Loading...
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