09-22-1992 Minutes~upervieors in Attendance:
Hr. Harry G. Daniel, chairman
Mr. Artl~trr S. Warren, Vice Chrm.
Mr. Edward B. Barber
Mr. Whaley M. Colbert
Mr. J. L. McHale, III
County A~inistrator
Ms. Marilyn E. Cole, Exes.
Asnt. to CO, Admin.
Mr. William D. Dnpler,
Building 0ffioial
~4r. Steven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mrs. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Dir., News & Public
Information Services
Ms. Theresa ~. Pitts~
Clerk to th~ B0erd
Mr. M. D. $tlth, Jr.,
Actinq Dfr., Community
Development
Daniel called the meeting to order at 7:00
OPENFN~ ~EMARKS OE CHAIR/~m~N AND BOARD OF SUPERVISOR8
M~. Daniel ~tated the issue of shrink/swell soils has been in
existence within the County for the pas~ year, =hen =ha Board
had discussed methods to addre~ the is~ue, and had also
appointed the Co~mission on Suilz and Foundations to address
iseue~ relating to shrink/swell soils and the Commission has
worked independently without direction ~rom the Board OS
supervisors to submit recommendati0n~ which would include
mechanisms for issues relating to prevention and assistance.
He further stated the BoaFd of Supervisors would take into
consideration the recommenda=ione submitted by the Commlmaion
and the County Administrutor and would hold the necessary
public hearingE to ~eoeive oi~iz~n input before renderin~ any
deci~ion~.
Mr. Bob Olean, Chairman of the Commission on ~oils and
Foundations, introduced memberm ef the Commission who were
9resent and.stated in Jenu&~y of this year, the Board of
supervisors had appointed the commOn,ion to addr~ oiti~en
Concerns and s~bmit recommendations regarding prevention and
a~si~tance for tho~e homeowners affeete~ Dy shrink/swell
soils; that after meeting several month~ an~ arriving at
preliminary rsoommondations~ the Commission made it~ first
presentation to the Board; that the recommendations submitted
to the Board at its first presentation have been acted on;
that shortly after the initial presentation, it was ~he d~siro
of the Board to expand the Commission to include member~ from
a££eoted industries and since that expansion, many issues had
been discussed; that the ideas presented w~en adopted by t~e
commission, constituted a majority opinion with the exception
of o~e ~i~0~ity OpiDio~ a~d noted both opinions were
documented in =heir report.
~2-723 ~/22/92
FOUNDATIONS
N~. 01sen reviewed the Commission's recommendation regarding
developing rsoonnmendations for minimum soil testing, reporting
methods and procedures and investigating such items as
Discussion, comments and questions enaue~ relative to soil
testing and the factors which would Cause 0ifferent re~ult~ in
eoil~ tests conducted on the ~ame piece of property by more
than one professional person; whether the rec~mmendatioD by
the Commission was based on a majority vote; whether the
Cc=mission had reviewed the cost benefits of implementing the
recommendations; the criteria the recommend~tion~ were based
on much as engineering expertise; whether %he r~¢ommendation
wa~ based ~n minimum or acceptabl~ ~tandard~; whether any of
the recommendation~ ~ould require General A~aembly action; and
whether any recommendations submitted by the COtillion had
received unanimous votes.
Mr. KeHale stated he felt the minutes taken at the meetings of
~he Co~mis~ioD ~houl~ reflect the votes.
Di~cus$1on, cQmmen%~ and q~e~ions co,tin, ed relativ~ to how
moil mampleg and mtandardm would b~ defined and whether the
definition would be an objective standard; the criteria used
acceptable in the engineering co--unity.
3.~.~. MINIMUM FOOTIN~ DESIGN
~r. 01se~ then r~viewed the Commission's recommendation to
evaluate the need for a minimum footing design %c be used on a
County-wide basis including the minimum footing depth, the
minimu~ concrete thickness, the number of reinforcing rods,
th~ minimum overlap at a footinq ~tep down and the minimum
footing width, and pier footings for crawl space piers.
Mr. Daniel stated those recommendations by the Commission
requiring legislative action would be submitted in the
legislative package for the current year if the Board decided
to p~oceed forward an4 iDq~ired if the County ~id not receiv~
legi~latlve approval, whether the County'~ Building Offlc~al,
~t the time of issuing buildlng permits, could place a
disclaimer indicating the County's recommendation although it
is not actually required by the Building Code. Mr. Dupler
~tated he wa~ unaware cf any re~triction~ which would prohibit
him from doing that. Mr. Daniel =rated he felt this would
permits are immued in providing bett~r infcrmatlon tc the
publi~.
There was brief dimcum~ion relative to the recommendations
which would r~quire ~eneral Assembly action and Ar. Daniel
indloated the County Ad~ini~trat0r and the County Atte~ney had
been instructed to review and identify each recommendation
re~uiring such.
Mr. 01sen lhen reviewed the Commission's recommendation to
review the ~urnent building inepeetor~ poli~y and make
reqo~m~ati~ns a~ needed and, in particular, the method now
used to identify the area where engineered footings are
req~i~d and should be reviewed. He indicated all the
proposed prevention ~eco~me~dation~ had received a u~a~i~ou~
92-724 9/22/92
vote from the commission with the exception o~ Uhls item on
moderate shrink/swell soil.
Discussion, comments and questions ensue~ relmtivo to those
areas to be designated which would r~quire soils testing; a
recommendation to mere preuisely identify s~aller areas
affected by shrink/mwell moils and to add more flexibility in
identifying these areas; whether the problems regarding
shrink/mwell soils were County-wide; the r~oommended minimum
footinq being more bemeficial and cost effective; what the
increaEed comt would bm tO an average home for the minimum
footing ss opposed to the standard footing required by the
Building Ce~e~ wha= the cost would be to the new homeowner if
the recom~endnticn was adopt~d$ and the d~finition of
"moderate" an~ "high" being clearly defined as i~ related to
th~ mlninum footinq requirement.
~.A.4. BROCHURE ON PREV~I~EIVE ~AI~TEN~R~E
short form broe~ure and a more dstai~ed long form brochure to
County official=, murvoying and engineerings firms, ~eeltor
organizations, surveyor~, lending institutions,
amsoclation~ and oitisens~ to be ~ade available to the
Chesterfield-Colonial ~ights, Kenrios and Richmond
As~oeia=ion for distribution to thei~ members; and to be
included a~ a Dart of the elnsing papers for real estate
There was brief discussion relative to ~owiding these type~
of brochures to the public and apprsprlate methoOs for
distribution.
prepure recommendations regarding procedures used for
subdivision approval which would identify those soil areas
where shrink/swell soils ~xist such as dave!opera providing
=oil evaluation map~ and ropnrtm for all ~ubdivision sec%ions
which designate the shrink/swell potential for any area
~nclu~nd ~n the subdivision section.
W~O~ aske~, Mr. Micas sta~ed the recommendation would be
applicabl~ to new ~ubdivi~ion~ and r~subdivisiens and noted
subdivisions already recorded would not fall under this
requirement,
Discussion, co.ants and questions ensued
being tested prior to any per.its being approved; whether the
recommendation could be handled administratively since it
could not be handled as pert Of t~e subdivision review
process; whether the Countyts curron~ soils m&ps wore
ude~ata; the ntu~ber of soil samples which would be required
per le% and how that related to soils being teste~ in each
su~ivision; and ~tandard procedures being incorporated into
the recommend=rich,
~.~.~. ~NT~ORH REFERENCE HETHODS
~r. Ol~n ~h~n rsview~d ~h~ Commission's recommendation
work with engineering qeologi~t and soil ~ci=nC= g~OU~S tO
to
92-725 9/2~/92
gain access to pro£sssicnals within these disciplines.
Mr, Barber stated he had recently had an opportunity to talk
with the presiden~ of ~h~ Sta~e Soil Scientists Association
who had indicated the Association's interest in assisting the
County with the study. He further stated he felt there wore
professionals residing within the County who would also be
willing =o become involved.
reco~mendatlon would be at the County or industry level; which
study should be performed on a regional
evaluating Chesterfield County soils which could be
established through the funding of an academic grant to
virginia institution ts investigate and research those issues.
Dissussion, comments and questions ensued relative to a sample
research proposal from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the
gualifisa=ions of t~ose performing the worK.
requiring soil testing in areas designated as having a "~ivh"
potential Sot shrink/swell and Sta~ed the minority oplnlon
felt the provi~ion should al~o include the definition of
"moderate" ss they felt this wa~ a gray area.
When a~kod, M~. Olean mtated the minority opinion ha~ received
a total of four votes out of a possible nine -- consisting of
those present at the meeting. Mr. Daniel stated the minority
opinion should be inolude~ in thc commissionls recommendations
prior to the public hearing on October 14, 1992.
],ir. Daniel stated th~ r~commend~tions ~ubmittcd by the
Commission on Sc'ils and Foundations would be considered at tho
public hearing sob=doled for October 14, 1991 and the County
Administrator had been instructed ts review and identify each
recommendation as to whether they could be addressed
administratively or whether aGtion by the General Assembly
would be required. Ee f~rther stated after the public
hearing, the Board would then provide direction for
implementation of the approved reco~ndatlons and would
the Commission informed as to those recommendations which
would be implemented.
It was g~nerally agreed to reces~ fo~ five minutes.
Reconvening:
~.B.~. ~SSIST~N~E FUND
Mr. Clean stated the Commission had prepared a list with
reeommendatlens regarding methods for assisting homeowners
with current an~ future footing and foundation related
structural problem~ and the recommendations included all
majority eo~ minority e~inlcns cf the commission. ~ revi=wod
the development of an assistance fund including covering 100
percent of the costs to repair footings, foundations and
incidental ~amages for all homes built after Janns~y 1, 1970
with damage from feoting~ not built to th~ characteristics of
soils in Chesterfield County and those who would have aooes~
to the fund. He stated acce~ to th~ fu/7~ would be u~ed after
it was verified that all attempts to have the builder and/or
92-726
developer repair the ds'mags hav~ been e~ha~sted, after all
exhausted before a claim may be made to .~his fund, and the
only cap on the cost of the repair being the appraised value
of the ho~. Ne then.~eviowed the fund as, it related to money
being refunded to homeowllers who hs~e already repaired their
h~m~ without the benefit of any insurance monies; all claims
being submitted in writing with the necessary information; the
pal;men= of up to $500 by the homeowner to help defray the
initial cost of an independent end±nearing investigation and
the money b~ing refundable if the slaim was found to be
legitimate; setting no time limit a~ to the filing cf a claim;
and the process whic~ ~ould follow after the submission of a
claim.
Discussion, cummen~s and questions ensued relative to the
Co~missinn'n rece~nzendation to include hen~ from 197~ ve~s~s
!974 when the Statewide Building Code was implemented; the
~eleo=ion of two additional engineering fi~ms being employed
if a dispute occurs relative to the finding of the primary
sngineerinq company; the existence of the assistance fund
~taying iD offset indefinite!y; me=hods available te encourage
homeowners to implement measures for ~e~entive maintenance;
tb~ appropriate legal wording for the existence n£ the
assistance fend to remain in affect "forever"; and all
recommendations being reviewed by =he CoUnty A=~ornsy prior to
the October 1~, 199~ public hearing.
VOLUNTARY
Mr. Olean then reviewed the co~mission's ~eeommondution for
voluntary funding for the proposed assistance fun~ to attempt
to cover ~he eos~s of all future and present damages.
Mr. 01sen ~tat~d if voluntary funding scald no~ accomplish
thi~, Some ~ort of mandatory funding would be necessary and
reviewed options for mandatory funding including assessing all
undeveloped residential building lots $250; assessing all lot~
at the time of development $250; inoreasin~ residential new
oon~t~notion pe~its by $100; increasing building-related
business licenses; instituting a ~eal ~sta~e ~ransfer fee on
the sale ef an existing home to be paid by the seller end/or
real estate agent or ~ro~er; instituting ~ranohise fees for
builder~, developers, ~ealtors, architects, etc.; creation of
a tax assessment distric~ to include all homes in ~ha triassic
basi~ a~d any other home which is built on shrink/swell soils
per the latest County maD; litigation due to the violation of
Woodlake's zoning requiremente~ obtaining proffers from
developers, especially theme who dsvnloD in ~hrink/swell soil
a~eas, to pay into the assistance fund; donation of land to
the assistance fund which ~he county owns hut does not have a
~$e for and whioh ooul~ b~ use~ for development; formation of
a foundation sell tax dimtrict restricted by limits of
coverage, financing and eligibility; and the recommendation
fund at $1 million or some other minimum value in the futur~
Di~ous~ion, comments and questions ensued relative to
hom~own~r~ ~×haunting all aven~e$ of r~¢overy within the
statutory warranties and limits of coverage ~et forth in the
proposed assistance fund.
Mr. Olean then r~viewed the Commission's recommendation to set
up a system to assist citizens and coordinate claims which are
92-727 9/22/92
I
to pay claims thereby reducing the amount of money needed for
the assistance fund; requesting home warranty companies to
~hange their legal definition of ~truotural ~age; and
adopting stricter building standards in the area of
shrink/swell soils.
3.B.5. GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION ITSHS
Mr. O1sen then reviewed the Commission'x recommendation for
General Assembly action including requesting to make it
legally viable tu take action against a builder who has a
structural problem after the implied two year warranty period
and the new five year period for footings and foundations;
amendment of the F~bli0 Fi~am0e ACt to permit the is~uanc~ of
revenue bonds to pay for the cost of shrink/swell soil damage
(if nene~ary] with the bonds being repaid by the pr0po~ed
funding recomm~ndationm; ~tat~ l~ginlation to prevent
excessive exslus~ens in homeowners and foundation insursnee or
warranties and requiring coverage for footing and foundation
damage~; legislation to permit the County's building permit
fee to include money for the assistance fund if necessary;
statutory amendments to permit the adoption of assessment or
service district ds£ined by shrink/swell soils with revenues
to be used for T-he aszistsnoe fund; ~ending t~ appropriate
statute to prohibit the waiver of the general warranty and
footing and foundation warranty for all new residential
construction; amending the a~propriate sba=ute to make it
possible to assess undeveloped ~esidential lots for t~e
purpose of funding the assistance fund; and stare legislation
to ~egulate home w~rrunty companies in the State of Virginia.
There was brief discussion relative to whether the Commission
had received input from t-he General A~sembly regarding
proposed legislation and whether home warranty insurance
tom, sales have been cnntacted to determine why olai~ i~ the
area have been dealed.
z.~.m. COUNTy ADMI~ISTSATION ACTION ITBHS
Mr. 01sen then reviewed the Co~n~ission's recommendation for
action by County administration including having the County
Building Ins~e~ti0n 0flies d0c~ment all Buildin~ Code
viclatlons upon discovery or request of the homeowner,
regardless cf the age of the home; collating all building
permits with aerations on them regarding soils or drainage
problems which have been made by the County soil soientist;
pressing as many builders to come forward and make ~epair~ on
~ome~ w~ic~ t~ey built regardless of the implied warranty
paried~ and charging pe~mi~ nol~ers $~$,00 SO~ rein~pa¢=ions
inClUding the first reinspection.
Discussion, comments and questions en~ued relative to charging
parmi= holders $25.0~ fo~ ~ei~s~o%ione; decumontation 0£ all
B~ildih~ Code violation complaints; and the role of the
Building Inspection Department in documenting Code violations.
REVENUE BOND~
~r. Olean then =tared the Com~i~ion'~ r~co~meDdRtio~ wa~ that
revenue bonds b~ ~ed only if sufficient funding cannot be
obtained by th~ above m~thods or if the time involv~ in
receiving the funding is too lengthy.
Mr. Daniel inquired
Commission aa it related to the ~e~o~endati0ne they ha~
submitted and the length of time needed to complete its
documentation regarding ~he infor~atie~al brochures and would
take approximately 3~ days to complst$ its agenda. He
indicated tl%e Co~umlssion wes willing to address any other
future ideus or direction by the Board if the Board £eels it
i~ warranted.
There was brief disoussion relative to the timeframe in which
the Corm~issien could complete its unfinished agen4a.
Mr. Barber stated although the Commissisn did net always
agree, they were working together es a co~ittee to addrm~
relating to ~e ~hr~nk/swell soilz i~ue the Board may
the Co~ission to
~. Daniel ~tmted he felt all mu~ers ~ the Commls~ion ~hould
be present and focalized at the public hearing o~ October 14,
presented. After bri~ discussion, Mr. Daniel ~tated he felt
Octo~r 30, 1992 and at that time, the Board could addre~m the
future need for the
reco~endatlon of the Cabin,ion to prepare brochures for
distribution to all homeowners within the area now designated
as the ~ias~io basi~. Mr. Daniel instructed ~ County
Administrator to address mailln~ ~he brochures.
I% w~s no~e~ ~r. Warren and ~r. Barber w~uld b~
oo~ity meetings regarding ~hrink/swell ~oil~ on
ZP, 199~ at 7:00 p.m. at swif~ Creek Kiddle School and october
5, 1992 at 7:00 p.~. at Mt. Pisgah United ~ethodtst Church,
at its regularly scheduled meetinq o~ October 14, 1992 at
p.m. in the Public Meeting
without ~tt~rs which were e~erienclng probl~mn relating
~. Wa~en state~ the B~ard me, ers, while in a
elect position, had visited different home~ within ~hm County
~riencln~ prc~la~ relating to ~hrlnk/~well ~oil~ and the
Board would address the issue in th~ ~t interest of all.
(It i~ noted ~$ r~pox~ ~y %He co~ission on Soilm and
Foundations re~ardin~ r~co~endations on shrlnk~swell soils
filed ~ith the papers of ~hi~
5. ~DJOUItNMBNT
It was generally ep-~sed to adjourn at 9:2~ p.m.
p.m. on September 23, 1992.
until
Ca~ty Adminiatrater
92-729