11-12-1992 Minutes~OARO. OF
Supervisors in A~tenda~ce:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, chairman
Mr. Arthur $. Warren, Vice C~_rm.
Mr. Edward B, Barber
Mr. Whaley M. Colbert
Mr. J. L. ~cHale~ III
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
county Administrator
~taff in
Ms, Barbara Bennett, Dir-,
Office on Youth
MS. Marilyn E. Cole, Exes.
Asst. to Co. Admin.
Mrs. Doris R. DeHart
A$$t, Co. Adm~n.,
Leqis. Svcs. and
%ntergovern. Affairs
Mr. William D. DuDler,
Building official
Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr.,
Fire Department
Mr. Michael Golden, Acting
Dir., Parks and Recreation
MK. Bradford S. Hammer,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Mana~nent service~
ar. William H. Howell,
~r. Thomas E. Jacobsen,
Dir.~ Planning
MS. Mary LOC Lyle,
Dir., A~ounting
~4r. Ro~er~ L. Ma~den~
Deputy Co. Admin.,
H~man
~r. Richard H. M=Elflsh,
Dir., EnV, Engineering
Coun=y Attorney
Mrs. ~auline A. ~itchell,
Mrs. Lucitle
Dir., ~useum
Dr. William Nelson,
Dir.,
Col. J. E. Pittman, J~.,
Polio~ Department
Ms. ~ere~a M. Pitt~,
Clerk to the Board
Dir.~ Budge= & Management
~. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Deputy CO. A~in.,
Co~uni~ Development
~. David H. Welohon$,
Dir.,
~, F~eda~ick Willis, J~.,
Di~., H~an Resoumce Hgt.
Mr. Daniel called th~ regelarly mcheduled meeting to order at
3:00 p.m. (EST).
92-876 11/12/92
On motion of Mr. McHala, seconded by Fir. Holbert, the Boa~d
approved the minutes of October 28, 199~, as s~bmitted.
Vote: Unanimous
COUNTY ~DMIN~.S~P~TOR~B COMME/~PS
Mr. Ramsay stated at a recant conference for the Virginia
Assoo£ation of Counties, the County had received an award, "Most
Pride in the Cennty's Achievements and Its People", for its
bocthdtsplaylng achievements of the County. He recognized Mre.
Pauline Mitchell and M~. ~arilyn Cole and expressed appreciation
for their efforts ~n receiving the award. He then intr0duoed
NS. LQ¢ill~ Mo~eley, Director of the~fuse~m.
M~, Mo$eley state~ last August, the County had been awarded
status ae a virginia historic landnark and the County
recently been placed on the ~ation~l Register of Historic Places
and noted the plaque would be placed at the front Of the old
Chest~rfleld County Courthouse. she then ~resented the Board
with a copy of the County's history book w~itten by Ms. Dorothy
1989.
Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to N~. Moseley and the
volunteers for thei~ effert~ in the County receiving this
designation.
Time: 3:10 p.m.
ME. Warreh noted he had recently had the Opportunity to speak at
the gmokotree Civic Association's annual meeting and the
Brundermill neighborhoo~ ¢o~ncil meeting.
Time~ 3:11
R~OUEBTS TO POSTPON~ %~ION~ EMERGENCY ADDITION~ OR
C~L~N~R IN THE ORDER OF ~R~SE~TION
moved Item 13.A.; Rseot~tion ReCOgnizing Mrs. Dorim
Floyd, Qtilities Department to immediately ZOll~w thi~ item;
added Item 6,B.16., Appropriation of Stat~ Library ~rsnt Funds
for Optical Disk Conversio~ to ~icre~ilm for the C~rcuit Court
Cle~'s office to follow Item 6.B.~§., Acceptance of a Parcel of
Land from Saunders/Wso~fin Buil~erm alon~ Bundle Road (Route
654]; replaced Item 6.B.l~., Agreements for Maintenance of
Btormwater Drainage Syst~s and Best Managenent Practloe
Facilities; ~placed Attachment B for Item ~.C., Work Session
Con~ideratlon of Additional Shrink/Swell Soil IE~ue~;
the resolution for Item 6+B.~., A~o~tion of Resolution
Confirming P~0ceedings of ~esterfield Industrial Development
Authority for Financing Of R~ven~e Bond~ for
~emours & company for a series of Remediatiun Projects; replaced
the or~in~nce for Item 14.B., P~lic Hearing to Consider an
Ordinance to,end the Code of~e County of Ch~te~field, 1978,
as Amended, by Add~ng a New Section 8-12.B Keluting to Penalty
and Interest on Local Seven,eat Accounts Receivable; and added
of Vi~gin~a~ 1950, a~ ~ended, for Consultation with Legal
9~-877 ll/I2/92
counsel Regarding Probable Litigation Regarding shrinE/Swell
Soile to follow Item l$.A. and, adopted the agenda, as amended.
Time: 3:13 p.m.
i~oA. ~BBOL~TIDN ~EOD~I~ING ~S. DO~IS "H~L~' ~LCYD, UTILITIES
DE~;kRTMENT
Mr. W~l~on~ introduced ~$. Doris "H~i~n" Floy~ an~
appreclatlcn for her dedicated ~ervlc~ to the County and ~tated
the Utilitie~ Department would mi~ her knowled9~ and
0n motion ~f the Board, ~he following resolu=ion was adopted:
~ER~S, ~s. Doris "Helen" Floyd will retire fro~ the
¢h~sterfiel~ County u~i!itie$ Department on Dece~er 1,
and
~s, the Chesterfield Co~=y Boar~ of Supervi~or~ a~d
f~llow a~ployees will certainly miss Mrs. Floyd's diligent
Sept~ber, 1964 and through her willingne== to accept new
responsibilities, her initiative and ability to work with and
Billin~/~stoner Servic~ Section of the Utilities Department;
~s, ~s. Floyd, by virtue of her e~erience and past
perfo~anoe, wa~ promoted to the position of Principal Custome~
Service R~presentative in ~he ~illing/cu~tomer service sectisn
of the Utilities Department i~ Jahuary, 19B4 and has served with
integrity in thi~ position since, and through ~er nara work
dedication, the Billing/~stomer Service ~ection has evolved
into an e~ficient, ~ell ~rained op~ra=ion;
training and implementation of a state-of-the-art Billlng and
Customer Informa~ion sy=tem that will ~arry ~e Utilities
D~partment Well into the next cent~y.
NOW, TH~BE IT RESOLVED, that ~ ~sterfield County
Board of supervisors publioly recognizes Mrs. Doris "Helen"
County.
~D, BE IT F~THER~SOLVED, ~at a copy of this resolution
~ ~re=~nted to ~. Dori~ "Helen" Floy~ and =ha~
re~olution be pe~anently recorded among the papers oS
~oard of Sup~vi~or~ of ~m~erfi6td, county~ virginia.
Vote: ~animou~
~. Daniel presented the executed ~e~ol~tio~ and u Jefferson Cup
to M=. Floyd, aoco~anie4 by members of her family~ =na~e~
fo~ ~e= dedicated ~rvice to the County and wished her w~ll
her
Time: 3:17
9Z-87S
16. EXECUTIVE SESSION, ~RRUANT TO SECTION 344 [a)[?), ~O~ OF
VIRGINIa, 1950. ~S ~ME~DED. FOR CONSULTATION MIT~ LEaL
~OUNSEL RE~DING PKOBABLB LITIGATION REG~NG 8~I~/~WELL
~OILS
into Executive Session, pursuant to Section 34~ (a)(?), C~e of
Vlr~n~5, 1950, as ~nded, for consultation with legal co,Eel
regarding probable litigation regarding shri~/swell soils.
vot~: Unanimous
Reconvening:
On motion of Mr. ~=Hale, seconded by Mr. Colbert~ the Board
adopted the following re~olution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors bas this day a~Jsurned
into Executive Session in accordance wi=h a formal vot~ of
Board and in accordance with the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective
July 1, 10S9 provides for certification that ~UCh Exe0utive
Session wa~ conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Board of County
~upervisors do~s hereby ¢~rtify that to the bes~ of each
member's knowledge, i) only public business mutter~ lawfully
Information Ao~ were dissussed in the Executive Session to which
this certification applies, and ii) only ~ueh public business
~atters es were ide~tified in the Motion by which the Executive
Session was convened were heard, discussed or considered ~y the
Board. No member dissents from thi~ certification.
The Board being polled, the vote was as follows:
M~. McWal~: Aye.
Mr. ~arb~r: Aye.
Mr. Colbert: Aye.
~r. Warren: Aye.
Mr.'Daniel: Aye.
Time: $:45 p.m.
Mr, Masd~n introduced Dr. wi11iam Nelson, Director of the Health
Department/ and ~tatad staff would present an overview on
monitoring and enforcing S~ate and local septiu tank ordinances
and the Co~nty'~ program for monitoring and
systems.
Mr. Daniel excused himself frGm the
treat and protect drinking water, proDerty, health and natural
resources. ~a reviewed sn-sft~ ~ewags disposal inoi~ding
~ystams and packaged treatment plants.
There was brief discussion relative to packaged
92-$79
Dr. Nelson then reviewed conventional ~eptie ~¥~%em~ including
the process for inlet and outlet of sewage.
Mr, Thurman Brickhouse, C~ief Sanitarian of th~ B~.lth
Department, reviewed the steps in obtaining a permit includln~
the application process, site review and soil study, system
and d~par~ent inspectlon~ and issuance of permit for operation.
for ~eptic ~y~tem~ including the Co~ty'~ pumping program and
conventional septic syst~s including lot size, re~e area,
and dralnfield maximum
Di~cunmion, co~nt~ and que~tion~ ensued relative to whether
the County's re~iramunts were more restrictive t~an t~e
1993-1995.
~. Daniel returned =o the meeting.
Discussion, co.ants and questions ensued ~elative to the nu~er
of sy~t~ which have been monitored and ~e permit process for
After brief discussion, on motion of~. McHale, ~ecohded
Colbert, ~hm ~oar~ suspended i~s rules an~ am~nd~ the agen=a
th~ Legislative Dele~a=ion for dinner ~n~ a work
regarding the 1993 Legislative Program and to proceed with the
the agenda to be heard miter Item 14., P~llc ~earings.
Vote:
Time: 4:10
10. DI~T~ AND WORK ~ESSIOH AT 4:00 P.M. WITH LE~iP~ATIVE
Mr. Daniel ~apressed appreoiation to the Legislative Delegatien
for meeting with tho Board to di~ou~ th~ 199~ L~gi~lativ~
Program.
F~rs. De/{ert reviewed the proposed Charter amendment which would
allow ~e Chief of Police to appoint the animal control
The~e was b~ief discussion relative %o the past requirement in
which localities were only allowed one Chartmr bill.
~s. De~a~ continued to review the Dro~ose4 charter amen~en=s
which would allow the Planning Di~ecto~ to ~ant variances, up
to two feet, from local zoning and/or subdivision re~uir~en=s
and to permit ~e County to incorporate c~ange~ to mot0= ve~iole
i~ol~ding amen~in~ the Code of Virginia to permit zoning
permit zoning inspectors to remove illegal portable signs from
public rights of way; and to allow the Cuun=y to ex~t from
92-880 11/12/92
substantial accord review, uny public tscillty eppr~ved by the
Board of Supervisors fol.10Wing a public h~arlng pursuant to the
zoning ordinance.
There was brief discussion relative to the removal Of illegal
portable signs Srom public rights of way and exempting public
facilities from substantial accord review following a public
hearing pursuant ts the zoning ordinance,
including amending the Cede of Virginia to clarify the ability
o~ ~hu State Boar~ of Contractors to determine through
consultation with the local b~ilding official if code violations
ex~sta~ Dr~or to the lapse ef the statute of limitations.
Discussion, ocmments an~ questions ensued relative to the
statute of limitations as it related to the contractors recovery
fund; whether the County has receive~ written notification
outlining the position of the State Boar4 of Contract0r~; how
the proposed amendment would impact the homeowner; defining a
specific statute of limitations; and whether th~ propose4
amendment had received input from the Hemebuilders ~e~iatien
of Richmond.
Krs. D~art ~h~n r~view~d th~ proposal t~ provide that a ~ome
warranty cannot be waived by a p~rchaser and that the worrunty
is automatically assigned to the first occupant OS the hom~.
F~. Micas stated tho Boa~ has disou~s~ an~ is currently
considering legislative initiative~ regarding shrink/swell
soils. He reviewed the General Assembly recom~endatlom from the
Connty Administration to a~end Section ~5.1-37.3:9 of the Code
of virginia to declare a public purpose in protecting the
integrity of all house~ built on shrink/~w~ll soils and ~o
include tl~e reconstruction, al~eratlon and repair of any house
dam~gedby~hrink-~well soils as improvements which qualify for
local loan and grant programs.
Diacusaion~ comments end questions ensued relative to existing
public purpose lmws; the responsibility of the State if t-he
proposal was approved end its intent; the County providing funds
to repair homes damaged by ~hrink/swell ~oi1~; the impact th~
request would have on the public purpose concept if the proposal
wa~ not approved; providing a fifteen-y~ar ~tat~te of
limitations for lawsuits against builders who build footings and
fcundation~ that experience structural damage; ~efining the
~tatute of ii~itations fo~ lawsuits against builder~ as two
years after the date of discovery; an~ th~ County obtaining an
opinion regarding amending the Code of virginia to declare a
public purpose in ~rotec~ing the integrity o~ ell houses ~uilt
on shrink/swell soils from the Attorney General prior to
submitting the prspose~ amendment.
F~. Hica~ then reviewed the recommendation to enact legislation
defining homeowners' and foundation insurance policies to
prevent excessive exclusions and to require coverage for
foundation decagon and a~eDdi~g the appropriate ~tat~te to
prohibit the weiver of the general w~rranty and foundation
warranty for ~11 newresidentiel ¢onstru¢tion.
Discussion, comments and questions eneue~ relative to other
~tates adoptinq similar legislation for insurance coverage;
pruvidin~ for enhanced regulation of certain home
warranty/protection companies by th~ state Commission of
Insurance; and requesting ~he Commerce and Labor Committee and
the, Insurance Commission to address this type of proposal after
theGe~eral Aasea~bly session.
~r. Mica~ th~ reviewed the recommendation to provide far the
pa!r~ent e~ attorney's fees by the homsbuilder in lawsuits
regarding faulty or negligent h~mebuilding.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to lawsuits
settlements were not comparmble to ~e cost to repair the
damaged ~omes; t~e impact suc~ a rec~endation Would ~ave on
tho~e involved; hom~owner~ reluctance to ~nitiate court
Droce~dings due t~ the cost of attorney's fees; mhd available
~ethod~ to deter ~ filing of frivolous
~s. D~Hart reviewed thm admini~trmtion/efficimncy of
issue of amending Section 58.1-3237 of ~e Code of Virginia to
rm~ire a 7-year "roll back" period whence property comes out
of ~e land use designation in~tead of the c~rre~t 5-year *'roll
~ere was bmief disoussio~ rela=ive =o present and pas= "roll
back" periods and it wa~ noted these was general consensus to
g.01 of the Code of Virginia to ~ant members of local Crime
Code of Virginia to allow localitle~ to recover arrest and
~ere was brief discussion tala=ire to the County c~rently
driver~ and including drug
of ~e Code of Virginia to eliminate the need to rmadopt a
affect ~e dates established by the Game and Inland
Code of Virginia to change the me~od of selecting a jury when
there are multiple defendants in a lawsuit.
~s. DeHart then reviewed the budget and finance issue
amending the Code of Virginia to require ~h~ State Department
TaNation to disclose mon~ly, on re~est~ in machine readable
=o ~e co~issioner of Revenue or Director of Finance ~o audi~
Discussion, co~ent$ and question~ ensued relative to whaler
C~unty i~ receiving its fair share of sales tax; the County
auditing the re~urns and the amount of ~otal ~ales tax for the
County; and whaler the info.etlon was readily available =o the
County.
Appropriation Act to provide funding Of $~OO,OOO each for the
re.rotation of ~pington and the old cour~ou~e.
the ~e progra~ ~ed for ~gn~ti= Grange in whi~ there were
}{re. DeHart then reviewed the reqlonal issue of amending the
Code of Virginia %0 grant authority tc the County to impose
the bill mhould be mubmitted this year; Chesterfield being one
coming counties by City and State Magazine who do not have the
authority to impose impact fees; the State of Virginia ~einq the
third largest home building area in the country after California
and Florida; the number of vacant lot~ and building permits
within the County; the need for impact feem tO help ~efray
local homebuilder~ associations would support the
recommendations for impact fees in general; and the buildin~
to that process.
M_r. Ramsay stated the Board would be holding a pu]31ie hea~ing to
consider the ta~ exemption of~evitious ~rojeet Association. He
further s~ated the Association was funded through grants from
th~ federal government and their purpose was to assist lesal and
State police departments in investigating white collar crime.
~e no,ed staff would be requesting the Board to consider
F~. Daniel state~ ~ere ha~ been discussion at th~ rational
level regarding m. tropolltan planning organizations becoming
separate legal entities and raqu~stedtheI~gislatiYe Delegation
to oppose any leglslatlon designed to grant eon=rearing
authority to metropolitan planning organizations.
Delegation to support amendments to the Appropriations Act to
fund the conmtruction reimb~rmement and operating costs for the
Riverside Regional Jell Authority.
There wam brief dimcummisn relative to the County receivin~
progres~ payments for the Riverside Regional Jail and projected
level of expenditures,
F~. Daniel ~ated when the RielYmend Het~opolitan Authority was
formed, representation was established based on population. He
f~rther stated the distribution of population has changed
significantly and, therefore, the County was r~questlng support
of legislation that wuuld provide for the Richmond Metropolitan
Authority Boar~ to have the representation to include four
m~mb~rs from the city of Richmond, four members from the County
member from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
There was brief discussion relative to the call-arian of tell~.
Kr. Daniel note~ the Commission reviewing the billion Rule has
completed its work and requested t~e Legislative Delegation to
support the recommendations made by the Commission.
It was ~enerally agreed to recess for dinner.
1~. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend J. Christian Gissler, Pamtor of
Redeemer Moravian Church, who gave t-he invocation.
12 ......~LED~E_O~_.ALLEGI~NC~_~Q_T.~UE_F~G_O~ ~H~ _~_ITED STATES CF
Mr. Ramsey led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
~ited States of ~erica.
Tim~: 7:05 ~.m.
~. Daniel ~tate~ ~e Board had held an Executive Sea,ion thi~
afternoon regarding consultation with legal counsel r~garding
probable litigation with shri~%swell soils. He further s=ated
on Jun~ 24, 1~92, ~ ~oa~ of $u~e~i~ors VOted to take action
to enforce t~e 1987 zoning condition that ~e~ired the developer
of Woodlake to perform a gee=ethnical analysis to
foundation design for lots wi~ high clay content; that dialogu~
wi~attorneys representing =ae ~eveloper nas failed ~o reach an
aqreem~t on the d~veloper'~ obligation %o comply with the
~oning Condition; that tho co=nty Atturn=y will file a civil
to re~ire the developer to specifically perfo~its contraceual
obligation to perfo~ a geot~c~cal ana~ys~s on ~11 lot~
affected by ~e zoning condition; and that ~e Co~onwealth~s
Attorney has b~en asked to appoint a special prosecutor
fun~entally disagr99 about the ~evelop~r~s duty to somply with
t~e ~oning condition, the judicial my~tem wa~ th~' only
appropriate mechanism to resolve ~e dispute.
0n motion of ~r. McHale, seconded by ~. Barber, the Board
suspended its rule~ and amended the agenda to move Item 6.,
~usiness; item 7., Deferre~ It,s; Item 8., Hearings of Citizens
on Unscheduled Matters or cla~s; and Item 9., Reports,
follow It~ 14.L., Public Hearing=.
vote: Unanimous
Time: 7:07 p.m.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Honorable ~arry G. Daniel, Chairman of
C~es=er~i~ld County Board of Supervisors, was focally installed
as P~esident uf~e Virginia A=sociation of Co~ties at its mo~t
reoen~ meetin~ on Nove~e~ !0, 1992; and
~EREAS, ~r. Daniel has se~ed in numerous roles of
responsibility of rACe since hm attended hi~ first m~eting in
1980 as a represmn~ative o~ ~e~terfiel~ County;
~ER~S, a~ President of VACo, Mr. Daniel will
not only Chest~fleld County, but ninety-four other count/es of
matters a~ legi=lation, insurance, p~anning, regional
~ransD~rtatioR, ~O~O~iO development, publio safety, h~al~h and
education; and
~esterfield County Bonrd of Supervisors that Mr. Daniel will
NOW, T~EREFOREBE IT REg0LVED, that Mr+ Dani¢l'~ colleagues
do congratulate him for thi~ outstanding honer and pledge to
support him as he represents Ch=sterfield County and the memher
counties Qf the Virgi~ia Association of Counties during the
coming yea~.
Vot=: Unanimous
Mr. Warren presented the e~ecuted resolution to Mr. Daniel and
congratulated him, on ~ehslf of the Board members, for his
appointment as President to VACo.
Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation tot he Board members fort heir
Time: 7:il p.m.
RESOLUTIONS AND E~ECIAL RECOGNITIONS
lS.B. RECO~NIZINO BOY SCOUT~ UPON ~TTAIN~N~
%~.~-1. MR. ROB~RT VINCEN COOLEY. II. TROOP
On motion of the Board, the follo~ing resolution waa adspted~
W~AS, T~ ~oy Soeut~ of America was incorporated by Y~r.
William D. Eoyce on February 8, 1910; and
%~tEREAS, The Boy ~cout~ of ~erica wa~ ~o~n~ed to promote
citizenship training, personal development and fitness of
individuals; and
~A~, After ~arni~g at lea~% twenty-one merit ~dges
a wide variety of fialds, s~rving in a leadership position in
troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to
co.unity, being active in the trooD~ demonstrating Scout spirit
and living up to the S¢out Oath ~nd Law; and
~EAS, Mr. Robert Vincen Cooley, ii, Brande~ill ch~ch,
Troop 890, has accomplished tho~e high ~tandards of occident
and ha~ re~0bed th~ long-~ought goal of Eagle Scout which
re~eived by 1~ tha~ two percent of those individuals entering
the Scouting movement; and
~EAS, Growing t~r0ugh bls e~=rlences in Scouting,
l=urning the lessons of r~sponsible citizenship amd
ind~d u member of a new generation of prepared young
NOW, THEREF0~BE IT RESOLVED, ~a~ the Chesterfield Co~ty
Robert Vincen Cooley~ II and ack~owladges the ~ood fort~n~ of
the County to have such an outmtand~ng young man a~ one of its
citizen~,
accompanied by members of his f~ily, and congratulated him on
On motion of =he Boar~, the following resolution was adopted:
William D. Boyce on February 8, ~9~0; and
92--8S~ 11/12/92
WHEREAS, The Bey Scouts of America was founded to promote
oitlzenahip training, personal development and £itness
ind~vidual~; and
WHEREAS, After earnin~ at least twenty-one merit badges in
a wide variet~ of fields, serving in a leadership position in
troop, carry~Dg out a ~rviee project b~n~fi~ial to hi~
community, being active in the treeD, demonstrating Scout spirit
an~ living up to the ~oou~ Oath and Law; and
~%L~REAS, Mr. JamemAndrew Cooley, Brandermi11 Church, Troop
890, has accemplished those high standards of commitment and has
reache~ the long-sought goal o£ ~agls Scout which,is recelvsd by
lees than two percent of those individuals entering the scouting
movement; and
WH=ll~AS, Growing through hie experiences in Scouting,
luarning th= lessons ef rusponuiblu citizunship and p~idi~g
~imsel£ on t~e g~eat accomplishments 0£ ~is County, James is
of whom we can all be very proud.
NOW, T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, =hat the Chesterfield County
Ja~ee Andrew Cooley and acknowledges the good fortune of the
County to have such an outstanding young man as one of
citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
~r. Warren presented the executed resolution to Mr. Cooley,
aGoompamied by members of his £amily, and oongratulated him on
his outstanding achievement.
Time: 7:~3 ~.m.
~,~_. RECO~NI~IN~ N~E~ER ~2 - 28, 1992 A~ "CBESTERFIELD
Youth Ssi-ciasa Citizen Boa~d~ Mr. Allen Kidd, President of the
optlmi~t Club of Jam~ River/chesterfield; ~i~ Kati~ Johnson,
eraSed%he program recognizes the contributions cf young persons
and adults to their cc~uuunity and noted du~ tQ the affiliation
with the Office on Youth, ~s, Johnson and MS. Gerold were
On motioD of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the need for
pas~tlve and healthy youth develo~ment in Chesterfield County;
WHEREA~, the Board of SuDervisors created the Youth
eervi~e~ Citizen Board to advocate for youth by creating
conditions in our co.unity to promote the well being oS young
people; and
WHEREAS, the Youth services citizen Board draws on the
extraordinary talents, commitment and ~sdication of youth and
WH~AS, the Soard of Supervisors recognizes the e£Sorts of
the Youth Services Citizen Board, the Optlmi~t Club of James
River/Chesterfield and Signet Bank to s~imulate csnatructive
youth activities; and
WHEREAS, the yout~...of Chesterfield Co%l~ty demonstrate
outstanding courage, compassion or service to their oomm%mity
through ~01untee~i~g, extracurricular activities und individual
projects; and
WHEREAS, the adults o£ Chesterfield County d~menstrate
out~tanding fortitude, ~ensitivity or service through~eir work
for you%h; an~
~AS, the Chesterfi~ld oo~ty should acknowledge the
accomplishments and needs of ~ir young people.
Now, THE~FO~B~ IT~ZOLV~D, that th~ Che$ter~iel~ County
Board of Supe~isors does hereby recognize Nove~er 22 - 28,
1992 as "Chesterfield County ~outh W=ek" and ~o~bmr 23, 1992
a~ ~e "Tenth ~nual Youth Awa~d~ Night" to honor youn~ people
for th=ir courage, compassion and service by recognizing ~em
wi~ the "out~tanding Young Person for Chesterfield County
Award" and to honor adults for ~eir fortitude, sensitivity and
~ic~ by recogniuing them with th= "Out~tanding S~ice %o
You~ Award" ~on~ored by ~ Youth S~rvice~ Citizen Board of
Chesterfield CoUnty, thc Optimist Club of J~es
Riv~r/Ches=er~iel~ and Signet ~ank.
Vote: Unanimous
commltmant and service to ~elr co~ity.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14.A. TO CONSIDER ~N ORDINANCE TO A~END THE CODE OP THE
COUNTY OF CHE~TERPIELD, 197~, ~g AMENDED, ~Y
public bearing to consider an ordinance relating generally tu
swine und, specifically, vietnamese pot-bellied pigs. He
further stated the County's existing swine ordinance prohibibs
pigs of all types and ages from being kept within 50 feet of any
public road or within 2C~ fas= of any private residence. He
to exempt pot-~ellied pigs and if adopted, t~e keeping of pot-
bellied pigs would be subject to appropriate conditional use
under the Zoning Ordinance.
Me. Jennie Reynolds stated she was a resident of the County and
supported hh~ proposed ordinance; that she owned a pot-bellied
pig and felt they made good pets; that pot-bellied piqs did not
carry any more diseases ~an ~ household dog; that piq~ were
zafa pet~ and w~re not az noisy a~ doqz; ~at pot-~llied pig~
were good with children; that a~though =he felt ~ere mhoul~
limitations, ~he felt the pot-bellied pig~ ~hould~ineluded in
~hm definition ~or a household pet; that s~ro~ding
have defined pot-bellied pigs as household pets; and re~ested
fha Soard to givs favorable consideration to ~e ordinance.
regarding five chil~en attacked by u rotwmiller and stated he
neigh~rs supported him keeping a pot-bellied pig; and that the
existing $1,ooo fee re~ired for him to keep ~is pet ~ig was
excessive. Ke noted he had a petition ~igned by h~
supporting the proposed ordinance.
~/12/9x
..... ] ! ................ I ....... I""-'" i , ?ir] ........
eeotlon=
~r. ~ecrge Beadles stated he ~elt pot-bellied pigs should be
included in the definition of a household 9et and that these
types Of p~t~ should be addrs~ in the sa~ £ashien as dogs
and expressed concerns relative tn the current $1,000 fee ts
obtain a conditional uae to keep a p~bellisd pig as a ps~.
There being no on else to address ~1~ ordinance~ the public
hearing was closed.
On motion of ~tr. Morale, ~econded by ~4r. Ear~er, the Board
adopted ~e following ordinance:
~ O~IN~CE T0 ~D T~E CODE OF THE CO~TY
~D REENA~ING SECTIONS 5-2 ~D 5-3.1 ~TING TO SWINE
BE IT 0~AINED by the Board of Sups=vi&ors of Chesterfield
Cowry:
(1) That sections ~-~ an~ ~-3.1 of ~e co~e of the county
read a~ followm:
Sec. 5-2. Definitions.
shall have the meanings ascribed to them Dy thi~
Pig or p±qs. Swine of all aqe~ e~cept Vietnamese pot-
bellied pig~, k~pt as household 9~t~ and in compliance with
Section 5-3.1. Article suuulementarv to zoninc ordinance.
The p~ovisions of this article shall be const~ed to be
suDDl~nta~y tO t~e p~0vimi0ns 0f chapters 21 and 21.1 of this
(2) This ordinance shall become affectiv~ i~diately upcn
adoption.
Vote: Unanlm~us
14.R. TO CONSIDER AN ORDI~ANCE TO ~4EN~ ~E CODE OP ~HE
CO~NTY_~.~.CKESTE~IELD, ~978, ~S AK~NDED, BY ADDIN~ A
public bearing =o consider an ordlnanoe relati~q to penalty and
stated duT~ng the 199R session, the Gen~al A~e~bly pa~ed
legislation e~abling the County to a~opt an ordinanQe which
w~uld authorize a penalty of t~n percent or $10, whichever is
penalty would apply only to accounts which are e~tablish~d by
utilitie~ fees, etc. He noted ~e penalty would be i~pos~d at
such tame ms the debt was referred from th~ iRdivldual
~eneral'~ dete~i~atlon that Co~ty officlals are nut re~ired
to have on f~l~ eopi~ of propooal$ fo~ review by the public
prior to meeting dates and noted Chesterfield do~e ~e~p on file
eubmlsslsn of new a~enda items at tho m~eting.
Ther~ being no on~ else to address this ordinance, the public
hearing wa~ closed.
adopted the following ordinance:
BE IT 0~AIN~D by the ~oar~ of Supervisors of chesterflel~
County that thR Code of ~e Co~tv of C~t.e~field, 1978,
amended, i~ amended by a~dlng a new section 8-12.S, as follows:
Section 8-12.8. Penaltie~ aA~in~ar~st on local
accounts receivable.
Any person failing to pay, pursuant to an ord~Ge,
dollars, whichever is greater~ whi~ ~ha]5 be add~ ~O
referred to the County Debt Col~e~tio~ Oivision. Th~
~hall be applied to all such account~ unle~ prohibited by law
or inconsistent with a coutract to which the county is a party.
No penalty shall be imposed fop failure to pay any acco~t if
~uoh failur~ wa~ not in any way the fault of the debtor.
Interest at the rate of ten percent annually from th= firs=
the Debt Collection Division may ba collected upon thm
and penalty of all such
14.~, TO ~ONBIDER ;tN ORDIN~NC~ TO .~m;M.~'N~,.~"~ CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD. 1978. AS AMenDED, BY ~4ENDING
BY R~P~IN8 SECTION ~.~-~6 ~D BY ENACTIN~
p~blic hearing to consider an ordinance relating to erosion and
sediment con=re1. ~e further $~a=ed during the 1992
the ~eneral Asse~ly pazzed legislation ~Sic~ Would enable
through civil penalizes rath~ than ~roug~ criminal statutes.
He stated the county has been succmssful in using civil
penalties a~ a note effective method for obtaining
w{~h the Ero~Jon and Sediment Co~trol Ordlnanc~ and noted
Ordinance would establish a civil fine of $100 for each
violation, u~ ~u a maximum of $3~0O0, could be {mpo~ed under %h~
civil penalty and =he proposed mmen~ents wou14 ~ke technical
~. George Beadles stated he felt items regarding e~osion and
$e4i~ent control should qenerally be r~anded to the Planning
Commission; that the County should become stricter than the
state in its minimumotandards for erosion and sediment control;
that he did not feel the existing civil penalties would be any
Bore successful than the currant criminal statutes; and he felt
Co~%~i~si0n, the County would rec~iv~ more citizen input on the
There being no one else to address this ordinance~ Phs public
hearing was closed.
On motion of Kr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
adopted the following ordinanoe:
AN ORDINANCE TO A/~END THE CODS OF THE COUNTY
AND REENACTING SECTIONS ?.2-1~ ?.2-2t 7.2-?r 7.2-~
7.2-10, 7.~14, BY REPEALING SECTI0~ 7.2-16, A~D BY E~ACTING
SECTION 7.2-16.1 RELATING TO EROSION /%ND S~DI~ENT CONTROL
BE IT ORDAINED Dy the Board of supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Chapter 7.2 of the coda of the County o~
~hes~D~ield~ 1978, asa mended, is amended and reenacted to read
as ~ollnws:
Sec~.2~ Dsfinltlons.
The following terms whenever used or referred to in this
chapter, mhall have the respective meanings set forth below,
unles~ the context clearly rsqulrss a contrary meaning or any
Chapter:
Conservation standards, criteria or specifications. The
crite~ia, ~uidelines, techniques and method~ for th~ control of
erosion and sedimentation, contained in the Virginia ~rs~ion and
Sediment Control Regulationm and in c~apter 3 of th~ current
edition of the virginia Erosion and sediment control Handbook.
I~ ca~ Where a conflict exist~ between the Virginia Erosion
and Sediment Control Regulations and the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control M&~dbook, the terms of the Regulations shall
take precedence over the terms of ~ha Handbook.
Comntv. The County oS ChesterSield.
Denuded. Land that ~as been physically disturbed and no
longer supporfs vegetative cover.
Development_ The development of a tract of land a= a
to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to
con~aln three cr more residential ~wellinq units.
Bormant. Denuded land that is not actively being brought
to a de~i~ed grade or ~ondition.
Full Occupancy Certificate. A £tnml, p~rmanent =ertlflc~t~
of oo~apanoy, as that tern is defined in t~e uniform Statewide
Building Code.
~D~d dlsturbln~ activity. Any land change which may result
in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement Q£ sediments
into waters or onto lands in the county or adjacent
jurisdictions, including, hut not l£mitsd to, ¢learing,
grubbing~ 9-~ading, excavating, transporting and filling of land,
and the installing of water, sewer, gas or all lines, drainage
pipes and storm sewe~, ~hless occurring on u hard surfaced
road, street or sidewalk; except, that the tmrm shall not
include:
(10) Emergency work to protect llf~, limb or property
and emergency repairs; provided, that if the
land disturbing activity would have required an
approved erosion and 6edi~ent co~t~ol ~lan if
the activity were not an emergency, the~ the
land area disturbed shall b~ shaped and
established in accordance with the rmquirement~
of the Virginia Erosion and gedi~eut Control
~andbook;
Land disturbmnce Dermlt. Document issued by the coua%y to
De,it a legal la~d disturbance. Its issuance signifies that an
a program administration fee has been paid, and proper
implementation or maln~enance of erosion and sediment control
provisions have occttrrsd, where applicable.
Ninimu~ Standard~. The minimum ~tandar0s for controlling
erosion and sediment from land disturbing activity found in
Section 1.5 cf the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Regulations.
o o o
Plan-auDrevino Authority. ~ne County of Chesterfield,
acting through it~ Direot0r of ~nvirenmental =ngineering or his
designe~s.
Po~t-DeveloDment. Conditions that may reasonably be
expected or anticipated to exist after completion o~ the land
development activity on = specific mite or tract of land.
Pre-Development. Conditions at the time the erosion and
sediment control plan is su~mlt%ed to ~he Dian-approving
authority. 9Fnere phased development or plan approval occurm~
(preliminary gradin~, roads and utilities, etc.)~ the existing
conditions at the time the erosion and ~edi~nt control plan fe~
the initial phase is submitted for approval mhall establish pre-
development conditions.
Sinai--family residence -- separately built. A non-
commercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family
and not part of a residential subdivision development.
Stabilized. An area that man he expected tu withstand
nornal exposure to atmospheric cond~tion~ without inducing
Sec. 7.2-2. Anprova~ far land disturbing activities.
Except as provided in section 7.2-6 and 7.2-7, it shall be
unlawful for any person to ~n~age in land disturbing activity
until:
(1) An application and erosion and sediment control plan
for such land ~isturbing activity, in a for~ approved
by the county and the ~ogram administration f~e
required by sect/on 7.2-9 have been submitted to the
environmental engineer;
(2) ~nat plan ha~ b~en r~viewed and approved by the
environmental engineer pursuant to section 7.2-1~$ and
(~) The land disturbance permit certifying such approval
has been issued in ~c¢ord~nce with this chapter and
displayed at the si=e.
It shall also be unlawful to engage in land disturbing activity
when there i~ a revoked or invalid la~d dist~r~anc~ p~rmit on
the project. At all ti~es any person engaging in land
di~t~rbing activity shall comply with the minimum standards.
coo
Se/~. 7.2-7. ~xemn~ien fe~ land disturbing activities invelvin~
~y pa~son whose land disturbing activities involve lands
~hich e~tend into the jurisdiction of anot~e~ local e~esion and
sediment control program and who choo~en to have a conservation
plan approved by the virginia Division of conservation and
the environmental engineer o~ such plan approval by the Virginia
Division of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation. The ~nvironmentat engineer shall accept
such=pproved plan as fulfillment Of the reqt~iremants of ~ectlon
7.Z-S and 7.2-9. Such approval notwithstanding, a land
disturbance permit must still be obtained from the county.
sec. 7.2-S. su~ission of plans.
(a} Any person who applies ~or appreval of an erosion and
~edimcnt control plan shall submit to the environmental engineer
two (2) copies 0£ ~uch plan accompanie~ by ~he program
a~mlnlstration ~ee~ identification of any Che~ape~e ~ay
Preservation Areas ~escrlbed in uha~ter 21 or chapter 21.1 and
in the Virginia ~roeion en~ sediment centre5 Regulations sn~ the
virqini& Eresioh a~d Sedi~sht Control Handbook.
(b) All plans, prior to land disturbance permit issued by
the environmental engineer, shall conform to the standards,
specifications und crit~ia of the Virginia ~rosion and Sediment
Control Handbook. In cases where a conflict exists between the
Virginia E:osien and Sediment Control Regulations and the
Virginia Erosion and sediment Control Ha~dbook, the tei~$ Of the
Regulations shall take precedence over the terms of the
Handbook.
(c) The submission to the environmental engineer of an
erosion and eedim~n% control plan and program administration fee
shall connote a grentlng by the owner of th~ property the right
of entry sufficient to permit t~e environmental engineer er his
designated agent to enter upon property at all reasonable times
for the purpose of inspecting the property.
o o c
92-892 11/12/92
Sec. 7.2-10. Issuance'of, land d{sturbance permit.
(a} The environmental engineer shall i~ue a land
disturbam~e permit upo~ suk~issio~ of a properly completed land
disturbance permit application and if he datelines that:
o o o
(8) Where the applicant does not reside in virginia
or~ if the applioant is a partnership or
¢orporatiQn, has not appointed a Virginia
resident to accept service of process in
Virginia, that the applicant has appointed a
resident Virginia agent to accept process served
for %he purpose of enforclnq ~ha provisions of
this chapter.
(b) The envlronmental engineer ~hall act en all plans
submitted to him within forty-five (45) days from receipt
thereof by either approving such plan in writing or by
~isapprovsl. When a plan submi==ed for approval is determined
to be inadequate, the environmental engineer or his designated
representative shall specify such ts~T~8 a~d conditions necessary
to bring such plan into compliance with the Virginia ~OmiOB a~d
o o o
(e) Elmctrio and telephone utility companies and railroad
companies ~hall file general erosion and sediment control
~pecificati0ns annually with the Virginia Division of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of soil and water
Conservation for review and written comments. The
sps~ifleetlons ~ha11 apply ~o:
1. Con.traction, installation and maintenance of
electrO.al and telephone utility line~; and
2. Ccnstr~etion of the tracks, rights of way,
bridges communication facilities and other
related structures and facilities O~ the
railroad company.
The Virginia Division of Conservation and Recreation! Division
of Sell and Water Conservation shall have sixty days in which to
cc~ment. Individual approval of separate projects within
paragraph~ i and ~ of thi~ cub~eeti0n is not necessary when
approved specifications are followed. Pre~ects not included
within paragraphs i and 2 of this ~ubsection shall comply wit~
the requirements of thi~ chapter. ~e Virginia Division of
Conservation and Keeroation, Division of soil an~ Water
Conservation shall have the authority to enforce approved
~pscifioatiens.
o o o
See. 7.2-14 Inepectlons; notice of deficiencies.
o o o
(b) If it is determined that there is a failure to comply
wi~h the previsions cf the issued land disturbance per, it, the
environmental engineer shall serve n0tioe to comply upon the
lend disturbance ~ermlt holder by either:
(1} Delivery of %he notlc~ by hand; Or
(~) Delivery by registered or eertifie~ mail, at
~ddress specified by him in the land disturbance
p~rmit Or by delivery at the sits of the
92-~93 11/12/92
.............. ]:!L .L ...... J .i.I .... I. I I ,
permitted activities to the agent, contractor or
activities.
permit. Such notice shall set forth the section cf this chapter
violated and the measures needed for compliance, such notice
shall further specify the time within which such measurers shall
t~me specified wlth~n the motley, th~ 1and disturbance permit
shall be revoked amd he will be subject to the penalties
chapter,
9sc. 7.2-16.~. Penalty ~or violation of chapter.
(a) Any violation of the ~rovision of this chapter shall
~ d~emed an infraction and ~hall be punishable by a civil
penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
(b) Each day during which any violation of the provisions
of th~s chapter is found to hav~ e~i~ted ~halI con~titut~ a
separate offense. ~owsver, in mc ~vont shall any such violation
frequently than once in any t~n-day period, nor shall a series
of ~uch vio~ation~ ar~ing ~ro~ th~
result in civil penalties which exceed a total of three thousand
dollars
(c) The environmental engineer may apply to th= Circuit
Courn of Chesterfield County to enjoin a violation or a
threatened violation of this chapter, withou~ the necessity of
(d) In addition to any other penalties provided under this
may be liable to the county in a civil action for d~ages.
(e} With the con~ent of any person who hah violated or
failed~ neglected or refused tn obey any condition of a permit
issued pursuant tot his chapter, the environmental engineer may
provide, in ac order issued by the environmental engineer
against ~uch person, for the payment of civil charges in
each violation. Such civil charges shall be instes~ of any
appropriate civil psnal~y which could ~o i~po~od under
subsection (a) of this section.
If) Upon reque=t of the envlronmental engineer, the
the provisions of Chapter ~, Artlclu ~ of Titl~ 10.1 of tho Code
of Virginia, 1950t as amended. Upon request of the Virginia
Division of Conservation and R~crea~icn, Division of soil and
l~gal action o~ behalf to th~ ~oard to enforce the provisions of
Chapter 5~ Article ~ of Title ~0.1 of the Code of Virginia,
(g) Ccmpllan~c with the provisions of this chspter shall
be prima facle evidence in any leqal or equitable proceeding for
of law have been met and the o~mplaining party mu~t shew
(2) Thi~ ordinance ~hall become effective i~ediatel¥ Upon
adoption.
Vo:e: Unanimous
Tim~: 7:40
TO CON~IDE~ AN ORDZ~ANCE TO AH~D ~E ~ODB OF THE
NEW SBCTZON 2-49.Z RE~A~N~ TO PRQBUR,gM~T_OF G0~D~ .AND
Mr. Micam stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to p~ocurement
of goods and services. He further stated during the 1992
cession, the General Assembly passed legislation to enable
localities to adopt ordinances which would require purchasing
officials to certify annually that they have complied with local
purchasing ordinances and tho ~irginia Fubli~ Procurement Act.
Me noted it i~ anticipated all empleyee~ anthorized to sign
purchase r~qui~itions would be required t~ sign the annual
NO o~e came forward to ~pe~k in favor of or against the
ordinance.
O~ motion o£ F~T. ~eHal~, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND T~E COD~ OP TK~ COU~T?
F CB F EL , 197E~ AS AMENDED~ BY ADDIN~
~ ~W SECTIO~ ~--49,~ R~LATING TO
PROCUR~ENT OF GOODS AMD SERVICE~
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) ThaU Article VI~I of ChaRter 2 of the Code o~ the
County of Chesterfield~ 1978~ as amended, is amended and
reenacted by adding a new section 2-49.1 ~u read as follows:
Sec. 2-49.1. Certification of comoliance.
All employees as designated by the County Administrator
having official respon~ibillty for procurement transactions in
w~ic~ t/toy participated shall certify annually that they
complied with the provisions of thio article and the Virginia
Public Procurement Act.
o a o
(2) This ordinance ~hall become effective ~mediately upon
adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
Tima: 7:41 p.m.
14.E. ~0 C0~D~R LE~NG COUNTY OWI~ED ~E~J~ EETATE, LO~ATED
ON BEAVER BRID~E RO~D ~DJACENT TO ~K ~R~N~B
~CHOOL ANI~EX0 TO ~E~IC~ T~S. IN~. FOR CONSTRUCTION
~D OP~TTON OF A TELECO~UNtC~TION8
~. Micas stated ~is date and ti~ had been advertised for
p~lic hearing ~o consider leasln~ Co~ty o~e~ real e~tate for
construction and operation of a teleco~unications tower.
~ther stated staff has been negotiating with~erioan Towers,
Inc. for the pu~ose of const~ctlmg a teleco~un~cat~ong tower
in ~e wemtern pert of the County in an effort to improve the
County'~ co~unlcat~on network for public safety entitie~
11/12/92
as police and fire. He noted the proposed talecommunisa:icns
tower would be located at fha ~rangs Wall School Annex cn Beaver
Bridge Road; would be constructed at the expense of American
Towers, Inc.; would provide fred lease spaoo of the tower to the
County facility; that the lease would be for a term of three
years and would be renewable for a ter~ up to thirty years and
if American Towers, Inc. chose not to renew the lease, the
County would have the option to purchase the tower site; and
would save the County approximately $200,000.
to the County if the tower was purchased; the usable life of the
tower; and the availability of use for other County
communication agencies beyond public safety.
Mr. George Beadles stated he felt the Csunty should ostablish a
tower poli~y and expressed concern~ relative to the ~ubstantial
accord det~rmlmatlon and indicated he felt the loess should net
be considered by the Board until after substantial accord
det~inatien.
There being no one else to address this issue, the public
hearing wa~ closed,
On motio~ of ~r. colbort, seconded by Mr. ~cHale, the Board
with American Towers, Inc. for construction and operation of a
telecommunications tower located on Bsaver Bridqe Road adjacent
to the Grange ~a!l School ~nnex. {It is noto~ a copy cf =he
Lease Agreement is filed with the papers of t~i~ Board.)
vote: Unanimous
Time: 7:48 p.m.
T~E G~NEIIAL A~S~KBLY T~T L~ITICU~
~_~ATION~ INC. BE E~EKPT~D FROM REAL ESTATE ~D
~. ~icas ~tated this date and time had been advertised for a
publi~ hearing =o consider a~option of a resolution reco~ending
to the General Ass=~ly~ut L=viti~us Proj~=t Association, Inc.
~exempted ~rom real es~a~e and personal prop~r~y ~axa~ion. He
f~tker ~tated under ~e Virginia Constitution, non-profit
personal property taxation must obtain th~ ex~ption fr~ the
corporation~at wa~ %ztabliz~ed to investigate and a~i~t Stat~
He noted co~in~d lost tax r~venue at comment ~ates would be
~. Dick Johnston, Director of Leviticus Project Association,
~tated ~ey a=ea fuderully funded project ~nd currently have
o~ganizations in gen~al receiving ~emptions Ero~ paying taxes.
~e~ asked, Chief Pit,an stated he felt the County was
of the projected loss of revenue to the County.
There being no one else to address this issue, the public
hearing was
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by ~. McHale, the Board
adopted ~e following r~solution:
92-S96 11/1~/92
~StEREAS, Leviticus Project Association, Inc. ("Leviticus")
is a non-profit organization organized to assiet state and local
law enforcement ageno%es ~nthe investigation andprosucution cf
criminal fraud; and
~ER~A$, Leviticus o~ns personal property located in
chesterfield ceunty~ Virginia; and
~EREAS, the real and personal property u~ed exclusively
fur charit=bla aad bunuvulun~ ~u~om=s by u
orga~ization ~hall ~e exempt fro~ taxation as au~orized by
~cle X, Smc%~on 6(a)(6) o~ ~e Constitution of Virg~nla, upon
action by the General ~sembly of Virginia and so long as such
organization ~s opera,ed not for profit and =he property
exempt is used in accordance with ~e p~pose for which the
organization i~ classified; and
~EREAS, tke Board of S~pervisorm of Chesterfield County,
Virginia has considere~ the following factors bafor~ the
adoption of this resolution:
1. Leviticus i~ exemp~ from federal income
pursuant to ~ctio~ ~0~(c) of the Intern~ Rev~n~e Co~e of 19S6.
s=~ing alCoholiC beverages has been immued by th~ Virginia
organization'm property.
5. Ko director or officer of Levlt~cu~ i~ paid any
~alari~ are approved by both th~ ~viticu~ Boar~ of
4. No part of ~e net earnings of Levitiou~ inures to the
ben,fit of any individual. All of the revenue received
public.
6. ~o ~art of ~ activities of Leviticus involves
carrying on propaqanda or othe~ise attemptinq to influ~ce
legislation. Leviticus does not participate in, or
in, uny political campai~ on behalf of any candidat~ for p~lic
7. L~vi~icus has no rule, r~lation, Dollcy or
whi~ discriminates on ~e basis of religious conviction, race,
color, sex or national origin.
TH~EFORE, be it ~esolved by the Board of Supervlsor~ of
Chesterfield County as
1. That thi~ Board su~ports~ rmquest of Leviticus for
e~emption from taxatisn of its real and personal prop~y
pursuant =o ~tiole X, Section 6(a)(6) of =he Constitution
Co~e of Virginia and the provisions of Chapter 36 of Title
of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, a~ amended, and that ~u~h
2. That ~he County Administrator i$ directed to
General Assembly representing ~ County 0f Ch~rfiel~ with
th~ r~e~t that ~e proper legislation be intr~uced in the
General Assembly to aohieve the Du~ose~ of this resolution.
92-89?
5. That this resolution shall b~ ef£ectiva immediately
upon adoption.
uote: Unanimou~
Time: 7:54
%4.,~.,...,TO CO~S!DER ~ RESOL~YTTONA/~D ORDER TO ~B/%NDON ~ EORTIO~
Hr. Daniel stated staff has received a written re~uest
requesting withdrawal of ~he public hearing and inquired if
anyone pre~ent objected to withdrawing a public hearing to
oon~ider a resolution and order to abandon a ~crtion of Fort
Darling Road, Route 1693.
It was noted no one ca~e forward %o speak in favor of or against
this issue,
On motion of 15r. Barber, seconded by ~Lr. MoHale, the Board
wit3d~ew the public hearing to consider a resolution and O~der
:o abandon a portion of Fort Darling Road, Route 1693.
Vote: Unanimous
Time: 7:55 p.~.
TO OON~IDER THE ~ONVEY~NCE OF LOT lSr BLOCK ~r ~RI~HT
CAKE E~TATES, ~ECTION 1, TO MR. D~VID P. JAdE~ON,
B~COE$$OB I~ TITLE. TO BRIGHT CAKE ¢OEPORATIO~
F~. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to
Bright Oaks Estetes~ Section I, to
deed stipulated if the County di~continu=d u~e of th= w¢11 and
removes all of the improvemmnts ~mrefrom, that the 9roperty
could be reconveyed to the grantor or its successor in title.
No o~e Cam~ forward to speak in favor of or against thi~ issue.
On motion of ~. Colbert, ~conded by ~. Warren, the Roard
au~orized the ~airman of %he Board and ~e County
A~ini~trator tO ex~te ~ ~itclaim ~d to =unsay Lot 16,
Block B~ Bright Oak~ E~tate~, Section 1,
~u~ces~or in title, to bright oaks Corporation, a Virginia
Co,ora=ion. (It ~ no~ a copy of the pl~t i~ filed ~i~ the
pap~r~ of this Board.)
Time: 7:55
Mr. stith stated this date and time had been advertised for a
l~lblio hearing ~o consider an ordinance to vacate an eight foot
easement within Brighton Sreen Subdivision, Section v, He
f~rther stated ~orm~n and ~arilyn Pohlig have submitted an
application requesting the vacation of the easement and staff
recommended approval of the request.
ordinance.
on motio~ Of H~. Ba~be~, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
adopted the following ordinance~
AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIR~I~IA~
("G~TOR") vacates to NOR.'v,3~ POHLIG and MA~ILYlq POHLIG,
(husband and wife) ("GIRA~TEE"), an 8' easement across Lot ~9,
Block Z, Brighton Green su~ivislon, section ~, ~idl~ian
Magisterial Distriot, chesterfield County, Virginiu, us shc~on
a plat thereof duly r~or~ed in the Clerk's 0~i~
Circuit Cou~ of Chesterfield Co~ty i~ Plat ~ook 16, Page 9~.
~9, No,an and Marilyn Pohlig, petltlon~d the Beard
of Eupervisors of Chesterfial4 County, Vlr~inia ~o vacat~ an 8'
easement in Brighton Gr~n Su~ivi~io~, Section 9, Midlothian
Ma~i~urial Di~%ric~, chesterfield County, Vlrg~nia mere
particularly shc~ on a plaf of record in %h~ Clerk's Office of
~e Circuit Cour~ of said County in Plat Book 16~ Page 91, ~ated
Kov~b~r 11~ 19~, made by U. K. Tigons ~ Associates.
eas~en~ petitioned to be vacated i~ more fully described as
follow~:
Su~vimion, Section 9, Midlothian Di~trict, Chesterfield,
Virginia, as sho~ on a plaf thereof by Gee ~. ~t~ph~ng,
dat~ Augus~ 27, 1969, a cepy of which is attached herete and
nade a part of this Ordinance.
of the code of Vircinia, 1950, as amended, by ud~tising; and,
~S, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
NOW ~SR=FOR~, ~ IT O~AINED BY TNE BO~D OF S~VISO~
OF ~EST~FIELD CO~TY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section ~.1-48~(b] Of the Code of
vi~in~a, 1950, as amended, th~ af~r~ai~ eas~ent ~ and is
This Ordinance shal~ be in full for=e and effect in
accordano= with section 15.1-482(D) of the Cede of Virginia,
1950, as maended, and a certified cody of this Ordinance,
togather with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
~ooner ~an thirty day~ hereafter in th= cl~rk's offioe of the
Circuit Court of ~e~terf~eld County, Virginia p~suant
The effeu= of this ordinance p~suant ~o S~u%ion
i~ to destroy the force and effect of the recording of ~e
portion of the pla= vacated. This Ordi~a~c~ ~hall ve~= fee
~i~ple title of the easement hereby vacated in the prope~y
free and clear of uny rightm of public use.
A~co~dingly, thi~ O~dinance shall be indexed in the names
of ~e County of chesterfield as grantor and No~an Pohliq and
Marilyn Pohlig, (husband and wife), or their
title~ as 9rantees.
Vote: Unanimous
Tim~; 7:~6
14.J. TO CON~IDER ~_~ALE OF THE WELL LOT IN LUNSWOOD
~UBD~VI~ION TO b~V~b ~. CRI$?
Mr. 8%ith ~tated this date and time had been advertised ~sr a
publi~ hea~inq to ~e~ide~ the sale of fhe well lot in Lunmwood
Subdivision to David J. Crist. He further s=a~ed this parcel
was ConVeyed to the County by deed recorded February 8, 1967
£r0m Jame~ C. and Wavel Juanita Lunsford and the Asseseor's
office has reviewed the offer of $1,000 and feel~ it represents
market value.
NO one Came forward to speak in favor of or against this issue.
On motion of F~r. McHale, sesonded by ~Ir. Colbert, the ~oard
approved the sale of the well let in LunSWood Subdivision to
David J. crier, in the amount of $1,000, end authorized the
Chairman of the Board and the County A~ini~trator to sign the
deed upon approval by the County Attorney. (It is noted a copy
of the vicinity ~k~tch is filed with the papers Of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimo~
Tim~: 7:57 p.m.
,19..K.._..~O, CONSIDER PROPOSED W~TERSNED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
~OR ~WIFT CREEK R~SERVOiHf LAKE CHEEDIN ~ND FALLING
as. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for a
p~bli~ hearing to Consider proposed watershed management
strategies for swif~ creek Reservoir, Lake C~esdin an~ Falling
Creek Reservoir. He then introduced Mrs. Joam Salvati~
Environmental Coordinate=.
Mrs. Salvati stated an Uuly 30, 1992, the Planning Commlaslcn
adopted a document entitled, "R~do~e~ded Water Q~ality Geal~
and Strategies for Lake Chssdin, Falling Creek and Swift Creek
Rese~voir~" a~d t~e doCUment established water quality goals fur
each o~ the water bodies and ree0mmended a~rategie$ to ~ee~
goals. She further ~tated the goals and ~tratuqie~ w~re ba~d
on the Commission's assessment of existing amd potential water
q~lity problems in the r~servoirs and the sour¢~s of the
problems. She ~evlewed the proeem~ in developing the document
including input received from various groups and individuals;
t~e County's development of the NPDES Part II Storm Water
Application which includes the recommendation for the
development of a County-wide management program aimed at the
overall reduction of pollutants in the county's storm sewer
syete~; a~d the Environmental Protection A~=ncy's office of
wetlands, oceans and Watersheds =aeommcnded approach
watcr~hcd program~. She stated the proposed document was the
first ~tep £or i~ple~e~a=ie~ 0z ~/~¢ watershed projeo~ and the
goals and strategies contained therein identify overall water
quality goals for each reservoir, enumerate technical
requiring further analysis and offer reco~ended strategies
alme~ at reducing non-peinZ source pollution and does net call
for the establi=hment of new ordinan~e~ or standar~ b~
eetabli~he~ a framework within w~ich a watershed team or
program. She then reviewed the goals and strategies for the
three re=ervoir~ and surrounding watersheds a~d sta~e4 staff was
recommending adoption of the document entitled, "water Quality
Goals and Strategie~ for Lake Che~din, F~lling Cr~k, and Swift
Cree~ Reservoirs,,; establishment of a watershed project team er
task force working under the guidance cf a County staff person
follow up on the management strat~gles requiring action and work
with the watershed management team or co~i=tee~ a~d for
authorization to appropriate approximately $10,000 to initiate
a watershed analys~ for the water~hed surrounding ~alling Creek
Reservoir. When asked, ~he ~tated the propo~d team;ta~k fores
would he a new c=m~ittee ba~ed on ~gge~ted criteria and further
clarified that the document does not recommend a density cap
specific changes to t~e current phosphorous l~m~t.
M~. M~rk Anderson stated he wa~ a resident of the County and
Director of the C~e$~erfield Reglcnal Envircnmeetal Leagus; that
the Leap~/e endorsed the proposal of the Planning Commission and
~taff; that they did hot feel a formal ~ommlt%ee needed to be
established at thls time and recommended the formation of a
study group comprised of an open membership charged with the
assimilation and analysis of data as ~ bacome~ ~vailable.
projection of £uture 'County rec/~irements to comply with
alternatives; that they felt teehnloal ex~ertlse could be
provided by looal~ state and federal &genci=s and others; that
the committee should work ¢losely with %he Planning Commission
and staff and present their recommendutions within one year and
then a decision could he ~ada as tc who%her a formal committee
wa~ needed; that they felt the allocation proposed for
monitoring the Falling creek Rose.volt should ba deferred and
for the committee to review the Falling Creek watershed
manitaring prapTam; that they also felt a technical
mnvironmental library should be established by the County, using
up to $2,000 in allocated money and Dy soliciting donations, for
te~hniaal books, journals, government publications and
Deriodicals/ etc, to be located at the Central Library in an
effort to provide accessibility and benefits to staff,
deYel0pe~s, interested persons and citizens.
Mr. Tom Pakurar stated ha has resided in the C0~ty for
approximately twenty year~ add is employed by ~. I. Dupent
DeNamonrs & Company as a me~ber of their senior t~chnical
professional staff; that he wac representing Hands Across tho
Lake; that they were concerned ubout the future water quality of
the County; that they supported adoption of the recommended
quality an~, e~e¢isieally, as it related to reactiva pho~phorouo
and overland i~noff and algae in the re~ervo~r~ creating bad
tastes and odors and ~tated they did not feel the present Upper
Swift Creek Plan provided adequate protection; that they had met
with representatives from the Upper Swift CraekPrmperty
recommendations and souls for each of the r~sarvoi~s and ap~ed
tO the four re¢o~endatiene and goals and fifteen of the
nineteen strategies; that they agreed tm the principale behind
the strategies that were u~ed for preparation of the document
but disagreed o~ the exact wording stated in the document as it
related to the Camp, Dresser and ~c~eu study on swi~ Creek
Reservoir, the phosphorous run-off mo-efficient, the timing or
~ee~ to msdi£y the Upper awift Creek Plan and the program to
cheek the performance of the sediment basins. He then reviewed
the recommended water quality goals and strategies for the
Mr. Daniel excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Pakurur continued to review the recommended water guelity
Scale and s%ra~egies for th~ reservoirs end stated ~hay apTee
with the reco~endations submitted by staff and for guld~ng the
watershed management commlttae aaaordingly to the princlpalm
presented and the committee ~hould be composed of me~bers £rom
~ha Profassianal Advisory Group and other ex~erts as reco~nded
by County ~taff and for the Board to eeDsider an interim
eolution to continua development within the watershed
the County's goals until the Master Plan is updated.
Mr. Philip ~al~ey, Chairman of the Upper ~wift Creek Property
from ~an~ Across the Lake and have reached an
regarding water quality in the Swift creek Reservoir although
t-hey disagree over guaranteeing that water quality in the
future; that they ~upport ~he proposal by staff with
ex~eption of the concept of a watershed management committee as
they felt ~embers should be fro~the Professional Advisor~Group
and reviewed membership of the gruup~ and ~ha~ they disagreed
with the strategies recbmmended in the Upper Swift Creek Basin
as they felt %he $~ra~sgies shoul~ ~e ancsmpaseed in anoverall
general, strategy. ~e submitted into the record a copy of hi~
comnents.
Mr. ~ob Has, ins stated hm owned property located in the Swift
Cre~k~water~he~; that h~ was in ~gree~ent with the com~ent~
expressed by ~. Halsey; that the objective should bm to
maintain the quality of water in the swift Creek Reservoir and
reviewed available options to dentrol the growth of algae in the
reservoir, ~e e~pressed concerns relative to low levels of
water in the reservoir accelerating the growth of algae and
methods in which to stabilize the water levels.
Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting.
~r. Haskins continued =o review ~et~od~ to e~pand m0nitering the
water quality in the reservoir and provld]ng a data base in
order to adequately determine any ~uture degradation in the
reservoir and stand--ds of the Chesapeake Bay Act and providing
sufficient data from an intensive monitoring program to make
determinatlon~ relative to th~ need for further restrictions.
Dr. Mary Kramer ~tat~d ~h~ wa~ a resident of the County and wa~
a retired phyeiclst with approximately twenty-five year~ cf
e~periencs in research and college teaching; that for the past
two and half yearm, ~Re ~as Dean studying the Swift Creek
Reservoir and submitted ~nto the r~cord a copy of her
bibliography, she stated water quality wa~ a very complex
subject in a highly developed technology.
It was generally agreed ~o recess for five minutes.
Reconvening:
that reservoir management was a well developed branch of
engineering; that sit parties should discuss the issues in open
meetings and ~he f~lt th~ ~lanning Commission an4 staff had
produced an excellent guide for maintaining wate~ quality in the
r~e~voirs; tha~ the pro~osal not only provided expert
assistance b~t called for broad ~ep~e~entaticn and d~fined the
issues clearly and comprehensively; and reviewed the reasons she
felt the Swift creek Reservoir was vulnerable to degradation of
water quality; methods in which to develop standards to protect
the water quality; and comparison of t~e re~erv0ir to Falling
Creek. She then reviewed o~tlons for preserving the water
quality of th~ r~eervoir and the in-lake phosphorous
concuntratiun and ~tated she felt under the current ordinance,
swift Cre~k Reservoir would experience degradation of water
adopting the recommendations from staff.
Mr. Alan Campd~n, r~pr~enting the Board of Directors of the
Wou~la~e Community Asseeiat~on~ ~tated he wa~ a member cf the
Professional Advisory Group; that the Woodlake Board ha~ the
responsibility of preserving, prete0~ing and enhancing property
values of the owners in the Upper Swift Creek ~atershed; that
swift Creek Reservoir undei'w~item property values of all
residents in Woodlake; that they felt local governments in
general an~ +_he County should enforce technical etandard~ for
development and adoption of the proposal would b~ the first ~tep
in such a process; that they were concerned a~ to the wording,cf
the teChnical input for the recommended watershe~ management
committee and felt it was essential that the ~ntegrlty of the
technical input be preserved~ an~ requested the Board ~o take
action to keep future development from opting o~t or being
grandfa=hered from =ompllan=m from any changes that may
eventually bo ~ade to t~e Upper Swift Creek Plan and ordinance.
~s. Carolyn Powers, representing the Chesterfield Regional
Environmental League, ~tated they felt por£ormanc~ goals and
water~hed plaRning should be clearly defined to determine the
best ~anagement practlce~ to ~e used in th~ planning process;
that the larger the watershed~ the more difficult it wa~ to
92-902 11/12/92
considered relative to development intensity, stormwater
retsntlon, wetlands,', open space, etc. and. considers%ion of
downstream variances a~d plans being modified to add~ess these
needs; reviewed evaluating =he watershed a~ an environmental
e~tity as compared to the proposed goal~ baaed on local and
regional values and p01ieies; reviewed meeting and acBieving the
level of performance standards; planning for new development and
determine whether specific measures or strategies were needed;
reviewed developing the performance concept and a~suming more
stringent controls for development within the watershed; and
reviewed the role of their citizen group and programs.
F~r. George Beadles expressed concern relative to residential
rezoning in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed as it relat~d to th~
submission of pro~ered co~ditions and the quality of water and
stated he did not feel the establishment of a watershed
management committee would be beneficial at this time; that
study group would better address the issues and could consis= of
any interested ~roup or i~dividuals and after meeting for a one
year period the ~oard could then take under consideration, the
formal appointment of such a committee; that a memorandum of
and the Soil and Water Conservation District and there who
cos~rel %he ~a~erehed in ~owhaten county in an effort to ~nsure
each hav~ the same erosion and sediment control polic~;
e~pre~ed concerns regarding the Lake Chesdin watershed. He
stated he supported the recommendation to direct County staff to
fellow-up on the proposed strategies requiring action and to
work with the watershed committee; that he was concerned a~ to
the definition of the watershed analysis relative to monitoring
and experiencing problems from s~ptic tanks that are
malfunctioning or leaking sewer lines and f=lt underground
Storage tank~ for hcme~ ~hould be prohibited.
Fir. Ashby Stinson stated he was a proper~y owner in the Upper
Swift Cree~ Basin and his family owns approximately 35~ acres on
the reservoir; tha~ he supported the drawdswn sf the reservoir'
as he felt it had a major impact on pollution in the reservoir;
and that he supported tho expanded monitoring system for the
reservoir as he felt it would benefit maintaining the water
quality at its present level.
Ha. ~ambl ~arnett, representing the Homm~uildera Aeeeciatien of
Richmond, stated she was involved in working with the property
owners! associations within tha up~sr swift Creek Basin and they
were in favor cf the proposal presentsd by~r. Philip ~alsey and
reZerred =oa n~wspaper ar=icle regarding the County's water
quality standards and the excellent effort~ of the Utilities
DeDartmen~ in ensurin~ the quality of water amd e~pree~ed
appreciation to County~taff for working with the various groups
and individuals involved in this process.
M~. Bill ~astlng~ stated he was a resident of the County; that
he felt the water guali=y cf Lake Chesdin as a water
should be protected as it was an important resource and woutdDe
significant in the future and expressed aDpreciatien to those
involved in developing the proposal to endure th~ quality of
water within the. County,
There being no one else to address this i~sue, the public
hearing was olo~ed.
Kr. Warren expressed appreciation to all for their input into
the process and stated he felt the Planning Ce~mis~io~ had
an excellent job in addressing a very complex i~=ue and
recommends=ions submitted would provide a working environment to
develop comprehensive performans~ ~ta~dard~. ~e further stated
he was 'in agreement with addressing the idea of establishing a
technical database at 0n~ of the branch libraries in an effort
to provide access to information for interested students and
citizens. ~s stated he felt the present drawdawn affects swift
Creek Reservoir and should be reevaluated to determine if it is
92-905
contributing to the problem and that he felt the proposed
oo~mittee should be comprised of members ~ith analytical and
technical expertise.
Discussion, co. ants and questions ensued relative te whether
Hands Across the Lake and the L~pe~ Swift Creek Property owners
Asseclation were in a~reement with each other; the ownership of
the land under Swift creek Reservoir and the terms in which the
land would revert to the property owners; and how the
Prefessional Advisory Group had originally evolved.
~dr. Barber indicated he felt whether or not the ~rofesslonal
Advisory Group remained in tact or another committee was
established would be an issue at so~ point in time and stated
he felt the reccmmendatlons would be the first ~tep in the
process of developing ~tandard~ far water quali~y.
~dr. Daniel stated he has followed development ~urrounding Swift
creek Reservoir for several years a~d wa~ sati~fie~ with the
proposed resommendations in addressing water ~uality
for tbs county aud exprem~ed appreciation to all i~volved for
their input into the Dresses. He further stated he felt the
recommendations were for well established goals and would be
basis for establishing develspmsn~ far the futura.
~Lr. Warren made a motien, seconded by Mr. MuHale, for the Beard
to adopt a document, entitled "Water Quality Goals and
Strategies ~or Lakm Chssdin, Falling Creek and swift Creek
Reser¥oirs'~, as amended; to authorize the establishment of a
Watershed ~anagemsnt Committee w~th analytical, technical
e~pertise to further refine the ~trategle~ and develop specific
implementation items which will work under the ~idance of
Connty staff, have sufficient technical and general input from
appropriate agencies and be made up of t~e following entities --
interested civic organizations, the development co~umity~ an
envlron~ental organization and a citizen at-large from each
affected watershed; to direct staff to fellow-up on those
proposed strategle~ requiring action and to work with the
watsr~hed cemmittee; to autherize the appropriation of an amount
not to exceed $18,008 for a watershed analy~i~ for Falling Creek
Watershed and Reservoir to be appropriated from the Water
Capital Account fro~ t~ Utilities Department; to authorize the
emtabllshment of a technical database library resource; to
direst staff to evaluate, as a strategy, the present drawdcwn
standards for Swif~ Creek Rsssrvoir and recommend appropriate
new standards; and for a statement of principles to be added to
the prepsse~ strategies, as presented in the deeuments submitted
b~ ~a~d~ Across ~he Lake, and referred to as "Principles for
Manag~men% Committee" to be incorporated into the next ~hass Of
the study.
Mr. MeHale inquired as to whether the statement of principles
regarding the watershed management ~s~itte~ ~ p~e~e~t6d by
~ands Across the Lake were the sa~e prlnclple~ pr~nted by the
Upper Swlf~ Creek Property Owners Association. Mr. Warren
clarified the principles w~re the same and was a joiut document,
Mr. Barber clarified the proposed change i~ the
"Race.ended Water Quality Goals and Strategies for Lake
Chesdin, Falling Creek and Swift C~eek Reservoirs" r~gar~ing
including as a goal and stratsgls objective of the w~tershsd
manag~ent plan for Swift Creek Reservoir, reoo~e~dations by
Camp Dresser and MoKee in their 1990 study er modlflsd verslen
of tho~e twelve recommendations ~d inquired whether ether
studies Would be excluded. Mr. Warren stated it was not
intmntion to exclude any other studie~ which have been
conducted.
After brief discussion, Mr. Daniel called for the vote on the
motion made by,dr. Warren, ~e¢o~dedby~r. MeHale, far the Beard
to adopt a dooument~ entitled "water Quality ~oal~
Strategies for Lak~ Chesdin, Falling Creek and swift Cre~k
Ressi-voirs", as a~e~ded; to authorize the establistk~nt of a
Watershed Management Committee wit/% analytical, technical
expertise to further refine the strategies and develop specific
implementation items which will work under the guidance of
COWry staff, have sufficient technical and general input from
appropriate agenei~and b~ade up of the £ollowing entities --
interested civic organizations, the development s~mmunity, an
environmental organization and a citizen at-large from sach
affected watershed; to direct staff to follow-up on those
proposed strategies requiring action and to work with the
waterohed co~mittee; to a~thoriue thc appropriation of an amount
· sot to.exceed$10,OO0 for a watershed analysis for Palling Creek
Wat=rsk~d and Reservoirs to be appropriated from the Water
Capital ~¢couat of the Utilities Dspartment; to authorize the
establishment of a technical database library resource; to
dirsc% staff to evaluate, as a strategy, the present drawdown
standards for Swift Creek Reservoir and teen--end appropriate
new standards; and for a statement of prin=iple~ to be added to
by ~nd~ Acro~ the L~ke, and referred to as "Principles for
Management Co~ittee" to be incorporated into the ne~phaseof
Vote: Unanimous
S~ategies for L~a Che~din, Falling Creek and swift Creek
~es~rvoirs" are filed with ~e papers of this Board.}
14.~. TO CON~IDER TN~ DTR~T~0N OF T~E COUMTY:9 8CLIP
public hearing to consider ~he direction of the County's Solid
on Catcher 14, 199~, ~taff pre~e~tcd the ~oard with infoz~atlon
on funding mechanisms for solid waste programs and an analysis
of these programs. ~e reviewed the integrated approach for
collection, disposal au~ recycling and stated soli~ waste was a
rsg~onal prnhl~. Rn then reviewed the attributes of solid
waste issues and aligning the services to meet citizen needs;
the cost factors of "who pays" for recycling programs,
realigning services; public versus private landfills and
repairing ~losed landfills; the option~ available such as
expanding the monthly collection program to keep up with demand;
sanitation crews for yard waste, bulky waste and/or recycling
collection; charging for the once per month collection service;
subscribers. He then reviewed the closed Chester, Fort Darling
and ~on Air Lsndfills and their associated costs. He stated
staff was recommending providing monthly bulky and yard waste
ocllestion; eliminating the monthly f=ee trash cotl~ctlon
progr~; e~anding ~e curb=ids recy=l~ng proqram to all m~ium
density home~; and funding repair of ~e olo~ed Bon Ai~
Landfill.
Discg~io~, come,ts a~ que~tion~ ensued relative to
designated area for medi~ and density homes; the definition of
bulky and yard waste; and the subs=ription and charge for
years-.ago, ~e School had e~tabli~hed a recycIing club; ~at
n~mbership to th~ club has recently increased and they have
very a=tiva in recycling although they have ~ifflculty
drivers to volunteer to take the recycled goods to a dropoff
center; that they would like %he County to consider working with
the ~ool to designate them as a curbside collection site;
1~!1:[ L J . :., I _ J I ,
that the Club fully supports the recycling efforts of the
Central virginia waste Management Authority and felt through
unified efforts, significant accomplishments could be made.
They expremaed appreciation to the Board for the opportunity to
address this issue.
~s. Arline Dunkin~ representing Hepewell United zethodiet
Church, stated her husband has been minister of the Church for
approximately nine years and the chLr~oh consisted of a
membership of 275 parishioners; that the Church had initiated a
recycling program t~roug~ a Girl Scout project and members have
been very active in their efforts with r~ycling; that they felt
the curhside recycling program should be offered on a County-
oonsideratlcn to expanding the program.
M~. D~ane ~emach ~tated ~he wa~ a ~eside~t of the Smoket~ee
S~bdivleion and represented the Smoketree Civic A~socla=ion;
t~at 8mo~etree has been very active in curbside recycling for
approxlmately one and one-half year~ and had been ~eleoted to
participate in the pilot program for recycling; that they had
surveyed 700 hem~s in Smoke~ree and had received over
responses to the survey; that she was also PTA President
Gordon ~lementary school an~ had partioipated in a recent
resycling program in which participation had been very good;
that Smoketree would like the curbei~e recycling program
continued and expanded on a County-wide ba~i~ and if the program
was ~iecontinued, than for the recyuling ssrviue to provide
neighborhood dropcff centers; and for the Schools to be included
in ~hs program. She ex,reamed appreciation to the Besr~ for the
opportunity to address this issue and for the County selecting
Smsketree Suhdivlelen as a participant in the pilot curbside
recycling program.
N~. Narle Trainha~ ~tated ~h~ was representing ~mall haulers in
the County; that they felt recycling was necessary ~n e~der to
that recycling was e~p~nmive and the hauler~ felt they would
lose revenue if required to recycle at the landfills; that they
felt the public should be educated on items that could be
recycled and the cost to recycle; that the county should
establish cost effective methcd~ to continue their
efforts and the responsibility of recycling should net be placed
on the hailing induetry~ and requested the Board to consider
eliminating the once per month free trash colleotlon service as
they felt it was unfair competition for the haulers and that
citizens should be responsible fer their share of disposing
solid waste.
M~. Joyc~ Moldovan stated she was a Science teacher at
F~nehester Middle Sc~hool; that thm ~ajority of trash
at the School wes recyclable and the School haE been provided
with a recycling bin~ that ~e ~o~ld like the pilot ourbeido
recycling program extended to the School~ and fult the County
=heuld promote purchasing recycled products; and requested the
Board to assist schools i~ reaching recycling goals within the
County.
Mr. Wayland Rennle~ representing the Board of Direct0r~ of the
Central Virginia Waste Managemsnt Authority, stated he has been
involved with recycling for approximately twenty years; that he
served £or nine years on the Richmond City Council, for
approximately ten year~ as Chairman of the Regional solid Waste
Task ~or~e and was the flr~t Chairman of the Cpntral Virginia
Waste Management A~thority; that solid w~ste was an
requiring a regional approach and ~olutlon; that the local
pla~ing district commissions have e~tabli~hed a plan to meet
State mandate~ for recycling; that the plan was responsive to
public ~emand for waste reduction and recycling; that the public
wa~ very ~upportive of the ouxb$ide recycling program an~ the
plan had been feasibly implemented; that the plan offered
economic approach for citi~un~ to discard their trash in the
11/12/92
County; that the plan recommended s regional yard waste
comporting program and reviewed the cost of such a program and
the plan. He further ota~ed the Authority reeo~ended to local
governments their continued participation in the current
recycling program for one more year and ~uring t-he yea~ they
would use the results of a market survey to modify the program
to deliver regional recycling p~ogramo designed to meet.public
demand and requested the Board to give favorable consideration
to the recycling program.
Mr. Vic Arthur.stated he was Chapter Manager for the Virginia
waste collection ouch as disposal, transportation, recycling
from small business =o national corporations which seek ts find
they felt there were merits to governnents in stoning equipment
or fa¢ilities an~ contracting with private companies to develop,
providing solid waste services of all tlrpes as private
eperation~ ce~t ~9 percent less than public; and reviewed house
joint resolution 85, recently passed during the 1992 session of
service authorities to explore t~e feasibility of utilizing the
outlay decisions and stated they would be ~leaae~ to aeelat the
County in evaluut~ng ~olid waste service options in disposal
facility design.
they have recycled waste padex since the 1570~s; that ~hey
they could offer advantages ~n terms of sost effectiveness; that
~he outcome cf ~hs pro~uo= depended on the quality of was=epape=
which ~s available to tdhe mill consuming; and requested the
Beard to consider local markets and quality in any program
adopted.
appointed tot/ua Recycling Committee; that he reit the recycling
certain ~t~te mandates; that he ~elt the County would ~ene~i= ~y
that the recycling program was beneficial to the cummunity and
ull should be involved in the solution; that he felt recycling
containers should be looate~ at prominent louatiens slm~lar to
t~e county to take a lea~eroh~ role on =he issue of recycling;
and expressed appreciation to the Board for the opportunity to
address ~his issue. ~s noted he felt the County should address
recycling on a "visibility level" and sugg~nted locating
recycling containers at Virginia Power on Route
Mr. Tom Hackman stated he was a resident of Woodla~e Subdivision
and has been in the recycling business for approximately fifteen
years and stated he felt the County should investigate all
avenues available to recycling.
program, such as addressing privatization e~forts, in as many
areas as feasible.
Ks. Theresa Simcnson stats~ she resi~ed in the Pheasant Run
Subdi?isiun and was a me~ber of the Homeowners Association; that
she was in favor of curbs{de recycl{ng and her family wee
actively involved in reoycling at the southern Area Landfill;
that she felt the County ~hould expand the c~rbsid~ recycling
program as more citizens would recycle if it wan oDnvenlent;
that she felt it was important for the County to plan for the
future and incorporate the recycling program in the upcoming
budget process versus the creation of additional landfills.
Mr. Horace L. ~±m~ ~tated he wa~ a member cf the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee and he felt the County needed to meet the
~tate mandates regarding recycling; that the county should
control trash flow within the County; and that he did not feel
~e County could expand the curbs{de recycling program Zrom the
current 12r000 homes to ~he projected 63,800 home~ am
Mr. Barber returned to neet{n~.
Mr. $i~ then expressed concerns relative to continuing
operation= at th~ North~rnArea and Southern Area Landfills and
stated he felt solid waste was n health {eeue and the collect{on
of ~olid waste should be provided to the citizens and paid for
Mr. Genres Beadlem ~tated he felt the private hauling industry
should consider providing a once per month trash collection
service; that the county should consider franchising recycling
on a County-wide basis; that the County should nut be involved
in the once a month trash collection ~erwice; f~af he felt after
the life of the ~crthcrn~trea Landfill was exhausted, the county
should remove itself f~o~ the landfill business; and expressed
concerns regardlng~he cost to maintain the closing of landfills
and i~dioated he did not feel the County should open the
$cuthern A~sa Landfill and that the County could franchise for
the pickup of recysled material.
Mr. otis ~atton stated he was e resident of the County; that he
felt the County should provide a trash piok-~p usrY{Ce a~ he
felt there were certain functlon~ beet hand,ed by government;
that he felt fondu sho~Id be budgeted for necessary services
such as t~rash collection; that he ~id no% want the once per
~onth trash collection sea~vlce offered by the County to be
eliminated; and requested the Board to continue the current
servioe.
Ms. Dona Link ntated ~he was an officer for the fir~ of Walter
C. Link, Incorporated and they mere under contract by the County
to operate the Northern Area Landfill; that she felt citizens
using the service, should pay the fee; that shR supports the
privatization of waste collection within the County; that the
oncu per month trash collection service was not suffieien= for
the majority of homes being sel~vieed; that aha fult the County
nho~l~ discontinue the leaf collection 9rogra~ due i~s
that the County should consider closing the Winterpock Transfer
Station as it serves only a very few residents; t~at t~e county
should cenBider looking at the questionable benefits they are
reaping from the current surbsids recycling program;
and meeting the State mandates; and stated she fe~t solid waste
ohould pay for itself.
There being no one el~e to address thi~ issue, the public
hearing was closed.
address the affordability issues of solid waste management in
ter~ cf paying for the services and the options as outlined
including expanding the curbs{de recysling program to all medium
d~nslty homes; funding repair of the closed Ben A{r Landfill
including an option to privati~e the Landfill; elimination of
the free monthly trash service; and providing a bulky waste
collection service. He further stated these issues should be
considered ~rior to the upcoming budgen preeems and direction
92-908
was needed by December ~, Z992 to ¢ontinumthe ~res~nt.curbsfde
recycling program.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt the County should provide a bulky
waste cclleation program and continue the curbside resyoling
program utilizing it to its maximu~ potential. He noted the
County has State mandates it needed to meet regarding ~ecycling
efforts and ~_he citizens ~houl~ be a part of the reoysling
solution and efforts. He in,ired as to the ~ethod ~e County
would u~ to sxpan~ the ourb~i~ r~oyolin~ progr~.
Nr. Ha~er state~ thee were available alte~nativ=u ~ the
County including pursuing fran~ising th~ county'~ ~olid wa~t~
managem~n~ to a private c~any to handl~ it~ recycling s~io~s
oM to ~a~d the c~t ~egio~al C~rbside re,cling progr~.
Nr. Duniel instructed staff to outline the minim~ cost to the
ta~ay~r for r~ycling service~ provided by the County versus
th~ priva~ sector. ~e s~ate~ citizens should obtain the most
~or =he dollar wh~er the me~=~s wer~ provided on a County or
privat~ ba~i~. ~ further stated the Bom Air Landfill ne~d~d to
per month trash collection semite currently provided by th~
and felt if the service was eliminate~, the Co~ty would
e~erienoe problems related to dumping.
~. Colbert stated there Was a larg~ ~r of elderly citizens
in hi~ District u~ing ~e on~ D~N month free ~ra~h ~olleo~ion
se~icu Who d=pundud on the mervi=~ and he would be opposed to
eliminating this service.
~r. Barber s~a~ed hm ~ml~e current curbmi~e r~cycllng pr~ram
should be expanded to include all medi~ an~ high ~nslty
~. M=Halm stated he f~tt ~he County has the responsibility of
providing for the health, safety and welfare of it~ ci%izen~ and
a cost analysis $~ould ~ prepared regarding services being
provided by the County versus the private $~=tor. He fur~er
point in time, could only support continuing th~ current
curbsi~e recycling program through this fiscal year.
Discussion. comments and questions ensued relative to action
recycling program.
~r. Daniel inst~o~ed staff to bring to ~e ~oa=d at %h~
r~cycling issues for ~e FYP~-94 budget Drocess.
County notify~ng~ C~ntral ~irgi~ia Waste Managem~t Au~ority
regardin~ the County's contract for the curbside re~yollng
pr~ram and ~. ~a~er noted ~taff woul~ prepare ~n item to
Dec~ber 9, ~99~.
It w~m generally agreed to con~in~e th~ =urb~ide recycling
FY93-94 budget, to include fund~ for the curbside recycling
~o~ram for eighteen months of the contract co~t in order to
~r. McHal~ stated he felt =he co~ty should have a six month
o~tion wish the contract and i~dicat~thu appropriate decision~
should be made ~n regard to ~ contrao~ providing .~ county
some flexibility.
regarding the Quarterly Performance Report and Pre-Budget Kick-
off would not be addressed at this time and would be carried
over to the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on November
24, 1992 and the work session regarding s~i~/swell soil issues
Legislative Delegation.
NEW BUSINESS
6.A. STR~ETLISBT INST~-LLATION COST APPROVALS
On motion of M~. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
approved the fo/lowing ~treet light inntallation co~t approvals
wit~ said funds to be expended from the designated District
~tr~tllght ~cco~Dt~z
B~RI~JDA DISTRICT
* Intersection of
~o~t to install
Inters~¢tlon of
Co~t to install
Cost to install
MATOACA DISTRICT
* Intersection of
to sub~ivlsieo
Cost to install
Vole: Unanimous
Clear Springs Lane and Clear Springs Place
light~ $1,950.00.
Clea~ Springs Lane and Wood Dusk Lane
light:
FOX Knoll Drive and Ho~lett Line Driv%
light: $2,424.00.
~arrett Cirale and O~puy Road at entraDce
light: $9~.00.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CONFIRMIN8 PROCEEDINGS OF
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of tbs CoPnty
of Chesterfield (the Authority) has considered the application
Applicant), for the issuance cf tbs Authori=y's revenue bonds
an ameunt not to exceed $100,000,000 (the Bonds) to flounce the
aoqui$itien, construction and equipping oS solid was=e disposal
and ~ewage disposal facilitle~ (~e Project) for the Applicant
located at the Applicant~s S~ruan~e Plant~ 5400 Jeff~on ~avi~
Highway, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and ha~ held a p~c
Supe~isors (the Board) of Chesterfield County, Vlrg~nia
County), a~rove ~he issuanoe of =~e Bonds pursuant to a plan
finance to comply with Section 147(f) of the Tnternal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (~he code); and
~BR~$, a copy of ~e Aut~ority's resolution
plan of ~inancu, ~ubjec= t~ te~ to be agreed up~n, a r~cord of
the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect
to the Project have been filed with the Board.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD O~ SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY~ VIRGINIA:
~he Authority pursuant to the plan of finance described in the
Resolution for the benefit cf the Applicant to the extent
required by Section 147 (f) o£ tho code, %0 permit the Authority
to aeeiet in the financing of the Project.
1. The Board hereby agrees to apply, if necessary, to the
Allocation Administrator to reguest an allocation of t-he State
Ceiling to the Bonds, pursuant to the Virginia Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act, and directs the County
Administrator to prepare and file an application er applicatlon$
therefore as requested by the Applicant and approved by Bond
Counsel and the Chesterfield County Attorney.
s. Approval of the issuance of the ~onds, as re~ulred by
Section 147(f) of the Code~ does not constitute an endorsement
of the bends er the creditworthiness of the Applicant, but, as
required by ~eotion 15.1-138Q Of th~ Code of Virginia of 1950,
as amended, the bonds ~hall provide that neither the count~ nor
the Authority shall ba obligated t pay the Bonds or the interest
thereon or other co, ts incident thereto except from the revenues
and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor
the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the county nor the
Authority shall he pledged thereto.
4. This resolution shall take ~ffeCt i~dlately ~pcn its
adoption,
v6te: Unanimous
IND~STRI~L DEVeLOPMEnT AUTHORITY OF THE TO~ aP
adopted th~ following resolution:
~S~ ~he Industrial Development Authority of the To~
of Ashland, virginia ("Authority"), has considered ~he
a~plioation of the ~CA Of Grcatur Ri~mond ("~CA") requesting
to exceed $5,000,000 ("Bonds") to u~si~t in (i) financing ~e
expansion, renovation an~ equipping of sevmrml ~ ~CA
facilities located in ~e City of Riband and in the Counties
of Ch~st=:fiel4 and Henrlco, {ii) refinancing mortgage loans on
certain of it~ facilities and (iii) in providing working capital
for the planning and development of a full servlce~faci/~ty
to se~e the Town of Ashland an~ surrounding area~
(collectively, the "Project"), and the A~thority has held a
public hearing thereon on October 14, 1992; an~
~S, Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as a~e~dad (t~e "code"}, provides that the governmental
unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of 9rlvate activity
bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with ~e
issuance of the bonds; and
~s, Section 15.1-137s of the Code of V~rginia of 19~0,
as amended (the "Virginia co~e") prov~dem that if a oity, oounty
or town ham created an industrial development muthor~ty~ no such
authority not c~eated by such city, county o~ town may finance
facilitiem (ewoept pollution control) within any s~ch
with the induGemgn% resolution adopted by such authority; and
~-911 11/12/92
.................. i!LI L .L ......... ~ .,LI .... L : L
WHEREAS, the A~t~crity i~s~es its bonds on behalf Of the
Town of Ashland and the Authority's bonds will provide financing
for Y/~CA facilities located in the City of Richmond and the
Count/es of Chesterfield and Hen~ico, and the highest elected
governmental unit~ with re~pect to such Jurisdictions are,
respectively~ the Town Council of the Town of Ashland, the City
Co~noil of thc City cf Richmond, tho Board of Supervisors of the
County of Chesterfield and th~ Board of Supervisors of the
County of Henrico; and
WHEREAS, =he Authority has r~commen~ed that t~hs A~hlan~
Town Council, th~ Richmond City Council, the Board of
S~p~rvi~ors oX ~hesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
of Memrico County approve the issuance of the Bond~; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority'n r~elut±on approving the
issuance of the Bends! subject to ter~s to be agreed upon~ a
certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impac~ Statement
have been filed with the Board of supervi~or~.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED ~Y THS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THR COUNTY OF C~E~T~R~I~LD, VIRGINIA AS ~0LLoW$~
Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the YMCA, as
required by Sec%ion 147(I) of eke Code and Section
15.1-1378 of the Virginia Code to permit the Authority
to assist in the financing o~ the Project.
2. The a~rsval s£ the issuance of the ~onds does not
constitute an ~ndor~ment to s prospective purchaser
u£ ~hc Bonds o~ the eredltworthlneaa of the Project or
the YMCA.
3. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt or a pledge cf
the faith and credit of the County of Chesterfield,
but ~hall be payable ~ol~ly from fun~ pledged or
provided for such p~pose by the Authority. The
County cf Chester£i~l~ shall not be, nor sh~ll any of
it~ off~cer~ e~ployee~ or age,ts be, liable or
responsible for any obligations or actions related to
or in connection with the issuance of the Bonds.
4. This resolution shall take ~ffect i~ediately upon its
adoDtion and shall remain in effect for a ~arisd of
cna year from its date.
Vote: Unanimoue
authorized the county A~mlnistrator to enter into s fiscal agent
Jail Au~horlty end authorized the positions of a Construotlen
Coordinato~ to he hired ~anuary 1, ~99~; a Clerk Of the Works to
he hired August 1, 1993; and a Receptionist/Secretary to be
hired October 1, ~993 for t~e Ch~st~r£1eld Construction
Manag~en~ office for the Riverside Regional Jail Project. (It
i~ noted all three positions will be £undedbyrevenues from the
Riverside Regional Jail Authority Bond f~ds and will exist as
authorized positions only for the duration of this project; that
based on the projected hire dates, the t~nfee positions will cost
$2S,300 for FY93; $119,100 for FY94; $1~,600 for FYg~ and
$143r$00 for FY96; and that the sources of funds for these
positions will be revenue~ hilled to th~ Riverside Regional Sail
noted a copy of the Agreement to provld~ Fiscal,
92-912 11/12/92
filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
CO~ANX DIREC?OR~
On motion of NE. McHale, sec0ndad by mr. Warrmn, the Board
ratified its vote of th~ County Administrator, on behalf of the
Vote: Unanimous
~.B,5. AUTHORISATION FOR THE AT-RISK YOUTH MANAGEMENT TEAH TO
A~LY FOR FUNDS
On notion of Mr. McHale, ~econded by Mr. Warre~, the Bo~r~
authorized the At-Risk Youth Management Team to apply for f~ds,
in the amount of $~00,000 ($~0,000 for F¥93 an~ approval ts
apply for funds up tn $~00~000 for FY94) end to appropriate F¥93
fun~s up te $L50,000 upon notifloatlon from tho Sta~e.
vote: unanimous
6.B.6. R~OU~STS FOR BTN~O/,~LAFFLE ~ERMTT~
On notion of Mr. McHale~ seconded by Mr. Warre~, th~ Board
aDDrovsd ragussts for bingo/raffle permits for the following
organization~ for calendar year 199~:
OR~ANI~ATIO~
Chester Rotary
Don Air Rotary Club
St. Ann Catholi~ Church
EC0££ ~lem~tary PTA
st. Edward's ~hurch
And, further, the ~oard approved
~YPE
Raffle
Raffle
Binge/Raffle
Raffle
requests ~or ~ingo/raffle
pe~its f0~ t~e fOllOWing organizution~ for calendar year 1993:
O~ANIZATIO~ ~Y~B
Robert E. Lee Post 2239
~sterans of FoTeign Wars
of U.S. Bingo/Raffle
Mid-Cities Civic
Association, Inc. Bingo/Raffle
C~este~ Moose Ledge Raffle
Riverside School PTO l%affle
Knights Of Colu~dbu~
Council #61S9 Bingo/Ra££1e
Ettriek Elementary P~A Raffle
Vote: Unanimous
92-913
n/i~/ss
SET D~TE ~OR PUBLIC R~RIHG TO CONSIDER F~EMPTION O~
COUNTY VOLSNTEEI~ EESOUE BOUADS FROM TELEPHONE TAX TO
FU~D E-Sl~ ~YST~9( AND 00N$~I~E~ UTILITIES
On motion of ~. MOHalk, seconded by ~. Warr~n~ ~he ~oard
the date of Deco, er 9, 199~ at 7:00 p.~. for a public
~o consider ~ding ~=icle X~ Tax on Tel~hon~ S~ioe for E-
911 ~ystems and ~ticl~ XII, Con~er Utilltle~ Taxe~, Code of
~h~ County of C~es~erfi~ld, 1~78, as amended, %o ~xemp~
volunte~ re=cue ~quad~ from ~
Vot~: Unan~mo~
On motion of ~. McHala, zeconded by ~. Warren, ~e Board
authorized the a~ig~ent o~ =he ~este~ Landfill Repair
Contract pa~ents for financing of ~e Methane ~lectric
Generating Pla~t Const~ction from E. T. Energies/Gentry Well
Work~, Inc. to the tru~t~, ~re~tar B~nk, N.A., of which the
estimated cost of the i~provement~ i~ $~,335~000. (It i~ noted
this approval will not ~h~nge the term~ or ~ervlce obli~ation~
6.B.9. AWARD OF ~O~TP~%CTS
~DDITIONS ~ R~NSVATIOH8 TO CLOVER HILL FIRE
On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seccnde~ by Mr. Warren, the Board
awarded a construction contract to Viking Enterprise, Inc., in
the amount of $290,850, for a~di~i0ns and renovations to the
C10v~r HAll Fire Station, Number 7. (It i~ noted ~a~d fundn
w~ll come ~mm t~e existing Capital Project Account.)
Vstn: Unanimous
PUELIC SAFETY ACADSHI~ ~ PHYSICAL TP2AININ8
On motlcn of Mr- MoHals, seconded by ~r. Warren, the
awarded a construction contract to J. W. Daniel, Inc., in t~e
amount of $~,~4O,]QQ, for the Public Safety Academic and
Physical Training Building and approved additional funding of
$~S§,000 for th~ project. (It i~ noted in order to
base building without th~ shell, ~n additional
appropriation of reve~e of $59,000 from the Risk Management
~und to th~ Publlc Safety Acad~ic Building for removal uf
contaminated ~oils; reve~= up to $326,0Q0 in interest earnings
will b~ appropriated and will be used to reduce the use o~ fun~s
from ~e Rese~e fo~ Furze Capital ~oject~ to ~e ~blic
Safety pr~j~=t; and %his will allow she uoUal ac=ual projec~
e~enditur~s uP to th~ ~ount of
6.B.9.O. ~O~ DESItiN TO NILLI~MS.,...TAZEWELL & ASSOCIATES FOR
~ENOVATION OF EXISTING BUILDING FOR M~DOWDALE
On Motion of Mr. Mo~alei seconded by M~. ~a~==n, the ~oard
awarded a design contract ts Williams, Taxewell and A~sociates,
in an a~ou~t ~ot to exceed $91,000, for renovation of an
existing building for Meadowdale Library. (It is note~ said
funds are available from earlier appropriation by the Board of
Supervisors.)
vets: Unanimoum
6.B.10. A~D OF CONTR~T TO WESTINC~OU~E L~NDM~K
~]~QRMATION SERVICES. INO. ~OR GEO~PHI~ I~O~TION
On motion of ~r. M~ale, seconda~ by Mr. Warr~, ~ Board
awarded a contract to ~ti~gho~oe Landmark Geographic
to ~ov~de wate~ and ~ewer feeilitius data conv~sion
will eO~¢ fro~ th~ Geographic Information Systems Project
Ac=cunt.}
6.B.11. ~GR~N~NTfi ~R ~L%TNTEN~N~E OP.tTOF~M~AT~ D~IN~
SYSTEM~ }~ND ~EST MANAGEMENT P~A~TI~E PA~ILITIE~
6.B.XL.a. WALDROP EXXON
On motion of ~r. ~oHale~ seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute an Agreement for
Maintenance of a stermwater D~ainage system and Best Management
Prmctice Facility with G. R. Wstdrop, II!, the owner/d=velopar
of Waldrop Exxon, with t/~s County's only involvement b~ing to
assure the Kain~ensnce Agreement is followed by the owner as
approYsd by the County Attorney. (It is noted e copy of the
vi~nlty ~katch i~ filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. McHule, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorize~ the County Admlni~trator to execute an Aqrs~ent for
Prastios Facility wi~ Park A~soeiate~, the o%rner/developer of
Hilmar, Section D, with the County's only involvement being to
approved by the County Attorney. (It is noted a copy of ~e
vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of thi~ Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
THE SHOP~ AT Cs~Taz ¢O~T
On motion cf Nr. ~cHule, seconded by Mr. Warren,
authorized the County Administrator to execute un Agreement for
~aintenance of a Stormwater Draina~m System and ~est ~ana~mmsnt
Practice Facility with Ukrops Super Narkets, Inc., the
owner/developer of The Shops at centre court~ with ~he county's
only involvement being to assure the ~aintenance Agreement. i~
followed by the owner as approved by the County Attorney.
o~ this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
92-915 11/12/92
........... ~lL.I .L L I. _.LI ........ I .... I ....
6.S.ll.do ~OIN~ OF ROCKS, B;CTION 2
on motion of Mr. McHale, zeconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to e~ecut~ an Agreement for
Maintenance of a Btormwater Drainage System and Beet Manaqenent
~raotlo~ Facility with Potn~ o~ Rooks Development Corporation,
the o~er/developer of Point of R0ck~, Section 2, with the
County's only involvement being to assure t/~e Maintenance
Agreement is followed by the owner as approved by the County
Attorney. (It is noted a oopy of the vicinity sketch is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
This day the County Environmental Engineer~ in ancordanoe with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Locks~ire Drive in Bexley West, Section 4 and a
portion of Lake George Eamlet, Section 1, Clover Hill District.
Upon oonsideratiun whereof, and on motion of Mr.
seconded by Mr. Werren~ it is resolved that Lockshire Drive in
~exley W~$b, ~ectiee 4 and a portion of Lake George M~mle~,
Section 1, Clover Eill District, be and it hereby is established
And be it further resolved, that ~he virginia Department
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
secondary system, Locks~ire Drive, beginning at the intersectlen
with existing ~ckshire Drive, State Route 2347 and Newquey
Lane, State Route 2636, and going nor=hwe~terly 0.04 mile ~o end
This request is inclusive of th~ a~jaoent ~lope, sight ~i$tance,
clear zone and designated v~rq~nla Department of T~an~po~ation
An4 b~ it further resolved, that the Boar~ of Supe~isors
~aranteem to the Virginia Depar~ent of Tranmportation an
~r~tri~ted right-of-way of 60' with necessary ~as~mant~
o~ts, fills a~d drainage for this road.
Section ~. Plat Book gl, Pages 8~ & 89, July ~0, 1990.
This ~ection of Lake George Hamlet is recorded as follows:
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions frown this Board, made r~port in writing ~poB his
examination of Country Manor Lane and Country Manor Way in
Meadowbrook Farm~ Section ~, DaZe District.
Upon Consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr.
Seconded by Mr. Warren~ it ie resolved that Country Manor Lane
and Country Manor Way in Meadowbreok Farm, Sectio~ B, Dale
Dis~rict, be and they hereby are established es public roads.
And be it f~rt~er ~esolved, that the virginia Department of
Transportation, ~e and it hereby is r~que~t~d to take into the
Secondary System, Country Manor Lane, beginning at the western
end of existing Country Manor Lane, State Route 4560, and going
sout-hwasterly 0.06 mile to the inte~eetio~ with Country Manor
92-916 11/12/92
i--I
Way, then c0ntinuinq s0~thwesterly 0.03 mile to tie into
Dropased Country Manor Lane, Meadowbroo~ ~ar~, See%io~ C; and
CoUntry Manor way, beginning at the intersection with Country
Manor Lane and going southeasterly 0.05 m~l~ to end in a cul-de-
This request is inclusive oft he adjacent ~lope, sight distance,
clear zone and designated virginia Department of Tran~p0~tation
And be it further resolved, that the ~oard 'of supervisor=
guarantees to the virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted ~ight~o£~way of 50' with necessary easements for
cutm, fills and drainage for Country Manor Way and e 60' right-
of-way for Country Manor Lane.
This section of Meadowbrosk Farm is rennrded as fcllowm:
Section B. ~lat Book 64, ~age 9~ ~ovenber 1~ 1988.
vote: Unanimoum
This day the County Environmuntal ~nginm~r, i~ accordance with
direotion~ from thi~ Board, made report in writing upon
e×am~nation of Country Namer Lane, Country ~anor circle and
Country Manor Terrace in Meadowbrook Far~, Section C, Dale
bi~trlct.
U~on eonsideratlon whereof, and on motion Of Mr. McHale,
suconded by FL~. Warr~n~ ih is resolved that Country Manor Lane,
Country Manor Circle and Country Manor Terrace ~n Meadowbrook
Farm, Section C, Dale District, be and they hereby are
establi~h=d as puhllo roa~s.
And be i= further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Country ~aner Lane, beginning at the end of
existing CoUntry Manor Lane~ Meadowbrook Farm, Section B,
Route number ~o be assigned, and going southwesterly 0.05 mile
tat he intersection with Country Manor Terrace and Country Manor
Circle, then turning and ~oing westerly ~.0] mile to en~ at the
tie in with proposed Country Manor Lane, Meadowbrook Far~,
Section D; Country Manor Circle, beginning at the intersection
with Country Manor Lane and going northerly Q.04 mile to end in
a cul-de-sac; and Country Manor Terrace, beginning at the
intersection with Country ~anor Lane an4 going southeasterly
0.~2 m~te to end in a cul-de-sac.
Thi~ r~que~t i~ inclusive Of the ad~aeent slo~e, sight distance,
clear zone an~ designated Virginia Department of Transportation
A~d be it further re~01ved, that flue Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department ~f Transportation an
u~re~trlcted right-of-way of ~0' with ~eoessary easements for
cuts~ fills and drainage for all of the~e road~ except Country
Kanor Lane which has a 60' right-of-way.
This section of Meadowbrook Farm is recorded as follows=
Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
~irections from ~his ~car~, made rs~ort in writing upon his
examination o£ ~lkwoo~ Road, Zl~woo~ uourt and ~uokt~il Court in
Clov~r ~ill Parms, Section H, Natoaca District.
Upon ~onsideration whereof, and on ~o~ion of Mr. McHale,
seconded by F~. Warren, it is resolved that Elkwood Road,
~l]~wood Court and Bucktail Court in Clover Hill Farmej Section
Rd ){atoaca District, be and ~ey hereby are established as
public
~d be it further r~olved, that th~ Virginia ~epar~men~
seoondary system, Elkwood Road, beginning at the intersection
with Singer Road, State Route 1~92, and going northerly
mile to the intersection with Elkwood Court, then
nor~rly 0.06 ~ile, then turning and going northeasterly 0.04
mile to ~e inter~ec~ion with Buckram1 Court, then
~or~easterly 0.08 ~ile to end in a cul-de-sac; El~ood Court,
~eginnin~ at ~he inter~e~tion with Elkwood Read and going
westerly 0.10 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Bucktall Co~t,
beginning at the intersection with El~ood Road and going
nor~we=terly 0.10 mil~ to end in a
cl~a~ zone and designated Virginia Department of
~ ~e it fur~er rmsolve~, that th~ Boar~ of
Section ~. 91at Book 74, ~age 86, K~rch 12,
gON~TRUCT A TIN~ ~E~AIRING WALL WITHIN ~N E~ISTI~G
located on their ~roperty alon~ Route 10 subject to the
plat is filed with the paDs=e of this ~eard.)
§...~%19.%...NEQUEST FROH B~LZER AND ~S80~I~TES, ~NO. TO Q~ITOL~IM
A ~ORTION OF A SIXTEEN FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND
On motion of Mr. McHale, secended by Mr. Warren, the Board
Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a port,on of
R. and Susan S. sowers. (It is noted a copy of the plat is
filed with the paper~ of thi~
0n motion of ~. Mc~le, ~uonded by Mr. Warren, the
aooepted~ on behalf of ~e Co~ty, t~e oo~veyunc~ of = 0.134
a=re o~ land along ~undle Roa~ from Saunder~/Woo~fin Builders
a~d a~tho~i~e~ the Co~y A~ini~trutor to execute the necessa~
deed. (It is noted a cody 0f the plat is ~il~d wi~h ~e
of ~is Board.)
APPROPRIATION OF MTATE LIBI~%HY GP-.A~' F~ND FOR OPTICAL
DI.K~_CON~ER$ION TO MIOROFILH
On motion of Mr. Mcl~ale, seconded by Kr. Warren, the Board
.appropriated $71,6D0 of State Library Brant funds to the Circuit
Court Clerk's Office for o~tical disk conversion to microfilm.
(It is noted funds will be appropriated in the Grants Fund.)
?,A. KETROPOLITAN RI~HI~OND CON~ENTION AND VISITOR'S BUREAU
After hrlef dimcussion, on motion of Mr. McMale, me¢ondedbyMr.
Warren, the Board withdrow from nomination the names of
David Helfrich and Ms. Edna Lambert to ~e~ve on the Metropolitan
Richmond C0~v~tio~ and Vi~iSor'~ Bureau.
On motion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Er. Warrmn, the ~oard
appointed Mr. Ralrmond Szabo, representing the County at-large,
to serve on the Metropolitan Richmond Convention and visitor's
Bur~au~ whose term is effective i~n~ediately and will expire June
On motion of F~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Roard
suspended i~ rules to allow mimoltaneous mnm~nation/appo~ntment
at this time of ~r. otis Patton to ~erv~ o~ the Citizens
Transportation A~v~aory Committee as mn alternate.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Barber~ ~eco~ded by ~r. Warrsn, the Boa~d
appointed Mr. oti~ Patton to serve on the citlzen~
Tr~m~portatlen Advi~Ory Committee as an alternate, whos~ t~rmi~
ella=tire immediately and will expire June 30, 1094.
Vote: Unanimous
There were no Hearings o~ citizens on Unscheduled Ma%ter~ or
Claims scheduled at this time.
9. RE~ORTS
Mr. Ramsay pr~ented the B0ar~ with a.report on the developer
water and ~ewer contracts executed by the county Administrator.
General Fund Oalance; ~e~erve ~or Future Capital ~roject~;
District Road and Street Light Funds; and Lease Purchases.
Mr. Remsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has
£0r~ally aotified the County of the acceptance of the following
rnada ~ntc the State Secondary System:
· J)DXTION~ LENGTH
OUEENSPA/~K. SECTION F ~Effectiv~ 10-i-92%
Route SSa (aobious Crossing Drive) - From Route 4085
to Route 4077 0.06 ~i
Route ~D77 (Roby~ Way) - Fro~ Route $$~ to 0.44 mile
Sout~heaat Route S32 0.44 ~i
Rou=m 4O78 (Lady Allison Lan~) - From Route 4077 to
0.19 nile ~ortheast Route 4077 0.~9 ~i
Route 4079 (Lynngate Lane) - ~o~ Rout~ 60~ to
Route 4077 0.10 ~i
~roject~ noted~ wld~ning of LeGur4en Driv~ at ~idlothlan High
School and he felt the wo~di~g should be changed to reflect
Colony Drive.
at this time of Mr. Russ Parker, representing the Hcmebuilders
Association of Richmund, to ~erve on the Debri~ ~ani£e~tApDeal~
Vote: Unanimous
appolnt~d Mr. RU~ ~arker, r~pr~senting the Homebuilders
~oard, whose term is effective immediately and will expire
After brief discussion, on motion of~r. ~c~ale, aeuonded by ~r.
Colbert, the Board set the dRt% of De~emb%r 9, I992 at ?:~ p.m.
to ~o1~ public hearings on the following ~roposed charter
i. A~e~d the County Charter to alTow the Chief of Police to
aRRoint the animal contrel supervisors and officers.
2. Amend ~he County Charter ~c allow the Planning D~rector to
grant variance~ (up to two feet] fro~ local zoning and/or
subdivision requirements.
S. A~end Section 46.2-1313 of the Code of virginia to permit
the County to incorporate chang~ to motor v~hiole ood~
int~ the Co--tM Code withou~ additiona% action bythe Board
of Supervisor~.
Vote: Unanimous ~
on motion of Mr, colbert~ seconded by F~. MOHal=, the ~ourd
adjourned at 11:3~ p.m. until ~ovember 24, 1992 a~ ~;00 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
County Admzn~stra~
~a~r~ G. D~niel
chairna~
11/12/91