beginning at existing Old Lewlston Road~ State Route 3410~ and going easterly 0,11 mile to the inter~eotion with Vollie Road, then turning and going northeasterly 0.05 m~le~ then turning amd going northerly 0.09 mile, then turning and going northeasterly 0.0S mile to a cul-da-ee¢; and V011ie Road, beginning at the intersection with Old Lewiston Road; and going northwosterly 0,06 ~ile to tie into existing Vollie Road, State Route 3414. Thi~ request is iocluelve ef the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone ~nd designated virginia Department of T~ansportation drainage easements. 92-768 10/14/9Z And he it further resolved, that the Board of SUper¥i~ors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transports%ion an unrestricted right-of-way Of 50' with necessary easements for cuts, ~ills and drainage for all 0~ th~$e roads. These sections of Ashley Woods are recorded a~ follows: Seution I. ~lat Book 70, Page 1, Febr~al-l~ 26, 1990. section G. Plat Book 48, Page 81~ March ll~ ~985. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engin~ar, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hie examination of Corryville Road, Corryville Terraus, and Corryville court in Brandon, Section F, Clover ~ill District. Up0~ consideration whereof, and on ~oti~n of Mr. Ms~ale~ sesonded by Mr. Warren, it is resolved that Cerryville Road, Corr!rville T~rrace, and Corryville Cour~ in ~randon, ~so%iQ~ F, Clover Hill District! ha and t~ay h~re~y a~e established aa public roads. ~nd be it further resolved, that the Virginia D~gartment of Transgertatlon, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Corr~ville Road, b~ginnlng at existing Corr~rville Road, State Route 4~9~, and gei~g westerly 0.0~ nile to the inter~ctio~ wi~h Corryville Terrace, then continu~ng westerly 0.0~ mile, th~n turning ~nd going southwesterly 0.07 male to the intersection with corryville Co~rt~ then contln~i~g southwesterly ~.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sacs Corryville Terrase, beginning at th~ intersection with Corr~rville Road and qoing northerly ~.05 mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac; and Corryville Court, beginning at the i~tersection with Corryville Road and going southeanterly O.0~ mils to end in & cul-de-sac. This request iu in=luslve of the adjacent ~lo~e, ~ight distance, clear zone and designated virginia Dep~rtment of Transportation ~ralnage easements. 9uuruntee~ to the Virginia Department of Trans~ortatlon an unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage for all of these roads. This section of Brsndo~ As recorded as follows: Seatlon F. Pl~t Book 7~, ~ages 13 & I4, August 13, 1990. This day the Cs=nty Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in w~itln~ upon hie examination of Malbon Way~ Morgan Trail Drive, ReRrtside Place, and Furmhill Lane in Old Creek West, Section 8, Clever ~ill Distris=. U~on ¢oneid~atio~ wher~of~ and on motion Of Mr. McHule, seconded by Mr. W~rren, it i~ resolved that Malbon Way, ~o=gae Tra~l D~ive, Hesrtside Placa, and Fal~mhill Lane in Old Creek 92-76~ West, Sestlon 8, Clover Hill Distrist, bs and they h~eby are established as public roads. knd be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of T~anspertation~ be and it hereby i~ requested te take ihto th~ Secondary System, ~Ialbon Way, beginning a= the with Dortonwuy Dr~ve, Stat~ Route Z767, and going southerly beginning at the intersection wi~ Dortonway Drive~ sac; ~eartside Place~ ~eginning at ~e intersection with ~ interm~o~ion wi~ Dortonway Drive, state Route 2767, and going southerly 0.0~ mile to end in a temporary turnaround. ~is request i~ inclusive of ~e adjao~t slop~, ~ight An4 be it f~ther resolved, that the Board of supervisors ~arantee~ %o the Virginia Department of Transportation an cuts, fills and drainage for all of these This section of Old Creek West is recorded as follows: Section 8. Plat Rook ~, Page 1, August 12, 1986. This day t~e COUnty Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Boar~, made report in writing upon his examination of Dortonway Drive, Madras Court, and Madras Cirsle in the remainder of Old Creek West, Section 9 resubdivisiou of a portion of Belmont Farms, Clover Hill Diatriut. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Mc~ale, ~econded by Mr. Warren, it is resolved that Dortonway Drive, Madras Court, Madras Cirsle in the remainder of Old Creek West, Section 9 and a resubdivi~ien of a portion of Belmont Farms, Clover ~ill District, he and they here~y are establX~hed a~ public road~. And be it further re~elved~ that the Virginia Department of Trnnspcrtation, be and it hereby is requested to take ~nto the Secondary ~y~tem~ Dorton~ay Drive, beginning at existing Dor~onway Drive, State Route ~767, and going southerly 0.07 mile to end at the i~tersectiun with Mad~a~ Court; Cou~t, beginning at he intersection with Dortonway Drive and going westerly 0.04 ~ile te end in a cul-de-sac. Again, Madras Court, heglnn~nq at the intersection with .Dortonway Drive and 9oleg easterly 0.03 mils to t~e interseotisn with Madras Circle, then turning and going southeasterly 0.14 mile to end in cul-de-sac; and Madras Circle, beginning at the intersection with Madras Court, and going northerly 0.03 mile to end in a This request is inclusive o~ the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zon~ a~d designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easement~. And be it £urt~er resolved~ that the Beard Of Supervisors ~a~antees to the Virginia Dep&rt~ent of Tran=pertatlon an 92-770 ~0/~4/9~ unrestricted right-of-way of §0" with necessary easements for cuts, fill~ and drainage for Madras Courtj Madras Circle has a 40" right-of-way and Dortonway D~ive has ~ 60" right-of-way. This section of Old Cree~ West is recorded us follows: Section 9 amd a resnbdivi~ion of u portion of Belmont Farms. Plat BOOk 57, Page 51, June 19, 1987. Yeti: Unanimous This day %he County Environmental Eng~neer~ i~ aCCordance with direct~on~ from this Board, made report in writing u~on his examination of Carters Way Boulevard, Carters Way Road, Carters Crossing Road, Carters Way Court, Carters. Creek Drive, a~d Carters Creek Place in Carters Mill, Section ~, ~atoaoa District. UDon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. M~Rale, seconded by ~. War~en, it is re~olYed that Carters Way Boulevard, Carters Way Road, Carters Crossing ~oad, Car~erm Way Court~ Carterm Creek Drive, and Cutters Creek Place in Carters Mill, Section 1, Matoaca District, be and they hereby a~e established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, he and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Carters Way Boulevard, beginning at intersection with Beach Roads State Route 655, and going southerly 0.06 mile to e~ at th~ intersection wi~h Carters Way Roa~; Carters Way Road~ begi~i~g at the intersection with Carters Way Boulevard and going easterly 0.0~ mils to ~d in dead end. Again, Carters Way Road, beginning st the intersection with Carters Way Boulevard and gain~ southwesterly 0.18 mile to the intersection with Carters' Crossing Read and Carters. Way Court, then continuing southwe~terly 8.16 mile to the intersection with Carters Cre~k Drive, then continuing southwesterly ~.11 mile tc end in a temporary turnaround; Carters Crossing Road, begir~%ing at the intersection with Car=ers Way Read and going nnrthweeterly 0.~8 mile to end in a temporary turnaround; Carters Way Court, beginning at the intersection with Carters Way Road and going southeasterly 0.~6 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Carters Creek Drive, beginning at =he intersection with Car~ers Way Road and going ~outheasterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Carters Creek Place, =hen continuing southeasterly 0.05 mile to u dead end; and Carters Creek Pla~, b~glnnlng at the intersection with Garters Creek Drive and going easterly 0.14 mile to end in a c~l-ds-sac. This request is inclusiv~ Of the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated Virginiu Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 45 lot~. And be it further resolved, that the Board of ~uarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an unrestricted right-of-way cf ~0' with necessary easements for cuts, fills end drainage for all of these reads except Cartsr~ way ~oulevard which has a ~0' r~ght-of-way+ This section ef Carters Kill is recordsd as follows: Section 1. Plat Book 6~ Pages 99~ lOO & lOl. February 25, Vote: Unanimous 92-771 10/14/92 This day the County Environmental Zngln¢¢r, in aeoordanse with directions fro~ this Board, nade report in %rriting upon his examination of Early Settlers Road in North Settlers Landing, Section 4, ~idlo%hian Di~triot. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. McBale, seconded by Mr. Warren, it ia resolved ~hat Early Settlers Read in ~orth Settler~ Landing, Section 4, Midlothian Distrio%, be and it hereby is established as a public road. A~d be it further resolved~ that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the secondary System, Early settler~ Road, beginning at existing ~arly Settlers Road, state Reute 1775, and going northeasterly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Thi~ request i~ i~clu~ive of the adjacent elope, sight dlstanoe, clear zone and designated Virginia Dep~rt~ent of Transportation drainage easement=. Thio road ~erve~ ~4 lot~. And be it furtkgr resolved, that the ~oar~ of Supervisors ~restrict~ right-of-way of 5~~ with necessary easements for cnt~, fill~ and drainage for this road. This section of North settlers Landing ie recorded ae follows: section 4. Plat Book TS, Page ~8~ August 27, Vote: Unanimous ~.E~.XX......AG~EE~S ~ORMAINTENA/~gE OF ~TOP/~WATER D~AIITA~E SYST~S ~ ~E~MENT P~CTICE FA~ILITIE~ On motion of ~. EoHale, seconded by ~r. Warren, the Board authorized ~e County A~ini~=rato~ to execute an Agreement f~r ~intenanc~ of a Sto~water Drainage System and Be~t Management P~actice Facility with Burton & Wells, the developer of ~e~ter Run, with the County's o~ly i~volve~e~t being to assure the Maintenance Agre~ent i~ fallowed by the o~ as approved ~ the County Attorney. Vote: Unanimous ~.~.11.~. CO~R OFFICE~W~-REHO~SE On ~Otion of Mr. Module, ~econded hy ~r. W~rre~, authorized ~he county Adminietrater to exe=ute an Agreement for Maintenance of a ~tormwater Drainage System and Beet Management ~rao=ice ~a¢ili~y with ~ou~lae Conner, Jr., owner of Canner office/Warehouse, with the County's only involvement being to assure the Maintenance Agre~en= is followed by owner as approved by the County Attorney. authorised the County Administrator to execute an Agreement ~anagement ~r~ctioe Facility with Center Develo~rment Group, only involvement being to assure the Malntenan~e Agree~ent is followed by ~he owner as approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Mr. MoHale, secon~e~ ~y ~. Warren, the Board authorized ~e Co~ty A~i~istrator to execute a~ A~eement fo= Maintenance cf u arc,water Drainage System and Be~t Manag~e~t Practice Facility wi~ HCA JoY.ton Willis ~om~tml, owner of Johnston-w~11~ Women's Center Addition, with the County's only involvement b~ing Maintenance Agreement is followe~ by ~e o~e~ a~ approved by ~ Co~ty Attorney. Vote: Unanimous 6.B.X~.e. MCDONALD,~ AT ~I%~...HUNDRED ~O~J) ~ KING~0N A~U~ On motion of Mr. MoHale, ~¢conded by Mr. Warren, the ~oard authorized the County Administrator to exeou~e an Agreement fo~ Maintenance of a Sto~ater Drainage System a~ B~ ~anmg~ent Practlc~ Facility with M~Donald'~ Corporation, ow~e~ of McDonuld's at ~ast Hundred Road and ~g~to~ Av~nue~ wi~ =he Coun%y*M only involv~ent ~ing to am~u~m ~e Muint~ance Agr~t is followed by ~ o~er a~ approved by ~h~ County Attorney. 6.E.11.f. MICNA~ CREEK ~T MZDLOT~I~N On motion of Mr. MoHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board authorized the County Administrator to e~ecute an Agreement for Maint~nan=~ of a Stormwster Draina~ System and Best Management Practice Facility w~th Sons.ills Developmen~ Corporation, the devel0per of M~=haux Creek at M~dlo~ian, with the County'~ only involvement being tO ~ure the the County Attorney. On motion of Mr. McBale, seconded by Mr. Warre~, the Board authorized the County Administrator tO execute an Agreement for ~afn%enance o~ a Stormwater D~a~nsge System and Best Management Practice Facility with DuVal Development, owner cf Oak Lake Business Centre~ with the County's only involvement being to assure th~ Malntenan¢~ Agreement is followed by tho owner as approved by the County Attorney. vote: Unanimou~ 6.E.il.h. SOUTHCREZK. SHCTION i On motion of F~. McHale, ss¢on~e~ by Mr. Warren, the Board authorized the County Adninistratcr to execute an Agreement for Maintenance of a S~urmwater Drainage system and Best Management Practice Facility with Kill Development As~soiates~ Ltd., the ~eveloper of Seut~creek, section i, with the County's only involvement b~ng to assure the ~aietensnce 9~-773 10/14/92 Agreement is followed by the owner as approved by the County Attorney, Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr+ McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute an Aqreement for Naintenance of a stormwater Drainage system and sest Management Practice Facility with Continental Development corporation, the developer of stonebridge, section 6, with the County's only involvement being to assure the ~aintenanee Agreement is followed by the owner a~ approved by the County ~.,E.11.i. WIN~ DAVId EQUIPMENT COMP~/~Y On motion of ~r. ~c~ale, ~conded by Mr. Warren, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute am Agreement for Maintenance of a stormwat~r Drainage system and Best Management Pretties Facility with Davi~ Brothers Venture, the owner of wink Davis Equipment Company, wi~ the County's only followed by the owner us approved by the Co~ty Attorney. Vote: ~nanimous SERVICE WITHIN COUNTY PROPERTY LO~ATED ON OLD STA~E On motion of Mr. MeHale, ~e¢ondsd by Mr. Warren, the Bo~rd approved a request from Mr. Ja~s W. Blackburn to install a water service on County property located on Old ~tage Road ~nbjset tO the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity ~k~tch i~ filed with the paper~ e~ thim Board.) Vote: Una~imo~8 $.E.12.b. ~i~OM M~..__N~L~A~ ~. K0~O TO ~ONSTRUCT A FENCE ~bdivision, Sec=ion F, Blo~ I, LO~ $0, subject to plat is filed with =he paper~ of T/lis Board.) Vote: Unanimous WEATHER DRIVEWAY WITHIN TWO E~IBTIN6 50 FOOT RIV~RV~EW 0n motion of ~. M~ale, ~econded by ~. Warrem, the Board approved a request from ~. ~arney Mc~ughlin to construct an all wea~er driveway w~in two existing fifty foot rights-of- 9~-774 10t~4/9~ '1 way Known as Riverview Drive and Riverview Court mubje~t.to the execution of a license agreement. (It i~ noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.) vote: Unanimou~ ~.~.....1.3.... AFPRO~rAL OF BALES CONTR~T_FOR..~E ~CH~BB OP A~E~ ~ ROBIOU8 RO~ ~ G,B,S, MOLDINO, LIK~TED, A VIR;INIA ~ORPO~TION 0n motion o~ Mr. ~uHale, second~ by NT. Warren~ th~ Board authorized the County A~inim~ator to execute a sales contrac%, in the amount of $44~154, for the purohase of 2.676 ae~e~ along Robious Road from G.B.S. Holdln~, Limi=ed for relocation of Robious Road in conjunotion with the const~ction of the James River High School and the w~aver Elementary school and authorized the County A~inis~ator to sign ~e contract and necessary deed. noted a copy cZ ~he vicinity ~ke~ is filed with ~e papers of ~is Board.] ~...E.%4.. APPROVAL OF UTILITIEB CONTRi%~T FOR FOXCNOFT~ · ;C~=ON IV Project ~umber 90-0178, a~ follows, which project includes the 1,430 L.F. ~ of six inch, ei~h~ inch and twenty inch water cont~acto~ Lyttle utilities, Inc. Contrast A~ount: Estimsted total - $115,675.15 Total Estimated County Cost: .. Water (Oversizing) - $ 22,214.50 (Refund thru connections) Code: (ov~rsizing) - BB-572VO-E4C District: Clover ~ill Voto: Unanimous ~,E,XS,a, ~LONG HBLL ~TREET ROAD FROM CNL.I.NCONE FUND VIII~ LIMITED On ~otion of Mr. McHale, ~e~onde~ by Mr. Warren, the Beard accepted, on be/%alf of the county, the Conveyance of a five foot wide parcel of land alon~ Hull Street Road from CNL Income Fund VIII~ Limited and authorized the County copy Of the plat ie filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) Vote: Unanimous 6.N.XS.b. ALONO IRON~D~E ~OAD ~ROH ~. ~ ~S. O. F. CURRIN~ JR. ~N~ .M~.~. A2~D MRS, CH~RLEB M. KEEN. JR. On motion of M~. MeHale, s~cond~d by ~. Warren, the Boar~ accepted, on ~half of the county, the COnVeyance of a twenty foot Wide parcel of land along Iro~rldqe Road from ~. C. F. 92-775 1Q/14/9~ and Mrs. Anita S. Kuun and ~uthorized the County Administrator to e~ee~te the n¢ce~sa~ deed. (It is meted a copy of the plat iS filed with the papers of this Board.) A~ini~trator to execute the necessary deed. (Tt is noted co~y of ~he plot is filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) AIR WATERLINE REHABILITATION PROJECT 6.S,l~.a. FOH THE ACQUISITION OF A TWSL~ FOOT WATER EASIEST ACROSS ~ROPERTY 0WN~D BY DI~NNB M~LLORY- COBLEAND ED~'ARD LEE OOBLE On ~otion of Mr. McHala, seconded by Mr. Wsrre~, the Board outhorized the County Attorney to ~roceed with eminent domain, on a~ e~ergenCy basis, ~nd ~xercise immediate right of entry pursuant to $~¢tion 15.1~23~.1 of the Code of virginia for the acquisition of a t~elve foot water easement for the Ben Air Waterline Rehuhilltation Project across the pro~erty of D~anna Mallory-Coble and Edward Lee Coble, Tax Map ~17-8(1)4, and au=hsrized the County Administrator to notify the owner by certified mail on October 15, 199~ of th~ Connty'~ ~ntentlon to take possession of the easement. (It ~a noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of thi~ ~oard.) V~t~ Unanimous 6.E.~6,~, FOR THE ACOOISITION OF A SIXTEEN FOOT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACROSS F~OPRRTY ONNED BY ~CHN MeeABE ~REEN On motion of ~r. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board authorized th~ County Attorney to proueed with eminent domain, on an eauerge~cy ba~is, and exercig~ i~e~iate right of e~try ~suant to section 15.1-23~.1 of the Code of vir~{n~m ~or the Road, Tax Map 10-2(3)A-9, for the purchase of a temporary ~roject and authorized the County Administrator to notify the o~er ~ uertlfle~ mall on Oc=ober 15, 1992 of th~ Co~nty'~ int~tion to take possession of the easement. (It is noted a copy of %he ~lat is film4 wi=h ~e papers of t~is Boar~.) Vote: Unanimous FAIRPIN~_~ SECTIONS 4 ~ND ~ motion of ~. MoHale, seconded by ~. Wa~en, ~e Bo~rd au~orized the Cowry A~inlstrator t0 exe~t~ a ¢ons~ction con, aoX, i~ an amount not to exceed $53,490, fo~ the 9~-776 XOIX4/9~ sign the contra~t and necessary deed; aad appropriaLe~ $93~146 from the cash e~orow account fo~ Fairpines for the completion of subdivision work for Fairpines, Sections 4 and 5. 7. DEFERRED ITEK8 There were no deferred items scheduled at this time. There were no Hearings of citizens on Unscheduled Matter~ Clai~ ~ohed~led a~ ~his time. Time: 4:59 Mr. Ramsay pra~eotod tho ~oard with a report O~ the de¥oloper water and sewer contracts executed by th~ County Administrator. F~. Ramsay presente~ ~hc Board with a status report on the ~eneral Fund Balance; ~e~erve for ~uture ca~ital ~rojects; District Road and Street Light Pund~; amd Lease Purchases. Mr. Ramsay stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has fozmally notified the County of the acc~D~ance of the followinq road~ into the Stat= Secondary System: ERIN GREEN /Effective Ro~te 447~ (Glen oak~ Court} - From Route 609 to existing Route 4475 0.10 mile East Route Route 4478 (Erin Green Court} - From Ro~te 447~ to 0.20 mile South Route 4475 0.20 Mi ASH~ROOR, S~C~I~N 3 (Effeot~v~ ~--2-921 Route 4201 (Droadreach Drive} - From Route 4Z03 to 8.11 mile Southeast Route 4283 0.11 Mi Route 4210 (Halyard Terrace) - From 0.09 mile North Route ~01 to 0.09 mile Route ~l (~alyard Court) - From Rou~e 4210 to 0.07 mile North Route 4~0 0.07 Mi ~anow~a~K Route 3839 (Meadow Farm 0.17 ~il~ Sou~ Rout~ 663 RO~tG 3840 (~eaduw Park Drive} - From 0.15 ~il~ SOU~ Ro~te 663 Ro~te 3841 (Meadow Park T~rraee) - From Route 3848 to 0.0~ mile East Route 3840 Route 3842 (Meadow Park Cirole) - From Route 3841 to 0.06 mil~ South Route 3841 Route 3395 (Harrington Manor) - From Route 83~ to 0,09 ~ile ~orth Route 8~2 o. o8 Mi 0-06 Mi o. 09 Mi 9~-777 lO. On motion cf Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board recessed at 5:00 p.m. to the Administration Building~ Room 502, for dinner. vote: unanimous Reconvening: Time: 7:00 p.m. 11. I~VOCATION Kr, Daniel introduced Reverend Arlan Rose, Associate Pastor of House of Prayer, who gave the invocation. 12, PLEDGE OF ;J~LE~!~NCB TO T~E FL~G OF HE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mr, Halsey led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the U~ited $~ates CZ ~erioa, 13, RE~DL~TIONB ~N~ ~P~I~ RECOGNITION~ N~MIN~ ~_L~W...LIRR~R¥ AT T~E CNESTERFXELD ~OU~T~ BUILDIN~ ~E "~RED~IOK TH~ ~s. Mit~ell introduced ~s. Gray an~ seater th~ Law Libra~ at ~e new cou~ Building would be namer fo~ t~e Honorable ~edgrick Thews Gray, Sr. She noted a plaque would be presented o~ Octo~r 22, 1992 ~t the ~w Library ~esterfield/Colonial Heights Bar On motion of ~e ~oard, the ~ollowing resolution was adopted: ~ER~S, The Honorabl~ Frederick Thews Gray, Sr. represented Chesterfield Co~ty'~ ~l~venth Senatorial District in =he Virginia House of Delegates from 1966 to ~972 and ~e Virginia S~ute from 197~ to ~9~3; ~EREAS, S~ator ~ray, well kno~ for his courtly neig~ors in Be~uda Hundred, his fellow attorneys, Judge~ of of various Chesterfleld Co~ty Board~ with who~ major legislative ~¢ce~$ in 19~2 when he ~alned apgroval Qf hi~ bill tO re.ire child restraint devices in automobiles. MOW~ ~EFO~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of S~p~visors ~oes Droudly D~oolaim the Law Library at ~e ~esterfield County Courts Building to ~ named ~e "Fred~ri=k ~oma~ Gray, Sr. M~orial Law ~ibrary", and does hope ~at members of ~e legal p~of~m~ion who u~e thi~ facility a~pire to the high standards set by S~nator Gray. Vote: Unanimous ~. Daniel presmnted the ~ou~ resolution ~o ~s. Gray, 10/14/92 was w911 respected and known for ~is great 9uslitles. He further ~ated Senator G~ay was responsible for achieving excellence in the school System and h~ representsd the County well in the General Assembly. ~rs. Gray expressed appreciation to the Board and County citizens for naming the Law Libral-y at the C/%esterfield County Courts Building after Senator Gray and stated he would have been honored by the designation. ~$,B, ~E¢0¢NIZING THE MONTH O~ 0~TO~Ea, ~998 AS T~B FEDeRATiON OF ~OWEN~S ~L~B J~NXC~ ~.0~WOMEN RECOGNITIOW ~. stith iatro~uced Ms. Patty Cullen, Presi~Bnt of ~e Junior Federated Woman's Club of 0n motion of t~e Boa~d, thu following r~solution was adopted: ~ER~S, the S~n~r~l F~deration of Women's Clubs ~ited over lo million women ~n mo~e ~an 60 countries fo~. th~ promotion of their co~sn interest in education, ~hilant~opy, ~ublic welfare, moral values, ~ivics and fine a~t~; and ~ER~S, ~inc~ 1890, th~ G~eral F~deration of Women's the ~ht-h~ worki~g day~ ~e fi~t Federal Child ~bor Law ~ER~, thews ~neral ~ederation of Wo~n~s Clubs have b6~n vitally i~terested i~ bettc~unt of their co,unities, their =~tri~s and ~eir citizens; and ~S, ~e ~n~ral P~eratlon o~ women's Clubs Junior M~bership and the Virginia Federation cf Women's Clubs has declared octo~r, 1992 a~ "Junior Cl~wom~n Recognition Mon~" to promote an i~t~e~t for yegg women to join organization to give co~ity se~ice; and ~s, T~e J~ior F~derated Woman's Club of Chester bee~ asscciuted with the ~ral Federation of W~e~'s clubs J~ior M~ership ~inoe 1954 and has helped to betterment of our co~unlty and it~ c~time~ship by dedicating alone in dedicated pursuit of th~ worthy projects undmrtaken by its me~ershlp -- including Fall Festival presented each October in and for th~ Chester co,unity in an effort to fo~=~r awareness of t~e Club'6 activltius and to provide f~ds for scholarships to cam9 Easter Seal-~a~ &nd for ~he "Raising of ~e Roof" of ~e D0~ito~ ~n~x Building at Camp with donations in the last h~ue years totalling more than $5,000 a~d, by th= noble outpourings of consideratio~ for ~iend~ of ~e Libra~ through hel~ in th~ pr~otlon of p~o~ams in the p~suit cf literacy. NOW, T~EREPORE BE IT RESOLED, that the Chest~fleld County Soard of Supervisors does hereby proclaim the month of October, 1992, as "General F~d~ra~iun of Women's Club~ ~nior clubwomen Recognition Hon~" and callm u~on all citizan~ of Chesterfield County tO recognize the ~ervioe glvan by our women~ clubs and ~o honor ~. Daniel presented the executed resolution to Ms. Cullen and recognized th~ ~ervice given by ~e ~ster Women'~ Cl~ promotin~ ~ betterment of the Cu~uni~. 9~-779 10/14/92 Ms. Cutlen expressed appreciation to the Board ~sr the "National Red Ribbon Week", an effort to heighten public awareness for drug fr~ youth. 13.C. RECOGNIZING OCTOB~ 15. 1992 AS "INTEItNATION~ CRRDXT vlable, progressive i~stit~=io~. On motion of the ~oard, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, credit unions are individual, independent cooperatives founded by people seeking economic advancement condition of their lives and tho~e Of their families; and WHEREAS, credit unions call for the pooling of personal resources and leadership abilities for tlqe good of t/la cooperative, encourage a regular habit of savings so those in %~{~REAS, credit union~ join together in educational and me.ers; and service and economic opportunity in s5 nations around needs of 86 million members, associated through local, state. regional und international organizations sharing the same commitment to serving credit union ~em~srs; and W~EREAS, credit unions are workin~ to make flnam~ial democracy pog~ible for the people of Poland, Hungary, th~ County Board of Supervisors recognizes the Chester£isl~ County 199~, for its oontinuiu? inter~t in the welfare and ~ecurlty provida~ to the members~ personal investment in the Credit Union and ~or the many contributions made to the larqer c~mmunity, both tangible and intangible, through the years and for it~ ~ervice and commitment. Vote: Unanimous Mr. DanipI presented the executed resolution to Mr. Yavoraky and commitment to the County. Credit Union and noted the recognition would be acknowledged 92-780 10/14/92 i~.D. AECO~I2ING (~TOBE~ 14 - 21o 1992 kB '"W~HAI~ Mr. Masden introduced Mr. Edward Hebert and Mr. Dennis representing th~ National Wheelohai~ vete~an*s Founiation, and stated the Foundation was comprised of fourtee~ branches nation-wide and encourage DAy~ioally handicupped individuals to participate in competitive sports. On ~etion of ~h0 Board, the following resolution waa adopted: ~EREAS, the National ~aeluhalr Ve=erans Foundation is head~artered in Midlothian, Virginia, and its offices are located in Co~onweul~ CanOe, ~esteTfield County~ with ~E~S, it~ president and founder i~ ~. ~war~ A. Heart, a ~es~field cowry resident, who ~ a service conn.ct~d paraplegic injured in the line o~ duty while in the U.s. ~y~ and ~ER~S, one of the primary mi~ion~ of ~e Fo~dutiun to encourage the physically challenge4 to participate in ~ER~S~ competition fosters a ~ense of individual well-beinq of the Da~ticipunt~; and ~ER~S, ~ National ~eelchair Vet~anE Po~dation i~ proud oo-ho~t of =he Fi~ ~nual Eastern R~gional ~eelchaiv Bowling Tournament, which will t~e plac~ O~ 0etcher 16, and la u~ Ten Pin Coli~ in Richmond; and ~ER~B, o~e of ~e ~wler~ ~ ~eSterfield County re=ident and Ph~llp Morri~ ~m91oyee, Mr. Dave Ru~r~, who was ~oently ~ls~t~d Pre~iden= of the ~erican ~eelchai~ B~lin~ A~ociation; and ~R~$, Mr. Roberts lives in Kendal~ Acres and is a se~ioe connected disabled v~teran who lost his legs while ~e~ing wi~ ~he U.S. A~y in Vietnam; ~, th~ National ~eel~air V~terans Foun~atlon also ~e~ing as the official spon~or for wheelchair racer, Lar~ ~le~by, who is participating i~ the Ric~ond New,papers Now, T~E~FOR~ B~ IT RESOLVe, ~at the Chesterfield county Boar~ o~ SuD~rvi~orm doe~ ~e~eby r~c~ize the we~k of October 14 ~, 199~ as "~eelcha]r SpOrt~ Week# Chesterfield county and bTings this recognltio~ to the attention of all itm citizens. Vot~: Unani~ou~ Mr. Daniel presented the executed rezol~tio~ to ~r. Hebert Mr. Huey and stated co~petitio~ fostered a ~e of i~dividuml bF Philip Morria and it had been brought to his attention that Mr. Roberts had physically built a garage at his home wi~out Mr. H~be~, accompanied by ~e~r~ of his family, and for ~e recognition. Time~ ?:26 10/14/92 ~TING GENTLY TO THB STO~G~ OF DIBC~ED ~T~I~ Mr. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing %0 consider an ordinauce relating generally to the storage of discarded material. He further stated the amendment had been referre~ to the Planning CQmmissio~ at the request of Mr. McHale and the proposed amendment weald address Conditional use i~ ag~i~lltkL~a~ dfstrict~. ~ noted u full- time equivalent zoning inspector position, a~ an annual ¢0~= of $13,300, would be needed to manage these complaints and Sta~£ wa~ anticipating an additional 100 - 1~0 complaints. and indicated he felt flexibility should be allowed on the ~art of the inspector in deciding the applicability of the ordinance. No one el~¢ came forward to speak in favor of or against the ordinance. ~r. ~C~ale stated although it was difficult for the County to intervene in neighborhood dlspute~, he felt when disputes a~ong residents could not be resolved, the County should t~ke m~acur~ to then i~tervene an~, therefore, he supported the recommendation by the Planning Co~m~issi~n. There wa~ brief discussion relative to whether similar ordinances have been implemented in any of ~hu ~urreunding jurisdictions. On motion of Mr. ~c~ale, seconded by ~. Colbert, ~e Board adopted the folluwin~ ordinmnce: AN ORDINANCE TO A~END T~E C~DE OF T~E COUNTY O~_.C~ESTERFIELD~ 1978~ AS AM~qDED~ BY A~DIN~ AND REENACTING SECTIONS 21-5~ ~1.1-127 AND 21.1-281 RELATING GE~{ALLY TO THE STORAGE OF DISCARDED MATERIAL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of C~esterfield County: Chssterfield~ 1978, a~ a~e~ded, is ~mended and reenacted to read as fellow~: Sec. ~1-). Definitions. For the pu--w~osss of this oha~tar, =he followlmq words and phrases shall hav~ the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this ~e=tion: o e e Discarded material, sto~pe. The use of the op~n area of any let or parcel of land~ other than a properly ~o~e~ junk yard, for th~ depositing or storage of discsrded ~aterlal including, but not limited to, scrap metals or other sorap mater~al; used or scrap building, plumbing, electrical and heating muterial; discarded household appliances, furnishing~ an~ fixtures; ~ismantled or demolished motor vehicleser oth~r machinery or parts thereof. (2) That Chapter ~l.1 of the code of the county of Chesterfieldr 1978, as a~uended, is amended and reenacted to read as follows: o o o 21.1-127. Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed by COnditional use, ~ubject to the provisions of section 21.1-9. o o e StoraGe of discarded material. (h) Any permi==ed or conditional use allowed in the $-5 o~ I-3 districts ot~s~ than halfway house~. o o o ~ec. 21.~-28~. Definitions. For th~ purposes of this chapter, the following wor~s and ~hrases shall have the meenin~s respectively ascribed to them by this section: Discarded material. ~tor~ge. The uss of the open any let or parcel of land, ether tkan a D~Operly zoned junk yard, for the depositing or storage of discar4ed material including, b~t not limited to, scrap metals or other scrap material; use~ or scrap building, plum~ng, electrical and heating material; discarded household appliances, and fib%urns; ~ismsntled or ~emollehed motor vehicles or oth~ machinery e~ parts thereof. O 0 O Vote: Unanimous Time~ 7:31 ~.m. TO ~ONSIDER ~N ORDIN~NO~_T.O AMEND T~E CODE OP ~ OF THE OOZY O~ ~E~T~RFIE~D. 1978. ~S ~ED,_.B~ ~. Daniel stated issues regarding ~mages attributable to ~i~/swell ~oils and m~tter~ relating to th= ~uilding Inspection D~partment have ~en in existence since January and ~e Board ~ou~ b8 oonducting public hearings on the require. He fu~her ~tated the publlc hearings woul~ b~ called toge~er and ~itizen input would be received on all and assistance it,s prior to public input; that ea~ speaker should identify himsel~ and would be allowed Siva minu%es mhd 92-783 10/14/92 addrecs the icone after all citizens have had the opportunity to speak; that after the public haarin9 pruuesm was closed, the Board would entertain discussion on procedural and building inspection/practice matters and then would consider the assistance issues. Mr. Micas presented a elide presentation on the triassic area and the area now cubject to ~tricter foundation engineered requiremsnts under the new Program. Ms reviewed the County Administrator's proposed Foundation Protection Program as it related to funding sources includin$ increasing t2]e building permit fee for residential construction by $100, udoption of an ordinance franchising all residential contractors who build in the County; accessibility te the fund including requirements ~hat for the home to have been built after effective date of the Uniform storewide Building Code (!974), a citizen 25 percent "co-pay", a maximum "stop-loss" per resources of payments such as insurance and litigation, the f~n4 applying to structural d~mage caused by shrink/swell soil~ and excluding ~osmetio damages, homeow~er~ applying eliglbility within twelve months of the star= of the Program, the work have been completed, an~ a $100 application fee to be applied against the "co-puy" provision; and adoption of an ordinance franchising all real estate brokers and agents. then reviewed the creation by the County of pre-designed ~eunda%ion plans and raDalrs for racld~ntlal construction in shrink/swell areas; creation of a lift of contractors who would perform foundation repairs within an approved pricing system in order to prevent "price-gouging"; performance of sell testing and engineering design by the independent shr~nk/swell dama~e~ and a contribution plan from the develepment community for ~hcse developments within the shrink/swell areas. He then reviewed recommendations requiring General Assembly action including amending th~ Public Finance Act to permit the issuance of revenue bonds to pay for the ¢u~t of shriu-k/swe11 foundation damages with the bonds tn be ~epaid fro~ designated special Count~ fees and State legislation defining homeowners' and ~ounda~ion insro~anee policies to prevent excessive exclusions and re~ulrlng coverage for £uunda~icm ~amsges. He then reviewed the rec~endations for funding sources submitted by the Commission on soils and Foundations including an inorease in tl~e contractors business llcense tax from 14 to 16 cents per hundred. ~e then reviewed the major differences between the County A~inistrator's proposed Foundation ~roteotion Program and the Commission on Soils and Foundations' Assistance Fund including bom~ being built ~ft~r 1970 rather than 1974 being eligible for accent to the fun~; permitting retroactive payments to homeowqers who have already paid for foundation repairs with the appropriate documentation; no time restraints on homeowners filing for eliglbility for access to the fund; no limit on the amount of the r~pair cost to be funded by the fund; and ac "stop-loss" provision. He stated the commission's report included e~rengthening the huildin~ ip~eoticn function such as developing reuommendations for m~n~mum coils testing~ reportimq methods a~d evaluating the n~ed for a minimum footing design to be used on a County-wide basis that would exceed the existing Storewide Uniform Building code; reviewing t. be current building inspector's policy a~d ~aki~q recommendations as needed, in particular, the method now used tO i~ntify the areas where engineered footings are ~¢quired should be reviewed; preparing recommendations for preventive maintenance including a short form brnohure a~d a long form brochure to assist citizens in avoiding shrink/swell ~a~ago; preparing recommendations regarding p~ccedures used for subdivision approval which will identify those s0il areas where shrink/swell soils exist; 92-784 10/14/92 working with engineering geol0gis~ and soil science groups ts develop one set of reference methods for use in the County; evaluating Chesterfield County soils. ~e stated the ordinances would implement the funding sources for the County destruction and/or alteration of document~ and reviewed documents dated Uanuary 3i, 1992 regarding the State retention schedule for the purging of document~; a document dated February 4, 1992 also regarding the purging of documents; and the issuance of a subpoena to the Buildinq Official dated February 13, 1992 regarding the issuance o~ a particular altered or destroyed; that he had received a letter indicating the County did not keep copies of the attachments on lots tested by the soil scientist; that he had obtained espies of approximately 135 building per~its issued from the builder of his house with the codes imprinted~ and that the soil s~ientist had logged in 1984 and 1985 building permits. limit for sa~h s~eaker and the information presented being minute time limit to her husband, Mr. Rob=rt Karmas. relative to 8oning conditions an~ mandating geotechnical design foundations in Woodlaks and indicated the zoning %he County C~de regarding failure to comply with zoning conditions, condition~ and guarant~ an~ ~n£orQement and ensure the zoning conditions had been met; that he felt building permits should not have been i~ued in W0odlake and the Board should consider revoking the ~agnolia Green project until the builder addresses all affected homeowners in Woodlake and Brandermill; and that be had re=elved an Code violations be incorporated in the ~isdemeanor charges currently p~ndfng against his builder; he than re~erenced a the date was a Sunday; and =~at ~e ~elt the Board had been ~retectud. He noted he would provide copies of the documents at the request of the Board. ar. Daniel s~ate~ hs fsl~ the appropriate method would be for the documents to be zubmttted to the Commonwealth's Attorney's office. who had addressed the ~ourd; ~hat he ~aught his son to live by truth, honasty~ l~ve, justice and laws established 'by ~od; that he felt his situation has had a profound affect on his family; t~at the County should assist him and others in similar situations; that the government has not provided the necessary protection to its citizens; and that the Beard ~hould a~i~tthe citizens. Wnodlake; that he had no~ b~n advised by the builder or the realtor of the potential for shrink/swell soils; that he wa~ 92-785 concerned about t~e inability to determine whether hi~ homes were ¢0nstruetc~ in ac~rd~n~c with best construction e~ginee~ing p~aetices os minimum standards for located in shrink/swell soil areas; that he felt those responsible should be held liable and not the homeowners; that altl~ough not all of the districts were expsriencing problem~ attribgtable to shrink/swell soils, he fel~ each Board member should represent the interest of the entire County; and that hc supportc~ the recommendations submitted by the Commlssicn Mr. Steve Baril, immediat~ p~st Chairm~n of the Business govornment to udopt uppropriate Building Code.requir~ment~ for building inspectors to ensur~ builder~ adhere to those roqulrcmcnts; that he felt in the past, the County has been deficient in these two area~, however~ the County has taken the appropriate measures by employing additional Building inspectors, adopting new inspection procedures, employing an independent, auditor to as~e~ the Building , In~peotinn recommendations; tsar the CoIl~ty was co~sideri~g e/~ploying a full-time soil engineer and increasing foundation requirements; that he felt these wore all positive steps and the business community supports the current administration although at times, they have disagreed; that the Council did not feel it wa~ the providence of local government to disputes between home buyers and homo builders; that the soils pr0bl~m had act be~n quantified in the number of a~feeted ho~e~ the oa~$e Of damage to hom~s, the cost of repair and the time needed by the County to remedy ~he situation; t~aat the Council felt th~ reco~ended proposals would not resolve ~hu i~sues and proper recourse was and should be available through home warranties, the court system and the contractors recovery fund~ that the Council was opposed to the proposals su~mitted and noted he wa~ representing a fifteen ~oard, a fifteen member advisory board and the majority of the Council's membership [appro×i~tely comprised of 700) as well as a majority of nnnstituents residlnq in Ben~ley~ Boa Air, Beulah, Bexley and ~caeh area~ who were also o~pose~ to the creation of any type of assistance fund, Ms. Sally Keeler stated ~he has resided in the County for the past two years; that she has owned four homes during different periods a~d has experienced problems wi~h several of these homes and was experiencing foundation problems in her current home; that she worked out a ~olutio~ With the builder an~ the builder has resolved her enncerns; =hat she felt =ha situation was out of control and a solution needed to be defined; end requested the Board to use =heir leadership a~d move fol'waTd in resolving the Ms. Gall Tower stated she resided in Woodlake and"had moved to the County from California; that ~he had invo~tod $110,000 as a aswa payment at the time she purcha=ed her homo; that hot to sell it; that she had documentation stating her bom~ wa~ safe hut the inspector wo~ld not chock off the box =elating to shrink/swell ~oils; that ~he had not been informed of the potential £or shrink/swell soils when she bought her home; that realtnr~ were disclosing the potential for soil problens and potential buyers would not consider residing in that she was lo~ing her home and its value depreciating; that Mr. John Hawkswor~h stated ho resided in ~oodlake and Was experiencing foundation damage to hi~ home; that he attempted to roach an ap-roemont with the builder and the Building Official; that he felt there were alliances between the builder and the Building Inspection Department and he has been repairs without receiving a building pe~mit; that he had sent numerous written requests requesting the Co~e violations bo cited to no avail; that he wus told the County would not let the statute of limitations expire and on the last day, the builder had been permitted to submit his own waiver regarding the statute of limitatlons and tho County then obtained an irrevocable tett~r of credit, in the amount e£ $25,000, from tho builder even though the estimate for repairs exceeded $4o,00~; that the letter of credit had b~en ~ubmitted and accepted without his knowledge or consent; that the homeowner's engineering reports should be sufficient for the proposed repair~ that homeowners should not be placed in the position of negotiating with the builders and others; that he did not support the proposed 25 percent copayment; that he had recently received a letter fro~ his supervisor of his district indicating ho should cooperate with the b~ilder and he felt similar letters should have also been sent to the builder and County staff; and that the deei$io~ Sh0~ld be based in best interest cS the entire County. M~. ~udy Hawkswert~h stated she £elt the county was responsible for the proper inspections of the h~es and the ~yste~ had failed; that they had made repeated attempts to resolve their situation; that she was concerned about the appointments the Commission on Soil~ and Poundatlcns; that the County should accept responslbility and re~olv~ the is~u~ and she was opposed to tho ~5 percent so-pay~ent; and that the certificates of occupancy ha~ been issued by the Building Inspection Department and, therefore, the County should be halo responsible, )tr. Beyd Smith, President of the Richmsn~ Association of Realtors, stated he was representing approximately 4,000 members of the Association and 540 members of the Southside Virginia Association of Realtors; that they had the support Of the 28,000 members of t~he Virginia Association of Realtors and 760,000 members of the National Association of private property ~ights; thut they were concerned about as they felt tho County and all property owner~ have been injured by the media coverage regarding the ~onstr~ction p=oblumu; thut buyers do not want to live in the County because of probl~s relating to sD-rink/swell soils; that homes were decreasing in value end would continue to decrease if the same media coverage persisted; that they felt the problems being experienced were not related to ~bri~/swell soils but to construction; that shrink/swell soils exist all ever the country and in ~urrounding localities; that the media has exploited tbs problem and~ specifically, a~ it relates to Chester£ieId County; that as long as the foundation was properly englneer~d~ homes cold be built on soils; that the proper precaution would be to obtain a and foundation inspection to ensure the fo~ndation was engineered properly for the existing soil conditions; that loss than one percent of he.es built in t~e last ten years have been reporte~ to have problems; that h~ has been informed reputable builders were ready to go b~ck and correct problems ca~sed by inadequate foundations even i£ beyond the statutory time limit~; that funding for the Building Inspection Office had been reduced in the past and some foundation~ had been installed which did not meet the Code; that they felt the Ce%~ll~y Should devise a fair solution for the problem which would hold responsible partle~ accountable for their actions ................ .L_.,~[ ....... J ..[ , L I L or cna which would be bo~ne by all County r~sldent~ and businesses and not just a select greup; that realtor~ de not have expertise in detel~mining whet/~er footings ~ave been construmted properly for the s0il condition~; ~/%a= it would improper for realtors to suggest that a properly b~ilt tome wa~ defective just because it was built on shrink/swell soils; that realtor~ are bound by the National Association Realtor~ C~e of ~th~c~, the Virginia Real Estate B0a~d R~!attons and Virginia law wi~ regard to disclosure support, encourage and mandate full disclosure of material facts b~t they f~l% once ~ hom~ has been approved by =ha% t~e Assooia=ion wa~ Droao=iv~ on behal= of home buy~r~ protecting private property r~ghts and is currently addremming l~gi~lation to require ~eller~ =~ ~isclose all material def~ct~ and noted Virginia became one of the first states in %he nation to pa~s seller ~i~closure l~gislation in the 1992 ~meral Ass~bly; ~at they were opposed to some of th~ reco~endations s~mitted by ~e county A~ni~trator and ~e co~ission on Soils and Fo~dations and, in particular, any more bureaucratic bod~eE; and that they w~e aware of difficulty of the problem and felt effo~s should be made develop an appropriate aDproach to the issue. It was noted the majority of tho~e Dresent stood in support of 0f his Dr. Paul EdwaYd~ ~tated he ~e~ided i~ Woodlake~ that he felt the humeo~ers had been ~eated unfairly and many were reluctant to spe~ out for fear of jeopardizing ~e~r property values; t~at a Zair and comDr~hun~ive m~chanism should be Dot in place to co~ect ~tructural problems and ~e developers, ~e builders and the county ~hould be held responsible; t~at a compreh~nsive solution would not penalize current homeowner~ rmsi~inq in d~velopment~ e~erlencing probl~s attrlbuta~le to shrink/swell ~oil~; that h~ wa~ opposed t0 the reco~endation ~or the or~ation of an assessment di~trlct; that their constructing go~ homem; that h~ felt th~ government failed to protect and serve ~e citlzen~; that he wa~ to the 25 p~rcent co-pa~ent, the twelve mon~ eligibility provision, ~e maximum stop-loss per house, the requirement exhaust all other ~ource~ p~ior to a~ee~ to th~ fund. requirement that ~a foundation solution ~ aD.roved, and ~e p~ovision that coverage would only include damaqes ~ot building homes in accordanc~ with the B~ildi~g Code violations were not b~in~ cited; that he wa= not ~n agreement ~at ~e Board should make its decision in th~ best interest approxi~tely thirty years~ that his hone has e~erlenced de.ge attribu~le ~o shri~/swell soils and he has repaired ~t without assistance; that he wa~ not ~e~king for his ~umag~s and was. addressing prevention i~sues; t~t ~e mec~nisms ~ould b~ put ~n place to control f~t~re la~d development to it~ be~t ability and not a County function to mistakes; that he felt previous mimtakes w~e the responsibility of the ~ild~s and ~ose who oont=aote~ with =hem =o build on pmo~lem soils; that his house had been built construction; that his repairs co~t h~ approximately and he did not feel th~ County should compensate him but would like to see more strinqent measures implemented in the future; that he felt the Board should ensure the activities of the ~ouuty and Planning ~ommissien were strUctured to monitor satisfactory sits selection prior to building to prevent these types of situations from occurring in the future; and he felt if the Board was going to compensate for past errors, than all pust errors should be compensated. Mr. Zane Davis stated he has been a life-long resident sf the County; that hs has been a builder for the past forty years and has built homes on shrink/swell soils; ~hat he had placed the grade too low under the first house he hud built and from that point on, took great care in providing the necessary structures to build on shrink/swell soils; that he has never had any complaints registered and did not feel he should be resulted to pay extra fees for other builders' mistakes; that he felt citizens experiencing problem~ would be expecting the County not o~ly to fix their homes but to buy the homes they could not sell; and requested the Hoard to either deny or defer the entire i~sue. M~. Burr How~3cd stated he was a resident of Dale District and was opposed to the proposal to franchise realtors and contructors; that he was concerned about the i=sue b~ did not feel t~he problem had been clearly defined; that the issue was a matter of poor construction and the ~p~eific parties should k~ identified; that he did not feel it was fair to held select group respon~ible for contributing ts the assistance ~und; that the appropriate recourse should be through the court system; and that ~ffort~ should h= made to consider other solutions ts the problem rather then those outlined. Ms. L~nda Boqgs stated ~he was a resident of Woodlake; that she had attended the Brandermill community meeting and was not in agreement with the proposed Foundation Protection Program; that she has already paid to repair the damages to her home; that she could not ~ea~ibly sell her home; that she was opposed to the ~5 ~erceot copayment, th~ $20~000 stop-loss provision, the requirement to exhaust all other =venues for payment, the approval for pre-designed fsundation~ and the twelve ~enth eligibility requirement; that she felt a solution should be found in the best interest of all citizens; and that she felt tb~r~ were greater ~,,~hers of homeowners a£feoted than realized and eventually the economic impact would affect the entire County. Ms. ~athleen Kondylas stated ~he resided in ~randermill and was experiencing damages attributable to ~hrink/swe11 ~oil~ and poor construction; that she had contacted the State and the County and they inspected her house; that the chimney did not meet the Building Code and she was told it would have to be repaired or the house w0~ld b~ condemned; that she then contacted the builder and the Buildiag officlal; t~at she contacted a la%tier but the stutute of limitations had expired; that the builder was unwilling to .help repair the chimney so ~he had the repairs made; that She attempted tO 1Odg~ complaint with the ~oard of Contrantsrm as she felt it would then be recorded aqainst the builder but was informed that ~ince the Co~ty would no~ cite the build~r, the Board of Contractors could not consider a CO~plai~t against the builder; and that she had attempted to work within the system but there were no a~ailable remedies. Mr. Mike "Smith" stated he did not wish to identify h~mself; that he resided ~n M~dlothian District; that in his immediate neighborhood, there were approximately five homes e~eri~n¢ing problems attributable to shr~n~/swell soils and his home was one of them; that he WaS censsrned as to the procedure for that his home had not been built in accordance with the Building Coda; that all aitizens ware impacted either directly or indirectly; that he felt responsibility should be established before deciding the solution; and that he felt the b~ildcr, the developer and the County shsuld be held responsible. It wa~ ~enerally agreed to recess for five minutes. M~- 3ani~o Atkins stated she resided in Woodlake; that her builder had declared bankruptcy but wa~ n~w build{ag ~nder a different corporate name; that she was opposed to maligning fae~, creating districts, the 25 percent copayment or any other measures which would require the a£feuted homeowners-to contribute to the aost of t~e repairz; that those responsible should be held liable; that her hems was ~hre~ years old and had become a burden; that ~he lacked peace of mind and ~inancial security; that she has expended ~mctlonal energy, ti~e and effort in documenting and pursuing a solution to her problem; that the majority of homes in her neighborhcs~ were ek~periencing problems; that ~he ha~ resided in approximately types of problems; that the house did not have gutters or downspou=s and she was informed by the builder that the house wa~ designed not to need them; that she was not comfortable purchasing it and was assured by the realtor that the builder was tt%e ~ost reelected in the county and the hous~ had been designed ~o it did Dot need gutters or d~wnspout$; and that she had taken prudent ~t~p~ ts en~u~e she was getting a q~ality product. She e~pressed a~ereciatisn to the Board for the opportunity to address the issue and requested the Board to decide the issue in the best interest of the Ms. Alice shultz ~tated mhe res{dad in weodlake and had att~ded ~everal of the recent community meeting=; that although she was not expeTien~ing problems, many of the homes the citizens should be protected and the issue was a form nf fraud; that a federal grand jury i~ve~tigatio~ ~ho~ld be con~ucted; that she felt the County ha~ not enforced the BuildiDg Cede a~d the develepere were aware of the ecl1 conditions; that the proposed reao~t~endation would be passed on to the homeowner and wa= not a viable solution; that she felt the County should accept reeponsibility and the devmlopers mhould be held accountable; a~d that legislation shonld be adopted to enable the County to enforce the neces=ary ¢odem to ensure building can take place on shrink/ewetl soils. Mr. George Beadles stated he mupported the ordinance relating to fees for residential new construction but felt it should be deferred to consider allowing engineers accredited by the Rtate to conduct Building Code inspections for the County and the fee could pay for the service; that he was in agreement with adoption of an ordinance franchising residential contractorm~ that he felt franchiming real e~tate hro~e~e ~alemper~ons would provid~ the County witch am opportunity to know which real estate agencies were operating within the County although the £e~ wo~ld bc passed on to the homeowner; and that gutters and downspouts should be required on homem built in the County, 10/1419~ Mr. Phil Halsey stated he was a developer within the County and was opposed to the creation of as assistance fund or any type of insurance protection by the County; that he felt the buyer should be hold responsible and not the County and that it was unfair to propose to charge fees to those who were not involved in creating ~he problem; that he develops outside of the triassic basin and provides each home builder with soil reporto on individual lots prior to building and ~equires every footing to have a minimum Of tWO number three rebate running continuously in the footings in order to ensure the buyer that they have a firm foundation on solld soil; that he did not feel it was fair that ali builders would be required to contribute to a fund when many have done good jobs; that he own~ two pieces of property ih Richmond structurally damaged by shrlnk/swell soils; that the issue was between the buyer and the builder; that he had had opportunities to work with County Administration and County stuff and although in the past ha has disagreed with County employee~ over various issues, be felt County staff was reputable and honest. Mr. Brendon McCormack stated hs reeldad in Four Seasons and has lived in the County for the bast fifteen years; that hi~ h~me was experiencing foundation damage; shat he was opposed to the twelve month eligibility requirement and tho exclusion of cosmetic damages; and was concerned that the soil conditions were known but th~ Building Code had not been enforced. He road into the record portions of the utillties and zoning drainage and soil profiles for his neighborhood regarding soils conditions; and stated be felt the County should be held responsible; that ho could not refinance his house and if the assistance fund did not go into effect in the very near future, ho woul~ have to take a second mortgage to pay for th~ re,airs; that he was opposed to the 25 percent copayment, the stop-loss provision, the exclusion of cosmetic damages and the twelve month eligibillty requirement; an~ that such e program would impact the County and requested the Board to consider the affected homeowners in ducidtng a fair ~lan. Mr. John Shoed stated he r~ided in Salisbury and has owned his home for the past four years; that he had followed the legal process and ham spent approximately $6~,000; that he received a judgement for $58~000 altho~qh it would comt a ~aet May~ he hms only received $89.17 and did not feel court system wa~ working; that the builder was currently building under another corporate name; and that ~e was opposed to the creation of an assessment district for homeowners. Mr. Mike "Smith" stated h~ felt builders who do not build to the Building C~e ~hould not be allowed to ~uild in the County and every file ~h0~ld r~flect the reputation of the builder; that he felt the real,ors should have been aware of the soil eo~ditio~s ~nd ~hould have disclosed the knowledge that existed; that the County had the authority to charge builders fce~ for inspections and to charge the cost of providing that service in tho foe; that he wa~ opposed to the creation of an assessment district as he felt the entire County should bear the respcnsibillty; and that he felt the County should be held ~cre liable than the builders as inspections had not been conducted prop~ly and the realtors should be held responsible as they should have been aware of the existing soil conditions. Mr. Ji~ "Smith" stated his home has decreased in ~alue; that he noticed cracks in the house which he ~elt could be due to Settlement ~lthough he wa~ umsu~e; that h~ supported the recommendmtion~ s~mitted by tho commission on Soils and FOUndations; that an assistance fund would reinforce the good intmntlon of th~ County; and expre~eed appreciat±~n to the MS. Elizabeth Chatham stated she has resided in Brandel'mill since 1909; that she had invested in her home and felt she had bee~ robbed of that investment; that she was not a proud homeowner and did not ~e~ire to invest ia the home any further; that ehe wa~ concerned over the wide range of solutions and costs to repair the homes; and that she wanted to recoup her i~ve~t~e~t a~d felt the i$o~e should be by appointing a committee to formulate standarae and a u~ive~sal procedure for repairs or it should be required that ~ho ~lco~ed oon~raotor~ an~ engineer~ endorse their work. ~r. John Boyd stated he reside~ in Cedar Crossing and was HOW claims; that he was opposed to th~ oreatlon of a~es~nent district, th~ $~00 application fee a~4 the percent copa~ent; ~at he did not feel ~e proposed plan would assist the homeo~ers and the County should pursue litiga~ion a~ain~t builders and develop~ who wer~ ~wa~e ~e existence of shrink/swell sell conditions; that Code violations ~hould be cited and docu~e~te~ a~d wo~ld helD h~eowners la filing llti~mtlon; that he felt the Buildlng Inspection Depar~ent ~ho~ld conde~ ~ose foundations e~eriencing probl~s which woul~ allow h~eowners t0 proceed with HOW claims; ~at he felt ~e County should appoint a cit~ and reco~d Building Code violations; that the list could then ~ compared ~o see which builders ha~ the violations and t~ose b~ilders could %hen ~ held accountable; and that he interest groups. ~. W. S. Carne~ mtated government should not ~e held aoooun~abl~ bu~ fa=her ~e buyer; that ~e buy~ should have chewed into the credibility of ~e builder; that he has been ~uil~in~ ~or mor~ than for=y year~ and has satisfie~ all c~plaints; ~at homeowner~ e~rienci~g problems sh0~ld pur~ulng the issue in court rathe~ than throuqh the gover~ent; that he felt th~ County ha~ ~on~ a reli=b~e job and he wa~ not ~n f~vor of i~Do~ing any fees; and ~at he did not feel the court system would allow ~e County to inte~ene and u~e public f~ds for private repairs. ~. Lew~ NcC~on~ ~tat~d he did not feel the County was oon~uctlng their job 9rop~ly and that he attempted several times to contact the administration and his district ~. ~ill Hastings stated he resided in ~tuaca District an~ wa~ ~ot a~sociuted with ~e building industry or experiencing any problems relating =o ~rlnk/swell =oils; that he was COnCerned as to the estimate to repair the homes experiencing home and the Co~ty had ~en very cooperative; that he felt the rolm of Cowry qovernment should be for ne~otiation~ mediation or arbitration %o a~sist i~ SOlVing the rather ~an the citizens in general ~ar~ng the f~nan~ial responsibility; and that the financial ~s~on~ibillty ~ ~lac~ on the builders who built the hom~ ~d not ~e citizens. District and was concerned for ~e cowry; that he felt ~e issue should be re~olved for the future; ~mt th~ h~aring prooes~ was an oppo=tunity for citizens to provide input; that the County was attempting to find a solution although the ~01utio~ had proved difficult; ~t he did not something they can find nowhere else; that although the problem was critical, he did not Seal it was appropriate for government to attempt to compensate the affected homeowners and i= decided, then he felt all citizens in the County should be asked if they wanted to share in the £inan¢ial responsibility by ye:lng on t~le issue; that although the citizens of the County were concerned about those homeowners experiencing problems, he did not believe the majority of the citizens would desire to assume this ty~e of obligation on behalf of the County; and he wan concerned abo~t the negative media coverage and the negative reaction of some citizens. Mr. George Beadles stated he felt a referendum would allow all citizens to participate in the process; that the issue was complex and the Board should defer comment and ac%ion in order to provide an opportunity to reflect on the ex~ressed; and that a decision made in baste would not be beneficial to the citizens. Mr. ~am~s Cobb stated he was in the real estate sales and development business; that he built his home in an a~ea with the potential =or shrlnk/ewell soils; that he was not in agreement with ~he propose~ ordinances franchising residential contractors end realtors and real estate brokers~ and that the county nhould ta~e ~he necessary measures to upg~fade the Building Inspection Department. [~r, Mike "Smith" stated the co%~%ty was self-insured and shsuld make good on their insurance; that the proposed fees were ~mall and would be a guarantee for new homeowners; tha~ the isn~e was a County-widu problem as those not affected have already suffered property de~reciatlon; that he would be boycotting businesses endorsed by the Business Council; that the County's proposal should provide for a warranty provision for design; that he f~lt homeowners should be responsible for stop-loss provision; and that he had been informed the County would advise homeowner~ of reasonable courses in exhausting all avenues to recover payment. Mr. Don Unmusoig ntated nhrink/swell soil conditions prevalent throughout the oou~t~ and he felt ~uilding Code =tandards for footingn and foundations should be u~radcd; that the County administration and suilding Inspection Department did a good job; tha~ he was opposed to the creation of any assistance fund as he did not feel it woul~ solve the Inn,-term problem and wac net fair to the entire County; and that the Board should defer the issue ~or ~urther research. ~r. Sherman Litton stated he was a resident of Dale a~d was opposed to the concept of the County being responsible for the funding sources for =he creation of an~ assistance Ms. Frae Schettino stated she purchased a previously b~ilt home and the cost of the damage the home was experlencinq was ~o~e t~an the original cost of the home; that she could not refinance her home or feasibly sell the home; tl%at her utility bills were increasing due to the damage tho house has experienced; and that nhe felt the issue wa~ a county-wide proble~ and affected all citizens. She expressed apprsc~atlon for tho opportunity to address the Beard. ~ir. Wesley stigall stated he was a resident of Bce ~ir and a life-long resident; that be did not feel all of the problems the affected homeowners were experiencing could b~ that ha felt the issue was a ~atter of fr~ud; that he works in the real estate industry and felt the proposed fee would be 10/14/92 County ¢cul~ save $3 million within the School System by eliminating waste; and that although he was not in agreement with the proposed fees, he felt the issue should be resolved. Ms. Carolyn Powers, representing the Chesterfield Regional Enviro~ental League, stated in the past, water management issues were raised during the development of the Chesapeake Bay Ordinance; that since that time, water research has clarified this area for site management for water impact and erosion and sediment oontrot; that she had met with the Commission on Soils and Foundations and felt a careful look s~culd be given at 9resenting informsticn on shrink/swell soil areas when removing trees around houses; that she felt public advertising for the site plan review process sheuld be addressed; that she would support any recommendation which would permit a public process rathnr than an administrative process for ~it~ plan review; and that no ~tatute of limitations exist for environmental issues a~d she felt that should be take~ in~o consideration. Ms. Janioe Atklns stated when she first ex~erlenced problems with her house, she had met with the County's soil scientist, a drainage oonstr~otio~ exper= a~d an engineering ~irm specializing in shrink/swell soils and she had been informed by these ex~erts that there was a long history cf knowledge about the e~istenee of shrink/swell soil conditions and she felt the ~eard should exhaust every avenue to prosecute parties who conducted irresponsible building practices. Mr. Robert Karnes referenced a letter from the Chesterfield ~usine~ Council and ~tated he felt their membership was comprised of builders and developers who have destroyed the County; that although the ~rehlsm had been inherited by the new Board, he felt it was their re~ponslbility to continue to seek an ec~/itable solution; and that they should be a part of the solution and not th~ problem. Dr. ~arold ~athews stated he roside~ in Woodland Pond and has been a ~oil ~olentlst for the past thirty years; that shrink/~well soil conditions were not unique to Chesterfield County and he did not feel the County was receiving fair media coverage; that time limits for damage didnet apply to shrink/swell soils; that tl%e methods u~ed to address the problem needed to be Iong-tsrm; that there were preventive ~eas%k~es for homes built on shrlnk/sw~ll soils; that thor, were methods a~ailahle sash as water management to correct the problem that were not costly; that he felt there was a responsibility on the part of the homeowner to ~alntain property; and that h~ felt homes could ~ protected from ~amages a=trlbutable tn ehrlnk/ewell soils by undertaking a house did not ~tart experiencing problems until thirty days after olo~ing and she was not afforded any opportunity to take preventive measures; that a soil scientist had been consulted to see if there was potential for shrink/swell ~oil~ that she potential for shrink/swell soils; that she had been informed by an engineer that the levels were critical and hsd received an estimate for repair ~ost~ exceeding fifty percent of the original cost cf the home; that she felt she had taken Mr. Mike "Smith" stated the B~ilding Code required that be built to the condition of the soils and the code had not been enforced; that the development had a provision for shrink/swell soils engineering in its zoning oonditiens and his faLl~datio~ had not been built in ucccrdance with the Building Code; that the County had inspected and approved the building of his home; that he was opposed to the twelve month ~ligibili~y requirement as it would exclude t~ose who may e~cperience problems in the future; and that he was not aware of any other lccallty in the state requiring the need for a similar assistance fund. Mr. Warren stated he had been furnished with information from Mr. Robert Kamas and he would ~ubmlt that infol~mation to the Commonwealth's Attorney for review. Mr. Daniel stated he had held two p~J01io meetings within his District and the first meeting had been attended by forty persons with none supporting the creation of an assistance fund as they felt it was an issue between the ho~eoW~er and the builder. He further stated the second meeting had been attended by two hundred persons with one per,on indicatlng they felt i~ was a County-wide responsibility and ~s indicating they felt it was an issue between the homeowner and the builder. There being no one else to address t~ie issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. ~ani~l ~tated the ~e~rd would a~dress thuse issues relating to Dollcles, procedtk~es and ordinances regarding shrink/swell seil~ first. Mx. Barber made a motion, seconded by ~r. McHale for the Board to adopt the recommendations of the Cor~misslon on Soils and Foundations for prevention of future sh~i~k/swell damage and to include the definition of "moderate" shrink/~well with the definitien of "high" ~hrlnk swell soils when referring to soils testing: I. Develop recommendations for minimum soil testing, reportin~ methods and procedures. Investigate ~UCh items as sampling protocol and mlnimu~ testing II. Evaluate the need for a minimum footing desig~ to be on a County-wide III. Review the current building in,pastor's policy and make recommendations as needed. I~ particular, the me~ho~ new used tO identify the areas where enqineered footings are required ~hould be reviewed, Iv. Prepare recomm~ndation~ for preventive maintenance including a short fo~n~ brochure and a more detailed long form brochure. V. Prepare recommendations r~gar~ing Droceduro~ used for subdivision approval which will identify thos~ ~Oil where shrink/swell asils VI. Work with engineer, geologist and sell science groups to develop one set of reference methods for usa in the Cuunty. VII. The County s~ould adopt standar~ referenoe methods and values for evalua=ing Cheeterfleld County soils. ~[r. Barber ~tated the recommmndation$ in hie motion were submitted by the Commission on Soils and Foundation~ unanimously with the exception of the minority opinion regarding soils testing end be was including the minority opinion as he felt the testing uf moderate shrink/swell soils would bette~ protect these building in t/~e future. ~4r. Warren stated he supported the motion as he felt it was an area in which the County could move forward. He further stated the issue regarding shrink/swell ~ofl~ has been in existence sines January of this year and he felt the Commission on ~oils and Foundations had dons an e~oellent job when submitting their recommendations. Ne indicated he felt Mr. McHale stated he was concerned u30out the building inspection process as it relat~ to reinspeetion £ees. He further stated he felt the c/u~lity in the process of building inspection was the responsibility of the builder and, therefore, the full cost of the inspection should be charged bring back to the Board at the appropriate tim~ a recommendation for review of the building inspection procedure and include a revised schedule to place incentive on builders to do the job right the first time. Mr. Daniel reviewed the reco~endations submitted by Commission on Soils and Uoun~atien~ which were included in the motion and noted tSe recommendations were for policy matters with no legal re~trictlonm. Mr. Ram~ey in, feats4 the recommendations submitted by the commission regarding prevention of futu3ce shrink/swell d~mage would nc~ r~quire action by the General Assembly. There was brief discussion relativs to whether the CoF~mission'u r=co-mmendution to evuluute the need for a minimum footing design to be used on a County-wide basis woul~ re, ire action by the General Assembly. M~. Daniel continued to review the recommendations submitted ~y the Commission regarding prevention of future shrink~well d&m&qe. Mr. Barber made an amendment to his motion, seconded by McHate, for the Board to include revisiting tho motion when appropriate ~tandards for defining moderate and high shrink/swell soils have been developed. He stated the County has a method of maDDing moderate and high shrink/swell ~eil~ which we~ld cover a larger area than currently designated and reco~endationm five and six contemplate working with experts in the field to develop mtandards and ones developed, the Board ehoul~ revisit the issue cf soils testing. Mr. ~urber further made an amendment to his motion, by M~. HeHale~ baaed on the recommendation of staff, that the minimum footing standard recommendation be modifie~ to e requirement that steel rods be placed throughout the entire footing. There was brief 41scussion relative to whether the County would undertake legal research on behalf of the homeform. M~. Daniel called for the vote on the motion made by Hr, Barber, seconded hy Mr. McEale~ for the Board to include the definition of $~moderate" shrink/swell ~oils with the definition of "high" shrink swell soil~ when referring to ~oil~ te~ting~ to revisit th~ motion when standards for defining moderate and ~igh mhrin~/$well have been developed; and for the minimum footing standard resommendatien to be modified to include a requirement that steel rods be placed throughout the entire footing. 92-796 10/14/92 further, for the 5card to adopt tho £ollowlng rec~sndations by t~e Cem~i~sien on Soils and Foundations for prevention of future ~hri~k/swoll damage: I. Develop recommendatione for minimum soil testing, reporting methods and procedures. Investigate such items ae sampling protocol and minimum testing requirements, II. Evaluate the need for a minimum footing design to be used om a County-wide bani$, III, Review the current building inspector's policy and make recom~andatisns as needed. In particular, ~m me~ now IV. Pr~pa~e ~edO~e~dationm for preventive including a short fo~ brochure and a mere detmiled long fo~ bro~e. V. Pr~par~ r~co~$ndatioB~ regarding pr0c~durem used su~ivimi~n approval whi~ will id~t~fy these soil areas wh~re shrink/swell moils exist. d~v~lop one set of r~fere~ce ~ethcds for use in the value~ for evaluating Chesterfield County VOte~ Unanimous ~. Daniel clarified the County Adminlstrato= would would bring the policies back to ~e Board for implementation. H~ fur~er mtated an investigation was ourrsntly being conducted by the Co~onwealth'~ Attorney, ~e Etat~ of Virginia and ~e V~rginia state Police and the Board would Of ~ inv~ti~atlon. Mr. Barber ~tated he felt the Board needed to address the assistance issues and adopt a plum to help the ~at ~m imsuem wer~ complex and he felt the Board needed to resolve the issue in the h~mt iBtere~t Qf ~e entire C~unt~. He further stated since the issu~ wam complex, he felt it would ~ inappropriate tO consider ~e reco~enda~iuns ut thio ~i~. ~ indicated he had met with representatives in the building, real ester9 an4 develo~men~ in~usgries =o ~e development of vol~ta~y funding and h~ felt that option would not b~ viable an~ the solution had proved mor~ difficult t~a~ identifying the problem. re~emkin~ khe Co~%y to isitiate litigation and clarified litigatio~ wa~ ~ot an option for the Board to re.ired reflection by ~he Board members. He ~rther stated he has met with industry members, constitu~ts, the Co~ission on Soils an~ Fousdations and thcs= homeu~ers vie~oint of the is~%e as well as the issue of involvemen~ by ~e Co~ty and ~ender~ng a fair and equitable decision. Mr. Warre~ stated initially many temperers e~eriencing homzown~ huve come fo~ard and expressed concern~ a~ut the 92-797 damages to their hames and he felt many more eltizene would o~m~ £urward in ~h~ £~r~, He further s~atcd he fel~ the homeowne/cs should have been informed that their h~mes were being built on shrink/swell soils so their decision would have been a well informed de¢ision+ l~r. Daniel inquired if the County had a detailed accounting as to hew accurately damages to homes attributable to shrink/swell soils has been estimated in order to determine the financial impact of the assistance proposals. M~. Ramsey stated he did not ~eel damages to homes attributable to shrink~swell soils hud been well defined us the estimate was based on the CoLu~ission On soils and Foundations~ survey of twenty-three home~ in~pected by an engineer. He further stated it would dlffloult ts document the actual number af homes impacted and the amount needed to fund the repairs until the County Gould obtain more information on homes. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel a decision should be farther stated the County Admlnlstratar would address the County providing legal assistance to those homeowners experiencing problems. He stated the hume assistance i~sues would be addressed upon completion of the investigation by the co~tmonwealth's Attorney and as new information is made available. There was brief discussion relative to the pracess which would be followed by the Board SinCe the public heuring had been closed. Mr. Daniel clarified since =be public haarlng had been closed, there would not be any ~ora psblio comment unless now information becomes available and ~hat the Board could ~lace the issue on its agenda at any time. Mr. Barber stated some of the recommendations required action by ~ha ~neral Assembly, suoh as the issuance of revenue bonds, and indicated h~ felt the Board shauld meet with member~ of tho Legislative Delegation in an effort tc resolved the issue cooperatively. There was discussion relative to the appropriate tame fo= the Board ts meet with the Legislativm Del~gatlon and th~ prooe~ for prapasing changes to ~tate law. through Decembe~ of t~i~ year for each regularly =cheduled meeting o£ the ~oard of Supervisors until =ho home assistance adjourned at 11:4~ p.m. until October ~S, 199~ at 3~00 p,~. Harry G .{/Oaniel Cha Arman