01-13-93 MinutesEO~%~D OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTE~
Mr. Arthur S. Warre~, Chairman
Mr. Edward H. Barber, vice chrm.
Mr. Whal~y M. Colbert
Mr. Harry 9. Daniel
Mr. J. L. BeHalf, III
county Administrator
Staff in Atten4ance~
Ms. Barbara Bennett, Dir.
of£ioe on Youth
~uilding Official
Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr.,
Fire Department
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Manaqement services
Hr. william a. Howell,
Mr. Thomas E. Jacobsen,
Dir., Planning
Ms. Mary Lom Lyle,
Dir., Accounting
Deputy Co. Admln.,
Mr. ~acob W. ~ast, Jr.
Nursing Home Admin.
Mr. R. John ~oCrack~n,
Dir., Transportation
Mr. Richard ~. ~cElfish,
Dir., Env. Engineering
Mr, S~ev~n'L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mrs. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Dir., News & P~blic
Information
Col. J. E. Pittman, Jr.,
Police Department
Clerk to the Hoard
Mr. Jamee J. L. St~maler,
Dir., Budget & Management
Mr. ~. D. stith, Jr.,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
community Development
Mr. David H. Welchons,
Sheriff Clarence Williams,
Sheriff's Department
Ramsey ~all~d the regularly ~chedul~d meeting to order at
3:Q0 p.m. (EST}.
ORGANIZATIONAL HEETIN~
ELECTION OF CHAIRHAN liND VIC~ CERIPJ4AN
Ramsay stated the first ~r~er er b~siness would be th~
eleotiun of chairman and Vice chairman.
............ :_-- IIii Jl .............. ILl ........ L .......... L .......... L
Mr. Daniel 'nominated Mr. Warren re ~erve as Chairma~ for
1993.
On motion Of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
Closed no~in&tionm for the election of Chairman of t~e Board
of supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
On motlo~ of ~r. Danie%, seconded by Mr. Barbs:, ~hs Board
elected /~r. Arthur S. Warren as chai~a~ of the Board of
Vote: U~an~mous
Mr. Warren wam elected Chalr~aD-
Mr. Warren expre~e~ appreciation for the honor bestowed upon
him and stated the Board would e~ert every effor~ to provide
a government open and accessible to the public. He furthe~
Chairmanship to the best of his a~illties.
Nr. McHale nominated Mr. Barber to serve a~ Vic~ Chairman for
1D93-
On motion of ~Lr. ~c~ale, ~eeonded by Mr. Daniel~ ~he Board
closed nomination~ for the election of vice dhairman of the
Bo~rd of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
On motio~ of Mr. ~oSale, ~e¢onded by Mr. Daniel, ~he Boar~
elected Mr. Edward B. Barber es vice chairmaD of th~ Board of
Supervisors for 1D93.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Barber was elected Vioe Chairman.
~r. Barber expressed appreoiatio~ for the honor ~estowed upon
him and sta~e~ he looked forward to worEinq with the Beard
me~b~r~ on issues facinD th~ County.
SUPERVIBOR~ HEETINSS FOR 1993
~r. Ramsay ~tated ~taff was recommending ~he procedures
governing the ~ea~ of supervisors meetings remain the same
with the only recommended ohanqe being to move Deferred
before cons~deratleh of New Business (Section 5) in ~ha order
of business for Board meetinga.
After brief discussion, on ~otion of Mr. ~eSale, seconds4 by
Mr, Daniel, the ~oard adopted ~etlng procedures governing
the Board of Supervisors meet~nqe for 1993. (It is noted a
copy of the 1993 ~rocedure~ cf the Board of Supervisors is
fii~d with the papers of thi~ Board.)
stated the ~¢hed~l~ for regular meeting da=es and times for
93-2
~993 would ro~ain the same with the only recommended cha~ge
being the months in which there ie only one meeting -- july,
August and De~emb~ -- to beq~n the ~eetings at 2:00 p.m.
iD~tead of 3:00 p.m. He noted the second meeting in November
would be held two days b~fmr~ ThaD~sgivlng rather than the
eve of Thank~givlng. He then reviewed ~peclal meeting dates
(VACo) 1~93 Legislativ~ Day ~houtd be removed from the
~chedule for special meetings es it was an informational and
~o~ a formal meeting.
On mo=ion of Mr. Mc~ale, ~econded by Mr. Deni~l, the Beard
set their regular meeting dazes and times for 1993 as
follows:
January 1~, 199~ at ~:00
January 27~ 1993 e~ 3:00
~ebruary 18, 1993 at 9:09 p.m.
February 24, 1993 at 3:0Q
Marah 10, 1993 at 3:00
March 24~ 19~3 at ~:00 p.m.
April ~8, 1993 a~ 3tO0 p.m.
May 1~, 1993 a: 3:00
May 26, 1993 at ~:00
June 9, 1993 ~C 3;00 p.~.
June 23, 1993 ~t 3:00
July 28, 199~ at 2:00 p.m.
August 95~ 1993 at 2:0~ p.m.
September ~, 1993 at 3:00 ~.m.
*Due to Thanksgiving holiday~
~et the following special meeting dates for 1993:
Regional Summit (Board Retreat) March 18-20, ~993
- Budget work session at 6:00 p.m.
April 7, I993 - Budget work session at
- Sudget Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m.
Clover Mill District School Beard P~lic ~earing - April ~1,
Joint School Board/BO$ Retreat - October 15, 1993
Vote: Unanimous
I.D. CONSID~m~IO~ OF COM/iIT~BE APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Ramaey reviawed consideration of committee appointments
with set t~r~ requiring Board action and committee
appointments with nO set term~ r~quiring Board action ir
T~ero was brief discussion relative to an appointment of a
member to serve on the Capital Area Train~nG Consortitt~; the
Consortium's meeting schedule; and appointment of the
Chairman to sesve on the Me=ropolitan Richmond Convention and
On motion o~ ~r. MeHalo, seconded by Mr~ Daniel, the Board
confirmed the appoin~ent of Mr. Arthur $. Warren to serve on
the Metropolitan RichmoDd ConventiOn and Vi~tor's Bureau.
Vote: Unanimous
After Drier discussion, on motion of ~r. ~cHale, seconded by
Mr. Daniel, the Board confirmed the appointment of Mr, Edward
B. Barber to serve on the capi~al Area Training Consortium.
Mr. Ramsey t~em roviowed committee appointments made by the
c~airman needing to be reaffirmed or revised by the
After brioS discussion, on motion of Mr. MeHalo, ~eoonded by
Mr. Daniel, the Board rmaffirmed %he following committee
Mr. Barber and Mr. Colbert
~r. Colbert
Vote: Unanimous
II.B. DECER~EB 10, 1992
On notion of Mr. McHala, seconded by Mr. ~arber, the Board
approved the minutes of December 10, 1992, am submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. stith introduced Mr. Craig Bryant, Assistant Director of
the util~tlee Department, to address the Lead an~ Copper
Testing Program recently undertaken by the Department.
Mr- Bryant outlined the ~equirements of the Lead and Copper
Testing Program and reviewed the testing conducted by the
Utilities Department to achieve compliance with the l~/les~
including regulations by th~ ~nvir0nmental Protection Agency
(~PA), to reduce the e~posurs of lead and copper in d~i~L~inq
water and the dsvalopmen~ of a ~ublic education Drogra~ to
inform customers on ho~ to minimize e~osure to lead and
copper in drinking wa~er i~ the ~oncent~ation~ exceed SPA
llmits~ ~ further stated water ~upDller~ are also re,ired
%o d~monstrate that treatmen= for corrosion co~trol ~ave been
optlmi=ed and if unachleved, must undertake corrosion control
utudies to deta~ine the optim~ treatment. ~e revlewe~ =he
te~tin~ results by th~ Utilities Depar~ent and stated the
D~partment's lead ~esults were ~e lowest in th~ Stat~, that
~he D~partment had met the EPA limits for lead and had
achieved optimum corrouiun CO~t~ol. He noted on a nationwide
h~sis, a~Droximataly 25 peMcent of the wa=~r s~ppliers failed
to meet the li~it~ and ~ust initiate p~lio education
appr~ciatlon to the voluntee~ who participated in the
program.
Mr. Ramsay ~tatad due ~o the efforts of the Utilities
Department, the County would not be =e~ired to implement any
public education ~r corrosion pro,rams and noted ~is was a
significan~ Gost savings to the County.
IV. ~O~RD COM~ITTB~
~r. Daniel stated he had attended the regional summit meeting
and the locali=ies involved were in the process of moving
forward and addressing ~eqional to~ios for disomseion. He
further s~ated ne felt this meeting was vital'to the region
~nd should go forward as planned.
Mr. Warren commended Mr. Daniel on ~ie efforts amd strong
leadership in as~istlng is organizing the regional summit and
stated he al~o felt the summit would benefit the region.
Mr. ~cHale statsd he had attended the Be~ley Civic
Azsociation Annual Dinner and meted the Association was
supportive of the efforts by the ~lanning Department as it
~elates ts the Jefferson Davis Highway
Mr. Barber stated he had attended Vietnam Veterans Post 7S
meeting and received a certificate of ~ppreciation for the
County displaying the Missing in Action~Prisoners O~ War
(~IA/POW) Flag at the Courthouse. He further stated his
"First Monday" Constituents meeting would be held in February
and ~he topic uf discussion woul~ b~ the L~gi~lative Program.
in ~idlothisn Dietrio~ and requested all such asseeia~ions to
93-5 1/13/9~
contact the County's Department Of News and Public
Information and r~quest to be plaoed on the County's mailing
list. He stated he had also attended the Forest View
Volunteer Rescue Squad~ annual banquet.
attende~ by the Planning CO~mi~sioner reDresenting Clover
Mill District with the topic of discussion being issues
~ocusi~q on the challenges faoing the county an~ ~eeting
those challenges and legi$1ativ~ ~=~ues. Me further ~tated
and March l, 1993.
V. REQUESTS TO POS~ONE ACTION. EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR
~W~NGE~ IN TH~ ORDER O~
On motion of }tr. MoHale, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board
move~ Ite~ XIV.A., Regolution R~cognizing Mr. Carson
Bosher Upon ~i~ Retir~menS, to i~k~edi~tely follow this item
and, adopte~ ~he agenda, a~ amended.
Vo~e: Unanlmou=
Bosher wac retiring from the Police Department with
a~proximstely ~wenty yeur~ of servioe. ~e further sta~e~ in
his capacity as Baekgroun~ Inveztigator in the Personnel
in shaping the oharacter and image of the ~oliee Department.
quality service %o %h~ citizens of Chesterfield Ceunty~ and
oapa¢ity of Deputy Sheriff, ~atrol offiner, Training officar~
Armore~ and Investiqator; and
thebackground in¥$~tiqation of police and c~vili~n employee
%~EREAS, ~r. Bcsh~r has signifkcantly impacted the shape
whioh has in~%tred %h~ ~iqhest quality employe~s for the
W~A~, ~-r. Bosher has provided the Chemterfi~l~ county
Polide Department with many y~ars of loyal and d~dicated
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board uf
Bosher and ~xt~ds on b~al~ o~ its m~ber~ mhd the ci%i~en~
of Chesterfleld County ~eir appreciation for ~is se~ice Co
9~-6 1/13/93
the County. ..!
A~D, BE IT FURT~E~ R~$0LV~D, that a copy of this
resolution be presented to Mr. Besher and that this
resolution be permanently re¢ord~ among the paper~ of this
Board of ~upervisors of Cheeterfleld County.
Vote: U~animeuz
Nr. Daniel presented the ezecuted resol~tio~ to Mr. Boeher,
thanked him fo~ his dedicated servi~e to the County and
wish~ him ~11 in hi~ retirement.
There ~e~e no Work Sessions soh~d~ted at this time.
nominated ~r, Rickey Parr =o serve on the Youth Servls~s
Vote: Unanimous
District.
Vote: Unanimous
On ~Ot~on of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by ~r. DaRiel, ~he Board
suspended i%~ r~Ies at this time to allow ~imult~neous
nomination/appointment of a representative t~ serve on the
Youth Services Citlzan ~uard representing Bermuda District,
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr- ~cHale, eeson~e~ by Kr. Daniel, ~he ~oar~
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Rick~ Parr to serve
on the Youth Services Citizen ~oard, rmpreseatin~ Bermuda
Distrist, whose t~rm i= ~ffective immediately and will exloire
Jun= 3~, 1994.
There was brief discussion relative to the request £sr a
specific ~tyle pole and lamp for streetlighte end the cost
as~osiated with the
On motion of Mr. ~Hale, seconded by ~r. colbert, the ~oard
approvmd ~treetlight installation cost a~p~svals for the
intersection of Walt_hull Creek Drive and Woo~s ~g$ ~o~d and
th~ i~te~ction of Broadwater Court and
Bermuda Magisterial Distrist. And, further, the ~card
deferred the streetllght installation cost approvals for the
93-7 1/13/93
vicinity of 3518 Lu~kylee Crescent; the vicinity o~ 14100
Howleht Line Drive; and the vicinity between 14D25 and 14519
Fox Knoll DriVe, in Bermuda ~agisterial District, until June
23t 1993. (It is noted there was no cost to install the
lighSs for the intersection of Walthall Creek Drive and Woods
Edge Road and the inter~ection ~f ~oadwate~ Court an~
Harrewgate Road,)
Vote; T~anlmous
On ~oticn Of ~r. Colbert, seconded by ~r. Ko.ale, the Board
deferred ~treetlight in~tallation cost approvals for %he
intersection of Foster Avenue and Gaudy Avenue and the
inte~seotio~ of Gaudy Avenue an4 Loyal Avenuu, in ~atsaoa
Magisterial District, until August 25, t993. And, further~
th~ Bou~d denied a re~ues~ for the County to aa~ume monthly
electrical servic~ charges for seventeen (17) 9arking area
light~ in the Pravidsnee Green Townhouses Subdivision, in
Clover Hill Magisterial District.
Vote: Unanimous
VII.c. CON~ENT ITEMB
NY ADDING $~TTO~ 9-27.1 RELATIN~ TO TRE LEVY OF
Mr. Daniel stated he f~lt thio item should be sonsi~or~d
du~in~ the budget process as it related to taxe~.
review this request.
A~ter brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Daniel, eecon~=~ by
a Public Hearing %0 Con~idsr an ordinance to Amend the code
of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~ Amended, by Amending
the Ca~e of the County of Chesterfield by Adding Section 8~
27,I Relating to the Levy of a Probate Tax, which request
vote: Unanimous
VIi. C,i, ~DOETION OF R~0LETION RECOGNIZING N R. J~FF D,
adopted the ~ollowing resolution:
Greater Rickmond w~s established i~ 1906 ~ith the goal of
giving ~etailers a un~ffad voice and providing ~ervic~e to
and efficiently; and
including Rich~oDd'~ leading department stores, major
shopping centers, smaller speGialty shops, leading financial
inetitution~ and ~ervice-orientad firms; and
I I
W~ER~AS, the Assooia~ion en¢ourage~, stlmulat~s and
promotes the common interests of its members end engaqes in
sush services and actigitiee which i~pr0%e th~ .buslne~
conditions of it~ members; and
%T6ER~A~, Mr. Jeff D. Smith, J~. has been the
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Asseoiation for
th~ pa~t twenty-three yea~ and, until it was recently ~o]d,
it~ credit repo~ting operation;
~EREAS, under Mr. smith's leadership, the
organization grew from a small trade orgmnizatiO~ Of 350
membe~ to a major multi-faceted or~anization of 2500
WHeReAS, Mr. Smith is pa~ chairman of the Board of
Associated C~edit Bureaus, Ino, and ~urrently serves as
Chairman of it~ Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, ~r. Smith has received many natlonal and
state leadership awa~d~ including the Golden Key Awar~
association executive to receive the designation of Certified
Association Executlva.
~OW, TH~EFORE BE iT R~SOLVED, that the
chesterfield County Board cf Supervisor~ publicly recognizes
~r. Jeff D. Smith, Jr. and ~xt~nd~ ~ir be=t wi=he= to him
in hi~ retiremeut.
vote: Unanimous
On motion of ~r. ~c~ale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, 'the Board
adopted the following resolution:
W~R~A$~ citizens have ~equested t-he Chesterfield
County Board of su~ervi$0rs to restrict through truck traffic
on Centralie Road (Route ]45) from Ro~te 10 to Ches=er Road
(Route 144); and
WHEREAS, Genitalia Road is included in the state's
primary ~y=tem ~f ~ighways; and
W~RF~, Centralla Road is a winding road with no
shoulders Or turn l~nes which travarsa~ a 9rs~ominantly
residential area; and
WH~/kEAS, serious a~ci~nt~ involving truck~ have
occurred on Centralia Road res~lting in loss of life;
NOW, T~R~FOR~ BE IT RESOLVED, t~at the
Chesterfield County Boar~ o~ supervisors requests
virginia ~partment of Transportation Commiusio~e~
~on~ider th6 imposition of a through t~uok ~raffic
restriction os dentralia Road from Route 10 t~ Che~t~ Roud.
VO%~: Unanimous
VII.O.~- SET DA~E~ FO~ ~U~LIC HB~RIN~B
VII.C.3.a. T~ CON~IDER /%N ORDINANCE TO kMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ~T~RFIELD, 1~78. ~$AHENDED. BY
A~ROFAL
On motion of Mr. M~H&le, seconded by Mr. Colbert, ~he ~oard
set the date Of February 10, 19~3 a= 7:Q0 p,~. for a public
hearin~ to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amendiDg Zectiun
21.1-277 relating to site plan approval.
Vote: Unanimous
VII,C,~-e- TO ~ON~TDER ~N ORDIB/~NGE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ~HB
COUNT~ OF C~EST~FIE~D. 1~8, AS ~ME.NDED, BY
~B OF VE~ICLE~ U~ED h~ TAXICABS
On motion of Mr. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
~et the date of F=b~ary 10, 199~ at 7:00 p.~. for a public
hearing =o consider an ordinance tu amend =he Code of the
County of Che~%erfield, 1978, as amended, by adding a new
Section 19.1-3(~) relating to the =ge of vehiole~ used as
taxicabs.
Vote: Unanimous
On ~otion of F~. McEale, seconded by ~r. colbert, the Board
a~ended ~he minutes of the December 11, 1~91 Board meetin~ ae
~ROM:
"Th~s day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance
with d~rect~onm from thi~ Board, made report in ~riting upon
Wiesimger Lone and Wiesinger ~ane in Victoria Commons!
~idlothian District.
Upon cen~i~eration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded b~ Mr. Mayer, it i~ resolved tha~ Victori~ C~ossing
Lane, Framer Driwe, wiesinqer Lan~ and
victoria Com~nns~ Midlothian District, be end they hereby are
establlehed es public
And b~ it further resolved, that the Virginia Deear=ment of
Tran~portetlon, b~ and i% h~reby i= requested to tare into
the Secondary System, Victoria Crossing Lane, beginning at
the intersection wi~ Robious Road, Stat~ Route 711~ and
going ~outhwesterly 0.09 mile, then t~rnlng an~ going
westerly 0.04 ~ile to end in a cul-de-sac; Rra~ar Drive,
beginning at e~i~tlng ~ramar Drive, State ~oute 4170, and
going w~sterly 0.03 m~le to end in a cul-de-sac; Wie~inger
Lane, existing State Route 12~6, located st east end e~ dead
end ~treet to the ssuth side of existing right-of-way,
additional right-of-way to prOVide for a cul-de-sac; and
Wiesinger Lane, axis=lng state Route 1~), located at th~
west end of dead end street to the north side of e~isting
right-of-way, additional.right-of-way t~' provide for a
This request is in~lumiv~ cf the adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department
Transportation drainage
These roads serve ~1 lot~.
An~ ~e it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation
unrestricted right-of-way of ~0' with necessary =ase~ment~ for
cuts, fills and d~aina~e for all of these
Victoria Commons is recorded as follows:
Pl~t Book 64, P~gus 85 & 86, December 3Q~ 1988.
TO:
"This day the County Environmental ~Dgin~r, in accordance
with directions from %his Board, mad~ report in ~riting upon
hi~ examination of Victoria Cros~ing Lane, ~n~ ~ark
Wie~inger Lane and Wiesinger Lane in Victoria Commons,
~idlothian District.
U~an consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded ~y Mr. Mayas, it i~ resolved that Vi~toria Crossing
Lane, P~ns ~ark Lane, Wiesinger Lame and Wiesinger Lane in
Victorla Commons, Nidlothian District, be and they ~ereby are
established as public read~.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it huruby is ~equested to take into
~he Secondary $~s=em~ ¥io~eria C~es~ing Lane, beginning at
the interseQtiQs with Robiou~ Road, Stat~ Ro~te 711, and
going southwesterly 0.09 nile, then turning and going
w~ste~ly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; P~nc Bar~
beginning at existing Riss Bark Lane, Sta~e Route 1223~ and
going westerly 0.03 miIe to end in a cul-de-sac; Wiesinger
Lane, e~ist~ng State Route 1226, located at east end oS dead
end s=reet to the ~outh ~ide of existing right-of-way,
additional ~ig~t-of-way to provide for a cul-de-sac; and
Wfesinger ~ane, existing Stat~ Route 1221, located et the
west end of dead end street' to the north s~e of existing
right-of-way, additional right-of-way to provide for a e~l-
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sigh%
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage
And be it further resolved, that the Buu~d of
guarantees to the Virginia Departmen= of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with necessuZ~ easements for
cuts, fill~ and drainage Xor all o£ these roads,
Victoria Come,ns is recorded as fellows:
93-11
Plat ~ook 6~,.~ages 85 & 86, Deoe~ber
Vote:
VII,~,4-~- ~U~Y,._22. 1992
On motioD cf Mr. MeHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Doard
emended the minutes of the ~uly ~, 1392 Board meeting as
-This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance
with directions from this Board, made r~port in writing upon
his examination of Roland View Terrace and Rolan~ view Court
in Millcreek, Section 4, Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whe'reof, and on motion of Mr. McMale,
memonded by Mr. colbert, it is resolved that Roland View
Terrace and Roland view Court in Millcreek, Section ~,
Matoaca District, be and they hereby are e~tablished as
public road~-
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department cf
Transportation, ~e and it hereby in r~quested to ta~e into
th~ Secondary. System, Roland View Terrace, beginning a= the
intersection wi~n Roland View Drive, State Route ~55, and
going easterly 0.~7 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Roland
View Court, beginning at the intersection with Roland view
~rive, State Route 3455, and qoing easterly o.0~ mile to end
This reques~ is inclusive of the
distance, clear zone and d~slgnated
Tr=nupOrtatien drainag~ easements.
These roads serve 29 tots.
adjacant slope, sight
Virginia Department of
And be it further resolved~ that =he ~oard of Supervisors
guaranteem ~o t~e virginia Department of Transportation a__n
u~_restr, lcted riuht-of-wa¥ of 58' with necessary easomentm for
OUts, ~ills an~ drainag~ for all of these roa~.
T~is section of M~llcreek is recorded a~ follow~:
SectiO~ 4. Plat Boo~ 63, Page 52, October 26, 1958.
Vote: Unanimous"
TO:
"T~is ~a¥ the county Environmental ~ngln~er, in accurdaOoe
with directions from this Moand# ~ade report in writing upon
his examination of Ruland view Terrace and Roland View Court
i~ ~illcreek, Section 4~ Matoaca Dimtrict.
Upon oonsidsration whereof, and on motiO~ of Mr. ~cHale,
seconded by F~. ~olbert, it i~ re~olved ~hat ~oland view
Terrace an~ ~olaD~ View Court in Millcreck, Section 4,
Matoaea Di~trict~ be and they hereby are e~tabli~hed as
public ro~ds,
And be it £~rther resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Tranmportatlon, be and it hereby i~ requested to take into
93-12 1/13/93
the Secondary System, Roland View Terrace,. beginning at the
intersection with Roland View Drive, State Route 3455, and
going easterly 8.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Roland
View Court, beginning at the intersection with Roland View
Driver State R~ute 3455, and going.easterly 0.08 mile ~e end
in a c~l-de-sac.
This request is in¢lunive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements,
Theae reads serve 2~ lets.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Superviserm
guaranteem to the Virginia Department of Transportation a__n
unrestricted ri~ht-of-wa¥ of 40~ with necessary easements fe~
outs, fills and drainage fo~ all of these roads.
This section of Millcreek is recorded aS follows:
Sectien 4. D~at Book 63, Page 52, October ~6, 1988..
Vote: Unanimous
amended the minutes of the October 28, 199~ Board meeting a~
follows:
FRO~;
adopted tDe following ordinance:
AN 0RDI~ANCE TO A~E~D TH~ COD~ OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 197~, AS A~ND~D, BY AMENDING
Cheu~e~ field County:
read as follows:
f~ec.. 4-26.1. Definitions.
For the purpose uf this article, the following words
shall have the following ~eaning~:
(b) "Raffle" m~an$ a lottery in which the prize is won
by e random drawing of t~e name of prearranged number of one
(1) ar mere persons purchasing cbance~. ~owever, nothing in
this article shall prohibit an orqanization from using the
Sta~e Lottery Department's Pick-$ n~ber a~ the basis for
determining the winner of a lottery. For .purposes of this
definition, "raSSla" shall includs detraining th~ w~nner of
devices made completely of paper or paper products with
93-13 · 1/13/9~
~J!L Jl! ' L~I ............ L · L ........
player %o deger~ine wins er losses and may include the use of
demignated in advance az a prize winner including but not
limited to pull-tab devices commonly known as tipbo~rdm or
(2) That Section 4-~7 of the Code O~ the CoDntv of
O o o
Any organization whose
gros~ rsceiDts ~rcm all
bingo Operations exceeded Or san be e~upected to exceed
seven%y-~ive thousand dollars ($75~000.8~) in any c=lendar
year shall have been granted %ax exempt s~atus pursuant to
section 501C Of the U~ited States Internal Revenue Coda. At
the same time tax-exempt status is sought from th~ Internal
Revenue Service, the same documentation may be file~ with
local governing Dody for an interi~ certification of tax-
exe~t statue, If such documentation is filed, the local
governing body nay, after reviewing such documentation as it
may deem necessary, issue its determination of tax-exe~D~
s~atus within sixty (60) days of receipt o~ ~uch
documentation. The local governing body may charge
reasonable fee, net =o exceed five hundred dollars
This 'interim certification of tax-exempt ~tatus shall be
valid ~ntll the Internal Revenue Service issues ~t~
determination of tax~exempt ~tatus, or for ~ighteen (18)
months; whichever is earlier.
(3) That section 4-2~ of
ChesteKf~ield,' 1978, a~
read as follows:
~e~. 4-29. Issuance of permit.
the Code of the County of
~ amended and reenacted to
(a} Each De~mi~ shall be issued by th~ chairman of the
boar~ Of supervisors upon prior approval of th~ ~card. Each
pe~it shall be i~usd un a calend~r y~ar basis and shall be
vali~ from the first day of j~nuary until ~he thirty-first
day of D~O~ of ~ach year. ~ach permit ~hall he
nofltraDsferubl~. A~ organization which obtains a permit to
conduct a raffle may ~ell raffle ticket~ both within and
without the county, except t~at pull-%ab devices as defined
in section 4-26.1(b} use~ as part of a raffle may be ~old
only upon the premises ownxd or exclusively leased by such
organization and at such ~imss am it is not opened to the
public, 9Xcept to members and their guests.
o o o
(~) 'That ~ectlon 4-30 of the code of the County of
Chesterfield~ 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted tO
read a~ follows:
~ee. 4-30, Peri, it R~tricticn~=
9~-14 1/13/93
(e) ~cept for persons employed ac clerical
by organizations composed of or ~or ~ea~ or Blind persono,
enly ~ena fide members cf..any such organization!who have'been
members of such organization for at least ninety (90) days
prior to such participation shall participate in the
~anagement, operation or conduct of any bingo game or raffle.
Except ac provided herein, no p~r~pn ~hall receive any
remun~xetion for participating in th~ management~ operation
or cenduc~ of any such game or roff~e. Persons employed by
organizations eompozed cf or for deaf er blind permcns may
receive remuneration not to exceed ~hirty dollars ($30.00)
p~r event for providing clerical assistance in the Cendu~t of
bin~o games or raffles only for such organizations. Peroono
eighteen (18) years of age and under wh~ sell raffle tic,et9
to rai~ funds for youth activities in which they participate
may r~ceive nonmonetary incentive awards or prizes from the
organization provided that organization io nonprofit. The
opouse of any such bona fide m~b~r or a firefighter er
~usoue squad me~ber employed by a political oub~iv£siun with
which ~he volunteer firef~ghter or rescue oquad member io
associated may participate in t~e o~era~icn and cendust of a
~ingo game or raffle if a b:n& fide member is present.
(g) No organization ohall award any bingo prize or any
merchendis~ valued in e×ce~ of the fellswln~ amounts:
NO bingo door prize ohall exceed tw~nty-f~ve
dollaro ($25.00);
(2) No regular bingo or special bin~o game shall
exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00); and
(3) ~o bingo jackpot, of any nature whatsoever,
shall exceed one thoussnd dollaro'{$1,00Q.00),
nor ~hall the total amount of bingo jackpot
prize~ awarded in any one ~1] calendar year
exceed ons thousand dollar~
NO organization shall award any raffle prize or prizes
($100,000.00). The one hundred thousand dollar~ ($100,000.00)
once ~er calendar year by an organization qualified as a tax-
exempt organization pursuant tO ~ectien 501(c) (3) cf the
percent of the moneyo received from ouch a raffle,
de~ustions for the fai~ market value for the cost of
acquisition of the land and material, are donated to lawful
religious, charitable, community, or educational
organizations specifically chartered or organized under the
laws of the commonwealth and qualified eS & section 501(c)(3)
tax-exempt organization. The award of any such prize money
shall not ~e deemed to be a part of any gaming contrast
much gums or raffle, except as provided in ~ub~ect~on (e).
o o o
(k) Any organization composed of or for deaf or Blind
persona that e~ploys a person not ~ member to provide
clerical assistance in the conduct of bingo games os ~affles
shall have in force fidelity insurance, as defined in
120~ Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, written by an
in~urer licensed to do business in the Commonwealth.
(5) That Section 4-91 of the Code of the County cf
Sec. 4-31. other
(b) No organization shall enter into a contract with or
otherwise employ for comp~D~ation any person for the purpose
of organising, managing or conducting bingo games or raffles,
except as provided in s'ubsection (e) of ~ection 4-30. This
shall not prohibit the joint operation of bingo
pursuant to =ection 4-30.1.
(6) That Section 4-32 of the code of thD County of
chesterfield, 1976, us a~e~ded~ is amended an~ reenacted to
read as follows:
Sac. 4-32. Records
disbursements.
and
(b) Each. financial report sh~ll ba accompanied by a
c~rtificate, verified under oa~h, by the ~oard of directors
of the organization to which the permit is issued, that the
proceeds of all bingo g~m~s and raffles have beep used by
~ose lawful, r~ligious, charitabl~, community or educational
or or~anlzad and %h=~ the operation of bingo gam~ or raffte~
has been in accordance with the provimion& of article 1.i of
chapter 8 of ~i~l~ 18.2 (1S.~-940.1 ~5 ~q-} of th~ Code of
Virginia, 19S0, as am~Hd~d. Additionally~ any organization
having a~ual gross receipts f~om bingo gamem or rafftem in
excem~ of fiv~ hunted thoumand dollars ($500~000), aS MhQ~
on its annual finunoial report, shall attach to much report
an opinion of a licxnsud independent certifie~ public
accountant that the ~nnual financial ruport prementm fairly,
in all material r~spmctm, beginning cash, r~ceip=m~ o~mrating
c0mt~ us~ of p~oceedm, ~nd e~ding cash; that the proceeds of
any bingo games or raffles have bean used~ in all ma=ariel
or educational purpomes for which the o~ganization ~s
specifically chartered O~ organized; and ~hat gross receipts
have ~een used, in all material respec%s~ in accordance with
the provimions of ~is article.
(7) This ordinano~ Shall become e~fsc=ive i~ediately
u9un adoption.
Vote: Unanimous~
"On motion of ~r. ~al~ ~econded by ~r. B~rber, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO A~4END THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OE..~ESTZRFIELD, 1975, AS A~ENDED, BY AMt~NDIN~
AND REENACTING SECTIONS 4-26.1~ 4-27, 4-29, 4-30,
4-3I ANQ 4-22 AND BY ADDING SECTiO~ 4-$0(k)
RELATING TO BINGO G~ES AND P~AFFLES
~E IT ORDAINED by the Beard of Superviser~ of
Che~terfleld
(1) That Section 4-26.1 of the code of the county of
Chsstsr£isl~, 1978, as amended, is a~ended and reemacted to
Sec. 4-2 6.1. Defini=ion~.
For the purpose of ~his article, the following words
shall have the following meanings:
(b) "Raffle" means a lottery in whloh the prize is won
by a random drawln~ of the name of prearranged n~b~r of one
(!) or mor~ persons pUrChasing chanc~. However~ nothing
thiu article shall prohibit an organization ~rum using
State Lettery Depart~t'n ~ick-3 n~ber aS the ba~i~ for
d~t~rm~ning the winner of ~ lottery. For purposem
~efinition, "raffle" shall include d~te~ining the winner of
m lottery by u~e of pre-paeRaqed pull-tab devices which are
~evice~ made completely of p~p~r or paper products with
player to dete~in~ wln~ or losmem and may include the use of
a ~eal which oon~eal~ a number or s~l ~at has been
designated in advance as a prize wi~er including but not
limited to pull-tab d~vices o0~only knewn ms tipboards or
(2) That Section 4-27 of the Cede of the county of
read a~ follows:
Sec. 4-27. ~ho may conduct.
O O O
(g) Any o~ganization who~e
gross receipt~ from all
binge operations exceeded or can be expected to exceed
seventy-flys ~hounand dollar~ ($75,000.00) in any calendar
year shall have been granted tax exemp~
section $01C of the United $~tes Internal ReVcn~e Code, At
the same time tax-exempt status is scugh~ fr0~ th~ Internal
Reve~e service, the sams dacumentation mmy be filed with the
local gow~rning body for an interim certification of
exempt status. If ~uch documentation is filed, the local
goverD~ng body may, afte~ reviewing such
may deem necessary, issue its det~iDatien of tax-exempt
~tatus within ~ixty (6Q) day~ of receipt of ~uch
documentation. The local geverning body may charge a
reasonable fee, not to e×oeed five hundred dollar~ ($500.00).
Thi~ interim c~r:ificeticn e~ tax-exempt status shall be
valid until the Internal Revenue Service ie~ue~ its
93-17 1/13/93
........... ~k:!L_.Jl: ~1.i ........................ I ...........
determinatlen of tax-exempt status, ur for eighteen
Nenths, which~ve~ i~ earlier.
(3) That seeti0n 4-29 e£ the C~de of the County
Chesterfield, ~978, as amended! is amended an~ r~na~ted
(a) Each permit shall be ~ued by the chairman of the
valid fram the £1rst day of January until the thir~y-£irst
day of December of each year. Each permit ~hall be
nentrans~era~le. AD organization which obtains a p~rmit to
conduct a raffle ~ay sell ~a~fle tickets hath within and
without the ceu~ty~ except that pull-tab d~vice~ ~ defined
in section'4-~.l(b) uaed es pa~t of a raffle may be sold
on~y ripen the premises own~d or exclusively iea~sd by such
public, e~cept to members an~ their guests.
(4) That Section 4-30 of the Code of the County of
~ec. 4-30.' Permit Res%fictions.
(e) E~oep= for parsons employed a~ clerical a~iutants
~embers of gush organization for at least ninety (~0) days
prior to such part~clpation shall participate in the
management, operation or condUCt of any bingo game or raffle.
remuneration for participating in th~ management, operation
receive remuneration not to exceed thirty dollars
per event for pr0vid~ng clerical assistance in the condu~t of
eighteen (18) yea~s of age and under who sell raffle tickets
to raise funds for y~ut~ activities inwhich they par~ioipat~
organization pro~id~d t~at organisation ~s nonprofit.
rescue squad member employed by a political =ubdivi=icn with
which the volunteer Si~efighter or re.cue squad member is
associated may participate in the o~erat~cn and conduct of
bingo game or raffle if a bona fide member is present.
(g) NO organization ~nall award any bingo pri~e or any
(I) ~O bingo door prize mhall exceed twenty-five
dollars
(2) Nc repular bingo er ~p~cial bingo gam~ shall
exceed one hundred dollars ($1~0.00); and
{3) KO bingo, jackpot, of any .nature whatsoever,
shall..axceed one thousa~d~dOllars
nor shall the total a~ouDt of bingo jackpot
prizes awarded in any eno (1) calendar
exceed one thousand dulla~ ($1,000.00)-
Ne organization shall award any raffle priz~ or pri~
($100,000.00). The one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00)
limitation shall n~t apply to a raffle conducted no more than
once per calendar year by an organization qualified as a tax-
exempt organization pursuant to section 501(o)(3) of the
Internal Revenue cede for a prize consisting of a 'lot
improved by a residential dwelling where on~ hundred
pere~nt ef the moneys received from ~uch a raffle, less
deductions ~or the fair market value for the. co~t of
acquisition of the land and material, are donated to lawful
religious, charitable, community, or educational
organizations specifically chartered or organized under the
la~a or the commonwealth and c/~alifie~ as a section 501(c)(3)
tax-exempt organization. The award ef any such prize money
shall not be ~eemed to ~ a part of any gaming contract
within the purview of section 11-14 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended.
(i) NO person shall receive any remuneration for
participating in the management, operation or cold,et of any
such game O~ ~&ffle, except as provided in ~nbeect~on (e).
(k) Any organization composed of or for deaf 'or blind
clerical assistance in the conduct of bingo ~ames ur raffles
shall have in force fidelity insurance, as derided in
116, Code Of virginia~ 1950~ as ame~ded~ written by an
insurer licensed to de business in the Commonwealth.
(S) That Section 4-Fl of the Code of the County of
read ss follows:
Sec. 4-31. O~o~ prohibited practices..
(b) No Organization shall enter into a contract with or
otherwise employ for oomp~usat~on any person for the purpose
of o~ganizing, managing cT osnduoting bin~o games or raffles,
excel% aa prowided in subsection (e) o~ ~ection ~-30. This
shall not prohibit the joint Operation of bingo games
pursuant ~o section
(6) That Section 4-32 of =he ~ode of the County of
Chesterfiel4, 1978, as amend=d, is amended and reenacted to
read as follows:
disbursements,
93-~9
(b) Each financial report ~halI be accompanied by a
certificate, verified under oath, by the board of directors
of the organization to which the pmrmit i~ ~sued, that the
proceeds of all MiDge game~ and raffles have Deem used by
these tawful~ religious, charitable, community or educational
purposes for which the organization is specifically o~ar~ered
or organized and that the operation of bingo games or raffles
has been i~ accordance w~th the provisio~ of article 1.1 o~
Virginia, 1~0, as a~en~ed. Additionally, any organization
having annual gross race±pbs from Dingo games or ra££1e~ in
excess of f~va hmn~red thousaDd dollars ($500,000); as shown
on its annual financial report, shall attach to such. report
an opinion of a licensed independent c~rtificd public
accountant that the annual financial report presents fairly,
in ull material respects, beginning ca~h, receipts, operating
cost, use of proceeds, and ending dash; that the proceed~ of
any bingo games or raffles have been used, in all material
respects, for tho~ lawful, religious, charitable, community
or educational purposes for which the organization is
specifically ehartere~ or organiZed~ and that gross receipts
have b~e~ u~d, in all material teepee%s, in accordance with
the prnvimians of this ar~i¢l~
e o o
(7) Thi~ ordinance sh~ll become effective immediately
upo~ adoption.
Vote; Unanimous"
Vet~: Unanimous
VIt. O.5. REFER TO THE PLANNING ¢OF~I~$ION kN ORDINANCE TO
~ND THE CODE OF THE COU~Y 0P
1978~ A~ ~ED, ~Y ~ING A~D RE~TIN~
DE~I~TION OF HOUSEHOLD PET~
After brief discussion, on motion o~ Mr. ~c~ale, seconded by
Mr. colbert, the Board r~f~rred to th~ Planning Co~sslon,
for their review a~d reco~endation, an ordinance
~ Cod~ o~ the county of Chesterfield, ~97~, ag a~nded, by
amGnding and re~aet~nq sactionm
to the dsfinition ~f housmhold
Vote: Unanimous
variance and substantial asourd application~ for American
Vote: Unanimous
1/t3/93
VII.C.7. AUTHOR~ZATTON TO ENTER INTO A CO~TP.~CT WIT]{ ~LFRED
authorized the County Administrator to enter into an eighteen
(15) ~onth contract with Alfred S. Gervin, ~D, FACSr to ~erve
as Operational Medical Director of ~argency Medical Services
for the ¢cunty'~ Fire Department. (It iz noted the annual
faa for thoso services is $54,000 which is funded through the
Fire Department's budget.)
COUNTY EUPPLEME~AL PLAN.T~ COM~SY WITH INTERNAL
R~V~NUE CODE ~ND APPOINTMENT OF DOHINIDN TRUST
approved the Final Plan Amendments for the county
supplemental Retirement Plan (CCSR~) to comply with the
Internal Revonue Cods and appointed Dominion Trust Company
there will be no interruption in benefits pa~d to retirees
under the Plan and the last benefit payments paid by Great
West Insurance Company will be disbursed this ~onth and a
cody of the Retirement Plan is filed with th~ pap~r~ cf this
Board and a copy of the revised Retirement Plan is filed with
the papers of this Baard,)
VII.C.9.
PROJECT
On ~otion of ~L~. M=Hale, seconded by ~. colbert, the ~oar~
upprove~ a change order to J. ~. Martin & Sons Airport
~mprovements Contract, in ~he amount of $56,6Q~, for
construction relating to airport construction grant
local funds to the Airport Gr~nt Project to cover a 3
cost in excess of ~he original contract. (It is nat~d funds
~or the local match of $~,~00 are available in etheM Airport
grant projects a~ costs estimates for these have not been
finaliz=~ and any shortfall resulting from thi=
reallocation will be addressed w~en the budgots for
relevant projso~s are finalized.)
Vote: Unanimous
FOR TKE c~NTRAL LIBRARY
On motion Of Mr. MaHale~ Seconded by Mr. colbert, tbs ~car~
approved a change o~der to Design Collaborative, in the
amount of $14~7s0, for dosign costs for Alternate .Nlu~bsr
and Al~arnut~ ~umber ~ for the C~ntral Library and authorized
th~ County Administrator to transfer funds from other library
projects to cover anticipated project shortfall. (It is
noted csuitmente for this .project are expected to exceed
available funds by approximately $26,000 and surplus funds
from the Weet Branch Library and/er.Headowdale Branch Library
will be transferred to offset th~ shortfall in the central
Library project.)
Vote: Unanimous
VII.C.11, REOUE~T~ FOR BI~SO~=%~LE PER~ITS
On notion of Kr. Mc~ale, ~econded by ~. Colbert, =he Board
approved the'following bingo/raffle permits for calendar y~r
1993:
O~GA~IZATION TYPE year
Poseidon Hwi~ming, In¢. Bingo/Raffle 1993
Central Virginia COUnoil Bingo/Raffle 1993
of the Bilnd (CVCB)
Vets: Unanimous
V~I.O.~, RT~TE RO~D A~CE~TANCE
This day the County En¥i=onmental Engineer~ in
with directions from this Board, made rmpor~ i~ writing
hi~ examination of Ro~ridg= Road in Hidden Valley
Section 2, Be~uda District.
Upon consideratio~ whereof, and on motion of Mr.
seconded by Mr. Colbert, it i~ resolved that Rockridge Road
in Kidde~ Valley Estate~, Section 2, B~rmud~ Qintrlct, be ~nd
it hereby i~ established as a public road.
~ b~ it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be a~d it hereby ~ re~sted to take into
t~e Seoonda~ System, aockridg~ Road, beginning at the
intersection wi~ CresthiI1 Road~ state Rou=a 1596, and going
north~t~rly. 0.~3 mile to tie into e~isting Ruc~idqe
State Route ~ber to be assigned~ ~idden valley Estates,
section 6.
This re~t i~ inclusiv~ of the adjacent slope, ~ight
di=ta~cu, clear =O~ and designated V~rplnla Departmen~
T~ansportationdrainage easements.
And be it further resolwed~ ~h~t t~e Beard of
~ar=ntees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of ~o' with ~eoessary gam~m~nt= for
outs, fili~ ~ drainage for thi~ road.
This s~=tion of ~idden Valley Est=te~ is recorded as foll~ws:
Vote: U~a~i~oue
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance
wi=h ~irectisna fram this Board~ ~de r~port in writing upon
his exami~ation of Aldersmead Road in Fo=uno, ~ection
Midlo~hlan District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on zotisn cf Mr. McHale,
seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is resolved that Aldors~ead Road
in Perone, section C, Midlcthlan District, ~e and it hereby
is established a~ a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be end it hereby is reguested to take into
the Secondary System, Alde~s~ead Road, beginning at the
intersection with existing Aldersmead Roa~, state Route
and Saybrook Drive, State Route 2535, and going southeasterly
0.09 mile to tie into proposed Aldersmead Road, sunri$~
valley, Section B.
This request is inclusive .of the adjacent slope, sight
distance, c!ea~ zone and designated Uir~inia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
T~is road serves 2 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of $upervisor~
guarantees to th~ Virginia Department Of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of ~0' with necessary easements for
cuts, fill~ and drainage for %his road.
This ~eetlcn of Docono is recorded as follow~:
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County ~nv~ronm~ntal Engineer, in accordance
~ith directions from ~his Board, made r~po~5 in writing upon
his exuminatien Of Zouthwick Boulevard in Buckingham, Section
~, ~idlothian District.
Upon consideration ~h~reof, and on motion cf Mr.
~eoended by Mr. Colbert, it is resolved that Southwick
Boulevard in Buckinghum, Section 2, Midlotbian District, be
and it hereby is established as a public road.
And be it further r~solved, that =he virginia Department of
Transportation, b~ and it hereby is ~equested to take into
the Second~ry System, $outhwio~ Boulevard, beginning at tb~
int~r~ection with existing Seuthwlck B~uleYard, State Route
~362, and Snaffordshire Street, Sta~ Route 3523, and gding
northw~st~r3y 0.03 mile 5o tie into proposed
BoUlevard, Buckingham, section
This request i~ inclusive Of the a~ja~ent slope, sight
dis%arise, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Tran~portation drainage easements.
Thi~ road serves 2 lots.
And be it £urth~ r~elved~ that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees te the Virginia Department sf Transportmtion
Unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary easements for
cuts~ fills and drainage for this road.
This sac=ion of Buckingham ie recorded as follows:
Section 2. Plat Book 38, Pages 77.& 7S, ' May 21,
Vote: Unanimou~
1/13/93
~YST~R ~D.~E~T HANAGBMEMT p~CTICE ~ACILITiER
VII.C.12.a. RIVERS BEND
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the ~oar~
authoriz~ the County Administrator to execute an Agreement
for Maintenance of a ~tormwater Drainage System and Uest
Management practice Facility with Pioneer properties, III,
Inc.~ the owner/developer of Rivers Bend, with the County's
only involvement being to a~mure the Maintenance Agreement i~
followed by .th~ owne~' as aDprcvcd by the County Attorney.
(It is note~ a copy of th~ vicinity sketch is filed with the
papers~ of t~i5 Board.)
Vote: Unani~o~5
VII.~.l~.b. Re,TM RICHMOND CHURCH 0~ C~0D
On motion of Mr. McKele, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board
authorized the caunty Administrator to execute an Agreemen=
for- MaintenanCe of a Stormwater Drainage System an~ Best
Management Practice Fa6ility with the owner/developer of the
South Riohmond Church of God, with the County's only
involvement being ~o assure the Maln~ena~c~ Agreement is
followed by the owDer as approved by the Co=nty Atto=ney-
(It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch i~ filed with the
~a~eru of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous'
On motion ~f Mr. McHale, seconded by ~ir. Colbert, the Bourd
muthorize~ the county Administrator to exeCUte an Agreement
for '~aintenance of a stormwat~r Drainag~ Syste~ a~ Best
Management ~raetioe Facility with the owner/developer of the
~t6ny Point Reformed PreSbyterian Church, with the Ceunty'~
only involvement ~eing to assur~ the MaintenanCe Agreement i~
fo~lowe~ by the owner a~ approved by the County Attorney.
(It is noted a copy o~ the vicinity sketch i~ filed ~ith the
paper~ ~f thi~ Board.)
Vote= Unanimous
in the amount of $1,470,000, for ne%~ construction Of the West
Branch Library. (It im no,ed f~nds for this project are
vo~e: Unanimous
VII.~.14.b. TO RBLIi%BLE ELBCTRZU2%L CO~ST~U~TORS. INC. FOR
On ~otie~ of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. colbert, th~ Board
awarded a eontraut tu Reliable Electriual Constructors, Inc.,
93-24 1/13/93
the low bidder, in the amount of $219;200, for construction
of the Huguenot Springs Wate~ storage Tank Rashorination
Facility. (It is Doted funds for this project are available
in the Capital Improvement Budget.)
Vote: Unaninoum
VII.Cola. AWARD OP OONTRA~T TO
T~kN~PER OF F~NDB TO CONSTRUCT UTILITY
BUILDING
On motion of Mrl MsHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
awarded a con~ract t~ For~erra Corporation, the second lowest
bidder, in the amount of $2~682,000, for construction of the
U~illty ~uilding and transferred $900,000 as follcwm:
$174,475.26 from Project #aH-895700B, $3~2,108 from Projeut
~aP-898901B, and $423,416.74 from Project ~5P-880132E
to complete road drainage, lighting and parkinq 1ct
i~provemen=a. Also~ because the construction ~ontract
includes parking and roadwork related to the County Complex
Master Plan and such work is pa~ially necessary .due to the
Salt Annex, $100,000.00 of th~ parking lot and road
construction will be ~har~ed to the Jail Annex Projects,
Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Mc~ale, seconded by ~. Colbert, the.Board
approved the ~urcha~a O.4~ acres of land, more or less!
adjaaen= =o the chemter Landfill, in the amount of
for th~ CheDter Landfill Renovation pro~ect and authorized
the County Admlnis~rator ~o'execute the necessary deed. (It
ia noted amid funds are available in the project
a copy o~ t~e pla~ is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
FOR A ~ORTION OF A DRIVEWAY
On motiO~ of Mr. McHale, s~ocnded by ~r. Colbert, t_he Boar~
approved a request fro~ B~llc~s Corporation of America, Inc.
for a portion cf a d~iveway and a portion of a concret~ ~lab
encroach within an existing ~6 foot water ~as~ment, ~ubject
to the execution cf a license agreement. (It is noted' a
cody of the vicinity sketch is filed with the paper~ of thi=
Vote: Unanimous
VII.U.i~. UONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND FROM FIRS~OOLOMI~L
FIN~NCI~ OOR~OR~TiON
On ~otion of Mr. McHale~ seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
accepted, on. behalf of the County~ the convuyance of a parcel
of land containing 0.~ acre ± from First Colonial Financial
CorpOration for Courthouse Road Relocated and authorized th~
County A~ministrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is
93-Z5 1/13/93
noted a copy of the plat ia filed with the papers of this
Votn: Unanimous
Administarate ts execute an easement with Virginia Electric
Elementary School. (It is noted a dopy of the plat i~ filed
witA the p~perm of this Board.)
Vote: Un~ni~oum
FACIlitY FOR ?K~ J~4E8 RIVER TRU~K ~EWER
On ~o~ion of Mr. McHale, ~econded by Mr. Celbert~ t~e Beard
~%hori~ed the chairma~ of the Board add the County
Administrator to ex,cute an easement with Virginia Elec:rio
and ~oWer.~ompany fO~ underground ~rvlce to th~ future James
River Kith sc~o01 a~d for the odor control facility for the
James River Tr~ Sewer. (It i~ note~ a copy of %he plat is
file~ with the paper~ o~ this Board.}
VlI.~.~o. ACCEPTANCES OF pARCELS OF LAND
VII.~.20.b. A~ONd WOMACK RO~D ~ROM THE TRUSTEES dP
~S~ETS OF LE~ I~VESTMENT OOR~O~TION
On motion of ~{r. ~eHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
accepted, on behalf of th~ County, the conveyance of a
variable width parcel of land along Wcmack Road f~on the
deed. (It is noted e copy of the ~icinity sketch i~ filed
with t~e papera of thi~ Bear~.}
looatio~ of the 9roperty to Philip ~orris, Park 500.
Mr. ~aniel disclosed, to ~he Board that ho is employed by
~hilip ~orri~, USA, and due tO tho uncertainty o~ the
he declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the
Virginia Comprehe~eive Conflict of Interest Act, an~ excused
On motion of F~r. M¢~al~, ~econded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of four
parcels of land alem~ Allied Road from Mr. Jack T. Sheosmith
1/13/93
and authorized the County Admlnistrat6r :o execute the
necessary deed. (Zt ,is~noted a copy of the plat is filed
with the paparu of this Board.)
Ayes: Mr. Warren, Mr. Barber, M~. Colbert and Mr. MeDals.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Daniel returned %0 the meeting.
Mr. Mssden~stated creation of a disabilities services board
had been deferred from the December 9, 1992 Board' meeting.
He further stated the disabillties services board would study
bhe na~d~ of physical and sensory disabilities and ~eviewed
the purpose for creation of such aboard.
Discus=ion, comments and questions en~ed r~lativ~ to
membership to the disabilities serviee~ board amd the number
of momb~rm to ~he board.
On ~otion of Mr. ~c~ale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the ~oar~
e~tabl~zhed the Disabilitiem ~ervi=e~ Board and ~emi~ated the
~ollowing persons to ~srve on the board:
Kr. Thomas Bowerton
Ms. Barb~ra ~ignut
~s. Roberts A. Perdue
Mr. Lee Deal
Ms. Robin ~oerber
Mr. E. Davis Martin, PH.D.
~s. Darlene Pantaleo
Kr. Garnett Server
Mr. Jay Lowden
Ms. Carolyn caudle
Ms. Kimberly ~orton
Mr. Alfred Cobbs
M~. cindy Jackson
Mr. John Coates
~r, Douglas F. Cochr~n
~S. Gayla Wells
~s. Ann Torment
Mr. Robert L. Meedsn
On motion of M~. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board
su~p~d it~ rules at this time to allow simulta~ee~5
Disabilitiefl Zarv~ces Board.
Vote: Unanimous
on motion of.~r. Cslbor=, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
~imultaneously nominated/appointed,the following persons to
serve on the Disabilities Services Board with said districts
an~ terms as designated:
NAKE DTSTRI~? TEP~H
Mr. Thomas ~ower~on Bermuda 12-31-9~
~s. Barbar~ Hignut Bermuda i2-31-94
Ms. Roberts A. Perdue Bermuda 12-31-9~
Mr. Lee Deal Clover ~ill 12-31-9~
~s. Robin No~r~r Clov~r ~ill 1~-31-93
Mr. E. Davis Martin, PH.D. Clover Hill 1~-3t-94
93-27 1/13/93
MS. Darlene ~antaleo
Mr. Jay Lowden
Ms. Carolyn Caudle
MS. Kimberly ~orton
Mr. Alfred Cobbs
Me. cindy Jack.on
Nr. John Coates
Mr. Douglas F. Ccchran
Ms. Ann Tannent
Hr. Robert L. Masden
Dale
Dale 12-31-94
Dale 12-31-95
Matoaoa Advisory
~atoace 12-31-93
Matcaca
Matoa=a 12-]1-95
Midlothian Advisory
~idlothlan 12-31-93
Midlothian Advisouy
~i~lothlan 12-61-94
Hidlothian 12-31-95
Vote: Unani~0u~
VIII.B,,. STREETLIGH~ INSTALLATION C0~T AgP~kOVAL
~r. Stith ~tated this ite~ wa~ deferred from ~h¢
1992 Soard meeting and requests a streetli~ht at thc
inter~eetion of Ace~n Hill Co~rt and Tall ~iokory
noted the req~/es= does ~0t meet th~ ~inimum criteria for
vehicle~ p~r day or petition.
On motion Of Mr. Warren, seconded by ~r. HarDer, the Board
deferred the e=reetligh~ in~tallatlon cost approval for the
interseetica of A¢0rn Hill Court and Tall Hickory Drive, in
Clever Hill Hagi&terial District, un~il Sun~ 23, 1993.
There were no Hearings of C~tizens on Unxch=d~led Matters or
Claims schedul=d at th~s time.
~.
On motiom of M~- Warren, seconded by ~r. Barber, th~ Board
accepted th~ following
Administrator.
S0~ool Board Agenda.
ha~ formally notified the County of the acceptance ef
ADDITION~ LE~STH
Route 3653 ~(Leisure Terrace) - From 0.03 mile
Route 3655 (Leisure Ceurt) - From Route ~6~4
te 0.~0 mile Southwest Route 3654
~££ective 12-17-92
Route 2611 (~rov~ Rark Court) - From Route 868
to 0.12 mile Northeas~ Rout~ 86s
M~ADOW CHASE r._(~ffeetlva 12/15/92~
Route 5009 (N~adow Chase Road) - From Route 4337 0.38
to 0.38 mile North ReuSe 4337
H~n~S REACH - SECTION A - (Effective 12/I9/92)
Route 4472 (old C~shlre Lane) - From 0.03 mile 0.06
~outh Route 4470 to 0.09 mil~ So~th RoHte 4470
Route 4473 (Kinq~ Gate Rea~) - From Route 144
~o 0.10 mile East Route 144 0.10 Mi
Route 4466 (~iehael~ Ridg~ Road) - From Route 0.07 Mi
Route 4464 (St. Stephens Way) - From Route 714 0.14
to 0.14 mile southweat Route
Route 4465 ($~. ~tephena Pla~e) - From Rout~ 0.09 Mi
Acute ~037 (~lm~ley Road) - Prom Route 714 to 0,13 Mi
ROUte 3809 iAutemnfield Road) - From Route X037 0.10 Mi
to 0.10 mils ~outheast Rout~ 1037
CLIPPER COVE
Route 4326 (Clipper Cove Road) - From Route 3~00 0.43 Mi
to 0.43 mile North Route 3600
Route 4327 (clipper Cove Court) - From Route 4326
Mr. Barber disalosed his e~ploy~ent as a teaohsr for the
portion of the County's b~dget is devoted to eduoation,
the Board and woul~ further enhmmce ~ebate on matters
affectin~ th~ School System. He further ~tated th~ virqinia
Conflict of Interest Act provides that he is legally
permitted to participate and vote on issues which
school teacher~ and he feels he is able to
fairly, objectively and in the public interest on schOOl~
related matters that Will come before the soard an~ that it
is his intautiun to continue to do so whil~ a me,her of the
Board of Supervisors. He submitted into the record his
On motion cf Mr. Daniel, seccn~e~ by F~r. barber, the Board
recessed to the Administration Building, RoOm 502? for
dinner.
Reoonvening:
XII. INVOCATION
M_r. Warren introduced Reverend Nell Wheeler,
Chester Christian Church, who gave the invocation.
Pastor of
Mr. Warren' presented Mr. Daniel with an inscribed plaqu~ and
Supervisors for 199~. He further stated
currently President e£ the Virginia A~mociatien of Counties
a~ w~ll a~ being actively involved in o~h~r
expressed appreciation to Mr. D~niml for his leadership
during the pamt year.
On motion of the Board? the following remolutlon was adopted;
WHEREAS, The ~onor~bl¢ Ha~y G. Daniel, Supervisor
of Supervisors in 1992; demonstrated e~emplary leadership,
courage and insight in dealing wi~h issues facing the County;
WaS responsive to the needs of it~ citizens while maintaining
the quality of life at an economically acceptable le~el and
dedication of th~ highest caliber to promoting Chesterfield
WHEREAS, Mr. Daniel'm dependability, integrity and
e~ei~ci~e has been ~ecognized not only by the Board, the
Admlmi~%retion and County residents but also State and
National officials t~rough his active involv~men~ ~nd
co~i%ment to such groups as President of the Virginia
A~momiation of Counti~s$ Chairman of the Capital Region
Airport Co~mis~ion; member of the Richmond Regiehal Planning
Dimtrict Commission; member Of the Richmond Area Metropolitan
Transportation Planning Organization; member of the
~onfronted =hallenge~ and demands placed upon ib by
maintaining th~ highest municipal ~on~ rating of "Aaa" from
Moody's Rating Service; balanced th~' budget during a
recession; took advantage of favorable lhterest rates i~ the
market through tbs advance refunding Of a total of $59.6
million of outmtanding water and sewer revenue bonds with
total present value debt se=vice savings of %9 million;
opened the first Juvenile Group Eome and new Kental
Health/Mental Retarder{on/Substance Abuse Building; began
design work on tho gen=Iey Fire Station and Meadowdale
Library; initiated the Central Area Plan for 1993; revised
the county's outdoor advertising ordinan=e; adopted the
Watershed Quality Goals & Strategies for Falling Cree~, 'swift
Creek, and La~e Ckesdin; completed the widening of .Route 10;
acquired Castlcwood fo~ historic preservation;
ourbside reoyoling drop-off usnters; and completed the Fort
Darling Landfill closure ~epaira as well a~ ~any other
oapital improvements and t~chnolegldal enhancements.
NOW, THEREFOR= ~ IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Do,rd of Supervisors do=s hereby ~eeognize and applaud
the u~tiring efforts and Commitment cf excellence displayed
by its 1992 Chairman.
AND, BE IT FURTheR R~SOLVED~ ~hat the Board of
Supervisors does hs~sby present ~r. Harry G. Daniel with
pla~e insuribed as follows:
Harry G, Daniel, Chalrman
Board of
Chesterfiel~ County
January. 199l to Deoe~ber~ 1992
Vote: Unami~ous
~r. Warren the~ presented Mr. Daniel with the e~eouted
resolution and gift and stated under 1~. Daniel's fiscal
management, the County ws~ one of twenty-eight localities who
have ~aintainsd the "Aaa" Bund rating. ~ir. Daniel
appre¢iotion to his fallow Board me~bers and stated the
recognitions outlined had been aooomplished due to a team
effort of ~1! tho Do,rd ~e~bers in d~livering excellence in
public service.
and M~. Louis D. Doorman, Manager of Support Services for the
Virginia Department o~ Fir~ Progrmm~, and expressed
Board.
On motion of the Board, the fnllow~ng resolution was adopted:
WI~ER~AS, Nr~. Victoria J. Adams was appointed by the
Governor to th= Virgiuia ?ir~ Services Board on September 4,
W~EREAS~' Mrs. Adams ha~ been tbs driving force on' the
Fire Board to initiate and continue Equal E~ployment
Opportunity/Affirmative Action (=S0/~) training fo~ fire
affiliation; and
WHEREAS, F~rs..AdunS serv~e on the Mhd-Atlantic Fire
Co,mission nnd the Department cf Firs Programs EEO/AA
Ceuncil; and
WHEREA$~ Mrs, Adams ha~ been instrumental in the
dsvelopment and implementation of an EEO/AA :raining package
tO be taught in conjunction with state certified instructor
and officer training programs; and
annual EEO/~% Symposium ~eld in 19~ and ha~ b~en the driving
~E~S, oV~r the past five years, these state-wide
conferences have reached approxlma~=ly 1200 ~articipants from
local and stat~ governments, industry end educational
institutions from the State of Virginia, eighteeD other
states and Canada; and
~AS, the Fire Programs/Fir~ Ssrvices Board's Annual
EEO/~ Award pre~ented to a member of the Virg~nla firs
~ervice co~uni~ who has shown great le~d~rship~ guidance
and efforts in a~vancement of EE0/~ principles was named ~he
"victoria J. Adam~ Award" in her honor; and
~S, th~ Chesterfield County ~oard of Supervisors
wishes to expr~ their appreciation for ~s.
i~spiration~ leadership and dedicated s~rvic~ to the Virginia
s=~=e fire serv~c~ co--unity.
NOW, THE~FOR~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that the Chasterfield
County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes and
i=~ ~incmre appreciation ~o Krm. Victoria ~. Adams upu~
successful and productive completion of her te~ on %h~
virginia ~ire Services ~oa~d and her inspiration and
initiation an4 su~Dort of the ~0/~ program throughou= the
~tate.
~D, BE IT FURTHER ~SOLVED, that a ~opy of ~his
resolution be aDDroDriately preparsd and prasented t0 Mrs.
Adams.
Vote:
accompanied by ~b~r~ of her family, and expressed
appreciation ~or her in~plration amd co~itment to the fire
and for th~ s~pport received from the Board for
madic=l semvioes programs-
~TT~NTN~ I~K OF EA~LE ~COUT
It was noted ~r. A~h~y Stephen Wilson waa u~abls 2o bs
~ess~t at this time.
~. ~illiam D. Boyce On February 8, 1910~ and
I ;
WHEREAS, the Eey Scouts of America was founded to
promote citizenship training, personal development and
fitness of individual~;'and ~' ''
WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges
in a wi~a variety of £iel~s, serving in a leadership po~ition
in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his
community, being active in the troop, d~nom~trating StaRt
spirit and living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and
WHEREAS,. MS. Ashby Stephen Wilson, III, Brandermill
Church, Troop 890, has aucomplished those high standards of
commitment and has re&chad the long-sought goal of Eagle
Scout which is received by less than two percent of those
individuals entering the Scouting movsment~ and
WHEREAS, growing through his e~pe~ience~ in scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible cltlzenshi~ an~ priding
himself on the great accomplishments of his CoUnty, AShby is
indeed a me~ber of a new generation of prepared young
citizens Of ~hom we can all be very proud.
HOW, THEREFORE BE IT R~SOLVED, that the Chesterfield
congratulations to ~r. Ashby ~tephen Wilson, III and
acknowledges the good fortune of the Co. Dry to have such an
outstanding young man as one of its citizen=.
Vote: Unanimous
THEIR OUTSTANDIN~ REPRESENTATION O~
Mr. Stith introduced Mr. Gabs Hicks, coach of the Matoaca
High School Warriors football
Mr. ColbErt introduced Kr. James Ballard, Principal of
Matoaca High school; Ms. Gail Ledb~tter, Assistant Principal
of Matoaca ~igh School~ CoaCh Gabs Hicks; Assistant
Bill ~uuntjoy, Bob D~nce and ~cott Driskill; and members of
~he Matoaca High $~hool Football team who were present and
misted fifteen of the forty ~l~yer~ on the football team
carried a 9.~ or better academic grade point average.
Coach Hiaks, on behalf of the Matoaea High school
administration, faculty ~nd staff, football team and
Community, expressed sincere appreciation for the recognition
of the team's aohievement~.
On motion of the Board, the following ~esolution was adopted;
WHEREAS, participation in high school spurts has long
been an integral part of ChestErfield County's ed~catiouaI,
physical and emotional d~valopment for students; and
WHEREAS, the 1992 Matoaca W~rriors finishe~ the regular
season with = Z0-0 reoord--the first u~defeated football team
in the School's thirty yea~ history to become Southside
District Champions; and
WHEREAS~ the Katoaca Warriors won the Region
champlon~hlp--the first in the School'~ history; and
~4~R~A~, th~ ~atoaca Warriors wo~ th~ State Semi-Final
Cha~pionship--also the firm= in the $chool'~ history; and
1/13/93
W]4EREAS, ~he.~a~oaca ~a~iers a~ the Do~ble A~ Divi~io~
3 Stste Champion Runner-upi and
WHEREAS, ~a~oaca High $chool and Ch~sta~field CoRnty had
iB~ first Pa ads Ma ~n~ All-~erican ~igh ~chooi football
play.r, James Farrier; and
~ER~S, ~e citizens of Chesterfield County ~ontinue ~
mupport our high school football t~ams.
~0W, T~E~FO~ BE IT RESO~V~D, ~a~ ~he chesterfield
Co~ty Board of Supervisors ~o~ ~ereby recognize the Matoaca
of CSe~terfield County.
~D, BE IT F~T~ER R~OLV~D, that the Board Of
Su~=rvisors, on b~alf of the citizen~ of chesturfield
cowry, does h~reby co. end th~ Matoaca Warriors for their
splendi~ sDort~manship and ha~d work and ~xpress their bu~t
wishes for continued success.
Vota: UnanimoU~
~r. Colbert presented the executed resolution to Coach EiQks
a~d co.ended th~ team Sot their ~portmman~hip and hard WOrR.
Mr. Stith introduced Coach ViC Williams and Cap~ain David
On motion Of the Board, the following resolution wan adopted:
W~ERKAS, participation in h~gh school sports hag long
been an integral part of Chesterfield County's educational,
physical and .notional develoDment for =tudmnts; and
Tegular season with e 15-% record; and
WHEREA$~ ~e Thoma~ Dale Knights won the Central
District Championmhip; and
WHEREAS, ~he Thomas Dale Knights won the Central
Regional Championship in TriDle A, Division 6;
Virginia in Triple A, Divi~ien 6~ and
W~{~R~J~, the Thomas Dale Knights ranked 21et in USA
season in the $~ate of virginia ~igh School Poll in Triple A.
S~pport our high ~chool football
NOW, THEREFORE B~ IT RESOLVED, that the
County Board of Supervisor~ deem heraby recognize ~e Thomas
Dale High School Football T~a~ for ils outstanding
93-34 ]/13/93
I i
AND, BE ~T FI/RT~R R~SOLVED~' that the Board of
Supervise?s, on behalf of the citizens 'of C~esterfield
County, does hereby cemm~nd the Thoma~ Dale Knights for their
splendid ~portsmanship and hard work and express their best
wishen for continued success.
vote: unanimoum
Mr. McHale presented the executed resolution to Coach
Williams and Captain Earle and commended the team for their
~port~man~hip and hard work. Coach williams expressed
appreciation for recognition of th~ t~am's achievement~.
xiv.~. 1ECO~NIIIN~ COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPAI~Y._EQR THEIR
DONATION OF FUNDS TO ~OCKW00D N&T~E ~E~TTER
~r. ~asdon in~reducsd ~r- James Stiles, Chief Operator of
Colonial Pipeline Cempany~ and stated Colonial P~pmliae
Company hsd donated $4,754 for the conpletlen of the
cons%ruction of the Rockwood Nature Center.
On motion of the Board, the following re~olution was adopted:
envi~onmentai eduoation to it~ clt~zen~; and
WHER~S, Rookwood Park i~ th~ f~rs% Dubllc park
residents and County sohool cla~e~; and
~EREA9, Rockwood ~atur~ c~nt~ ~s a facility designed
provide for the n~a~y understandinq of current
say,re,entel issues which will r~sult in ~D appreciation in
~RRZAS, Colonial Pipeline company has r~cognized th~
importance of Ruokwood Nature center as a crucial conduit of
environm~Dtal educuti~n opportunities; and
~EREAS, Chesterfield CoUnty welo~mes the
llfe for all cltiz~ns; and
~EREAS, Colonial Pipeline Company ha~ donated
needed funding for th~ construu~ion of a deck,
ramD and to provide for native plantings to allow
Rockwood NatUre Center to open to all population.
County Board of ~u~ervisors hereby acknowledg~ ~ generous
contribution made by Colonial Pipeline company %o Roc~wood
appreciation.
Vote: Unani~o~
and expressed appreciation for the contribution made by
Colonial Pip,line Company to ~he Rockwoo~ Na%~re Center.
Stiles expressed appraclatlon for the recognition and stated
th~ county and, in particular, to children.
93-~5 1/13/9~
ATT~NTN~ R~NK OF EAGLE SGOUT
On motion of the Board, the following ~e~sluti0n was
WHEREAS, the BOy ~couts of America wa~ incorporated by
Mr. William D. Eoyee on February S, !~10; and
W~R~A~, the Boy Scouts of ~srica was founded to
promote citizenship training, personal development and
fitness of individuals~ and
WHEREAS, after earning a~ least twenty-one merit
in u wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position
in a troop, carrying out a ~ervlce project beneficial Co his
community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout
sDiri~ and living ~p to the Scout oath a~d Law~ and
~q~R~AB, ~r. Ashby ~tephen Wilson, III~ Brandermill
Church, Troop 890, has accomplished those high standards of
co~mltment and has r~aGh~d the lenq-sou~bt goal of Eagle
Scout which is received by less than two percent of those
i~dividmals enteriag the Scouting movement; and
W~ERKAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citlzsnship and priding
himself on tho great acoomplishmsnts of his County, Ashby is
indeed a ~e~mb~r of s ~ew generation of ~repared young
citizens of whom we can all be v~ry proud.
NOW, THEP~FORE ~E IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
county Board of Supervise~a hereby extsn~s its
oo~gratulations to Mr. Ashby Steph~ Wilson, ITI and
acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such
outstanding young man ae one of its citizen~.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Warren presented the executed resolution to Mr. Wii~QD,
accompanied by me~bers of his family, and congratulated him
on his outstahding achievement.
EV.A, TO CONSIDER AMENDIN~ ARTICLE X, T~X ON TELEP~ON~
BERVICE FOR E~i~ SY~TFAH AND ANTICLE XII, CONSUMER
~97~. ~S aMeNDED, TO EEEHPT GOUNTY VOL~I~TEER
Chief manes stated ~iS date and ti~ has b~n advertised for
~ public he.ring to consider an ordinance relatiBg to tax on
telephone sarvic~ for =-911 sys:~ and concumer utilities
taxe~ to exempt County volunteer ~escue ~quadE from ~uch
~. George Beadles ~tate~ he wa~ opposed tu the ex~mptlon of
taxes in general and, therefore, did not support the proposed
Chief manes introduoed Captain Linwood ~atthews, ~resld~nt of
the Forest View Volunte~ Rescus Squad. cap, aim Matthews
stated the Re.cue Squad supported ~e ~ropo~ or~inance~ to
exempt County volunteer re~cu~ s~ads f~om teleph0~e and
~on~umer utilities taxes. He e~ressed appreciation to the
Board for past support of the re.cue ~quads ~n~ .~tat~d such
1/13/93
support enables the squade tn purchase ,needed equipment and
maintain operations in serving the co,unity.
chief ~an~s then introduced Ns. Kathy Eubank, President of
the Manchester Volunteer Re~cua squad; Mr. Jesse Croom, Jr.,
P~e~ident cf the Ettriok-~atoaoa Volunteer Rescue Sqnads; and
~Lro Richard ~arri~on, President of the Bensley Volunteer
There being no one ~ls~ to add~ess these ordinances, the
~ublio hearing was closed.
Board to adopt o~dinences to emend th~ Cede of the County of
chesterfield, 197~, as amended, by amending and reenacting
system and Article XII, relating to consumer utilitie~ taxes.
~r. Barber stated exemption of the County volunteer rescue
squad~ woUl~ be approximately $s85 in utility taxes and
ho support~dadoption of th~ ordinances.
following ordlnanee:
AN ORDINANC~ TD A~ND TEE COD~ OF THE COUI~T¥ OF
~E IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supe~vieor~ of
(I) That Article X of the Code of the County of
chest=r£ield, 1975, aa ~mended, i~ amended und reenacted by
The following pers0nm shall be exempt from the pnyraent
(a) The Un,ted Stat~s el America, the commonwealth of
agencies, ocmmieeiens an~ auV~orities of the state.
(b) Purohaeers ar lessees o~ local exohanqe telephone
(=) Volunteer r~cue squads.
(2) That this ordlnanoe shall become effective
immediately upon adoption.
And, furtheP, the Board adopted the ~ellowing the ordinance:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Cho~tarfi~ld County:
(1) Tha~' Articls XII of the cod~ of the County of
chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to
read as follows:
93-~7 1/13/93
The~ United States of America, the Com~ODwealth of
Virginia, and the political subdivisions, boards,
exempted from payment of =axes imposed and levied
by this article with respect to the purchase of
utility services used by such governmental
entities.
(b) The tax hereby imposed and levied on sonsu~sr~ with
not apply to services which are psid for by
(¢) Volunteer rescue squads.
(5) That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately ~Den adoption.
T~E ~NERAL ~SREMBLY T~AT CHEZTERFiELD ~LTERNATIVE
pR0~RTIBS. INC. BE ~Y~TE~ FRO~ R~L ESTATE AND
P~SON~ ~Op~RTY TAXATI~
~. Micas ~tate~ this da~e ~Dd time has be~n advertised for a
p~b]ic hea~i~g ~o con~jder adoption o~ a resolution
Alternative Prope~i~, Inc. b~ exempts0 from r~al es%at~ ~md
pe~onal proper=y taxation. ~e further stated Chesterfield
Alternative Prop=rtie~ Inc. is a non-profit corporation
located within the County and is planning tc b~il~ two home~
to provide housing and services =o m~tally handicapped
oitiz~n= of the County. He ~oted the homes would be servi=~d
and ~taffed by the County'~ ~ental Health/Men, al Retardation
stated the resolution would be forwarded to =he ~e~eral
Assembly if the Board r~co~en~s the tax ~xemption.
S~rvio~s Board representing Be~uda District, ~tatad she
supported the request by Ches=erfluld Alternative,
Properties, Inc.; that Construction uf the two homes 9ould
provide housing and servlc~s to ~entally han~i=apped per~ons;
that the homes would reduce the waiting li~t for these
~er~ic~s and would be handicapped accessible to serve
indivi~ual~ with physical limitations; that the home~ would
enhance residential options within the County; and r~quested
~. George ~eadl~s stated he w~s opposed to r=q~e~t~ for tsx
address o=her o9~ions regar~le~ of the reason th~ tax-
There being no one el~e tc address ~is resolution, the
publi= hearing was ulo~ed.
Di~c~ion, co~ents and ~uestionu ~n~ed relative to the
location of ~e two lot~ own~d by Chesterfield Al=~rna~iv~
ProDertie=, inc. in which the propo~e~ group home would b~
built; the pu~ose of the ta~ e~ptlon re,es= ~elng to
oo~s%ruot bo~ hom~; and whe~r ~ proposed group ~ome~
differed from o~er group homes owned and operated within ~he
County.
On motion of Mr. Mc~ale, seconde~ by Mr. Colbert, the Board
adopted th~ following resolution:
1/15/93
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OF
CKESTERPIELD ALT~/qATIVES, INC. AS .EXEMPT PROM TAXATION
BY THE G~N~RAL ASSEMBL¥OF VIRGINIA
W~EREAS, Chester£1el~ Alternative PrOperties, Ine. is
non-stock, non-profit corporation which provides housing and
services to the ~entally handloapped citizens cf Chesterfield
County; and
~r~EREAS, Chesterfield Alternative Prop~ti~, Inc. owns
r~al property located in the Matoaoa District of chesterfield
County; and
W~E~AS, ~ha rea~ property u~d exclusively for
organize%ion shall be exem9~ from taxation as au~orized by
Article ~, Section 6(a) (6) of the constitution of
upon action by the General As~e~ly of Virginia and so long
which the organization i~ classified; and
~R~, ~he Board of ~up~rvisors of Chesterfield
County~ Virqinia ha~ aonsideTe~ the following ~actors before
status of Chesterfield Alternative Properties, Inc.
1. Chesterfield Alturnative'Properties, InC. i~ ~x~mpt
from federal income taxation pursuant to S~tion 501(~) of
the In~rnal ievenue Code of 19S6. (BIN
2. No current annual alcoholic beverage license for
serving alcoholic beveragem ha~ been issued by the Virginia
Alcohotio Beverage Control Bosrd ~o ~esterfield Alternatlv~
Properties, Inc. fo~ us~ on ~h~ organization's
Inc. is pai~ any compensation ~or service in such
with the corporation.
4. No part of the nmt ~arnings Of ~e~te~field
Alternative PropeTtles, In=. inures ~o the benefit of any
individual.
5. C~esterfiel~ Al%~rn~tiv~ Properties, Inc. provides
6. No part Of the activities Of
Alternative Properties, Ina. involv~ carrying on propaganda
or otherwise attemptin~ to influence legislation. The
corporation dues not participate in, or intervene in, any
political campaign on behalf of any candidate for
office.
7. Chesterfield Alternative Propertie~, In¢. has no
rule, r~ation, policy or p~actice which discriminates
~e basi~ of religious oonvio=ion, race, color, ~ex or
national origin.
TH~R~0RE, be it resolve~ by the Board of supervisors of
Chesterfield County as
1. That this Board supports t~e request
Chesterfield Al~ernativ~ Properties, Inc. for exemption'
taxation of it~ real an~ personal ~roperty pursuant to
Ar=icle X, Seotlon 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia
~nd the provisions of C~apter 36 of Title 58.1 of ~he Code
cat~gorlzad a~ charitable and benevolent.
2. That th~ County Administrator is directed to
93-29 ~/13/93
forward a certified ~py.of this re~oluti0n to the members of
thm General A~embly repreeen~ing the county sf Chester£ield
with the request that the proper legislation be intToduced in
the General Assembly %e achieve the purposes sf ~hie
resolutxon.
~. The effective date Of this resolution shall be
January 13, X993.
Vote: I~Ranlmeus
~O CONSIDE~ THE EST~BLIBHMBNT OF THE CHESTERFIELD
~OUNTY HEALTH CENTER
Mr. ~sden ~tated ~his date and time has bsen advertieed for
a publlo ~earing to consider the =stabtiehment ef the
Chesterfield County Health cen~er ~o~unisslon. Ee further
stated 9.he ~oard previously established the Nursing
Transition Committee to study and r~port on matters
to the eetablis~ent Of a health center cotillion t~
the LuCy Corr Nursing Hom~ and after careful study, the
a co~ission. He recognized Mr. Tom callahan, Chairman of
the LoGy Corr ~ursing Eom~ Advimory Board; Mr. Tom Hen$~aw,
Chairman of the L~y corr Nurzlng Home Family Council;
Bill Green~ Cha~an of thm Lucy Corr Nursing Home
Council; ~nd ~. Bob Kaplan~ chairman cf the Nursing Home
~ansition co~itt~e. ~e noted Mr. Jacob Mast, Director
~e ~ur~ing ~o~, ~d vu~iou~ employ6e~ w~re also pr~Dt at
'~e meeting.
Corr Nursing Home who wer~ present.
~. To~y ~enshaw, Chairman of the Luoy Corr Nursing
Famil~ Co~noil~. stated h~s wife has been a r~ident of
Nursing Home ~or approximately five y=ar~ and
concern r~latiVa to the Nursing Home continuing to r~ceive
its current quality service~ and ~uppli~ and also expressed
concern regarding the benefi=s the ~r~e~ currently
and, specifically, th~ County's retirement program.
good Job in providing quality service~ and e~ressed
relative to th~ nu~er of issums decided by the Board and
hearing wa~ =losed.
~ployees at ~e Nursing Home con=inuing to receive the same
b~n~fit~ and, specifically, the ~eti~ement program; services
continuing ~o b~ ~ance~ a= the Nursing Kom~; membership to
~e health center co~ission cunslsting of five to seven
mu~e~s; whe~er a ~e~er of the Beard coul~ ~erve on th~
co~is~ion; whether the five members should be designated
die.lots; and whether %~r~ woul~ be any adverse impact on
%he ~ality of car~ r~c~ived at the Nursing Home-
Mr. McHule ~de a motion, Seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the
Mr. Barber mtated he felt the membership of the Health
cotillion ~hould ~ons~st of r~presen=ative~ from each
dlm~ict and two members =t-l~zge.
~. MoHale stated h~ wa~ ~n a~eement with member~ of the
93-40 1/i3/95
hut, in particular, he felt members to ~he commission should
display certain disciplines such a~ expertise in the health
care industry and financial managemen~.2
Mr. Warren stated if establishment of' the Health Center
Commission was approved by the General Am~e~ly~ the same
process should be followed iN implementing thi~ Ccmmieslon as
was done in establishing ~he Disabiliti-m Services Boa~d and,
in particular, including the tyI~e~ of disciplines outlined.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the
reqUeSt submitted by th~ Csunty .to the General Assembly
regarding the Health Center c~mmission and, ~pecificelly, as
it related to membership; whether the commission could be
established under the guidaline~ of the County C~arter; end
action needed by the Board a5 this time.
Mr. Warren called for %he vote on the motion ma~e by
Mc~ale, seconded by ~. Colbert, ~or the Board to establish
the Health Center Co~immion t~ govern t~e operation of
Vot~: Unanimous
anticipated to be considered at the regularly scheduled Board
meatinq on February 10,
~O COMSIDBR AN,,ORDTN~d~CE TO A/~ THB OODH OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, lg78, ~ ~E~ED. B~ ~T~
R~TIN~ TO ~ILIN~. PR~E~tNG ~ n~ROV~L OP SITE
pLUS
~r. Jacobsen stated this date ~nd ti~ ha~ been adverti~ed
for a public ~earing to consider an or~nance relating to
filing, ~rooessing and approval of site planS. ~e further
stated the site plan prooes~ i~ th~ ~roGess in which =he
County enfor=~s and interDre%~ th~ $0ning conditions applied
on specific p~eces of property and revi~w=d ~ Current
process. He stat=~ th~ planning Co~ission reviewed s~veral
amendments in an effort to ~ncrea~e public participation in
the ~i=~ plan process an~ review~ th~ an~n~ent~. ~e stated
the Planning co--lesion was reco~nding denial of ~en~ent
I which wout~ require all si~e plans to b~ approvud' by.the
~lannlng Co--lesion and udoptio~ of ~endments II a~d III
which ~ould re~ir~ written notification of adjacent property
Owner~ of site p~an submittals and ps,ting of signs on all
property whats mi~e ~lan approvals was pending. He norad if
Amendment TI was adopted by the Board, thc effective date
would be July, 1993 in order to allow staff to ad~e~$ %he
n~cessary co~put~r ~y~ten changes and r~viewmd the associated
Mr. George B~adl~s stated h~ felt ~e filing of
administrative site plans should b~ advertim~d in the
newspaper am migns locsted on the property weru dlffio~lt =o
find. Me further state~ he felt thi~ type of procmsm would
keep concerned citizens abreast of t~ese types of is~ue~ and
indicated public h~arings for site plans should be hmtd ut
7:00 p.m. instead of ~:~0 p.m. in ordmr ~o allow citimens an
Mr. Brian Murphy statmd h~ is a resident of th~ County and
infringing on property owner~' rights and how thlm t~e of
process wool4 impact th~ building industry.
M~. Carolyn Powers, Pr~sldsnt of the Chesterfield Regional
~nvironmental League, stated they felt this process is
interpretive and input provided ~y citizens would be
93-4t 1/13/93
invaluable an~ enhance the ~ite, plan approval
There being no o~ else to address these
amendments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt adjacent property owners should be
aware of development in their neighborhoods and th~ County
has the responsibility of informing citizens of the proposed
develop~ent and should make such information accessible to
citizens.
Mr, Daniel then made a motion, seconded by ~Lr. Barber, for
the Board to authorize a permanent Sull-=ime receptionist
position in the Planning Department to bc filled no earlier
than May 1, 1993; to deny Amendment I to require Planning
Commission rsvlew and approval of all ~ite plans; and to
notification on properties included in site plan submittals
and Iaailing of Dotification to ~djacent property
There was brief discussion r~lative to the various review
processes including site plan and administrative being used
during the zoning process.
M~. Barber stated the ~lanning Co--lesion meetings are ~eing
televised in an effort t~ make the p~bllc more aware of
development issues facing the County. He further ~a~ed
felt in o~de~ to ensur6 probl~s arm no~ ~nCO~tered during
~a site plan review process, the effort ~hould take
Mr, Warren stated he f~lt adoption of thews
~en~ents wo~ld m~e ~e process easier eno nak~ information
mor~ accessible enabling public participation. H= further
stated he felt consideration ~hould be given to th= Planning
co~ission m~t~m~s being held at 7~00 p.m. instead of 3:00
Mr. Warren thud called fo~ th~ vote on the mot~on made by Mr.
Dmniel, seconded by ~. Barber, for the Board to authorize
permanent full-tim~ receptionist po~ition in the Plannln~
Department to be filled no earlier than ~ay 1, 1993~ to deny
Amen~nt I to req~ir~ Planning Co~i~sion review and
approval of all mite plan~; and to adopt Amen~en~s II and
III to require ~osting of notification on properties included
in mite plan submittal~ and mailing of notlficat~on to
adjaoent property owner~:
~ ORDINANCE TO ~D T~E COD~ OF THE COUNTY OF
CHEST~FIELD~ 1978~ AS ~ENDED ~Y ~E~DI~G ~D
SECTIONS ]1.1-~72 T~OUG~ ~1.1-280, R~TING TO
FILIN~, ~ROCESSING ~D APPROV~ OF SIT~
$~c. 2R.l-~?~. Use%_R~irlnc Site Plan ADDrOV~i,
The following umem re.ire a site plan when ~hey require
a building permit or involve a l~nd area greater than 4,000
(a) Nonconfidential uses to includer but not limited
institutional buildings, p~bl~c buildings, parks and
pluy~rounds.
(b) ~y land use or ~v~lopm~nt in multi-family
industrial districts.
(o) A~y non-re$id~ntla! land use permitted by right in
(d) Any land uss or development for which a conditional
Section 21 1-273 ._Prenaration and ~ub~i~ion of Site Pla~...
(a) Site plans, or any portion thereo£, involving
engineering, landscape architecture, architecture or land
surveying, shall be prepared er c~rtifisd respectively by an
engineer, landscap~ architect,'a~chitect or land surveyor
duly ~sg.isterad by the State to practice as such.
(b) Requests for ~ite plan review and approval shall be
accompanied Dy the following:
(1} A completed application form.
copies as required by the Director of
Planning.
($} Selection by the applicant cf the
Administrative or Planning Cor~mission ei~ plan review and
(4) Fees a~ required by Beetles 21.1-280.
(5} Copies, the n~mbe~ of which shall be
determined by t~e Director of Planning, of all commission's
and ~oards' minutes relating to zoning and development of the
p~eperty.
(c) Every site plan s~all be prepared in the following
masne~ an~ zhow the following information and lgcatlon of
land use~ w~ere necessary and applicable:
(1) A site plan may be prepared in one or more
sheets ~o show clearly the infoz-mat±on required by this
Article to facilitate review and approval of the plan. If
prepared in more ~han one sheet, match lines shall clearly
indicate where the sheetm join and each sheet shall contain
an overall sket=h plan showing the relationship of
(~) A master site plan may be submitted for-la~qe
a~eas to be developed in phases. Further changes,
or deletions may be submitted aS mite plans wherein only that
portion of the land or bu~ding affected need be shown.
(3) Clearly legible blue or black line eoples of
alta plan prepared in a~cordance with t~e requirements of
this Article are ~eq~ired to he s~b~it%ed for approval as
provlde~ in this Article.
(4) Land use.
(5) Parkin~ areas and driveways.
Recreation or open spaces.
(7) Name and location of developmsnt.
(8) Boundary er the entire tract by eeur~ and
distances, including two points connected to 'the virginia
Coordinate System of 1983 (NAD 83). (Amended 12-11-91)
(9] Area.and present zoning of tract.
Ilo) Names and addresSeS of the owner or owners of
record of the tract and the applicant.
93-43 1113193
........ ]J;!i il! ....... I ..... I ......... I .
(11) .~Owner, zoning, and pre~ent use e~ all
contiguous or abutting prepertyl
(12) Date, scale, north point, and nuttier of
sheets. Scal~ shall be one (1) inch sguale ~00 feet or
larger, for all plan sheets showing buildings or building
lots, a~d at least one (1) inch equals 600 feet on plan
sh¢ot~ shewing no buildings or buildlng lots. sheet size
shall not emceed twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (36) inckee.
(15) Vicinity sketch.
[14) Ail building restriction lines, highway
setback lin=S, utility oa~ementa, oovenant~, r~ervations and
e~!s%ing, as well as ultimate, rights of way, ~s shown on the
General Plum.
(15) E~isting and finished topography with a
maximum ef one (1} foot contour intervals. Planm depicting
any off-site drainage areas shall show off-site topography
with a maximum ef five (5) foot contour intervals.
(16) Name, address and t~lephone number of the
person preparing the plan.
(17) Storm d~ainage systeme amd natural and
artifi0ial watercourses.
(18) All existing improv~ments excluding privately
owned underground utiliticu and the like.
Limits of any .establishe~ lQ0 year
(19)
floodplains.
(20)
(2~)
architectural
Sidewalks, streets, alleys and easements.
Buildingm and structures tc include
elevations/randerings; dimtancee between
buildings; number of stories~ area in ~ress square feet of
each floor; number of dwelling units or guest ~ooms; building
height; and location and size of required ~treet address
s~gn.
(22) D~iVeWnys, entrances, exits, parking areas and
leading ~paces to include number of parking ~aces; number cf
handicapped parking spaces; and number of le~ding ~paces.
(23) Public sanitary waste water systems.
(24) Public wa~=r mains and fire hydrants.
(25) Gas, ~owcr and telephone lin~s, utility
$1ope~, terraces, retaining w~lls~ fencing and
sore=ming within ~he required yards.
(27) Plans for collecting and depositing ~torm
wa~e: in accordance with the requirements of the
~nvironment=l Engineering Department amd method of treatment
of natural and artifioial watercourses, including a
delineation of proposed limits of floodplains, if any, ae
crested er e~larged by the proposed development.
(I~) Conceptual outdoor lighting, provided detailed
plans are et%b~itted prior ts instellation.
(29) Conceptual landscaping, provided detailed
plans are submitted Drlor to installation.
(~O) Qravee, objects Or ~tructures marking
of b~rial. (Amended
(31) Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. (Mended
10-10-~0)
(~2) Any other feature of t/us development which
required by this Chapter to be ~hswn on a site
(~mended 1-24-90) (Amended 10-10-90)
(4) The Director of Planning or hie agent shall ba
responsible for reviewing the site plane for general
completeness and compliance with adopted plan~ or such
ackministrative requirements as ~ay be established prior to
forwarding copies thereof to other reviewing agencies or
Section ~I.1-274. Sit$..~3an Proce~in~.
(a) At the time a ~ite plum is Bubmitted, the applicant
shall elect whether to seek approval under the adelnistratlve
review and approval process set forth in S=ction 21.1-275 or
forth in SeotloD 21.1-~7~. If the applicant fails to make
such a selection his application will be procpseed un,er
aclminiztrative review and approval procedure.
(b) The Director of Planning or his agent shall
written notice of site plan submission to adjacent property
owners by registered, oar:iliad or first cla~s nell as soon
.after site plan. submission aS ~racticable, but in no event
lass than twenty-sss (~) days prior to approval or
Oi~approval of the site plan. If such%r titian notice is sent
by first clas~ mail, th= Director of Planning or hie agent
shall make affidavit that such not,ce has been sent and shall
file the affidavit with the application far approval. (This
A~endmant ~hall become effective on July 1, 1993).
Section ~1.1-~7~. Administrative Review.-.
(a) All site plans which are properly submitted
provided in this Article for administrative review and
approval shall be reviewed and reCOmmended for approval
denial by:
(1} The Director of Planning ur hie agents,
relative to:
a. compliance with th~ r~quiremente of this
Chapter, including, but nut limited to, setbacks~ Side yards
and rear yards, heig~% of building, lot area end lot
COverage, fencing, screening, la~d~caping~ lighting,
a~chltectural design; an~ pedestrian access.
b. Location, desi~]l and adec/uaey of
automobile parking a~ to number of ~paces, square footage per
~pace including movement lanes sn~ ~otal
(2) The Director of Transportation or hi~ agents,
relative to:
a. Location and d~ign of ve~ioular
entrances and exits in relation to streets giving access to
the site.
Adequate provision for ~nternel and
external traffic circulation including, but not limited to
access to adjoining prsper~y; traffic control devlce~, and
(~) Virginia Departmpnt of Transportation E~gi~eer
relative to highway
(4) The Director of Environmental Engineering er
~i$ agents~ relative to:
. Adequacy cf drainage and erosion control
Flood protection.
Compliance with applicable established
design eriterie~ construction standards and specifications
d. Compllanc~ with the regulations and
(A~ended 10-10-90}
(5) The Director of Utilities or his agents,
a. Adequacy of water supply an~ sanitary
b. Compliance with applicable e~tablished
design sriteria, Oon~truCti0n gtandard~ end specifications
for all required public Water and wastewater !mprovement~.
(6) Building official or hiu agents, r$1ativ= to
fire protection and compliance with the prcvision~ o~
County...~i~e Prevention Co~e and the ~ star,wide
(7) Director of ~ealth or his agents relative to
private wastewate~ and water ~y~tems.
(s) chief of Police or hie age'ts relativ~ to
police prctectioa and County ~a£~ty codes.
(b} The Director of Planning, or his agent shall be
responsible for posting a si~n notify~nq the public of site
plan submission ~r administrative review as soon as
practicable, but in no event less than ~wenty-one (21) days
prior to approval or d~a~rova~ of the site plan. Such
posting shall bo performed in th% ~ame manner required for
public hearing~ described in section 21.I-1~
(c) The Director of Planning shall approve or
disapprove site plane in accordance with the reviewing
authoritieS' r~ca~u~endatienE. Me shall notify thm applicant
of his dec,sloe ~o approve or ~isapprove the site plan within
thirty
(30) Oays of the date of submission of the plan, if
practicable.
(d) In t~e event the applican: disagrees with th~ final
decision 0£ t~e Director Of ~]annlng, he may file a written
appeal with the Planning commission within ~i~tean (1~) days
of that decision. In addition, adjacent property owners, and
ether aggrieved persons who desire to appeal i~ues pursuan~
to Division 5 of Article 4, Article 7 or Seotlon
(b} cf this Chapter, may appeal the final decision of the
Director of Planning by filin~ a written appeal with the
Planning Commi~slon within fifteen (15) days of thm~
decision.
Other than issues appealable by any aggrieved person pursuant
to Division 5 of Article 4, Article 7 or Section ~1.1-~g9.~
(b) cf thig Chapter, appeals by adjacent property ownsrs
~hall be limito~ to conditions which ~ir~¢tly affect
pro~erty ow~er~ and include access, ~tility locations,
buffers, conditions of zonieg~ architectural treatment in the
C-i an~ 0-1 Di~trict~ and land u~e transitions. The
commission shall fix e reasonable time for h~aring of the
appeal and decide the s~me within sixty (60) days. The
Co~mission ~ay affil'm, modify or revers~ ~he decision.
O~ring this period the Director of Planning ~hall not approve
the si~e plan er tee building permit. [Amended
9~ction 21.1-276. Pia~ni~ Commission Review.
All site plans wh'ich"ars properly s~bm~tted as provided
for in this division for Planning Commi~slon review and
approval shall be reviewed and recommended for approval or
denial as follows:
(a) The apprepriato departments and/O~ agsncie~ will
review and make recs~endatlons relative to approval or
denial as outlined in Section ~1.1-~75 (a) of this Al~ticle.
(b) Tho Director of Planning, or him agent, ~hall be
rs~pon~ible for po~ting a notice of the s~te plan ~ubtie
hea~ing in accordance with section 21.1-18(b).
(c) The Director of Planning shall ~ubmit
recommendations to the Planning commission for approval or
denial of the site plan in accordance with the reviewing
authorities' recommendations.
(d) If the Planning commission fails to aD,rove or
disapproue th~ proposed site plan within sixty (60) days
after it has been officially su~mittud ~or approval, the
applicant, after t~n (~0} days' notice to the Co,mid,ion, may
petition the circuit Court to decide wh~ther the ~ita ~lan
should or sho~id not be approved. The Court ~hall hear the
matter and shall approve O~ disapprove the plan~ in
accordance with ~hi~ chap=er.
(e) In the event the applicant ~isag=ees with ~he final
dscislon of th~ planning Commission, he may file s written
appeal with the Circuit CoUrt within sixty (60) ~ay~ of that
decision. In ~ddition, adjacent property o%rnsrs may appeal
the final decision of the Planning Co~rmission by filing a
written appeal with the Circuit Court within siMty (60) days
of that decision. Adjacent property owners' appeals ~hall be
llmitad to ~ondition~ which directly affect the p~operty
owners and include aesess~ utility lo0ations, buffers,
ccn~ihicn~ of zoning, architectural treatment in the C-1 and
o-1 Districtm and land usc transitions. The Cour~ s~all Six
a reasonable ti~e for hearing of the appeal. During this
period the ~i~eotor of Planning shall net a~prove =he site
Section 21.1~277. Perie~ of $it~ ~San Validity.
An approv6d site plan ~hall become null and void if no
~ignlflcant work is done or development i~ made on the site
within twelve (12) months a£har final site plan approval.
There shall be no clearing or grading of uny site without
approval cf a grad~n~ and/er erosion control plan by the
Director Of Planning and the Director of Envi=o~e~tal
Engineering. Construction or development may begin upon
approval of the site plan by the Direct~ of Planning and of
building permit~ by the Building Official.
~e~ticn 21.1~2!D. Minor or Major Adjustment in APProved
$it~ Plan.
(a) After a site plan has been approve~,' minor
adjustments of th= ~ite plan, which comply with the spirit of
%hi~ Article and other provlsion~ of thi~ Chapter; with the
intent Qf the approving bodies in their approval cf s~ta
plans; an~ with ~he general purpose of %he Caners1 Pled for
d~velopment of the area, may be approved by the Director of
Planning with concurrence of the rmvi~wlng authorities
Concerned. Deviation from an approved ~ite ~ian without the
written approval of the Director of Planning shall void the
plan an~ the Director of Planning shall require the npplicunt
to resubmit a new site plan for consideration.
~3-47
{b) Any major revision.of an approved cite plan shall
be made in the same manner a~ Originally approved. For such
revisions, a~y requirements of this .Article which eFe found
by the Director to be unnecessary to assure compliance with
~%e requirements of this Article may be waived.
~an; PrDre~uisita to Issuan¢~ of Perm~.
{a) It shall be unAawful for any person to Co~trust~
erect or structurally alter any buildin~ or structure
develop, chan~e or improve land for which a site plan is
~e~ire~, except in accordance with the approved site plan-
{~) NO building permit shall be imsued ~o construQt,
erect or alter any buildi~ er structure or develop, or
improve any lane, that im mubject to the ~rovisions of this
Article until a site plan has been ~ubmitted and approved.
Sec. .~.1.1-~9.I. Uses re~uirin~ improvement
An improvement sketch must b~ submitted and approved for
any uso in ~ Chemapeak~ Bay Premervation Area which exceeds
2,500 square feet Of land disturbance ~nd for which neithe~
mite plan approval pursuant to Division 2 of this Azticle nor
subdivision approval pursuant to Chapter 1S.1 i~ required.
Se~. 9~.1-~79.2. Preoaratlun and submismion of improvement
(e) Request~ for improvement ~kekoh review mhd approval
shall be accompanied by (1) t~e applicant'm m~rtificaticn
that he will perform the measure~'included on the
sketch and [2] copies of ~he improvement she%ch a~ required
by t~e Director of Environmental ~ngineerinq~ For any land
nme or development as describe~ in Section ~1.I-279.1
re,siring a building permit, the building permit application
shall be accompanied by a request for ~mprovement sketch
review and agproval and the applicant'm signature on the
building permit application ohall eonotitute his
certification that he will perform the meanure= inClUded on
the i~provement sketch. For any other land use ur
develol~ment~ the improvement sketch shall b~ submitted
directly to the Department Of Environmental En~ineerin~ C~r
review and approval.
. (b) Every improvement sR~tcn shall ~a prepared in th~
following manner and show the following information, where
neceosary and applicable as ~to~mined ~y th~ Director of
Environmental Engineering;
$oundary of entir~ tract by mates and bounds.
Pa~kiDg area~ and driveways.
($)R~erea%ion area~ and open space.
(4)Aras Of entire tract and imperviuua areas.
(5) Suilding re~triotion lines to include
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas~ e~istin~ and proposed
u~ility easement(s) and setback(s) required by thi~ c~apter.
(6) Existing and finimhed topography with a
~ximum of five (5) foot contour intervals.
{7) Sto~u~ drainaqe systems to ~nclude natural
artificial water,curses.
(~) All a×istinq and/or proposed i~provements
including well~ a~ primary and secondary drainfietdm.
~3-48
(9) Limits cf any ~shablished l~9-year floodplain.
(10) Buildings an~ ~tru~ture~. i . .
(11') Limits of l~nd disturbance.
(12) Erosion control
(13) Pollutant removal requirement calculations.
' (14) Best management practices satisfying pollutant
leading rsquire~ntz.
(c) The Director of Environmental Engineering or his
agent ~hall be responsible for reviewing the improvement
skstsh for g~neral =ompletenes~ and COmpliance with the
regulationm and ~equirements of the Chesapeake
PreservRtion Areas.
(a) Am agent for ~he Planning Director, the Director of
Environmental ~ngineering shall approve or disapprove the
±mprovament sketch in accordance with the regulations and
thirty (30) day~ of the da~a of submission cf the i~provement
sketch, if practicable. Such approval or disapproval may be
the Environmental Engineer'm approval or disapproval of the
building permit application.
(b) Any person aggrieved by a deci=ion of the Director
of Environmental Engineering approving er disapproving
improvement ~ketch may file an appeal in accordance with the
procmdures provided in Section
Sec~ ~1.5-179.4. .~riod of i~nrovement sketch validity.
An approved improvement sketch shall become null and
void fl no significant work is done or development is made.on
the mite within six (5) months after final approval. There
shall be nc clearing or grading Of any ~ite without approval
of am improvement sketch by the Direstor of E~viTenmsntal
Engineering.
~eo. 21.1-279.5. Minor or ma~or adjustment in
(a) After an improvement sketch ha~ been approved,
minor adjustmehts of the ~ketch, which comply with the spirit
of this Division and uth~ Drovizions of this Chapter ~ay be
approved by the bites:er of environmental
Deviation fro~ an approved improvement sketch without the
written approval of the Director of ~nvircnzental Engineering
shall void the skf%oh and th~ Director of Environmental
Engineering shall require the applicant to resubmit a new
improvement sketch for consideration.
(b) Any major revision of an approved improvement
sketch sh~ll be made in t~e same manner as originally
approved. For such revisions, any requirements of this
Division whish ere found by the Director of Environmental
Engineering to be
unnecessary to assure compliance with the ~e~uirenen~s of
thi~ Division may be waived.
improvement sketch; prerequlslte .~.o issuance of build~n~
permit.
(a) It ~h~ll be unlawful for any pe~son to develop,
structurally alter any building or structure for W~ieh an
imprOVement ~ket~h isr~Uire~'~!'eXcept in acoord~nos witk an
approved improvement ~ketch.
(b) NO buiZding permit ~hali be i~ued to
erect or ~%ructurally alter any building or
~ubject to the ~rovi~ions of t~is Di¥i~ion until an
improvement sketch has been submitted and approved.
(sactlons 21,1-Z79.~ - 21,~-279.6
In addition to any other fees required by the County,
fees shall be payable to the County Treasurer and submitted
to the Planning D~partment upon filing as follows:
(~)
sitm plan:
¢1) original submittal,
including up to
two (2) ~esub~ittsl~
Third and snbs~quent
resubmi~tals
K~Jor adjustment
including up to
two (2) resu~mittals
(4) tinct adjustment to
approved ~ite plan
(b) Schematic Plan
Appeal to dscision cf
Director of plannin~
This 0rdinance shall be effective upon
$75~.00, plu~ $45.00
per acre
per
r~ubmitSal
$$00.00, plus $25.00
per acre
$250.00 p~r ~ubmittnl
or r~dbm{ttai
$1,025.00, plu~
$50.00 par acre for
the firz~ 50 acre~
a~d $25.00 per acrs
thereafter.
$260.00
th~ da~e mf adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
(It is noted in order to accomplish ~he notification required
~or a~jao~nt propsrty ownsr notification. An additional
$1,100 will be needed for staff costs this fiscal y~ar and if
~he Planning Department cannot absorb the FY9~ cost
$4,400, a year-end adjustment will ba made. Th~
estimated ecs% is $19,000 whi=h will be addressed durlnq the
TO COEsXDER ~N ORDINAWe~ TO V~TE A ~IXTEEN ~OOT
Mr. stith mtatsd this date and time ha~ been advertised for a
9M-50
of a mixteen foot easement on Lots 29 and 30 within Cambridge
Subdivision, Section 3. ~
No one came forward to speak ~n favor of er againmt the
ordinance.
adopte~ the following o~dinance:
(,,gP~INTOR") vacates tc PAGE DABKEY CALISC~, ("GRAnTeE"), a
Der%ion of a ~6~ easemen~ acrosc Lots 29 and 30, Black D,
Cambridge Subdivisien, Midlothian Magisterial
Chesterfield County~ Virginia, as ~hown on a plat thereof
duly recorded in the clerk'5 office of the Circuit Courk of
Chesterfield County in Plat Book 1~, Page ~.
WE~R~$, Pa~e Dabney caliseh, petitioned the Board
Supervisors cf Chesterfield County, virginia .~e vacate a
portion of a %5' easement in cambridge Subdiv~mlon, Section
~, Midlothian Magisterial Distriet~ Chesterfield County,
Virginia more particularly s~own on a plat Of record in the
Clerk's office of the Circuit Cou~t of said County in Plat
Book 13, Paqe 21, ~ate~ January 31, 1~5~, ma~e ~y
Bras. Thm portion of sa~nt petitioned to be vacated is
~ore fully described am fellows:
A portion of a 16~ easem~n~ aorom~ Lotm 29 an~ 30, Block D,
Cambridge gubdivision, Section 3, MidlOthia~ District,
Chesterfield, Virginia, ae ~hown on a pl~t thereof by LaPrade
Bro~., dak~d January ~l, 1963, a copy of which is
hereto and mede a part of this Ordinance.
~R~AS, notice has bean ~iven p~re~ant to s~mtion 16.1-
431 of the Code of virginia, 19~0, a~ ~mea~ed~ by
advertising; and,
W~REAS, no publi~ necessity exist~ f~r the continuance
of the portion o~ easemen: sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORe, ~ IT OP~DAI~D ~Y T~B BOA]kD OF
SUpeRVISORS O~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That purmuant to S~ction 15.%-482(D) Of the ~o~e of
y. ircinia~ 1950, as amendeR, ~he aforesaid ~or~ion o~ easement
De and io b~r~by vacated.
This ordiDance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with section 15.I-492(b) of the ~de of virginia,
1~$0, as amended, add a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto ~hall ~e recorded no
sooner %hen thirty days hereafter iD the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County~ virginia'pursuant
to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amende~.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Sodtien 15.1-
483 is to destroy the force and effeot of the recordbng of
the portion of the plat va~uted. T~is ordinance shall vest
fee simple ti=lc of th~ portion of easement hereby vacated in
the property owner Of Lots 19 and 30, Block D~ Cambridge
Snbdivieion, Section. 3, free and clear of any right~ of
public use.
~o¢ordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed i~ =~e
names of the County of Chesterfield ss ~rantor and Page
Dabney Calisoh, or their successors in title, as grantee~.
vote: Unanimous
93-51 1/13/95
~,F. TO COM~ID~ ~-N ORD?W~CE iT~ ~ACATE A PORTION OF A
TWENTY ,F,OOT BASEMENT ON LOT 6, BLOCK B,
BID~E ~UBDIVISION
Mr. Stith stated thi~ date and time has been ~4vertlsed for
public hearing to ¢0ns~der an ordinance tO vacate a portion
Of ~ twenty foot easement on Lot 6, Block ~, within
Winterberry Ridge Subdivision.
No one came fo~ard to speak in favor of or against the
ordinance.
On motion of Kr. Colbert, ~econded by Kr. Barber, t~e Board
adop=ed ~he following ordinance:
~ ORDIN~UE whereby %h~ COUNTY OF CM~T~RFIELD, VIRGINIA,
(~G~TO~") vaGat~s to R. LEON~ VANCE and TONILY~ T.
V~CE, (husband and wife) ("G~TE~'~), a portion o~ a 20
ea~em~n~ across Lo~ 6, W~nt~rberry Ridg~ Subdivi~ion~
Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield county, Virginia,
shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in t~ Clerk'~ Office
of the cir~it Court of Chemterfleld County in Plat Book 22,
Pa~e 64.
~E~S, Mr. R. Leonard VaDC~ and Mrs. Tonitynn
Vance, petitioned the Board of Supervisors of chesterfield
county, Vir~inla =~ vacate a portion of a 20' easement in
Wi~terberry Ridge subdivision~ Clover Hill
Distrlc=, Ches=erfield ¢o~ty, Virginia more partioKiarly
Circuit Cour~ of said County in Plat Book ~, Page 64, dated
July ~4, 1974, made by J. K. Ti~On~ & A~ociat~m, Inc. The
de~crlb~d as follows:
A portion of a 20' eas~ent across Lot 6, Ninterberry R~dge
Subdfvimion, Clover Hill Di~trlc%, Chesterfield, Virginia, as
~hOW~ on a plat thereof by J. K. Tigons & A~o~ciate~ P.C.,
dated October 28, 1992~ a copy of which is attached
and ma~a a Dart of this Or4inance.
WHER~S, no%ice ha~ been given pursuant to Section 15.1-
4~1 of the Code of Vir~inia~ '1950, as amended, by
advertising;
~ER~S, no public necessity exists for th~ continuance
Of the portion of easement sought to be vacated.
~OW ~ER~FORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY T~R BO~D OF
SUP~VISORS OF CH~ST~RFIE~ CQ~T~, V~GINIA:
~at p~uan% to S~ction 15.1-45~(b) of the Co~e of
Vir~inla, 19~0, as amended, the aforcuaid portion of
be and is hereby
This Ordinance ~all be in full for=~ an~ effect in
accordance wi~ Section 1~.1-48~(b) of the Code of
1950~ as ~ended~ and a c~rtlfied copy of this Ordinance,
=o~e~er wi=h the plat attached hereto shall be recorded
sooner than ~irty days h~reaft~r ~n =he Clemk's Office
the Circuit Court of Chesterfield Count~, virginia
to Section 15.1-485 of the Cod~ of Vir~iD.iA, 1950,
~ effect of this Or~inan~ pursuant to Sec=ion 15.1-
483 i~ to destroy the force and effect of ~e r~cordi~g of
the ~ortlon uS the 91a% vacated. 9hi~ Ordinance shall vest
~m property u~ers of Lot 6, C~mbridge ~ubdivision, free and
clea~ of any rights of public u~-
93-52
Accordingly, this ordinance shall bm indexed in the
names of the County of Chesterfield as ~rantOr a~d R. Leonard
Vance and Tonilynm T. V~nce, (husband and wife), or their
successors in ti%lo, a~ grantees.
Vote: 'Unanimous
TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE
~UILDIN¢ ~IT FEE ~D TO C,ONSIDER ESTABLISHIN8 FEER~
~RRRORRIATIN8 FUNDS AND AWARDING CONTRAQT~ ~EG~DIN~
T~E SHRINK/SWELL SOIL PROCR~M
Mr. Micas stated thio data and ~ime has been ~dv~r~ised for a
public hearin~ to consider an ordinance relat~n~ to the
residential building pormi~ fee and to consider e~t~blishing
fees, appropriating funds and awarding contra~te ~egmrdlng
the shrir~/swe!l coil program. ~e outlined the
recommendations made by the Shrink/Swell Soil Task Force.
Mr. ~srnard Schmelz, Team Leader of the S~rink/Sw=ll Soil
TaCk Force, reviowsd the i~plemen~Rtion of varlou~
resommendatlo~s ineludlng ~-~e computer based tracking syotem;
the ~tand~rdized soil testing and fedoras policy; the
standardize~ footing 4esign r~qulrement; %~e separat~ fra~ing
and insulation inspections; the separate veneer inspaation;
the celestion/hiring of the ombudsman ponltion; the legal and
engineering asoistunce programs; the short-for~ an~ long-~crm
informational brochures relating to =hrink/~well soils; th~
revisions to the subdivision ordinance; eoils mad
preparation; th= academic grant wish Virginia University; the
skills enhancement trainin~ program for staff in the Build~ng
Inopection Department; th~ dovelopmant of the mission
statement of the Building Inspection Department; and the
reorganization of space ~o the Building Inspection
Department. ~a stated staff ~ould roport back to the Bosrd
on the Coopers & Lybrand porformance audit report on Janu~r~
27, 1993. ~e then reviewed the dost estimates for tho
ombudsman position and the ~$%imated revenue based on the
building permit surcharg~ and application fee.
Discussion, co--eats and questions ensued ~elative to the
co~t est£~ate for tho englnearing investigation and the rol~
of the engiue~r; the cost esti~mt~ for l~gal assistance and
the service that would be received £or the proposed eZ00;
whe=~er there wer~ any other jurisdictions with thi~ type of
comprehensive program currently in place; and the purpos~ of
the academic grant with Virginia University.
It wad generally agreed to rsQees for five minutes.
Mr. TC~ Scstins referenced a report regarding shrink/swell
~oils conducted and submitted by a geologist from Colorado
and orated ha has been unable to reoolva his problem to date.
Ee reviewed the hi~tory of tb~ ~oils in the county and how it
relates to shrink/swell and the available avenues he ha~
~cught in aa e£feit to resolve the problems he is
e~eriencing and the impact these problems have ~ad on his
family.
Ms. Kathy Kon~yals stated she has experienced problems
attributable to shrink/swell soilS; that her home had bean
inspecte~ pric~ ~o purchase; tha~ sh~ f~lt a ~rge majority
of the probl~n~ balng ex~erlanced were attributable to poor
workmanship rather than shrink/swell soilo; that in the past,
the County did not document oomplainta; that she ~id not feel
an ombudsman, lawyer or engineer~ would be able to a~ist her;
that she has repaired her home'at ~er own expense; that she
felt the ombudsman position should not be housed at the
Courthouse; that she felt the ombudsman should Be fair minded
and objective and no: be afifiliated with any special interest
group; that a complaint tracking system should be implemented
with thc information being aoaesslble to clt%zens; and that
she fe~ a solution needed to be d~termined at this point in
time. ~he submitted into the retard a copy of the in~pection
report ccnducts~ on her ho~e.
F~. George Beadles stated he felt any fees enacted ehould be
reviewed approximately every six months and that no amount of
money would re,tore the loss and feeling cf helplessnese by
t/lo~e homeowners who have experienced damages.
Mr. Bob ~arn~s stated he felt the foundation pour
inspections, additional inspections, the engineering prppesal
and enf0rcemen% Of the Building Code would assist the
situation; that the problem ~kould be resolved and these
fssnes only address protecting t~s future; that all ~f the
homes experiencing damages should be fixed n~w and not be
delayed; that the ombudsman position role s~ould · include
other constr~ction related issues and reviewed thc
quelifi~ationm for t~e positioD; that the position should Dm
temporary and eon~iderati0n shauld be given to th~ individual
being hired from the state er federal government; that be did
not feel anyone working fo~ :ha County should be given
consideration in XilliDg the position and expressed concerns
relativ~ to th= f~nding coming from the general fund; and
t~et th~ County should s~lect objective, independent
engineering firm~ and indicated he di~ not feel the proposed
$600 would cov~r t~e necessary ~ngineering.
F~. Tim $oatlno stated he re~ide~ in a house damaged by
shrink/~w~ll s~ils; that the problems h~e family have
experienced has created a stressful envlronm~nt; that he felt
the problem would continue to worsen if net corrected and the
County should resolve thm ~ssue; and requested the Board to
assist the affected hom%o~nerS.
~r. ~anford Byer stated he reside~ in Brandermill; that ha
has experienced etruotural damage to hi~ home due %~ rotting
foundations; that his home was inspected and he was informed
t~e house met the Build~ng Code; and he fel~ the standards of
the Building Coda should also be addressed in the proposal.
MC. Brian Murphy stated he is a builder~ re~id~ in the
County and has become involved with issues regarding
shrln~/~well coil,s that hu reviewed the performance audit
report submitted by Coopers & Lybrand and was familiar ~ith
t-ha various Work session~ a~d public hearings which have bees
held; that he felt most of the reports s~bmittsd on the
recommendations documented in the reports and expressed
concern r~latlve to th~ ombudsman positioD; and that he felt
the add~tlonal inspections implemented were su~{~cien~
without the r~quirement to have a foundation pour inspection.
and has experienced Building Code violations with her home;
related to poor workmanship and the builder would not make
the necessary repairs; that she filed a slaim with ~0W which
was accepted; that ~he received two conflicting engineer
hame; that in order to have her house repaired, she would
have to sign an insurance release farm prohibitin~ her from
Mr. Thoma~ Browski stated he resid~ in Brandsrmill; that he
felt there were more homeowners experiencing damages who have
not yet coma forward; ~' ~bat a relie~' fund should be
established to assist those homeowners experiencing damages;
thut he supported the new building re~latlons as it would
assis= in protecting homes in the future and expressed
concerns relative to homeowners seeking legal recourse
without assistance; and r~que~ted the Board to assist
homeowners in need.
Nr. Philip Hal~ey ~tated that he ~s a real estate developer,
a~chltect and developer of Windsor Park Subdiui~ion; that ha
support~d the con.eDt of an ombud~msn positio~ b~t felt the
position should be funded ~hrouqh general fund dollars; that
he did not feel the imposition of a fee wa~ fair or that
there was a need for the foundation pour inspection due to
the resent building practice~ implemented~ and that he was
concerned about th~ qualifications relating to building
inspectors.
Mr. Robert ~- Talbert stated he resides in Woodlake; that he
felt the Board should follow the. recommendations $u~itted;
an~ that the £~su~ should be followed throuqh and then
revisited at a later date to see what can be done to help
those who have already been adversely affected.
Mr. Graham Henderson stated he r~ide~ in the County; that he
i~ a structural engineer, is familiar with shrln~/swell soils
and r~ferenoed the history of tho County's soil; that the
study on soils was not beneficial at this point ~n time; that
the five year warranty on builders would agsi=t homeowne~ in
ULt. Richard Henshaw snared he resides in the County and is
lisensed contractor; that ~e felt when there were problems,
the development~building industry was impacted and held
responsible the m~jority of the time; that it would ha
difficult for a building inspes:or from the County or
soncrst= inspector to be on th~ job when footings are
and expressed concern relative to safe=y issues; that there
and, speeifically~ as the reports r~late to damages and
actively involved in varieu~ civil qro~p~; that he felt the
~s~uss relatln~ tu shrink/swell soils ~n a serious concern;
that there was not sufficient information available to
clearly define the scope uf the problem on specific ~itee at
this ~oin% in time; that the County could no= afford to
provide as~istanse to all individuals requesting it and the
repairs made should be done on a cost share basi~; and that
d~f~ned before any solutions are implemented; that he oould
~upport e~hancements to the Building Code; that there would
be problems associated with coordinating the pouring of the
footings and th~ actual inspection; that h~ did not feel
County could charge jus~ a select few to repair th~ damage~;
and that the County should not be financially responsible in
repairing the damages.
Dr. Harold Matthews stated he resides in the County and is a
soil~ ~Cienti~t; that he supports the recol%~eadabions with
the ~XC~ption of ~¢ OO~t for th~ ~ngin~r£ng ~rv£¢e a~
felt it was premature at this point in
Mr. John Dyke~ .~pre~ident of .Endicott Construction Company,
a~ated ke resides in the County and was a member of the
Co~i~eion on Soils and Foundations; that the ¢~arges imp0~ed
wo~ld be passed down to new home buyers and he felt it was
~nf~ir to o~arge these buyers tko cost of Eponsorinq the
o~budsmU~ position: that the needed reVenUe should ~ome ~rom
the general fund; that he supplies references to prospective
home buyers e~ previou~ ho~e~ he has built; that it should
t~e responsibility of the homeowner and ns~ the County to
supply individuals with informatfon/references o~ builders;
and that the fundm designated for legal assistance should be
spent to repair the ~amaged home~ rather than the County
providing that type ~f service.
~s. Teresa Gabbert stated ~he resides in =he County, has
experienced damages to her hone and e~pre~sed concerns
relative to the criteria to be u~d during the selection
process for the ombudsman, legal and engineering firms.
Mr. ~ichael Kelser stated ~e resides in ~ood!ake Zubdiui~ion
and e~reseed concerns relative to tl~e selection of tho
engineering
Mr. Bob Kerns= exp=e~zed concernm relative to the legal
assistance issues and funds being spent on a soil study; and
that he felt the builders responsible should ~e identified
and held deCCan=able.
Mr. Dnpler reviewed the role of the engineer and stated the
engineer wo~ld ~urvey th~ foundation, ~xamlne the cracks and
make a J~dgement as to the initial cause of the cracks
two Crack locations and d~g teat pits do~ to the footing
att~pt to s~a if there are cracks in the footing.
fur~er sta~d %~e engineer would then document the
wi~ photograph~ and wC~ld conduct ~ serie~ ~f tests' such
initial sampling and laboratory work to assist in
the e~ent of shri~/~well soil.
Di~cu=~ion, co~ents and questions ensued relative
individual oomDlaint= an~ Code vlolatlsn~ b~ing cited and
info~ation being ~ade available to citizens; the difference
i~ definition be%ween the wording of "ci%~" and "document"
i5 relates to Code violations; wh~thar thee ~ype uf service
would 51d the homeowner when attempting to resolve pr~blem~
through legal recourse; and implementation of the proposed
Mr. MoBale stated h~ felt th~r~ was a differdDe~ between the
taken when documenting =hi~ inS~r~ation in the tracking
~. Daniel submitted into the record a letter from the
Homebuilders Association of Richmond requesting deferral of
new residential building construction, inspection and
surcharge requireme~5~ a~ =he Association h=s r~sted an
interpretation .from ~ ~tate's Tec~ical Review Board which
would nut meet ~til later i~ t~e month. ~e further
h~ felt the extent of the ~tuation had not been clearly
defined and e~ressed conc~rn~ as to t~e qualifications
~quality in the building industry in
muter of engineering firm~ which would b~ u~ed;
Conflicting enginee~inq reports; =~e legal ms=i~tance which
93-56 1/13/9~
would be received; the cutoff date for ci%izen~ to apply to
the County for assistance; the ¢os~ estimates £or ~he
ombudsman position and legal and engineering services;
whether the programs could be funded through fees or general
fund money; whe%ker the County ~ouId guarantee quality
workmanmhip beyond ~nforcemsnt of the Building Code; and the
role of the Building Inspection Department ~h~n ~nfor~ing the
Building CudS.
Mr. Warren ~xpre~sed appreciation to those who have
participated during th= public hearing process and sta~ed the
Board has attempte~ to addr~ and re~ol~a i~s~s~ related to
shrink/swell soils. ~e further stated the County was unabl~
to guarantee quality werk~an~hip ~nd could only assist
homeowner~ within certain legal confines and noted issues
related to shrink/swell soils end pour wor~J~a~shlp were
prevalent throughout the state. ~e reviewed mhrlnk/swell
soil i~sues and stated these issues exist in other states and
h~ felt citizens Should contact their l~gislativo and state
representatives to reque~ assistan¢~ at th~ ~tate level. He
inquired a~ to the legalities associated with the County
disclosing documented complaints against thugs builders who
hav~ b~en identified with consistently having problems.
violations left uncorrected. Mr. Ramsay clarified the county
complaints and violatinn~ and would be provided as public
information.
Mr. Warren i~quired a~ to insurance companie'~ requiring
signed relesse~ prohibiting homeowners from discussing their
claims. Mr. Micas stated insurance ¢ompanieg could impose
praoti~e.
Mr. Barber stated he did not feel this action would be th~
final ~tep regaPding the ~hrink/swell ~oil ~ue and the
County was pursuing ob=aiming a declaration of public purpose
thi~ issue with representatives at the state level and stated
he felt the solutions utill needed to be identified for homa~
currently experiencing damages to shrink/~well ~oils although
the 'Board ~o adopt =~e ~hrink/swell soil ~ro~rum
~eco~endations submitted by the Shrink/~well ~oil Tusk ForC~
=nd extending the application time to June !, 1993 instead of
kprit 1, 1993; to adopt an ordinance to amend ~ Code of the
6-4 relating ~o r~sXd~ntial building pe~it' f~e~ by
permit iu~ed after January 1~, 1993; a~d to ~ppropriate the
necessary $~62~000 for the implementation of ~e shrink/swell
program.
Mr. McHale stated, in Drinoiple he agreed with ~. Barbgr a~
i% related to the proposed application date of Jun~ 1, 1993
and ~e fel~ the sunset date should be keye~ ~o thirty days
after the ulo~i~g data of the General Assembly o~ June 1,
Karch 1, 1993 and stated he would be in agreement with a May
the motion made by ~. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, fu~
93-57 ~13/93
the Board to adopt the ~shrink/swell ~oil p~ogram
r~ooK~endations s~bmitted by the Shrin~]swell$oll Task Force
and extending the application time ~o May 1, 1993 in~tead of
April 1, 1993; =o adopt aa ordinance to amend the ~ode of the
County of Chesterfield~ 1978; as amended, by ~mending Section
6-4 relating ~e residential building permit foes ~y
insr~a~£ng the fee by $1~5.00 effective on every building
psi-mit issued a~tsr January %3, 1993; and to appropriate the
necessary $362,000 for the implementation of the shrink]swell
program from tho sources below.
~r. RamSey clarified s=af~ had ceatmitted to the proposed
timeframe for the engineering work to bo completed by June
39, 1993 and ~oted ti%is action world move the completion date
tO July 31, 1993.
Mr. Warren called for the vets on the m~tien mad.e by Mr.
Barber, seconded hy Mr. Warren, for tho Board to adopt
ehrink/awe!l soil program r~commendat±ons submitted by t_he
Shrink/Swell Soil Task Force and extending the application
t~me to May 1, 1993 inst~a~ of April 1, 1993~ to appropriate
the necessary $362,000 for the implementation of the
~hrink/sw~ll program pmr the following chart; and for the
Board to adopt the following ordinance:
~ilding ~erl~i~ surcharge
(through 12/31/~3)
Application Fee
General Fund Balance
$250~000
20~000
92 0oo
$562.000
ombudsman Off,ce
salary and benefits
Operating oost~ and
equipment
Sub~otal $ 42,000
Bngineerlng contracts $240,000
Legal services contrasts ~0,00.Q
noted because a ~e~tion of the building permit
$30,000
12,000
sure,argo will be collected in FY94, a temporary
appropriation of Fund Balance in the amount of $125,OQO will
ho n~cessary. This will be re,toted when the re~enue is
collected.)
AN 0RDI~ANC~ TO AMEND TNE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD! 1978, AH A~ENDED, BY A~NOING SECTION ~-4
RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
PERMIT FEES
BE IT ORDAINED by the ~oard of Supervisors of
C~ee~erfield County that:
{1) The Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended by amending section 6-4 as follows:
Sec. ~-4. Permit fees.
[e} Generally. Unless otherwise except=d, no permit to
~eglm work , for new con,traction, alteration, removal,
de~molitien or other building operation for ~on~truotion
r~qulrod by the several provi~ion~ cf the Virginia uniform
Storewide Euildihg Code shall be issued un=il the fees
prescribed in this section shall have been paid. No
a~e~d~e~t to a permit necessitating an additional foe because
cf an increase in the serifa%ed coat Of the work involved
shall be approved until the additional fee ~as been ~aid.
All such permits shell be issued Dy the building official on
£or~s approved and furnished by hi~ office. The fees for
permit~ shall be based upon the projec~ cost ~or labor and
materials. Costs submitted ~hall be no lower than those
listed in thz Marshall and Swift Index or other evaluation of
building costs as approved by the building official. ~inimum
accepted costs Will be adjusted annually On July 1 to reflect
change~ an oust 0£ construction, The building official may
assess additional fees when a review of the per,it
application sr plans shows that sufficient fees have not b~en
paid. Tees will be Charq~d in accordance with the following
schedule:
(1) RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
a. Finished square footage:
Minimum fee beginning ~anuary 1, 1994 . · · $185.00
Minimum fee until January 1~ 1994 ..... $310.00
seginning January 1, 1994, each one
thsus&nd dollars or fraction thereof of
=he estimated cohstructlon cost ....... $4.25
Uutil January 1, 1994, a faa of
$12~.Q0, plus $4.~ for each one
thousand dollar~ or fraction thereof
plus $4.25
b. Unfinished inturio~ uq~are footage:
Minimum f~ ................ $~0.00
Each one thousand dollars or f~aotion
thereof of the estimate~ eonstrustion
¢o~C .................... $4.25
c. Unflnis~ed ~t~rlor ~quare footage:
Minimum fe~ ................ $~.00
~ach cna thousand dolla~ o~ fraction
thereof of the estimated construction
cos% .................... $4.~5
d. Interior remodeling and ult~rations,
accessory buildings an~ ahems costing
Minim~ fee ................ $25.00
=ach cna thcu~an~ dollar~ or fraction
thereof of the e~tima~ed construction
cos= ............ $4.2§
a. CarDer,s, canopies, pole buildings, and
pavilisns:
Fixe~ rate ............... $~.00
f. Mobile homes:
In mo~ile home parks . ~ ......... $50.00
On private property ........... $2S.00
g. Residential temporary certlflcatss of
occupancy & extensions .......... $~5.00
h. Residential request for refund
(administrative charge) ........ $2S.O0
(2) This ordinance shall b~¢em~ effective for all
permits issued after January 13, 199~.
Vo~: Unanimous
F~- Mica~ stated t~ie date and tima has been advertised for a
public hearing to ¢onsXder an ordinance increasing
residential building permit fee to defray ~he cos% of
foundation pour inspections. Me further stated in I~2, the
Doa~d increased the nu~0er of r~sidentlal building
inspections to twen~y-~wo wi~ cna of thosa inspections
anticipated to b~ a visual inmpeution of th~ foundation pour
for new r~$idence$ built within the County. He stated the
inspection would be accomplished through contracting by the
Building Inmp~otion Department wi~ a private engineering
~i~ DO visually inspect the founda~io~ ~our and in order
accomplish ~e additional inspection, the proposed ordinance
would increase the building permit fee. H~ re~sted
Board con~ider adding additional languag~ to the ordinance
an~ clarified this proposed language would apply an
additional fee if the inspector needed ~o go hack to t~ zite
more ~an one
~en asked, Mr. DuRler reviewed the proca~s in whic~
inspection would be coordinated with the County.
Discussion, co~ents a~d ~uestio~s ensued relative to the
process that would take 9Iaea if an inspection needed to
con~ucte~ on a holiday; the inspection b~ing conducted by
privat~ engineering company versus the County; the purpose of
th~ in~pp~tion bsing to verify ~e pour is don~ correctly and
in compl~anoe wi~ s~andardu; the DroGes~ which would follow
'if the in~peotion i~ not conduct=d; a~d whe=her there
alternative metho~ available for tasting the foundation
pour.
ordinance, submitted into =h~ record photograph~ of his
and reviewed the damages his home hum experienced.
furthe~ ~tated he supported the implementation of thm
complaint ~racking $ygt~m; that damag~ to his ~ome was
attributable to poo~ inspections an~ workmanship; that h~
being experienced~ and requested the Boar~ to adopt the
Mr. Bob Olden ~a~d he ~erve~ on tho co~ission on Seil~ and
Fo~dationm; that ~e problem was relatsd no% only to
shrink/swell soil but Door workmanship; that he is familiar
with various type~ of construction and he fel= proper
standards and 9rocudures should be followed; that ot~er
localities hav~ experienced similar pro~lem~; that no o~her
govsrnmentaI en~ty hau any similar uomprehsnsive t~e of
program in place; and that he supports a~o~tion of
Mr. George ~adles stat~ he f~lt con~deratio~ cf the
ordinance should be d~ferred to allow tim~ to observe the
impac~ of recently implemented building regulations.
cond~ot the inspection and referenced ~E County's soils
Mr. TOm King, P~esident of Mid-Atlanti~ Builders, ~ta~ed they
ink,motions. ~e s~ted he felt the problemo currently bein~
Mr. Lloyd Poe, President of Lifestyle Builder~, axpra~ssd
eenesr~s relative ~o ~he inspection progess in general and
stated although ha support~ protective measures for the
future, he felt the solutions were excessive and costly and
the County should seek a more cost effective solution. He
further stated he felt input should be receive4 from the
building industry in addressing this situation~
Mr. Barber stated he has met with representatives from the
HomeBuilderm Aeeooiation~ indicated he was unaware m~ any
proposals being submitted from the association and i~q~ired
whether the County had received any solutions in the form of
a proposal from the HomeMuilders Association.
Mr. Poe stated he was net speaking on behalf cf the
HQm~Builderm Asmociation, however, he felt the Association
Was willing to offer solutions in an effort ~o ad,rems the
Ms. Terry Pruitt expressed concern~ about the proposed
ordinance a~d stated she felt the issue should be deferred
until a decision is rendered by the State Teohnloal Review
Board; and that she would like the opportunity to address the
issue of improving building practices with the appropriate
inspeCtOrs which would be needed to conduct the foundation
pour inspection ~nd the proposal to charge the additional
she would lika to review the proposed policy prior to action
W_r. Brian Murphy e~p~essed concerns relative to shrlnk/ewell
soil issues versus poor workmanship issues and ~tate~ he felt
~o consider other uolutioss.
minimum etandar~ ~oeting; that they did not feel every home
studies conducted by the County.
expressed concerns relative to enforcement of the Building
Code and variou~ publications prodncsd by the ~onsBuilder~
the building industry and proo~¢e~ in general.
~r. John Dyke, Pr~sldent of ~ndioott Construction Company,
foundation pour inspection and stated the ~oseBuilders
A¢~ociation has been involved in the process- from the
beginning; that he felt any qualified engineer should be able
to condu¢~ the inspection; that there wur= other options
available to the foundation pour inspection and expressed
co,corns about the erdinan¢e being adopted at this time.
of Riohmond~ s~sted the Aseooi&tlon was rsguesting deferral
of th~ ordinance pending the d~cisien of the State's
Toe~nioal Review Board which would~ net most until late: in
the month.
· h~r~ b~in~ ne one else to address this orOinancm, the puDlic
~maring'was closed.
When a~ke~, Mr. Qupl~r stated the inspection would be offmre~
by the County and world al~e De~mlt builders ts meek the
ssrvic~ independently allowing ~bs contractor to ~e .able te
select the Cuunty'~ engineerins in~pe¢~r or at the time of
93-61 1/13/93
.I
permit application, the contractor could declare he would
using a registered engineer. 'E~ further stated the County
has selected two flrm~ who do not deal directly with
Disoua$ion~ comments and questions en~ued relative to Whether
builders could certify their own foundation pour inspection
if a certified engin~er; the service the inspection
provide to the hamebuilder; and whether engineers from the
sa~e conetrI~e~ien fi~m actually doing thm building, could
conduct the foundation pont inspection..
Mr. ~e~ale stated he was not comZo~tab/e with the
censtru~tlon ~irms doing the building also beinq able to
conduct the foundation pot~r inspection and stated he felt the
wording should ~e changed ~e reflect that the inspection will
consideration of the Ordinance until the next
sc~he~ule~ Board meetiDg on JanUary 27,
~r. Barber stoned he f~lt the foundation pour inspeczion
would a~si~t in preventing problems related to the
eo~struotlon o~ founda~io~ in the future and, therefore, he
supported t~e proposed ordinance. He ~rth~r stated he
willing to continue dialogue with the various affecte~ groups
add if the o~dinanoe wam adopted, the Board could revisit it
at a late~ date.
Mr. Ba~er then mad~ a motion, seconded by ~r. McEale, f~r
the Board to adopt an ordi~an~ to amend th~ Cede of
County of Chapter,eld, 1978, as ame~d~d~ by amending S~ction
6-4 relating to r~sldential building De~i~ ~es and,
specifically, incr~mslng the residential building permit fee
to defray the cost of foundation pour inspections.
~. McHale ~tated philosophically he felt the =ransaction
~tween buyer and ~ller was a private transaction and
role of the Building In~pedtion Department should be
monitor ~a process. ~e further stated the system does not
work ~at way and he felt if foundati0nz were con~truuted
properly, th~ majority of strn~tural problems
Wi~n the County, to allow an oppor~unlty to redefln~ th~
inspection to be conducted by ~n independent
retained by the builder.
and stated it was his intention to initiate =he fee on any
implicated on building permits i~s~ed after Jannary 1~,
1993.
There was brief diso~m~ion relative to independent engineers
con~uoting ~ foundation pon=
Mr. Barber restated th~ motion made by him, sac0~ded by ~.
McHale, for ~ Board to a~oDt an ordinance to amend the Code
specifically, increasing %he residential building permit fee
to defray the cost of fo~dat~on pour inspections
on all building p~rm~t= issued after ~anuary 15, 1993; to
l'I
~he ordinance has on building practices within the County in
an effort to provide an opportunity to redefine the
if necessary and to permit the foundation pour inspection to
bE conducted by an independent engineer retained by the
builder.
Mr. Warren called for the vote on th~ notion made by Mr.
Barber, ~econded by Mr. MeHale, for the Board ~o adopt the
following ordinance e££eotive on all buildiDg permits igsued
after January 13, 1999; te include review of the ordinance by
the Beard at its regularly scheduled meeting on October
1993 to determine the impact the erd~nance has on
practices within the County in an effort ~e provide an
opportunity to redefine the proceSS if necez~ary and to
permit the foundation pour inspection to be conducted by an
independent engineer retained by the b~ilde~:
AN 0RDINANC~ TO AMEND THE CODE 0~ TEE COL~NTY OF
CBESTERFIELD, 1978, AS ~END~D, ~¥ ~RDI~G BECTIQ~
PERMIT FEES
~ IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisor~ of
Chesterfield County that=
(1) The Code of the CoUnty of chesterfield, 1978, as
emended, io amended by amending section $-4 as follows:
Sec. 6-4. Permit
(a) ~enarally. Un,les~ otherwloo e~eepted, no permit to
begin work for new construction, alteration, re~oval~
demolition or other ~uilding operation for construction
required by the s~verai provisien~ of the virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code shall be issued until the fee~
prescribed in this section shall have been paid. NO
amendment to a permit necomsitating an additional fee because
o£ an increase in the e~timat~d comt of t~e worR involved
shall be approved until the addigional fee has been pai~.
All snob p~rmitm shall be issued by the building official an
forms approved and furnished by his c~iee. The foes for
permits shall b~ based upon the project cost for lubor und
materials. Costs ~ub~itted shall be no lower than those
lis=ed in th~ ~arshall and ~wift ~nd~x or other evaluation of
building coats um upproVed by =~e building official. Minimum
accepted casts will be adjusted annually on ~uly 1 to reflect
change~ in cost of construction. The building official
assess additional £oos when a r~view of th~ permit
application or plans show~ that sufficient fee~ have not
paid. Fees will be chargs~ in accordance with the following
schedule:
(1) R~SIDENTIAL N~W CONSTRUCTION
a. Finished square
Minimum fee beginning January 1, 1994 . . . $185.00
Minimum fee until January l, 19~4 ..... $310.00
Beginning January 1, 1994, each .one
thousand dollars er fraction =here0f of
the estimated construction coat .......
until January l, 1994, a fee of
$1~5.00, plUS $~.25 for each one
~housand dollars or £ractio~ thereof
of the estimated con~truction oasdi25.00 plus $4.25
b. Unfinished-interior square footage~
Minimum fee ............... $50.00
Each one thsusand dollars or fraction
thermal o£ the estimated construction
cost .............
unfinished exterior ~quare footage:
Minimum fee ................
Each en~' thausand dollar~ or fraction
thereof of the e~timated constructien
cost ...... ' .............. $4.25
Interior remodeling and altaratlon~,
accessory buildings and sheds cosfing
over
Minimum fcc .... - - - · $25.00
thereof o£ t/~e e~timated con~trnction
cost ....................
Carports, canopies, pole buildings, and
pavilions:
Fi×~d rate ...............
f. Mobile homes:
In mobile homo parks ...........
On private property ........ $25.00
g. Residential temporary certificates of
eccupanuy & extensions .......... $25.00
Residential request for refund
{administrative charge)
i. Foundation po~r inspections ....... $~.00
(a)If concrete testing is required
~ecause cut-o~-specification
concrete is utilized · $100.00 (additional}
(b) Rein~pection when in~pecte~ is
p~e~ent end the concrete has
been ca,celled or delayed in
e×~ess of one hour. . $100.00 (additional)
(2) As an alternativ~ to the county's feundation pour
inspection provide~ for in subsection (1) i. herein, the
building official shall accept inspection reports from
enqineers satisfying indopendeno~ qualifications and
roliabillfy requirements pursuant to Section 110.6 of the
Uniform 9tatewi4e ~uilding Code.
(3) This ordinance shall b~come effective for all
posits issued after January 13, 1993.
~ay$: Nr. Colbert.
It w~ ~he g~n~ral consensns of the Board to adjourn at 12:40
a.m. until January 27, 1993 a~ 3:00 p.m.
~thur $.
Chairman