Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-22-94 Minutes
MINUTES ~une 22, 1994 Supervisors in Attemdance: Mr. J. L. M~Hale, III, Vice Mr. Edward B. ~arbar ~r. Ha~ry G. Daniel Mr. Arthur S. Warren Mr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Supervisors A~sent; yr. Whal~y M. Colbert, Chairman Staff in ~ttenda~ce~ M~. Barbera Bennett, Di~-, o~ice on Youth ~s. Gilly A. Bland, Registrar Mr. Craig Bryent~ Din., Utilities Ms. Jane Carter, Din., He,sing Ms. Marilyn Cula, A~t. to County ~rs- Doris R~ Ds~art, A~t. Ce. Legls. Svo~. and I~terg0Vern. Affair~ Mr. William D. Duplex, Building Fire Department ~r. ~ra~or~ $. Hammer~ Deputy Co. Admin., Management Services Mr. Russell Harris, County Ombudsman Mr. William H. Howsl!, Dir.~ General Services Er. Thomas E. Jacobsen, Din,, Planning ~Lr. John R. Lillard, bir., Airport Dr. Bunt Lows, Din., ~emtal Health/Retard. Deputy Co. Admin~, M~. Richard M. McElfish, Din., Env. Engineering Mr. Stereo L. Micas, County Attorney Mr. g. O. Parka, Din., ~r. ~enneth Din., N=ws & Information Col. J. E. P{tt~an, Jr., Police Department Ms. Theresa ~. Pitts, Clerk to th~ Mr. James J. L. Sta~maier, Dir., Dudget & Management Mr. H. D. Stith, Jr., Deputy Co. Ad, in., Cont~unity Development Dir.~ Librari~m Mr. Lewis Wendell, Din. CDBG Office Sheriff ¢larenc~ Williams, Sheriff's Department 94-461 s/22194 Mr. ~cHale called the regularly ~cheduled meeting to order at 3:oo p.m. On motion of Mr. Darber, ee¢oDd~d by Mr. Daniel, approved the minutes of June St 1994, as submitted. Ayes: Mr. McHale, Mr. Barber~ and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Nr. Warren. 1. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOr'S CO~4ENTS Mr. Ranmey introduced Chief Robert L. Eanes of the Fire individuals in the Health Department, Social Services Mr. MeHale stated it is reassuring to know the shelter was effectively ae~i¥~ted ~uring thi~ emergency situation and expressed appreciation to everyone for their sffort~ and commitment ~o ensuring the safety and well being of County feeling that the economy is moving in the right direction, reviewed the information share~ a~ the Forum including personal property sollec~ion ~sti~ates with this increase businesses being a signal of fundamental improvements in the percent insrease from sales tax revenue An whie~ the percentage b~dgete~ was receiYe4 f~vorable by the panel due to the fast that the County is sxperlenaing s more rapid percentage of total sales tax receipts continues to growth fact that homes with more amenities are being built. spok~ very highly of th~ professionalism an~ ~×pertise of ~he generated in the County and indicated he feels it is 6t22/94 Mr. Ramsay then introduced Mr. Hammer to present a brief update on the LaPrade and Et%rick/Matoaca Branch Libraries. Mr. Bummer stated staff anticipates compietlon of repairs to the LaPrade and Ettrick/Ma%oaca Branch Libraries by Dscember,' 1~94 and briefly reviewed the schedule of ev@nts being a~eomDlished to complete the repairs. He then reviewed construction accomplishments t~ date iBc~ud£ng a~bestos testing being completed; footings being completed at the Ettriok/Hatoaca Library Branch; audit of all past records; hiring of a moving comtractorj leasing of space for books; and staff mee=in~ with the original a~ohitects working on the project. He noted the architects have agreed to assist in the design and structural engineerin~ issues rela~ed to the repairs and Z~vie~ pla~ ~ave bee~ developed to pr0vid~ continuity of serviee~. Be then reviewed oritloal milestones relating to libraries in general and continuity of library services including LaPrade patrons being covered by Ben Air, Branches; the Bummer Reading Program being enhanced at these Branches; and the Ettrick/Matoaea patron~ being served by a portable faaillty~ the Ettrick Community Center, and area schools. Warren on the LaPrade and Ettrick/Matcaca ~raneh Libraries since they were absent from the meeting at this time. ~e then referenced a newspaper article relating to a recommendation that Chesterfield amd ~nriee Counties share in the cost of addressing the Combined Sewer overflow system in the City of Richmond end introduced Mr. Stegmaier to brief the Board on th~ impact to the County if it axsists in a~dres~ing the Combined Sewer Overflow ~yatem. ~r. s~egmaier raviewe~ impacts of correcting the Combined Sewer Overflow (C$O) discharges as it relates to wastewater treatment requirements including the County currently being required to provide t=rtiary treatment ut Proctors Creek; Seder~l and state ~egulations prohibiting "backsliding"; the current le~el of treatment being unable to be reduced even if CSQ is eliminat¢~; and reduction of CeO p~sslbly affecting the level of treatment pro~id~d on future wastewater ~r. MeHala inquired if the highest level of treatment is already being provided i~ required, whether this issue facing the city of Richmond is impacting the County for processing drinking water. Mr. ~tegmaier stated the issue is wastewater processing and the highest level the county provides is 95 percent r~meval. Hs fur%her stated r~gardless of whether ~he City of Richmond resolves all it~ p~oblems, the ~e~uirements en the current plant and the plant under construction will improvement in the City of Richmond's situation may affect requirements of plants that might be built in the future. He relates to drinking water quality, given that existing and the impact cf correcting CSO discharges as it relates to the potential cost to county sewer customers. He stated the assumptien~ r~l~ting to thXs project include the ¢ouuty'~ share~ of phnse mne costs of $117 million~ will be $39 mi/llon; that the cost would be spread evenly over twelve years; that the costs will ba covered through volume charges on a I~pay a~ you go hasim"; and that the impact i~ to add $6.81 to the bi-monthly volume charge for existin~ customers, which would be an apprcximat~ 19 percent increase in ~he ~/22194 Mr. Daniel expressed concerns relative to the potential increase in taxpayers' bills considering the County cannot afford to take a bond referendum to the public to support an improvements for the County, He stated he feel~ the issue should be disseminated as best as possible and forwarded to Delegate Juhn Watkins and ~there in the reqion noting there has been no publicity from County oitisens regarding this issue and without some type of citizen input, he feels the County would not be doing its fiduciary responsibility in terms of addressing citizen concerns. forwarded to Delegat~ $ohn watkins and others and i~q~ired as to whether the current situation ha~ a cost impact oB the County. ~Ir. 2teg~uier stated he is un~ure whether the existing problem latin9 the City of Richmond wag a factor in the County having to ~o to tertiary treatment, but at this point, the Count~ is required to provide that level of treatment and nothing that would take place in the future would eliminate that requirement. Mr. MeHale Clarified the County~ in its existing plan, cannot avoid cost in tho future if there i~ no change in the regulatory environment. Mr, Barber stated he f~l~ the issue needs to be analyzed State wide and that when i~sees s~ch a~ this are brought before the Board, dialogues should be initiated. Mr. Daniel stated the Director of the Capital Region Airport COmmission is currently recovering Zrcm a massive heart attae~ and asked everyone to remember him in their thoughts and prayers. Nr. Barber ~tated he was a guest speaker at Alberta Smith Elementary School's fifth grads banquet; that he was a guest speaker at ~idlothian Migh school's graduation ceremony on June 17~ 1994; that he made a presentation o~ education funding at a maetlng with the Virgini~ Association of Counties Education Steering Committee on June 25, 1994; and that he attended ~he ~inority Internship Program Ri=k-off on June 20, 1994. Mr. MeHete stated he held his constituents meeting on June 6, t994 wi~h the topic of dlscu~on being th~ Chester Villag~ Plan and that his next constituents meeting will be held in August, On motion o~ ~r. Danlal~ seconded by Mr. Barber, th% Board add6d Item 8.D.l.e., Adoption of Resolution Recognizin~ Lieutenant General Samuel K~ Wakefield, Commander of Fort Lee in the Con,tined Ar~s Support Command~ Upon his Retirement~ to follow Item $.D.i.d., Adoption of Resolution Rmquesting DireotlonaI $ignage to Richmond %nternational Airport; added Item M.D.%9,, Acceptance of Parcel of Land for Charter Colony ParEway Woelrid~e Road Extension Project from J. Lewi~ Reynold~ Estate, to follow Item 8.D.18.b., Acceptance o~ Parcel of Lend for Dedication of a Portion of Proposed Roger Center ~oulevard from So~theas~er~ Asseci&tes~ Incorporated; adde~ Item g.D.20.~ Acceptance of ~aroel of Land Along Halle Road from Ukrop's Supermarket Incorporated~ to follow Item 8.D.19.; deleted Items 8.D,!7.a. ~ b., Authorization to 94-464 6/22/94 Exercise Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Aviation for Installation of the Ceunty'~ Airport Instrument Landing Sy~te~ for Stiles LA Bartley and Richard S. Kavanaugh; deleted I~em 8.DoI~.~., Set Date for Public ~earing to Consider L~as~ B~tween the C~unty and the Chesterfield County ~mployee Credit Union for 6610 Public Safety Way; moved Item M.D.7., Acceptance of Donation from Friends of the Library to £~madiately felle~ this ~t~m; replaced Item Consideration of Write-Off of Uncollectible Accounts Receivable ~rom Deb~ collection Division, Other Faem, and Charges; replaced the resolution for Item S.D.l.b., Adoption of Resolution Endorsing Formation of the Metropolitan ~ccnomic Development Partnership; rmplac~d Item Award of Contraot for Site Work Construotien for Wa~bro Road Athletic Complex, Phase I, Zoftball Facilities; ~ep!aced 8.D.12.d., Award cf Contract for site Work Construction of Charter Colony ~arkway for woolridge Road Extension; snbmitted the resolution for Item 15.B., Recognizing Clover Hill High school Cavaliers Baseball Team for Their Outmtaudimg Repremmntation ~f Chesterfield County; and moved Item I~.D., Public Mearlng to Con~ider the Old Gun/Robioum Road Area Plan, an A~endment to the 1986 ~h~rn Area Land U~e and TransDortatlon Plan, Part of the County~ Comprehensive Plan, tm follow Item 17., Requests for Rezoning and, adopted the a~enda, as amended. Ayem: Mr. HoKal~, Mr. ~arb~r~ and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. ~arren. 8.D.7. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM FRIENDS OP TRE LIBRARY Friends of the Library. Ms. Harmon stated the Friends of the Library would like to expanded Midlothian Branch Library. She further stated the Friends of the Library have a love and concern for people and bo~ks. She recognized Mr. Walter Muller, President of the member of the ~idlotkian Friends o~ ~he Library, who were present at the ms,ting and ~xpressod appreciation for their ~i~lothian Branch Library Supervisor, and presented the Soard public u~e items in %~e expanded Midlothian Branch Library. Mr. McHale expressed appreciation ~or the donation from the Friends of the L~brary and stated this is an example of dedication %o the community and commitment to the quality of life the County enjoys. (It is noted the Board accepted and appropriated a donation, Library to be used for furnishings in tko expanded Midlethian Branch Library.) $~ ~SOLUTION~ AND ~?ECIAL RECOGEiTION~ ~.A. RECOGNIZING ~R. WILLIAM V. DRISKILL. POLICE DEPAR~MEI~T Chief Pittman introduced Captain William V. Dri~kill and stated the ~olice Department will miss C~ptain Drimkill~m dedicated and loyal servioe to the county. on motion of tko Board, the following resolution was adopted: 94-465 WHEREAS, Captain William ¥. Driskill will retire from the Chesterfield County Police DepartmeBt on July 1, 1994; and WE~R~A~, Captain Driskill has provided over 31 years o~ quality service to the oitiEen$ of chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Captmin DrisEill has faithfully ~erved the County in the capacity of Patrol Offioer~ Sergeant! Lieutenant, and Captain; and WHEREAS, Captain Driskill has uaed his tremendous insight in human relations for th~ ben.fit of the Police Dxpartment a~d the County~ and WHEREAS, Captain Driskill has~ for many yearm, commanded the epera=ions of the South District of the County and directly impacted the mafety of the community by being inskrumental in the implementatioD cf th~ community poliein~ effort, mpecificmlly in the Village of Ettriok and alonq the Jefferson Davis Corridor; an~ WHEREAS, Chesterfield County an~ the Board of Supervisers Will mi~ Captain Driskill's ~ervice. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT REBOLVED~ =hat ~he Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Captain William V. Driskill and extends, on behalf of i~ me~ber~ and the citizens o~ c~esterfield County, their ~ppr~ciatlon for his service to the County. AND, BE 'IT FI/RTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of thi~ resolution be appropriately prepared smd presented ~o Captain Driskill and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, virginia. Ayes: Mr. ~oaale, Mr- Barber, and Mr. Danlel. Absent: N_t. Colbert and MM. warren. Mr. NcHale presented the executed resolution to Ceptai~ Driskill, accompanied by hie Mile, expressed appreciation for hie dedicated service to the County, end wished hi~ well in hi~ retir~msn~. captain Drlskill expressed appreciation for the recognition and stated he has enjoyed wo~in~ for t~e County. the Registrar's Office end Electoral Board will miss Mrs, ~eldrum's dedis~t~d and loyal service to t~e County. on motion s~ the ~eard, the following resolution was adopted: ~REAS, Mr~. Dorothy Bowers Meldrum re=ired on June 1994 after serving from 1971 to 1994 as Secretary of the Virginia Electoral Board Association~ and the Central Absentee Precinct for Chesterfield County; and voting equipment for the County; amd ~EREA9, Mrs. ~eldrum's attention to d~tail in ascertaining the r~sults of the elections to the State Board of ~leetione and to,the governing body of chesterfield County has earned her res~c~ from those two bodice; and WI~ER~kS, PLrs. Meldrum's dedication an~ loyalty will missed by the Registrar's office and the Officers of Election at the precincts. NOW, ?H~/~EFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Board of Sup~rviso~ hereby recognizes Mrs. Dorothy Sowers Msldrum for her many years of de~icated service to the vote~A of Chesterfield County and wishe~ h~r ~11 in her AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED~ that a cody Of this ra~otution b% appropriately prepared and presented to Mrs. ~ldrum and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the paper~ of this Doar~ of Supervisors of Chest=rfi=!d County, ViTginia. Ay~: Mr. McHale, ~r. Berber, and Mr. Daniel. retirement. Mrs. Metdrum e~ressed appreciation for the recognition and ~p~cially workinq with ~taff in the Re~istrar's office. ~r. ~ica~ s%a~ed ~ha Board established the Charter Review Committee on ?ebruery 8, 1994 for the purpose of examining School Board members terms running concurrently with Board of Supervisors members term~ and th~ proc~ o£ appointment as outlined in the current Charter. He introduced Me. ~ab Roberts, Chairperson of thm Charter Review Committee, to present the Committee's report. MS. Roberts stated the purpose of the Committee i~ to make reconumendsticns to the Board on the issue o~ $c~eol ~oer~ members ter~s running Concurrently with Beard of Supervisors members terms an~ the process uf appointmont as outline~ in the currant Churter~ that th~ Committee is composed of ten members, appointed by the Soard, two from each magisterial district; and recognized members of the Committee who were present at the meeting, she reviewed the history of the School Board appointment process; the work plan used by the Charter Review Committee in reviewing the School Board appointment proo~; and the alternatlv~ available for School Beard selection methods. She then reviewed re¢o~m~en~ations by fiv~ Committee members which reflects a oompromise position intended to preserve the best ~eatures of the current system while giving the Supervisor from the district a greater opportunity ts achieve an appointment that by majority vote of th~ full Board of $~pervisors; staggered %erm~; retention of existing public hearing process and obligation of Supervisors bo nominate on~ p~rson; Board of supervisors must vote only on nominees from the supervisor of nffected district for up to three nominations, nomination~ to be made sequentially after votinq on a nominee; that in the event nons of the affected Supervisor's nominees receives 94-467 6/22/94 three votes, after a maximum of %bred nominees, ether $~pervisor~ may Make nominations; and the Beard ef supervisors must complete appointment by June 30 of each year and in the avant of an impasse, appointment decision is made by Circuit Court. She stated three members cf the Committee support the currem~ process end two members favor concurrent t~rms with appointment effective July 1. She s~ated the Committee Sha~es the view t~a~ individual members of the School Board represent th= whole County and n~t an individual di~trla~ or special interest group and that the selection proces~ of a School Board mentber is not the critical i~sue in the efficacy of the education ~rcces~. She further stated in conclusion the Committee fe~l~ a cooperative relationship between the 8~hool Beard and Beard of Supervisors is needed with a commonality of purpose built on trust which i~ then communicated te and required of respective ~taff~- She stated while the charter allows for c~ange to be made after public hearings or referendum~ the comities as a whole, believes any changes to the County Charter related to should b~ brought to the public by way of referendtt~. M~. Barber e~Dressed appreciation to members of the Co~ittee for their efforts in reviewing the current School Mr. Daniel al~o e~p~essed appreciation to members of the Co~mlttee for their effor=~ and seated ~he i~ue of the School Bo~rd selection process is a cumplex one and he feels the Commi~te= did an outstanding job even though they did brXng fo~ard a majority d~ci~ion on a reco~enduticn. Mr. Me,ale in,ired as to when the Board has to take action O~ ~hi~ i~ue in ord~r to hav~ it plmc~d on the November, 1994 ballot. Mr. Micas stated the Board wc~l~ have to tak~ action no later th~n Auqu$% in ord~r to have it placed on the November, 1~94 ballot- Mr. McHale ~tated ke fesl~ the Board should d~fer consideration for any Board ~e~ar to indicate whether this matter should be placed on a November, 1994 ballot until its next meeting to allow Mr. Colbert and ~. Wa~en the opportunity to ~eview this issue since they were not present at thi~ ~e~ion of the m%~ting. their efforts in addressing thi~ issue. (I~ is noted a cody of ~e report is filed wi~k the papers this Bo~rd.) 8RAI~T PROaRt/4 Mr, Wendell ~tatCd the prupo~ed 1994-95 Chesterfield County Community Dsve!opmsnt Block Grant (CDBG) Program was developed through a process of citizen participation that included distrlbu~ion cf application forms and informational material to civic associations, business groups, County · chcola and departments, nan-profit community ~evelopment 0~ganizations, and individual citizens. He t~en presented a bria~ slide presentation on the preject~ included in the CD~G Program. it was generally agreed to recess for 15 minutes. ~r. Wendell continued to present the ~lide presentation on the projects included in the CQBG Program and reviewed funding for the Program stating the allocation for 1994-95 is $1.472 million. Mb. then reviewed rating criteria; proposed public improvemeh{~; recommended housing projects; and recommended funding for public services, special esonomio development, ~istorio preservation, planning and capacity building, and administration. La noted the CDBG Program has a total matching fund of $~0,000 for this year. After brief discussion, on motion of ~LT. MeHale, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date ef July 27, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the County's 1994-~5 Community Development Block Grant Program. Ayes: Mr. ~eHale, Mr. Berber~ and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mc~ale, the Board deferred oonsideratien of a member, representing the Connhy at-large, to serve on the Citiz~n~ ~ranspo~%a~ien Advisory Committee, until July 27, 1994. Ayes: Mr. ~oHals, Mr. Barber~ and Kr. Daniel. 7.A.~. YOUTH SERVICES CITIZENS BOARD OS motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. McHale, th~ Board ~usp~nded its rules at this time to allow ~imultansous no~ination/appointment/reeppointment of members to serve on the Youth Servises Citizen ~uard. Absent: }St. Colbert and FL~. Warren. On ~otio~ of ~tc. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board simultaneously nominatea/ap~ointed/reappolnted the following members, to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board~ who~e terms are effective J~ly 1, 1~94 and will expire as follows: Miss Adeola 0ehunkentan Bale ~une 30, 199~ Mr. Jeff Ludden ~idlothian June 30, 1995 Miss Jennifer McQuads ~idluthisn June 30, 1995 DISTRICT And, further, the Board ds£arred consideration of ~wo student members, representing Mateaea District, to serve on the Youth Bervices Citizen BQard, until July 27, 1994. Ayes: ~r. Mo~le, ~r. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Nr. W~rren. 94-4~9 61221~4 7.B. ETRERTLIGHT INBTALLATION COST APPROVALS On notion of Mr. McHele, mecon~ed by Mr. Daniel, tho Board approved the following streetlight installation cost approvals, in the Bermuda Distrist~ due to health, safety, and welfare reasons: * Intersection o~ T~ailtop Terrace and Woodsacra Lane Ccmt to inmt~ll light: $952. * Intersection of Bermuda Avenue and Traywick Drive Coot to install ligh=: $515. * Traywi~k Drive, in the north end col-de-eat Cost to install light: $279. * Luckyl~ Crescent, vlclnlty to Cost to install light: $1,742. * Clear Springs Place, end of cul-de-sac Coot =o inotalI light: $1,627. * Vogt Avenue, end of cul-de-sac Co~t to install light: $1,141.76. Ayes: Mr. McHele~ Mr. Barber~ and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. B.A. CONSIDERATION OF REOUEST TO ABANDON A SECTION OF WADSWORTH DRIVE AND OF A POLICY FORIN~T~-LLATION Mr. stith ~tated the Board held a public hearing on April Wadsworth Dr~ve due to concerns expressed by eltiz~ns regarding the volume and spe~d of traffic, He further stated after the public hearing, th~ Board ~tablinh~d a committee consisting of representatives from the neighborhoods, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and County ~taff to stated staff is requestlng the Board appropriate $15,000 for installation of speed humpz on Wadsworth Drive~ Redhridqe Road, and Scottingham Road and to consider a County-wide policy for addressing citizen requests for speed hump installations on public streets. ~r. ~arber state4 he spoke ~ith ~r. warren thio afternoon and ~r. Warren exp~esse~ ~is desire fo~ the Board to support this ac=ion. installation of speed h~mps on Wadsworth Drive, B~db~idqe Road, and Soottingham Road as a test project; to appropriate $15,~00 for installation of speed humps on ~he identified roads; tO authorize the County Admlniatrator to enter into construction/design agreements~ acceptabl~ to the C~unty Attorney, with the Virginia Department' of Transports=ion (VDOT)/eontraeters fo~ construction of the speed ~umDs; to defer adoption of a speed hump ~n~talla=ian policy an~ action e~ othez S~bdivision requests for speed humps until the test project can be evaluated; and to direct ~ta£f to report back to the Board with a policy recommendation after the test projec~ is evaluated. ~honld be cautious in establishing a sp~ed hump policy as it will be a new level of service for road work in the County. 94~470 6/22/94 ~r~ MeHale stated he shareo Mr. Daniel's concern, however, he can support the idea of a test Rrcject at this time. ~Lr. McMale then ca,led for the vote on %he motion made by M~. Barber, seconded b~ Mr. Daniel, for the Board to approve the installation of $~:eed humps on Wedowort~ Drive, Redbridge Road, and ~cottinghsm Road as a test project; tO appropriate $15~000 for inotall~tion cf speed hump~ on the identified roads; to authorize the County Administrator to enter into construction/design aqreements, &eoep~able to the County Attorney, with %he Virginia Department cf Transportation (v~0T)/~entra~tor~ for construction of the speed humps; to defer adoption of a spa~d hump installation policy and action on ether subdivision requests for speed hump~ until the test project can be evaluated; ~nd to direct staff to report beck to the Board with a policy recommendation after the t~t p~ojeot i~ evaluated. Ayes: Mr. McMale, Mr. Barber, end Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. (It is noted staff will attempt to identify unspent funds within Community Development Department budget~ for this request and funding for futur~ requegt~ will be add,eased at the time staff presents this policy to the Board of Supervisors which will be after th~ tes~ project is evaluated.) S.B. ~PPO!NTE~MT~ o ~ISTOR!C PRESERVATION COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board appointed Mr. John Cogbitl, reprssentin~ th~ County at-large, to serve on the Mistorie Preservation Committee, whose term is effective immedimtely and will e~pira March 11, 1997. Ayes: Mr. McBale! Mr. Berber, and Mr. D~niel. Absent: ~r. colbert and Mr. Warren. ©n motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded ~y Mr. ~arber~ the Board o~pended it~ rules at this time and moved Item 8.C., Streetligh~ Installation Cost Approval for Clever Hill Di~trict~ to follow Ite~ 12., Dinner, as ~r. Warren was not Ayes: ~r. ~oBale~ Mr. Barbe~, a~d Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and ~r. Warren. 8.D. CONSENT ITEMS ADOPTION OP RESOLUTIONS RECOGNIZING MR. TIMOTHY C. BROWN. On ~otion of Mr_ Daniel, ~eco~ded by MD. Bm~ber, the Board adopted the ~ollowlng resolution: WMEREAS, Mr. Timothy C. Brown has served Chesterfield County citizens since July 1, 1990 as a membe: of the Chesterfield County $ohsol Board, repreoentinq Midlo~hian Did%riot; and 1992-1993 and vice Chairman from 1991-19~; and 94-471 6/22/94 WHEREAS, ~r. Brown served as a member of the Budge% and Audit Committee; a ~mb~r of th~ School Board Liaison Committee; and a reDresentatlve ts the Math Science Board; and Administrative Services for John Tyler Community Cclloga, had t~e propensity ~o public service; and WEEREA$, Mr. Brown has marred the chesterfield County S~hool Board competently and capably durinq ~our years of growth in the ~cheal populatisn and school £acilities. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, tha~ the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors exprem~e~ its sincere appreciation to Mr. Timothy C. Brown for his forthright and skilled influanc~ on the School Board during his term of office and om the let-reaching decisions which were made during that time. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a pewter plate be inmcribad, a~ follows, to be presented in appreciation to Mr. MR. TIMOTHY C. BROWN CEESTERFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTING MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT JULY 1, 1~90 - JL[NE 30, t994 Ayes: Mr. McHale, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. $~$ent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. DEVELOPMENT PARTNEBSEI~ On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Bear~ adopted th~ following resolution: W}IZREA$, i~ 1977. un,er the leadership ~f Newman Kamlett, Executive Vice-President of Thalhimer Stores; Thomas P. Bryan of Miller & ~%hoads; Carlton P. Moffatt, Jr., of the Metro Chamber; Edwin P. Brooks, Jr., of Security Federal savings & Loan Association; E. A. Beck of the County of Henries; Mel Burnett of the County of Chesterfield; William J. Leidingar, Jr., of the City of Richmond; the metro business community; and the area jurisdictions fcrmod tho Metropolitan Economic Development Council ("MEDC~I} for the purposes of furthering economic development of tho metro area; and the City of Richmond and the Counties of Chesterfietd~ Hanover, and Henrioo; and WHEREAS, MEDC has functioned successfully since its ef£ectivm means of furthering economic development would be t~ join the bu~in¢~ leadership ~f the ar~a and the area governments into a joint public-private partnership. NOW, THEREFORE ~E IT RE$O~VE~, 'B~ THE EOA~D OF principle, the formation of a public-private partnership, to be called the Public/Private Partnership for Economic Development. The ~artnarship shall involve equal participation cf the public ~ector~ initially comprim~d of the city of Richmond and the Cuun~las Q£ Chesterfield, Hanover, and ~onri¢0, and the private ~e~to~ acting through appointees of the Metro Richmond ChamBer of"Ccmmsros. It ~hall muo~e~d ~EDC. The County Administrator and County Atturne~ ute authorized to participate with other appropriate representatives in developing the legal document~ cr~atlng the Partnership. Upon satisfactory camplatien, tho~e docunent~ shall be submitted to tho Hoard of SuDervi~o~ for approval. Ayes: ~r. Morale, Mr. ~arber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: ~L~. Colbert and F~. Warren. ~.D.A.C. RBOUESTING SE~ATE SUPPORT OF S~MATE BILL 993 On me,ion of Mr. Daniel, ~sco~ded by Mr. Barber, the Board adopted th~ following resslution: W~EREAS, Senate Bill ~93 ha~ b~n intro~uce~ in ~e Senate of the United States by the Honorable Dirk of Idaho; and WME/kEA$, Senator Kemp~horne's Senate Bill 993 will require the federal government to pay for th= mandates that they impose an state and local govemnments and establish measures affecting state and local gaYernmen~s, the of Congress are aware of the fiscal impact; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 993 iz the most significant and far-reaching unfunded mandates legislation over introduced in the Conqres~ of tho United States; and WHEREAS, as of ~=y 1, 1994, Senator ~empthorDe's bill had received 54 out of 100 Senate oo-~ponsora; and W~R~AS, Senate= John Warner cf virginia has already displayed hi~ commitment to this issue by signing on to WHEREAS, ~lthcugh Senator Charles Robb has communicated his concern about unfunded mandat~ and has in~icated that he '~futly endorses the ooncept cf identifying end rest~ietihg unfunded federal mandates," to date hs has declined sponsor senate Bill 993; and WHEREAS, e ~cCent ~ationul Association of Counties (NACo) survey estimated that a minimum of 12 percent c~ local budgets support unfunded federal nandate~; nnd WHERE~S, ~nf~nded federal m~ndates regularly force local tax increases and/or service cutbacks, restrict the rights of state and local voters and official~ to determine their own priorities, and allow t~e Congress tu avoid direct responsibility for increasing taxes; and W~EREAS, the Constitution of the United SSates guarantees a federal, stat~, and local p~rtner~hip and unfunded federal mandates undermine the re~ponsibility of the ~tate and local level; and ~q~EREAS, Senate Bill 993 is endorsed hy the National km~o~iation of Countle~; the United States Congress of Mayors; the National League of cities; the National School Boards Association; the National Governors Association; the Council of Stats Governments; and the National Conference of State Legislatures; and W~E~EA$, reduction and elimination of unfunded mandat~m is the number one priority of the Virginia Association of Counties. NOW, THER~YORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervi~or~ of Chesterfield County i~plorem S~nator Charles Rob~ to ~amsnstrate his ~oncern abou~ unfunded man~ate~ to the local governments of the Commonwealth of virginia by ~mmodiate co-sp~n~or~hip of Senate Bill 993. Ayes: M~. MCHsle, Mr. Barber, a~d Mr. Daniel. Abg~nt: Mr. Co]bert and Mr. Warren. 8.D.l.do REOUESTIN~ DIRECTIO~AL BIGIQ-AGE TO RICHMOND INtErNATIONaL AI~P©RT Om motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS~ businesses have asked the C~esterfield County Board of supervisors to have guide signage to Richmond International Airport (RIC) installed ~lchg major highways in Chesterfield County; and $~EREAS, many out-of-town ~ravelars stay in hotalm in Chesterfield County and ne~d direction~ to RTC; and %r~EREAS, RIC is e regional airport ~arving Chesterfield County and the Richmond metropolitan ~rea; and WHEREAS, improved siqnage to RIC alonq major highways in Chesterfield County will help promote economic development; and W~EREAS, t~e Virginia Department of Trsnsportation's (VD©T) current guide signage policy does not provide for ~ignage to RIC along major commercial corridor~ in Chesterfield County. ~OW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that the ~oard cf Supervi~or~ of Chesterfield county hereby requests the Governor and S~¢r~tary of Transportation to re-evaluate VDOT's guide signage policy so that signaqe to RIC from major commercial area~ in Chenterfi~l~ county can be provided. Ayes: ~r. ~c~ale, Mr. Barber, and M~. Daniel. Absent: ~. Colbert and Mr. Warren. a~o~ted the following resolution: retire a~ Commander of Fort Lee and of the Combined Arms ~ervic~ in the Army; and W~EREAS, Lieutenant General Wakefield has served Fort Lee and %he Combined Arms Support Command for approximately tWO and o~e half y~rs; and WHEREAS~ prior to com~andin~ et Fort Lee, Lieutenant General Wakefield served as the Commanding General of ~he A~my Transportation Center; as Commandant of the Army Traneportation School; as Commander of the Corps Regiment; as Chief of Transportation at Tort Eu~tis; Director of Logistics (J4) cf the Army ~orcea Command mt Fort McPhersom, Georgia; aa Director of Logistic~ (Ji) cf the U- S. R~adinesm command; and ms 29th Area Support Greed Commander; and Wq{EREAS, Li~unenant Cenaral Wakefield strengthened Fort Lee's record of 9cod reletisn~ with the surrounding communities and last year, coordinated the effort~ of the command and the community ~hen Fort Lee was unexpectedly targeted for closure by the De£ensa ~aae Realignment and Clc~ure Commigsion; and W~EREAS, under Lieutenant General Wakafield'~ oc~and~ Community of Excellence Competition in the ~ategory of States for 1994; and recognized with the bistin~ishe~ s~rvioe ~edal; th~ D~en~e Me, al; th~ ~eri~uriou~ Servi~e Me,al; the Joint Service on ~ehalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, their bust wishe~ to Lieutenant General r~solution b~ nppropriately prepared and pe~anently recorded among the pap~rg of thi~ Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. 8.D.Z. GONSIDERAT]ON OF FY94 YEAR-END ~UDEET ADJUSTNENTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board adjustments as follows: Sources of Funds: Workers Comp~n~aticn/~at~ree ~ealth¢~re $366,500 Workers compensation end retiree healthcare care are budgeted centrally and moved to departments and the actual comt~ are not th~se co~t~ are absorbed by departNent~, Debt Servi~e 400.0OO Fund~ a~e a~eilab]e due tu advance refundings Of debt. TOTAL SOURCES U~es cf Funds: Transfer for Comprehensive services ~41,000 The State has shifted to localities a portion of the cost of mandated expenditures for the Courts portion of comprehensive services for at-risk youth. This represents a net increase in ~he coot to tho County. County Attorney 24,200 Funds are require~ due to lack ~f vacam~iea and legal services costs. Dos =o varlahili~y in the cost of legal services, funds are not allocated in tko b~dget, but in~tead ara transferred at year-end. Human R~ource Manaqen~nt 59,100 Funds are required due to compensation issues an~ lack of turnover. Accounting 55,700 Funds are r%quired du~ to lack cf vacancies Parks and Recreation Funds ar= required because an injured employee 47,900 was moved ~o an unfunded administrative position. If this shift had not occurred, workers compen- sation payments wo~ld have been incurred. In addition, there are unbudgeted expenses associated with weed and snow removal as well ss tornado clean up. Management Services Funds are required due to filling of s stsff position. Funds are required due to lack of turnover. 40~500 Funds are reqlllred due to lack of turnover and two unanticipated electienm- commonwealth Attorney Funds are roguirod due to lack o~ vacancies, ~ompsnsation issues and opera%ins expenses, Sheriff 149,000 overtime exp~nses end operating expenses. Citizens Assistance Program Utilization of the C.A.P. was greater than snticip&te~ B~cau~e of this, fund~ were reserved in FY93. Additionally, a developer agraed to cover a portion ($164,000) of the cost of the program. Funds from the Reserve and the developer need to be appropriated. Appropriate Chapter 10 m~ntal ~ental F~alth, Nental ~etardation, and 6/22/94 AdjUst appropriations of ~edicai~ waiver, ~adi~aid ~tate Plan Option {SPO), and Chapter 10 ~ental:~etsrdation Ravan~e~ to final estimates. This adjustment will be utilized to cover increased personnel costs in Waiver and SPO funded programs. Stat~ Sal~ Tax for Education Appropriate anticipated additional State ~als~ ~ax for e~uoaticn. The transfer to ~chool~ will he bs~ed on actual sales tax receipts. This additional appropriation does not increase the School Board total ~ealthGare Surcharg~ Appropriate and carry forward PruC~re contribution for health insurance far calendar year 1994, it orcsse~ into Appropriate FY93 Dental Reimbursement for increased costs in supplemental Police Appropriate and carry forward fundm from the sale of two police v~hiolas to Petersburg Police Department. Juvenile Detention Grant Comprehensive Services - Ches=erfield Appropriate funds ~o~ se~¥icus provided for et-risk youths.through =he court system. The State's partial funding of these services is $250,000 and the local portion i~ $241,000. system for colonial ~eights. The State's partial funding of these services for Colonial Heights is $$6,200 and Colonial ~ensley Fire station Phillips Fire Station Project ($2~,937) to the on-going Ben~Iey Fir~ ~tatlon ~roject. 94-477 124,400 23,700 118,000 26,640 30,000 52,500 491,0D0 26,937 Greenfield Drive Drainage Project Appropriate developer contribution~ for this on-going preject. Utility Building Appropriate funds to the Utilities Building project. In connection with the move ts the new building, the utilities Department sold used furniture to the County General Fund at a reduced rate. Proceeds from this sale are needed to cover Costs in this project. In line with the County's TQI principals and budgetary empowerment for d~partment~, to sav~ m~n~y~ it is requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to carry forward into a small portion of unspent FY94 appropriations. This will reward departments Dy allowing them to fund high priority nddbsck re~uest~ that will help them achieve goals and objectives, but that were not included in the F¥95 budget- The actual amount reappropriated will depend on actual results of operations as determined by the County audit. ueDartmental requests include: Msalth Department There are unspent personnel funds that could be used for trailer costs, breatmen~ room upgrade, van a~d van driver for I~unization Program for children at risk, and mi~cslla- neons equipment for the Communities in Schools Mental Eealth/Retardatien/subs%ance Abuse Sub~tance Abuse 9rev~ntion and funds and federal Substance Abuse funds have been received but not yet spent. Buildlng Inspection Unspent persennel funds are requested for implementation cf Electronic Document ~anagement systems Technology, which will fulfill a recommendation made by & Lybrand in their December, 1992 audi= of the d~partment. Police Due to staff turnover~ funds are available in vehicle usage and uniform accounts. These funds are re~uemted to provide flexibility in FYP~ and to address addbacks net funded in the FY95 budget that the department is attempting to absorb, such as school traffic enforcement. Utilities ~ome equipment purchases budgeted in for items r%tated to GIS, r~oord~ grades have not yet been cempleted. Request that all fun~s remaining for purchases be carried forward. 30,000 62,5QQ 4~,509 40,000 229,750 94-478 6/22194 Communications Center 0ua to staff turnover, funds are aYailable. Thas~ are requeste~to address cross training ~er existing employees and small capital purchases. Planning computer equipment to increase productivity FY94 One-Time P~nd~ ~unds were allocated in F~4 to complete Not all fun~s have bean spent. Additionally, e%~eral p~rchases have been made below the budgeted amount. It is requested to carry forward all ~nspent funds and rsallocate surplus funds allocated fur thsse projects. Ayes: Pit. ~cMale~ Mr. Barber, and ~r. ~anial. Absent: Zr. Colbert and Fir. Wurren. 48,200 ~,900 To Be Determined REC~I~SBLR, FROM b~B~ COLLECTION DivisiOn, OTHE~ PEE~, AigD CWA/~ES Om ~ot~on of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Bmard reoalvable~ fro~ debt collection division, other fees, and oharge~, in ~he amount of $216,~24.0~, as follows: charges, weed control oharg~, fees for use of and News and Information debt.) 2. Airport - $2,228.28 (Represents three accounts~ one of which was settled during l~tiqation and two of which ara old and under 3. General Services/Leaf Collection Account - $490 (Represents fourteen ~illings for leaf collection at $35 each.) 4. Landfill - $3~,014.74 (Represents thirteen billings for =ipping fees st County landfills.) 5. R~ak ~anagsmsnt ~ $33,306.16 (Represents 9& billings for damage to County property ~uch as palio~ vehicles ~nvolved ~n motor aooldents end vandali~.) 6. Utilit{es - $1~&,079.93 (Represents the uncollected consumer accounts that individually are less than 7. Central Libra~:y - $7,067.50 (RaDrom~ntm 4,524 billings for book fins~ fro~ Absent: ~r. colbert and Mr. Warren. 94-47~ On ~otion of ~r. Daniel, ~conded by Mr. Barber, the Board initiated amendments to zoning cases approved with the Fire planning Commission for action; waived disclosure requirements for these cases; and set public hearing date for first available date s~bsequsnt to the Planning Ce~nnieeion'e action, lit i~ noted a li~tlng of the commerclal fire protection proffer zoning cases are filed with the papers Of Ayes: ~gr. MoZale, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Far. Colbert and Mr. Warren. AN APPLICATION FOR SHELTER PLUS CARE PROGRAM FUNDS A~D APPKOPRIAT~ FUNDS IF AWARDED On me,ion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~]Y, Barber, the Board authorized the County Administrator t~ submit an application for Shelter Plus Care Prsgram funds and authorized staff to i~ple~nt the progra~ and appropriate fund~ for the project if the grant i~ awarded. (It ~ noted this is a five year proposal by Housing and Urban Development. The grant requires a local match of support services. For FY95~ this has been included in the Mental ~ealth/Mental R~tardation/ Substance Abuse Department budget and will net require new funds ~an be used fo~ administrative costs, i~cluding indirsc~ cost recovery.) Ayes: Mr. MoKale, Mr. Barber, and ~r. Daniel. ~sent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. 8.D.6. ESTABLISHMENT OF PETTY CASH FUND FOR DAY SUPPORT PROGR~M YOR MENTAL HEALTH]MENTaL RET~RD~TIORA SUBSTANCE A~USE DEPARTMENT On mc~icn of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barter, the Board established a $700 petty cash fund ~or 'the Day Support Program in the Chesterfield Mental Health/~an~al Retardation/Substance ~buse D~partm~nt, which fuD~ w~ll pay the costa of planned ectlvltiez for the Day Support Program. (It is noted co,ts of this Program are funded through ~edlcald Mental Retar~atlen Waiver Fees.) Ayes: Mr. McHale, Mr. Barber, and ~. Daniel. kbsent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. APPROVAL OP DONATION OP FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING F~TERIkLS TO SOUTN RICKKOND ROT;~R~ CLU~ On motion o£ Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board dunatsd a surplus package of F~re Department training ~anuale to the South Richmond Rotary Club to b~ eenC to support fire departments in Brlti~h Guyana. Ayes: Mr. McHale~ Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and FLr. Warren. ~-4s0 6/22/94 AUTHORIZATION OP ONE ~OSIT~ON FOR MENTAL HEALTH/ MENTAL RETARDA~IOM/S~EETANCE ABUS~ DAY SUPPORT PROGP~J{ ~ On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board authorisod oho position to coordinate the Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse Day $~pport Program, which Progra~ will provide daily actlvltie~ for eight consumers that are not receiving employment services. (It is noted the ~Y95 budget appropriated ~edieaid Mental Retardation ~aiver revenue for the Day Support Program.) AyEs: Mr. McEale, Mr. Barber, and Mr. bahia1. Absent~ Mr. Colbert end Mr. Warren. 8.D.10. ~PPROPR~TION OF FU~rDE FOR ~OPKI~E ROAD O~ ~otio~ of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, ~he Doard appre~riate~ $200,000 from anticipate~ Virginia Departmen= of Transportation (VDOT) reimbursements for the ~cpkins ~oad Design Project, from Inca Drive to Ealconway Lane. APPROVAL OF FLEET MANAEEMEI~T OO~RACT BETWEEN the papers of this Board.1 Absent: Kr. Colbert and ~_r. Warren. S.D,12, AWARD OF ~ONTRAOTE 8.D.12.a. FOR ~ONSTRU~TIO~ ;%ND INETALLATIO~ OF ATA'LE~IC On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board awarded a oon=ract %0 Hun=er Knep~ield Company, in the amount of $75,154, for construction/~nsta~latio~ Of a~hle~ic lights at the Manchester Middle School feetball/eoc~e~ field. (Tt is noted funds for new construction have been secured ~hrough insurance recovery due to the llght~ b~ing damaged by the August 6, 1993 tornado ~d ~d~iticnal funds were allocated by the Board a~ Dart of the FY95 Parks and Recreation budget.) Ayes: ~r. ~cHale, Pit. Barber, and ~r. Daniel. SITE, WOrK CONSTRUCTION FOR W~RBRO ROAD On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~Ir. Darber, the Board awarded a contract to Adk~ns Ccns=ruction~ Incorporated~ in the amount of $473,900, for site ~ork constructiO% for the Warbro Road Athlet~s complex, Phase one, suftball Facilitie~ Project. (It is nDted funds in the amount cf $SSO,00O were transferred fro~ the Reserve for Future Capital Projects on November ~, ~995 and ~h~ County anticlpatas receiving 6/22/94 Recreation Access Funds from the Virginia Conservation and Recreation to be used for Virginia Department cf Transportation improvements at the site.) Ayes: Mr. MoHale~ Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. 8.D.i2,0. POE EXPANSION OF MIDLOTHIAN BRANCH LIBRARY On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Esther, the Board awarded a contract to T. E. Blackstene Company, in the of $1,1~3~640, for construction of the Midlothian Library Expansion Project and approved ~he transfer oS $490,100 of Capital Reserve fund~ to the Midlothian Library Ek~pan$ion Project Account. (It is noted funds required to complete this Project are available from the following sources: transfers ~rem completed library projects - $197,199; Friends of the Library contribution - $25,000; and the ReserV~ Future Capital Projects - $49~,100.) Absent: Hr. Colbert and Hr. Warren. 8.D.l~.d. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CHARTER coLoNY PARKWAY FOR WOOLRIDGE ROAD EXTENSION On motioD of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, th~ ~card awarded a oontrae~ ~o APAC-Virgini&~' Incorporated and appropriate~ $60,000 in anticipated Virginia Department cf Transportation reimbur~ement~ for construction of Charter colony Parkway - Wsolridgs Road E~teneion PrcjecS. Ayes: Mr. McHale, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. 8.D.i~. ~ET DATE~ FOR PUBLId HEARIngS COUI~TY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, ~S A~ENDED, BY TO APPLICATION FEES FOR CERTAIN VARIANCES Set th~ date of July 27, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. for a public h~aring to oonsider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, i97~, as anended, by amending and r~na~ting Section 21.1-17 relating to application fees for certain variances. Ayes: Mr. ~eMal~ Mr, ~arber, and Mr. Daniel. Absen=: Mr, Colbert and Mr. Warren. AIRPORT I]~DUSTRIAL PARK RESTRICTIVE COVEEANTS A_P~RCEL OWNED BY PMD, INC. LOCATED AT 8I~ On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. ~arber, the Board ~t the ~ate of July ~7, 1994 at 7:00'p.m. for a public bearing to consider granting a waiver o~ the chesterfield yard setback requirement~ for a parcel owned b~ PMB, Incorporated~ located at 8111 Virginia Pine Court. ~12zt94 On motion of Mr. '~ani~l~ 'seconded by M~. Barber, the Boa~d approved a request from the Chesterfield County Parks and Chesterfield deunty Fairgrounds un Ju~y 4, 1994, (rain date of July 4, 1993), which request is subject to approval by the 8.D.14.b. S~INDAY PA~K PENINSULA on motion o~ Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board approved a request from the Drandermill Community Association to ~tage a firewarks display at the Sunday Park Peninsula in Brander~ill on July ~, ~994, (no rain dat~), whiuh request is subject to approval by the Fire Department and the County Ayes: Mr. McHale, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr, Colbert and Mr. Warren. This day the County ~nvironmen~ul =ngineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hie examination cf the re,de in A~ended Mi~twood Forest, Section 6, M~tcaca District, and ~hereas, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Director of Environmental ~ngineering, the street(si in Amende~ ~istwood Forest, Bection 4~ Mateaca District, meet the requirements ~st~blished by the Subdivision Street Re=uirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, Whereae~ the County and the Virginia Department of Deed Book 2453, Page 405, January 21, 5994, for all stcrmwat~r detention/retention ~auilitie$ in the County. Therefore, upon consideration whereof, and on motion Of Daniel, u~Cond~d by Mr. ~urber, it is resolved that the roads in Amende~ Mistwood ~ore~t, section ~, MarQues District, be and they h~r~by are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be end ie hereby requested to take into the · econdary System,~ pursuant to Section 33.1-219, Code of virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requir~ment~ th~ following: Ka~e of Street: ~cnnenburg Drive Length; .26 mile From: the intersection of Route 3470 To; the intersecti¢,n of P~ssaic Avenue Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: SO feet. Name of Street: Sonnenbmr~ Court Length: .0~ mile From: the interjection cf Scnnenburg Drive To: %he cul-de-sac Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 fe~t. Name of Street: Tributary Court Prom: the intersection of Sonnanburg Drive TO: the cul-de-sac Guaranteed Right-ef-Way Width: 50 feat. Name of Street~ Passaic Avenue From: thc cul-da-sa~ Guaranteed Right-of-Way width: 50 feat. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, ~ight distance, clear zone ~nd dasign~te~ virginia Department of Trunmportation drainage e~sements indicated an the develspment These roads serve 4~ lots. follows: Section 4, Rlat Book 77, Page §3, Uanuary'9~ Length: .05 mile Length: .12 mile This day the County Environmental ~nginaer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writinq upon his examination e£ the roads in Smeketree Matoaca District, and Whereas, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised ~he Director a~ ~nvironmental Enginexring, the Ma~oaea Dis~rict~ meet the requirements established by the Subdivi%$~D_.gtreat Requirements of the Virginia Department of Whereas, the County and the Virq!nia Department of Deed Beck ~A55~ Page &oa, Ja~&ry 21, 1994, for all etormwater detentlen/retentlun facilltlas in the County. Thar~£are, upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seoonded by ~, Barber, it is resolved that the roads in Smoketree South, Section F, Matoeca District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resalved, that the Virginia Departn~ant of Transportation, be and is hereby requested to take into the ~acandery System, pursuant to Sectisn ~.~-229, Coda of Virginia~ and the Department's Su~divisien Street Requirements, the follominq: Name af Street: Parte~s Mill Lane Length: .21 mile ~rom: the end of Route G~aranteed Right-of-way width: 50 feet. ~ame of Street: Per,ers Mill Place Length: .05 mile From: the intersuctlun of Port=r~ Mill Lane To: the cul-de-sac Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet. Name of Street: Porters ~ill Turn Length: .04 mile Frum: the intersactlon of Porters Mill Lane Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width= 50 feet. This request is inclusive o£ the adjauent slope, s~ght distanced clear z(~ne and designated Virqinia Department of Transportation d~iAage easements indicated on ~he development plat. These roads serve !5 lots. This section cf Smeketree South is recorded as fellows: Section F~ Plat geck 77, Page 21, ~ovember 14, 19~l. Ayes: ~r. McHale, Mr. Barber, and Fn~. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. 8.D.16. REQUEST FOR PEP. HiSSION FRON MS. JANET M- llARVEY FOR A PORTION OF A FENCE TO ENCRO~CK WITIIIN ~4 ~XISTINg TEN FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY On motien of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board approved a request fro~ ~. ~anet ~. ~arv~y for a portion of a ~enc~ to encroach within an existing lO f~et drainaqe and utility easement, subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the Ayes: Pit. McKal~, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: ~r. Colbert and Mr. Warren. 8,D,~?, AUTHORI~ATION TO EX~ROISE EMINENT b0M~IR FOR ~O_OUISITION OP AVIATIO~ EA~ENT8 FOR INSTALLATION THE OOUNT¥'~ ~IR~O~T IR~ME~T LANDIN~ ~Y~TEH On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board e~tho~ized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain for acquisition of an aviation easement over p~operty o~ Whittle Electric, I~eorporated, 751~ Whitepine Road, for installation of th~ Airport's Instr~e~ Landing $~sbem. (It iu noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers or t~is Board.} Ayes: ~ir. NoHale, ~r. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. 8,D.18. ACCEPTANCE OF PARCEL8 OF LA~D FOR DEDICATION OF A CONSOLIDATED gALES 00MPANY On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of 2.444 acrs~ ~om consolidated sales company for dedication o£ a portion of proposed Koger Center Boulevard and authorized the Ceunty Administrator to execute the necessary deed. noted a copy of the plat iu filed with the papers of this ~oard.} Ayes: ~r. NcHale, Rr. ~arber, and Nr. Daniel. Absent: ~r. Colbert and Mr. Warren. 94-485 6/22/94 $.E.l~.b. ~OUTHEA~TERN A~OCIATE~, INCORPORATED On ~otlsu of Mr. Daniel, ~s¢cndsd by Mr. ~arbsr, the Board accepted~ on behalf of the County~ the conveyance of 0.763 dedication of a portion of proposed Koger Center Boulevard and authorized the county Administrator ta execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of th~a Beard.) 8.D.19. ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL OF DAN~ ~0~ THE CHARTER COLONY ~AR~WAY - WOOLRIDeE ROAD EXTENSION PRO~C~ Om ~otion Of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of acr%z from th~ J. Loui~ R%ynold~ E~tate for the Charter colony Parkway - Woolridge Road Ex=ensicn Project and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary dead. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the pap~ra of this Board.) Ayes: ~r- ~Kale, ~r. ~arb~r, and ~r~ Daniel. 8oD.20. ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND ALON~ HALLS RUN ROAD FROH UEROP'S SUPERMARKET, INCORPOP~ATED On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~aeonded by Mr. Barber, the Board aee~pts~, on behalf of ~he County, the cunveyan~ of a 5 foot and 15 f~et parcel of land from Ukrop'~ Supermarket, Inssrpsrated and authorized the County Administrator to ex=cute ~h~ necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the 9apar~ of this ~aard.) Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. Ther~ were ne Hearings of citizens on Unscheduled ~atters or claims scheduled ~t this time. 10. RBPORTS on mo=ion of ~. Bather, ascended by Mr. Daniel, th~ Board accepted the following reportE: Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a r~port on the d~veloper water and sawer contracts executed by the County Administrator. M~. RamSay presented the B~ard with a ~tatus report on the General Fund Balance; Reserve for Future Capital Projemta; District Road and Street Light Funds~ and Lease Purchases. Mr. R~m~ey stated the Virginia Dep~rtment of Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of th~ following roads into the State Secondary System: ADDITIONS WINDSOR PARK, SECTION 1 - (~ffeotive 6-6-94! Route 4356 (Prince Philip Lane) - From ~59 to 0.56 mile Southwest Route 659 Route 4Z57 (Prince Philip Cou~t) - ~rem Route 4556 to 0.10 mile ~outheast Rout~ Route 4557 (Prince Philip Place) - Fro~ Route 43~6 to 0.O~ mile Rorthwest Route 4356 Route 4358 (Sylvan Ridge Read) - From Route 4356 to 0.12 mile West Route 4356 Route 4359 (Princess Mary Road) - From 0.09 mile West Route 4356 to 0.26 mile Northeast Route 4356 Ayes: ~r. McHale, Mr. Barber, and ~r- Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. On motion of Mr.' Daniel, seconded hy Mr. Barter, the Board went into an ~ecutive Session pursuant to ~ction ~.%- 344(A) (3) Cods of Virginia, 1950, as emended, for consultation with legml counsel r~garding acquisition of real e~=ase for a public purpose in the Matoaoa Magisterial District relating to p~rks and highway right ef way. Ayes: Mr. McKale, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. C~lbert mad Mr. Warren. Reconvaning: O~ ~otio~ of Mr. B~ber, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: ~EREAg, the Beard of Supervisors has ~h~ day adjourned into Executive Semsion in accordance with a formal vote of the Board and in accordance with the prov~sions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and W~EREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective July 5, 1989 provides for certification that ~umh Executive Sem~icn wa~ conducted in ~oDfermity with law. NOW, TH~R~FOR~ D~ IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that te the best of each member's knowledge~ i) only public business mat~ru lawfully exam,=ed fro~ open meeting raquire~nt~ under the Freedom of Information A~t w~rs discussed in the Executive Session to which thi~ certification applies, and ii) only ~ueh public business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Executive Session was oenvened were heard, discussed, or considered by the Bo~rd. Ko member dissents from ~his eerti£ica~i0n. 94-457 ~/22/94 The Board being polled, the vote was as'follows: Mr. Daniel : Aye. ~r. Barber : Aye. Mr. McHale : Aye. Hr. colbert: Absent. Mr, Warren : Absent. ~2, DI~E~ On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board recessed to the Administration Buildinq, Room 502, for Ayes: ~r. MoHala, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mr. Colbert and Mr. Warren. Mr- war~en arrived at the meeting. ~3. INVOCATION Mr. ~eHale introduced MT, Stith Who g&~u the invocation. On motion of ~r. Warren, aa¢onded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred consideration of a streetlight installation cost approval for Fahey Court, vlcin~ty of 800-801 ~t end of oul- de-sac, until December 14, 1994. Ayes: Mr. McHale, Mr. Barber, Mr. Daniel, and ~r- W&rr~R. Absent: ~3¢. Colbert. · 4. ~L~nGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO T~ FLAG OF THE U~ITED ~T~TES OF ~24ERICA Mr. Rupler le~ the Pledge of Alleqiance to t~e Flag of the United Statee of America. 15. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIOn8 O~ ~oti~n o~ the Board, the followin~ resolution was adopCed: ~REA$, the Boy Scouts of America was inuorpera~e~ by promote citizenship training, personal develeDment, and fitness of individuals; and in a wide variety af fields, servin~ in a leadership position co--unity, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and liv~nq up to the Scout Oath ehd Law; and WHEREAS, Er. Eichuel A. Ciccone, Troop 8~0, sDoneored by Woodlake United Methodist ~hureh, has ae¢ompliehed those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of ~agle $ceut which is received by lese than two percent of those individuals ~tering the Scouting movement; and WHeReAS, growing through his e×peri~n~ in S¢ou~ing, learning the les~oes ef responsible cltizenship~ and priding himself on the great accomplishments of hie County, Michael is indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THERE?ORE BE iT REEOLUED, that the chesterfield County B0a~d of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to ~r. Niehael A. ciccen~ and acknowledges the good ~ertune ef the County to have such an out,tending young man as one o~ i~e citizens. Ayes: Nr. MoBale, Mr. Barber, ~r. Daniel, and Mr. Warren. Absent: Nr- Colbert. Mr. Warren p~e~enbed the =~ecuted resolution to Mr. cicoone, aocom9anie~ by hie father, and congratulated him en his out~tandin~ achievement. Mr. Stlth introduced Mr. Ti~ Lowry, Head Coach of the Clover ~ill ~igh School CaYaliers Baseball Team~ and members of WHEREAS¢ participation in high school eports has long been an integral part of Chester£ield County's educational ·eam, un,er the direction of Mr. Tim Lowery~ ~ead Coach, District C~ampionship; ~he Cee=tel Re,ion Championship; and nationally in the Ualte~ States by USA Today~ and support the interscholastic ~etivity programs for County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize the Clover Hill Cavaliers Varsity Baseball T~am for its outstanding representation of Chesterfield County. Supervisor~, on b~half of the citizens of Chesterfield Ceun%y~ does hereby oommen~ the Clover Hill Cavalier~ for field and express their bes~ wishes for contlnued 94-489 6/2~/94 Mr. Warren presented the executed resolution to Mr. Lcwry and members of the Team and csnqratula'~ed them on their outstanding a~ccmplishments. Mr. Barber excused himself from the meeting. 16. ~UBLI~ HE~RiNGB 16.~. TO CONSID~R RF~DOPTION OF ]tN ORDINANCE TO ~MEND THE Mr. ~icas stated this date and time has b~en advertised for a ~blic hea~ing to coD~i~er readcptio~ of a~ ordinance regarding floodplain districts. ~e further stated the purD0se of the ordinance is to comply with federal mandates g±v~n by tho Federal ~mergency ~anagempnt Agency ("~A") which will allow County homeowners to continua to purchase Board adopt Veraion I of the floodplain ordinance which was meeting. Mr. George Beadles stated he feels readoption uf this ordinance ~ an example of an item thst could reference so that every tiao a change is made, the entire ordinance would not have to be changed. There being no one else to address this ordinance, the public h~aring wan O~ motion of ~c. Warren, readopted the follewin~ e~dlnance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE O? THE COUNTY ©P CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AM~NDED~. BY AMENDING SECTIONS 21.1-34 THROUGH 21.1-42 AND 21.1-281 R~GA~DING FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections ~t.5-34 through ~1.1-4~ of the Code of the County of Chest~rfisld. 197S, as amended, ara added to rea~ ~s follows: Sec_ ~l-l-~4- The purpose of these provisions is to prevent loss of life and pro~er~y, hazards ~o health and safety, disruption of unnecessary expenditure c~ nubile funds for flood protecticn and relief end impairment of the tax ba~e by: (a) Regulating uses, activities and-development which, acting alone or in combination with other existing or future uses, activities and development will cause unacceptable increases in flood heights, v~l~citi¢~ ~nd frequ~ncle~. (b} Restricting or prohibiting certuin uses, activities and development Zrom locating within areas subject to flooding. (c) Requlrin~. all those uses, activities and developments that do occur in floodprone areas to be prote~ed and/or floedproofe~ ~gainet flooding and floo~, damh%e. '" ' (d) ~rotecting individuals from buying lands and structures which are unsuited for intended purpuses Sec. 21.1-35. Duties cenerallv of director of environmental Dnqineerinq. (e) This division shall be enforced by the director of environmental snginnering and such deputies as the director .of environmental engineering may appoint. The director of environmental engineering shall review all site and schematic plans and building p~rmits and cer:if~ that t~e proposed development or coDstruGtien ~ not in violation of the ~rovislons of this division. If smsh proposed development or construction is in conflict with this ~ivisien, the director of environmental engineering ~hall refuse to approve such plan or ~aildlng permit. (b) Th~ direeter of environmental engineering ~all maintain for public inspection, and furnish upon request for the dete~minatio~ Of applicable flood insurance risk premium rates within all ar=as having special flood hazards identified on the County flood insurance rata mad (FI~M), any certificates of flosdpreefing, information on the elevation of %he lcwes~ floor~ including basement, above the bane flood elevation and horizontal distance of ~he ~u~ure fr~m the outermost boundary of the base flood for all new or ~ubatantially improved ~tructures. Also, records will include whether or not such structures contain basements, if structures have been floodprcofed and the elevations above the base floed level to which they were~fleodproofed. (c) The director of environmental engineering ~hall maintain a record of all varian¢~ actions, including justification for their issuance, and report suah variances iss~ i~ the county's annual report submitted to the Admin£etrator. Sec. ~1.1-36. Floodplain districts and zones generally. BaSiS Of DiStricts: Th~ 1O0-yeur flo~d shall be adopted as the base flood for purposes ef ~loodplain management measures. The BOO-year flood shall be employed to indicate additional areas of flood risk in the county. The basis for th~ delineation of these districts shell be the "Flood Insurance.Study and ~lated ~ap~ for Chesterfield County," prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration, dated September, 1~92, and as fur%her revised. The floodway district is delineated, for the purposes of this division~ u~ing th~ ariteria that a certain area within the flesdpl~in must be capabl~ of carrying the ~ters of ~he base flood without increasing the water sumfa~e elevation o£ that flood more ~han one (1) foot at any point. The areas included in this district are specifically defined in ~able ~ of the above-referenced flood insurance study, 6/22/94 (b) and are shown on the accompanying flood boundary and floodway maps (2) The flood fringe district shall be that area of the base flood area not included in the floodway district. The basis for the outermost boundary of this district shall be the base flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the above referenced flood insurance study, and as shown on the accompanying FBFM. (3) The approximated floodplain district shall be that base ~lood area for' which no detailed flood profilem or elevatio~ are provided, but where a base floodplain boundary has been approximated. Such ureas are shown on the FIRM. For these areas, the one hundred year flood elevation~ and floodway information from federal, state and other acceptable ~ourcm~ shall b~ used, when available. Whore the ~psciflo base flood elevation cannot be determined using other sources of data, suck as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ~loodplain Information Reports, U.~. Geological survey Floodprone Quadrangles! recorded subdivision plats, etc., the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this elevation in accordance with hydrelegis and hydreulie engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic unaly~e~ ~hall be undertaken ~nly by professional origin%ers or others of demonstrated qualifloation~, who ~hatl c~rtify that the technical methods u~d accurately reflect currently accepted technical c~ncept~. Stud~s~, analy~s~, computations, e~o., shall be submitted ~n ~uffici~nt d~tail to allo~ a thorough review by the director of theoretical delineation cf floodway from flood fringe when development within an approximated B&mie of Zones! The county shall be divided into zones, each having a specific flood poten~ia! er hazard. Each zone shall be assigned one (i) of t~e following flood insurance zone designations: (1) Zones A, Al-Ail, Aid, Al5 a~ Al6: Special flood hazard ureas inundated by waters of the ~ase flood~ zone ~: Areas between t~e special flsod hazard area and the limit~ of the 500-year flcod~ including areas cf the 100-yea~ floodplain that ado protected from the lO0-year flood by dike, levee or other water control structure; al~o, areas subject to certain types of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are less than one (1} foot, and areas subject to 10~-year flooding ~rom sources with ~rainaqe is not ~ubdivi~ed. Zone C: All areas outside the limits of the SOO-year flood. Theme areas are mubject to minimal or no floo~ing. Floodplain District Overlay: 94-492 (f) (1) The £1oodplain disc:leds described above shell be overlays te th~ existing underlying zoning districts as shown an the official zoning ordinance map. As such, the~provisions for the £1oodplain districts shall serve as e ~upplenent to the underlylng district provisions. (2) Where there is any oonfllct between the provi~ions or requirements of any of the ~loodplein districts and those of any underlying district, the more restrlot~ve provisions and/or tho~a pertaining to the floodplain distr~cts shell apply. (3) In the event any provis~on ssnserning a floodplain district is declared inapplicabl~ as a result of any legislative or adminiutrutive actions or judicial discretion, t~e basic underlying district provisions shall remain applicable. Floodplain Maps: The boundaries uf the fSoodplaln districts are e~tablished as show~ on the flood boundary and floodway map and flood in~uran=~ rate maps, which are declared to be a part ef this division and which shall be kept on file in the office of the di~eoto~ of environmental engineering. DisCriot Boundary Changes: The delineation e£ any of the floodplain districts may be revised by the county where natural or msnmade ohanges have occurred and/or more detailed studies have bean conducted or undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified a~en~y, o~ where individual documents indicate the need for such ehanqe. However, prior to any such change, approval mus~ be obtained from the Federal Insurance Administrator. Interpretation of District Boundaries: Initial in~er~retation s~ ~he boundaries of the floodplain districtm, shall be mede by the director of environmental engineering. An appeal to the board of zoning appeals may be taken by any per~cn aggrieved or affected by the interpretation. 21.1-37. Distr~et Generally: All uses~ astivitie~ and development oco~uring within any floodplain district shall be undertaken only upon the issuance of a building permit. Such development shall be undertaken only in strict compliance with the provisions of thi~ ohapter and wi~h all ether Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the county subdivision and erosion and sediment control erdinanoas. Prier to the issuance of uny building permit, the director cf environmental engineering shall rsqulrs the applicant to provide, in addition to the basic informatisn on the per, it, the followinq information: 94-493 6/~2/94 a. For every structure that will be elevated, the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement! above the base flood elevation and horizontal distance of the structure from the outermost boundary of the base flood. b. For every nonresidential s~rus:ure that will ba floodproofed, the elevation to which ~he structure will be flsedpreo~ed, c. The elevation of the base (2) Under no circumstances shall any usa, activity and/or development adversely affect the capacity of the channel~ or floodway~ of any watercourse, drainage ditch or any other drainage facility or system. (3) Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation Of any channels or floodways of any director cf environnental engineering, the applisant shall also obtain approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Virginia Department of Enviror~msnual Quality or the virginia Marine Resources commission (a joint permit application is available from any of these organizations]. Further, the applicant shall give notlfisstion of.the proposal to all affected adjacent municipalities. Cupie~ of such notifications shall be forwarded to the director of environmental engineering, the Department oS Conservation an~ Recreation (Division of Soil and Water Consarvstion) and %he Feders~ Insurance Administrator. (4) All n~w aonstruction of residential structures in subdivisions! within zone~ k~--56 and ~nnumbered A zones on the county's FIPJ~, shall b~ prohibited. All new eomstruotlon of reslden~ial strmctures on parcel~ (on record as of ~arch 16, 19s3} which are at least ninety-five {9~) percent inundated by the base flood and out~ide of a subdivision within zones A1--I~ and unnumbered minim~ floor i~vel of ~welve (12) inche~ the base floo~ elevation. (~) All substantial improvemen=s of residential A son~ on th~ county's FI~, shall co~ply All n~w construction and substantial improvements ~ rasidential ~ruc~ures, w~thin a minim~ ~loor lavel of twelve twenty (20) feet horizontal distance from the 6/221~4 nonresidential structures and all ~ubS~an~ally improved ' ~romidential and nonresidential construe%ion within the floodway on the county's FSFM shall be prohibited. (9) AIl new construction and substantial improvements of nonreeldential structures and accessory buildings, within the floodway fringe on the county's FBFM, shall hav~ minimum floor level u£ twelve (12) inches above the ba~e flood elevatisn~ or together with attendan~ utility and sanitary facilities, bo designed to be watertight at laast'twelve (12) inchaz above th~ base flood love~ wit~ walls s~bstantially impermeable to the passage of water, and with structural co~po~eHts having tho capability of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic leads and offec~s of b~oyancy. (10) All new construction and substantial improvementz of nonresidential structures~ within B and C zones on the county's shall either: hav~ a minimum floor level of twelve (±~) inches abov~ the base flood elevRtion of the nearest A sone~ or together with attendant utility and ~anita~y facilities, be designed so that at l~ast (12) twelve inches above the base flood level of the nearest A zone is watertight with wnlls substantially impermeable ~o the pad,age of water, and with structural component~ having tho capability o~ resisting hy~rosZati~ and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. (11} %~ere fluodproofing is utilized for particular structur~ i~ accordance with Subsection (9) of this section, a ~rofessional engineer or architect shall certify that tho floodproofing methods are adequate to withstand the flood ~epths, pressures, velecities~ impact and uplift Sorcc~ and other factors associated with the base flood. A record of such indicating the specific elevation (referenced to tho National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 19~9 (NGVO)) tO which structures are floodproof~d, shall be maintained with the director of environmental engineering in aoo~rdanc~ with section (12) The County's Emergency ~e~vices Coordinator may require that owners of existing manufactured home ~arks and manufactured hems subdivisions, locate~ within zone~ A1--16 add unnumbered A zones on =he county's ~IRM~ file an evacuation plan indicating alternat~ vehicular access and eeaape routes. on individual lots/paro~ls), located in a special flood hazard area (A Zones) on the county's FIRM, shall be anchored to resist flotation, collapse or lateral ~ove~nt by providing over-tho-top and frame tlos to ground anohars, specific requirements shall that: over-the-~ep ~ies be ~rovidod at each cf the four (4) corn=rs of the manufactured homes with two (2) additional ties per side at intermediate locations, with manufactured hones less than fifty (~0) feet lon~ requiring one (1) additional tie per ~side; frame ties be provided at each corner of the home with five (5) additional ties per s~de at intermediatm points, with homes less ~hsn fiXty (SO) feet long requiring four (4) additional ties per side; all componen=E of =he anchoring system be capable of carrying a force of forty-eight hundred (4,SO0) pounds; and any additions to the home b~ ~i~ilarly a~obured. All s~eh manufactured homes shall be located no less %h~n thirty-six inohes (~6'~) above gr~de~ provided that no manufactured ho~e at the same site has $~stained substantial damage from a flood. If any ~anufae~nr~d ho~e at the site has sustained substantial damage from a flood, all existing manufactured homes at the same site shall be slavered on a permanent foundation, suc~ that th~ lowest floor of manufaatursd hame is elevated to or above the base flood elevation. (14) The placement af new manufactured homes on individual lots or parcels, the manu~aetursd home su~d~vls~ne and the ~xpansion or substantial improvements to existing manufactu~od ho~s parka and manufactured home subdivisions shall be ~rohiblted within zones A1--56 and unnumbered A zones on the county's ~IR~. (15) The placement of n~w manufactured home~ on individual lots or parcels, the construction of new manufactured home park~ and manufactured ho~e ~ubdivi~ion~ and the expansion of existing manufactursd home parks and manufactured home zuDdivisionz require, within sones B and C on the FIP2~, that: stands or lots be elevated on compacted fill er on pilings so that the ]~est flour of the home will be at least twelve (12) inches above the bas~ flood level of the nearest A zone and be set back at l~aet twenty (20) feet horizontal ~istance from outermost boundary of the base flood; adequat~ surface drainage and access far a hauler provided; and in the instance of elevation on pilln~s~ lots be large enough to per,it stepped piling foundations to be placed in ~able ~eil not more than ten (10) feet apart and reinforcement ~hall be provided for Dilin~s more than six (s) feet above the ground (16) All subdivision propo~alg and other proposed new developments shall include, within such proposal$~ base flood ele~ation data. (17) Ail new construction and Substantial improvements to existing structure~ shall have base flood level. (!~) There shall Da no filling of any floodplains en~ineerlng. ~/~t~ Floodway Dis~rict: (!) Generally: In the ~loodway district, no residential or no~re~identi~l structures, manufactured home~ or filling shall be permitted. (2) Permitted u~n: In the floodway district, the following u~ee and activities are permlttad, subject to review and approval of the dirouhor of environmental engineering; provided, that they comply with the provisions of the underlying district and are net p~ohibited by any .other ordinance. Further, no development shall be D~rmitt~d except where the effect of such development on flood heights is fully off,et by aCcompanying improvements, which have been approved b~ the director Of cnvironmentaI engineering and/or state authorities, ae required: a. Agricultural uses, such ae general b, Public and private recreational uses and launching and swimming areas, hikin~ and herseback riding trail~, wildlife and .such as yard areas, parking and loading areas, airport landing strips, etc. increase the Isys1 of flooding or velocity. See chap%er 7.2 of thi~ Code and sections ~1.1-1~$ (b) and as circuses, carnivals and similar g. Utilitie~ and publi~ facilitie~ and h. Water related uses and activitieS, ~¢h i. Storage of materials and equipment provided that: they ar~ not ~oil not subject to majc~ damage by flooding; and/or provided that such material equipment is firmly anchored to prmvent 94~497 flotation ur movement, and/ar can be readily removed from the area within the time available after flood warning. j. Structures accessory to the uses and activities in the preceding list. k. Other similar uses, structures and increase in flood helght~ and/or velocities. lc) Flood Fringe District: (1) Generally: In the flood fringe district, the of the underlying zaning dlztrict; provided, that all suc~ uses, activitie~ and/or development shall not i~erease the base flood compliance with the fl00dproofing and rela~ed provisions contained in the Virginia Uniform gta~ewide Building Cods and alt applicable codes and ordinances. Under no circumstances will filling in the flood fringe permitted to make a building lot for the purpase u~ constructing a residential dwelling. Permitted a. Those uses permitted in the floodway district, sRbject to review and approval of the director of ~nvlronm~ntal engineering. b. Residentla] structures, subject to the provisions of section s. Nanresidential construction, subject to th~ prcvi~isn~ cf m~etien 21.1-37(a) (9). d- Accessory residential st.ructures, subject to the provisions of s~ction 21.1-37(a) (9). e. Golf courses. (d) Approximated Floodplain ~istrict: In the ap~rsxlma~ed fleedplaln dlstr~ct, all development and uses shall be the same as permitted in the £1oedway district. Sec. 21.1-38. AmDlications ~or variances. The burden of Drool re,ts upon the applicant for a variance, and without such proof a varlanc~ mu~t b~ d~nied. The a991ican= must show good and ~uff~clen~ cause; that failure to grant the variance woul~ result in a~ exceptional hardship; that granting the variance will not re~ult in increased flood heights, additional thr~ats ta publ±c safety or e~traordinary'publlc expen~e, create n~isances, c~use fr=ud on or vicPimi~atlan of Phs public or Gonfli~t with existing local laws or Ordinances; and that the variance is the ~inimum necessary, cansidering the flood hazard, afford relief. 21.t-39. Factors to ba considered in qrantin~ buildin~ D~rmits a.~d variances. (a) In consid~rlng .application~ for development in the flccdway~and flood fringe districts and variances, the director 0£ environmental engineering or board of zoning appeals shall consider the £cllowing factors: (1) The ~anger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused My encroachments. Ne building permit or ~ariance shall hQ granted for any props=ed u~e, development or activity within the floodway or flood fringe di~t~iet~ that will cause any increase in flood level~ during the base year flood. (2) The danger of materials being swept onto other land~ or downstream to the injury sf (3) The propose~ water supply and sanitation eye%ems and the ability of rheem ~y~ts~s to p~eve~t dis~e, contamination and un=anitary (4) Tho .PUsOep~ibiliby of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect o~ such dsmaga on the individual {5} The importance Of the services provided by proposed facility to the community. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. The availability of alternate locations subject to flooding for the propomed use. [8) The icompatibility of the proposed u~e with (9} The ~elationship cf the proposed use to the qen~ral plan and floodplain ~anagem~nt program fer the area. (10) T~e safe%y o~ access to the property in time of flood by ordinary and emergency vehi¢l~. (1~) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters ~xpected at th~ (12) The loss of beneficial natural stormwater management characteristics. (13} Such other factors that are r~l~vant to the purposes of this division. (b) The director cf environmental engineering or the board of.zoning appeals may refer an application ~nd accompanying documentation ~or a building permit or variance to an engineer or o~her qualified pe~scn or agency for technical in evalumting th~ propo~%d project in r~lation to floo~ heighte~ velocities, the adequacy of the plans for protection or any other rela%ed matters. 94-499 6122/94 for variances to the federal insurance administration for coi~nent. (d) The director of ~nvironmental engineering and board building permib and/or variance, in writing, that the approval of such for construction of a structure below the bas~ flood ~l~vation could increase risk ts life and property~ and could insurance. A record of the ubova notificationr us well as all varianc~ actiona, including justification for their issuance, shall be maintained by the director of environmental enqlnserlnq. Variance approvals shall be noted in the annual report submitted to the Administrator. Sec. 21.1-40. Existinu structures ~n flosdDlain districts. A structure or use of a strncture on premises which lawfully existed befor~ February ~3, 198S, but which is not in conformity with this division, may be continued subject to the following conditions: (a) Residential ntructur~m: Th~ modification~ elteration~ rspair~ reconstruction or improvement of any kind to a ~bructure requiring a building permit and/or use located in any floodplain dis~rict ~o an extent or amounu of lees ~han fifty (501 percent of its value, in accordance with the county aeeeesor'~ records, ~hall be elevated to the g~eetest extent possibl~. A residential structure that receives substantial improvement shall be elevated bo a~ leaat twelve [12) inches above the base flood level. (b) ~onresidential structures: The modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvement any floodplain district to an extent or amount of leas than fifty (~0) percent' of its value, in accordance with the county assessor's reaards~ shall be elevated and/or floodpruofed to the greatmst extent possible. A ncnreeldential structure that receives mubstantial improvement shall be elevated to at lea~t twelve (12) inches above the base flood level and/or floodproof,d to at l~ast tw~lv~ (~1) inmh~ above the base flood elevation. Sec. 21.1-41. Additional D~cvisions relative to flood hazard mitigation. Within the base flood and/or the approximated £1uudplain areas, as delineated, the following additional provi~ion~ (e} All electric water heaters, electric furnaces and oth~r critical electrical installations shall be permitted only at elevations at least twelve (12) inches above the base flood level. 94-500 6/22/94 (b) Waker supply systems, sanitary waste water systems and gas ~nd oil supply ~ystem~ ~hall be designed to preclude infiltration of floodwaters into the systems ~nd discharges from the systems into Sloodwa~s~e. Oeeign and construction shall De in accerdano~ ~ith BOCA requirements. (c) Adequate drainage shall b~ provided to minimize exposure to flood heights. (d) Preliminary plat requirements shall include a map ~howing the loeatXon c~ the proposed subdivision and/or land development with respect to designated floodplain district, including i~fcr~ation on, but net limited to, the ha~e flood elevations, boundaries of the floodplain districts, prcDcPed lots and sites, and fills and areas subject to special deed res=riction~. ~ building permit application shall include the location of the bas~ flood, if previously de%ermine~. sec. 21.1-42. County liability. (a) The degree of flood protection sought by the prcviaisn~ of this division is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is b~sed upon acc~ptabl~ engineering methods of s~udy. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights ~ay be increased by manmade or natural causem, such as ice jams and bridge opening~ restricted by debris. This 4ivision does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts, or land uses permitted within such distriuts, will bs free fr~ flooding 0r flood damages_ (b) This aivision shall nut create liability on the part of the county, er any of Sicer or employee thersof~ fo~ shy flood damages that result from reliance on this division, or any administrative deoision lawfully made thereunder. (2) That Section ~i.i-~B1 of the Code of the Countv of chesterfield, 197~, aa amended, is amended to read es follows: 0 0 0 E~i~tinq__cpnstructicn. ~truct~res for which the start o~ construction eo~ehoed before February 23, 1983 for purposes of the floodplain ~ivision of =his chapter. Existing aonstruotion may also De referred to as '~e~isting structur~". Manufactured home. A structure subject to federal regulation which i~ t~ansp~rtabl= in one (1) or more sections, is sight (S) feet or n0re in width and forty (40) feet or more in length or is thr~e hundred twenty (320) or more square fee~ when e~aoted on-mite; is bnilt on a permanent chassis; is designed to be used as a ~ingle family dwelling, with or without a permanent foundation, when connected to r~quired utilities; and includ~n the pl~blng, ~eating, air conditionln~ and electrical systems ~ontained in the ~tructure. For floodplain management purposes b_he term "manufactured homen also i~cludes park trailers, truvel trailers, and other similar vehicles pla=ed on e site for greater than 180 consecutive days. For insurance purposes the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehic3es. ooo New construction. Structures for which the start of construction sommenced on or after February 2~ ~8~ for purposes of the floodplain division of this chapter. Recreational vehicle. A v~hicle %~hiah is: (a) built on a single chassis; (b) 400 sguare feet or lass when measured at the largest horizontal p~ojec~ion; (c) designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (d) de~igne~ primarily not for use as a permanent dwellinq but as temporary living quarters for recreational, Substantial demean. Damage Qf any origin ~ustaine~ by a before damaged condition would equal or exceed S0 percent of the market value of the structure befor~ the damage occurred. Substantial improvement. Any r~con~truction rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement cf a the market value of the structure before the e=ar= of construction of the improvement. This term includes regardless of the actual repair work performed. The ter~ does mat, ~owever, i~cl~de either: (1) any project Or i~prove~ent of a ~tru~tur~ to c~rr~at ~i~ting violae~n~ of state or local health~ sanitary, or safety code ~p~cification~ which have b~en id~nti£ied by the local code enforcement official and which are the ~inimu~ necessary to assure ~af~ living conditions er (2) any alteration of a historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's csntinued designation es a historic (9} That thi~ ordinance shall become effective immediatet~ upon adoption. Ayes: Mr. ~c~als, Fir. Daniel, an~ ~r. Warre~. Absent: ~r. Colbert and Mr. Barber. A~D TO AD0~T A~ENDKENT~ TO C}LAPTER'? OF THE CODE OF Mr. ~ike Chernau~ Assistant County Attornay~ stated this date and tlm~ ha~ been advertised ~or a public h~aring ~o consider granting Chesterfield Csblevis~on~ Ince~pnrated a renewal of its ~able television £ranchi~e an~ to adopt amendments to Chapter 7 of the County Code related tn pravidinq cable television services in the County. ~e further ~tated staff has negotiated an agreement ~it~ Comcast the County with the most powerful cable system in the Richmond metropolitan &~ea and greater broadcast potential than any system ~n th~ region and agreement. Ee than introduced Mr. Charles "Buck" Dcpp, General Manager of Mr. Dopp stated in exchange tar a l~-ycar renewal with Comcast, Co~ca~t will upgrad~ its system t~ 750 mhz or 100 channel capacity 'within three yearn; provide exp~nded g~v~rnmental, educational, and public access channels; provide a Public Safety Channel and equip the new Public Safety Training Center with the capability of broadcasting training material over tho ~ubscriber network =o remote lo~ations; conmtruct a r~turn line from ~anohester ~igh School and provide equipment to allow production and broadcasting of educational programs over the subscriber network; connect the new Ja~e~ River High School and Fire Station Number !5 with basic service at nc cost; and a t@leDrompter for its studio on Ironbridge Read. He further s~ated Comcast has also ag:mad to provisions in the amended ordinance Which will strengthen ~puarantee~ of high custommr service standards; make line extensions easier and quicker than under curr~nt requirements; and will require Comcast to submit to performance reporting requirements and public evaluations every two years. He stated if the County commits to purchase the re~uisite terminal equipment and pay the rate~ calculat~d~ Co~cast will commit to provide Institutiunal Network (INET} services. Ha further stated Comcast's goal is to provlds a broad array of services that will allow custnmar~ to choose and requested the Board to accept Com~ast~s franchise proposal. ~r. Dwight Wood, President cf Atlan=ie Wood Communications, ~tsted t~ey ~eve been in ee~taet with the CoUnty regarding un alternative to the renewal of the sable television provider and briefly ra¥iewed the components of the syste~. requested the Beard =o defer action or deny the renewal the Cable TelevisiOn Franchise Renewal Committee~ the Board, and County administration can fairly study %hie projeo~ and noted Atlantic Wood Communications has received a commitment from their investment bankers to fund the entire project. ~r. Gao:ge ~eadlea sta~ed he feels ~he process is already in the last 9tags e~d that it is too late tc review any other eye=ems being offered, therefore, t~e Board shoBld make decision on the renewal at this time. Mr. William Penal stated he was unable to receive cable service fo: approximately two years and he fesl~ cable companies should mak~ a commitment t~ install cable as subdivisions are being built. He further stated he does not want his cable bill to in~rease and that the propo=ed iS-year Ther~ being no one else to address this issue, the public ~h~n asked, Nr. ~ioas stated under tho existiDg Federal Cable Communications (FCC) regulatione~ the question before the Board today is whether Comcast meets community needs and not whether someone ca~ potentially provide a b~tter service. community needs. of Comcas~'~ £ranchise ham bean in the process for approximately three years, therefore, he feels action should Mr. Daniel inquired as to whether there is a mechanism for anyone te provide £ranchi~a ~ervice in ~he County. ~r, Micas anyone can ¢om~ to %he Coun=y and provide %ranchis~ he also feels Comcast has lived up to the spirit of the franchise that was awarded in providing a public service. Mr. Barber stated he fa@la the INET system is very i~portan~ and that th~ County ne~ds this service, particularly in the should be done in reviewing the possibility of the County been made by Comcast and feels Comcast has negotiated in good fee structure, he would be prepared to vote in favor at that time. interested parties in the county and that comcast is aware of He further stated Comcast will work with the County to come back to the Beard a~ its July 27, 1994 meeting with a f~ =ap regarding the INET System to allow the Board to thi~ particular issue. ~- Dopp stated he is unsure cf the structure, however, Comcast wou~d begin addressing it a~ Discussion, comments, and queatlon~ en~ued relative to the number of TN~T Systems in place with fee struoture~; ~heth~r it is appropriate t~ defer action on this issue fo~ thirty crdlnanca; a subjective reasonableness test being included in the ordinance; the language being tied into reasonable and comparable rates charged by other systsms which may be developed over the years; ~he agreement between the County and Comcast ~xpiring at the end of Auqu~t, 199~; en~ the ~oard making a decision at ~hls time that calls for a 15-year consider everything on the table and assess ~he value of ~he that are already in pla=~ by deferring auUion. television; to authorize ~he County Administrator to enter into a franchise agreement with Comcast on terms approved by the Boa~d in a form apprcve~ by the County Attorney; and to Mr. Barber inquired as to ~hether Comcast feels the County time ~ith the issue of the INET System being reviewed. Mr. Dopp stated th~ process sometime= changes from day to day and issue at this time with the caveat that languag~ san contiDu~ There was brief dJsou~ion r~lative to the INET System and keeping the proposal .~pen enough to. respond to new technology. ~. Barbsr statsd he feels the Board should defer astion fo~ thirty days tS a~low staff to inoorporate the necessary language as it relates to the INET System. ~LT. Warren stated he feels the franchise with CoMcast should necessary language to addre~ the IKET issue. He further stated a thirty-day deferral should not negativ~!y impact Como&~t as he feel~ they have the ~upport of the Board and if neg~tlatisns ~rsa~ down while reviewing ~he INET issue, the Board will address that issue ut that time. FLr. Warren then made a motion for the Board to defer consideration of em=sting ints a franchise agreement with Comcast and adoption of amendment5 to the County ordinance rsgul=tlng cable ~elsvision until July 27, 1994 to allow staff to come back to the B~ard with a d~flnitive statement to ~ssolve nny differences regarding access charges related ~Lr. Daniel statsd he feels the agrEemEnt wi~h Comoes~ meets the majority of th= recommendations and although the INET System ia an issue, it shoul~ not ~lace the other issues in information available a~ ~his ~ime on tke INET System and indicated he could not ~u~ort tha ~oticn. s2aff to r~vlsw and address the INET issue and will not negatively imDsot the S~pport of the Board in renewing the franchise. consideration of enterin~ into a franchise agreement with Comcant and adoptioD of amendments to the County ordinance regulating Gable television until July 27, 1994 to allow Staff to come back to the Board with a definitive staaEmEnt to the INET System. 16.C, TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANC~ TO ~/~ND T~ CODE Nr. Stith stated this date and time has been advertised for a' residential building permit fees~ spsoifisslly to inoreaee the fees for new residential construction. 94-50~ 6/22/~4 Mr. George Beadles stated he mupport~ the building permit increase as he does not feel the increase will negatively impact new homes being built in the County. Richmondj stated they are sympathetic of the homeowners who are e~porienoing problems related to shrink/swell soil, further stated the Association feels this matter is a private ~ono~rn be%ween the homeowner and the builder and/er the home buyers by making them bear the cost of a private matter in which they are not involved; and that the solution is to warranty companies to re~olve their ~ituation~ on a ca~e-by- ease basle. ~r, ~ike DUMOn~ state~ he has been a builder in the county builder= initiated warranties in order to provide ten years assooiated with ~hr~nk/swell ~oil. Mr. Arthur Avant mtated he supports HOW; that his main involvement in the HOW program has been to protect homeowners and himself~ and that the main reason for bringing the HOW homeowners. He further seated ~e is aNa~e many people are dissatisfied with HOW, however, HOW management staff has ~r. Lloyd Poe presented a briss ali~e presentation on shrin~/ swell ~oil actual repair costs versus low and high estimates on County citizen~; and that he fe~l~ this particular is a private matter. that he is opposed to the proposed fee increase; that he does that the County currently has the highest building permit ~r~ Uchn Dyke sta~ed he is a home builder in the County~ that ha fmol~ new homeowner5 should not be Denalized~ that this and companies that the county is too expensive to de business with; that the County has some of the highest building fees of this year, Henrico County's building permit fees were up Chesterfield County's building permit fees were down percent; that ~OW has done a substantial amount in assisting homeowners; that builder~ in the county have been af~ectmd by this problem due to le~ of bn~in~s~ a~d that he does not feel the fee will accomplish what everyone hopes i: w~ll. He by the County when the homes were visited, and to clarify that all crack5 ~re not due to shrink/swell soil. ~e also Comnty'~ findings for the cost of repa~r~ i~ ~ub~tantially le~ than estimates given by ~he engineering firms. stated hs feels the County should allow this issue to be resolved by the warranty companies, individuals, and buildsr~. Hr. Robert Kamas ~tated his home was damaged by shrink/swell soil; that he has not received any funds from the county to repair his home; that he feels the builders have created this problem~ that he feels the HOW warranty was designed to protect the builder not the homeowner; that the proposed ~ee is tied into a sunset clause; and that he supports the The~e bei~ no one elsa to address thi~ ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Hr. Barber stated the engineers performed general inspections and the actual repairs were much lower than esLimated. He fu~t~er stated he is prepared to vote in favor of the pro~osed fee increase based on Mr. C~ihe~t~s efforts who had meetinqs with th~ home build~s and i~ ~hich tko Board was it contributed to any type of solution. }{r. Daniel ~tated he originall~ questioned the proposed fee increase an~ whether it was a~tually tied to building relating to shrink/swell soil and stated the Board was given tho assurano~ there wcul~ be ns opposftion to the proposed f~e. ~e further stated he previously questioned the home guarantee cf loans and voted in favor because he felt ~inee the Board agreed to a comprehensive method of assisting homeowners and he feels all industries involved should hear the responsibility of correcting the problem. He further increase and he feels if ~r. Colbert were present at the was no opposition~ but sine~ that tim~, opposition has surfaced. He stated the proposed fee increase is an approach citizens who hav~ ~perionoed damage from shrink/swell soil. Nr, ~oHals atate~ he ~eele the Board moved in the right direction by adopting the proposal relating to ~hrink/swell soil and he supports the proposed fee increase. on ~Q~ion of ~r. ~ar~sr, ssconde~ ~y Mr. War~en, the Board B~ IT 0~DAIN~D by th~ Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield county ~hat: {1) The Code of the County of Che~t~rfield~ 1978, a~ amende~, is amended by amending Section 6-4 as follows: removal, demolition or other building operation for construction required by the several provisions of th~ virginia uniform Stateside Building Code shall be issusd until the fee~ prescribed in this ~¢tion ehall have been 94-~07 6/22~94 paid. No amendment to a permit necessitating an additional fee because of ~n increase in the estimated cost of the work paid. All such permits shall be issued by the Building Official on for~ approved and furnished by his office, Thc fees for permits shall be baaed upon the project eo~t for those listed in %he Marshall and swift Index or evaluation of ~uilding costs as apprsve~ by the ~uilding official. Minimum accepted costs will be adjusted annually cn July · to refleo~ change~ in cost of construction. The Buildin~ Official may assess additional fees when a review of the permit application or plans shows that sufficient fees have not been paid. Fees will be charged in accordance with the following schedule: (t) RESIDENTIAL NE~; CONSTRUCTION Minimum fee beg~nnlng July £, 1999 .......... Beginning ~uly 1¢ i999, each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of the es%imaged construction ess% ............ Until July 1, 1999, a fee of plus $4.25 for each one thousan~ dollars er fraction thereof of the estimated construction cost .............. ~.$225.00 p&us $4.25 D. Unfinished interior square footage ........... Each on~ thoufand dollars or fraction cost .......................................... $4.25 c. Unfinished e×t~rior square footage: M~nimum fee .................................. $35.00 Each one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of the estlmated construction co~t .......................................... d. Residential Add~tiens: Minimum fee .................................. $50.00 ~ach one thousand dollars or fraction thereof of the estimated con,traction cost .......................................... $4.25 repairs, accessory buildin¢~ and ~osting qv¢~ Minimum fee .................................. $35.00 Each one ~hcusand dollars or fraction th~of of th~ e~bimat~d con~truction cost .......................................... $4.25 ~.Carpsr%~, canopies, pole gazebos, and pavilions: ~. Re-reefs, siding, chimney reline and raplace~ent window~ ...................... $35.00 h. Mob±l~ ~n mobile home parks ......................... i. Residential temporary certificates of OCCUpancy a e~ten~ion~ ....................... $35.00 j. Residential requests fey refund .............. $35.00 Abstention: k. R~eldentlal swiping pools (above and in-q~o~nd): Estimated cost of $2,000 or less ............. $3~.00 Each additional $1,OOO or fraction thereof of the estimated construction cost ............ $6.00 i. Foundation pour inspections ................. $325.00 out-of- specification concrete is utilized ................... $100.00 (additional) the Concrete has been cancelled or delayed in e~oess of one hour ...... $1~0.00 (additional) AS an alternative to the COUnty's foundation pour inspection provided for in subsection (1) herein, the building official shall accept inspection reports from engineers satisfying independence, qualifications, and reliability Statewide Building Code. It was generally agreed ~o reues~ for 10 ~inutes, Mr. MoHale $~ted Item 16.D., Public Hearing to Consider the Old Gun/Robi©u~ Road Area Plan, an Amendment to the 19a6 ~orthern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, Part of the County's Comprehensive Plam, ha~ been moved to ~ollow Item 17., Requests for Rezonin~ as all but one of tho zoning · ?. REOUEST8 FOR RNZONING 94SN§2~3 In Midlethiun Magisterial District, W;%LTER L, L~TO~CA requested razcning from Re~i~entlal (R-15} with Conditional Use Planned Development to Residential (R-15). ~pan~fon of e~i~ing church facilities ie planned, However~ ~ith the approval cf this request, the property could b~ ~eveloped for other permitted Residential IR-15) uses. Residential use of up to 2.9 units per acre i~ permitted in a Residential (R-15) Dis~rict. The Co~prehe~siYe Plan designate~ the property far planned transition area ~se, This request lies on ~.~ acr~s k~own as 510 Coalfield Road. Tax MaD 25-4 (1) Parcel 6 ($h~t 7). Mr. 3acob~on prese~d a ~ummary Qf Case ~4SN0203 an~ s~atad the Planning Co~mi~si~n and staff recommends approval and acceptance o~ the proffered condi~ien~. ~e noted th~ request ~onforms to the Mic[l~thian Area ~lan_ ~r. Charlie Pike, representing the applicant, ~tate~ %h~ recommendation is acceptable, There was no opposition present. approved Case 945N0203 and accepted the following p~o£fere~ conditions: 1. At such time that public sewer is within 200 feet of tbs All driveways and parking areas shall be screened from view of the adjacent property to the north. The exact method of ~creening shall be approved by the Planning Department at the tine of site plan review. At such time the adjacent property to the north is zoned and/or used for non-residential use, this condition may be deleted by the Director of Planning through th= site plan review process, 3. With the e~ue~tion o~ set,acks, d~¥elopment shall conform to the requirements of the zoning Ordinance for office, commercial, and industrial u~es in Emerging Growth Areas. 4. The parking and buildlng setback along Coalfield Road shall b= a minimum of fifty (50) feat from the ultimate right of way. $. To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of complete site development, the developer shall be responsible far the following: A. Construction cf additional pavement along ccal£ield Road at the approved access to provide left and right turn lanes, if warranted by County standards. B. Dedication to and for the benefit of the County cf Chesterfield, frae and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement) required for the improvements identified above. 6. ~rlor to ~ite plan approval, a phasing plan for th~ road improvenenta identified in Proffer 5 shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportatio~ Qepart~ent. Absent: Mr. Colbert. In ~atoaca Magisterial bis~rict, CONSTRUCTION ~4ANA~E~ENT~ INCo requested Conditional Use to per. it boarding and overnight care for a Corporate Office (O-~) District. The density ~f such amen~men~ will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan d~signates the property ~or mixed use corridor. This request lies on 0.7 acres known as 13619 Hull Street Road. Tax Map 75-4 (1) ~arcel ~ (~hee~ 20). ~r. ~a¢obson presented a summary of Case 94SN0204 and stated the Planning Commission and ~taff recommend~ approval and acceptance of the proffered conditiens. Hs noted the request conforms to th~ U~er ~wift Creek ~lan. M~. Jeff Keit~ one cf the applicants, stated the recommendation is acceptable. ~4-510 6/22/94 I I Mr. Willia~ F~ai ~tated he resides in Deer Run Su~divislon and that he Delieves the sign listing the zoning amendment is mot on the prope~ lot and that the lot. back~ into the recreation field, therefore, ha would lika a fence installed as a buffer. He expressed conc~rn~ relative to a ~oar~ing kennel being in ciG.se p~oximity to a library am far as noise control and the proce~ that i~ taken to dispese of deceased animals. Mr. Jacobsen stated the proposal will no% affect the design cf the c£fics uses; that the County does not requirs fencin~ within the 50 foot b~ffer and staff will require a 50 foot buffer, unless reduced by the Planning commim~ion through site plan review; that the request i~ to consider adding to the office U~e~ and a veterinary office, which is a permlttmd use; that the applicant is only boarding ahd caring for animals overnlgh~ and will nut have any type of outdoor ca,es or runs; and that th~ Planning Commls~ion has reviewed the request and recommends approval. On motion of Kr. ~arber~ seconded by ~. Warren~ the Board epproYed Case 945N0204 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1, Th~ public was~ewater system shall be used. 2, Prior te site plan approval, 100 feet of right of way on centerllne of that part of Rou~e 360 immediately adjaaen~ to the property shall ~s ~edicated, frae and unrestricted, to and for the benefit cf Che~t~rflald County. 3. No direct acces~ shall ~s provided to Route 360. A~ess to Route 360 shall be provided through the ~dj~=en% property to the east. 4. Prior to the issuance o~ am occupancy parmit~ a~ additional lane of pavement shall be constructed along the eastbound lanes of Rou~e 360 for the entire property frontage. Any additional right of Way (or easements) required for this im~rovsment shall be dedicated~ free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. Ayes: Mr. NuHala, Mr. Barber, Mr. Daniel~ and NLT- Warren. Ansent: Mr. Colbert. 94~0~0~ In Dale ~agisterla~ Di~tri~t~ L~RRY ~, ~O~DM~E requssted Conditional Us~ to permit a convalsscen~ home and residential multi-family u~e~ ~n an Agricultural (A) District. Th~ ~ensity eS such amendment will be controlled by coning condition~ or ordinance standa~d~. The Comprehensive Plan designate~ %he property ~or residential usa of 4,01 to 7.00 units per acre. This request lies un 9.9 acres fronting approximately 670 feet on the east line of ~rau~e Road, (1) Parcsl 2 CSheat Plan. recommendation is acceptable. There was no opposition 94-511 6/22/94 on motion of Ms. Daniel, seconded by Mr~ Barber, the Board approved Case ~4SN0205 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. With regards to the ~ulti family portion of the assignee(s) ~hall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield Drier ~o the time of building permi~ application for infrastructure improYemen%s within the A. 57% Of $5,D43 per unit~ if paid on or prior to June 2©, 19947 or to exceed 57% of $5,083 per lot adjusted upward by any increase in t~e ~arsha%% and Swift Building Comt Index between July 1~ 1993 and July 1 of the ~iseal year in which the payment is made if paid after June ~0, 1994. 2. Residents of the project will m~t the requirements for "age ~S o~ over" housing aa met forth in 3607 of the Fair Home,hq Act, 42 USCS ~S01 et. as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of end 100.384 of Subtitl~ B - Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development, Part 100, Subpar% E se~.. 4~1-90 Edition, in effect as of the date of the rezoning. The foregoing notwithstanding, no permon under the age of 19 shall ~e entitled to reside a~ Property. 3. Aoceam to Krause Road shall be limited to one entrance/exit. The e~act location of this access shall be approved by the Transportation Department. To provid~ for an ad~quat~ roadway system at the ti~e Of complete development, the developer shall be responsible for the following: A, Construction of additional pavement along Erausm Road at the approved access to provide a right turn lane. B, Relocation of the ditch to provide ~n adequate shoulder along the east side of Krau~e Road for the entire property frontage. ¢, Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted! any additional right-of-way (or ea~ement~) required for the improvements iden~ifled 5. ?flor to mite plan approval, a phasing plan for the required read improvement~ identified in proffered condition 4 shall be submitted to and approved by the 6. The public wastewater system shall bm used. 7. With the exception cf timbering %0 remove ~ead or diseased trees which has bee~ approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestry, there ~hall be no timbering ~ntil a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Envirennental Engineering Department. 94-512 6/22/94 Ayes: Absent: The density of any multiple family uses shall be limited portion of the property devoted to such uses. 9. The uses permitted shall be limited to: A, Multiple family dwellings recreational area :squirements, any multiple family uses shall confok"m to (R-MF) standards cf th~ ~oning I1, The architectural style of this development shall be compatible with and provide a transition between the adjacent singl~ family residential subdivision, multiple family complez and public facilities. Mr. Colbert. In Dale Magisterial District, TH= CHESTERFIELD COU~q'~Y PLANNING COMMISSION requested re~oning f~cm Agricultural IA) to Residential (R-9). This aching will allow residen=ial use on existing lots which have already been r~cord~d developed. ~esidential use of uD to 4.s4 units per sore p~rmitted in e Residential (R-9) District. The Comprehensive Plan designats~ the property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 ~nits pe~ acr~. This request lies on 1.1 acres known as 74~5, 7501 and 7507 Summertr~e Drive and 5~o4 and 5505 Yellowleaf Drive. Tax ~up 66-13 (7) Willowh~rst, Seotion Block D, Part of Lots ~, 3 an~ 4 and Tax Map 66-13 ~ilmar, Section C, Lots i and 5 (~heet the Planning Commission and staff recommends approval. Me noted the request conformg to the c~ntral Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. There was ~c oppositio~ p~esent. On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board appreved Case 945N021~. Ayes: Mr. McHals, Mr. Barber, Er. Daniel, and Zr. Warren. Absent: Mr. Colbert. 94S~0175 In Midlot~ian Msgisterial Distri=t, SOMMERVILLE DEVELOPMENT ~OR~OR~TION requested amundsen% te Conditional Use Planned Development (case 87S064) relative to uses and buffers. Single family r~sidential and light industrial uses are planned. The dens~ty ef such amendment will bs controlled by ~oning condition~ or Ordinance st~ndard~. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for ~egicnal ~ixed use. This r~quest lies in Light Indu~trlal (I-l) and Residential (R-9) Districts on 61.88 acres lying app~okimately 200 feet off the eas~ line of Ottsrdale Road, approximately 1,400 ~e~ north of Midlothian Turn, iRe. Tax Map 15-~ (1) Punt of Parcel an~ Ta~ ~ap 15-6 (I) Par= Of ~arcel 4 (Shoe= ?). 6/22194 Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Ca~ 94SN0173 and stated the Planning Commission recommends approval subject to conditions. He further stated ~taff recommends denial as the proposed amendment does not conform with the UDDer Swift Creek Plan, which designates the property for regional mimed Mr. Andrew Scherzar, representing ~ha applicant, s%ate~ the Planning Commi~ion'~ reOOmme~datio~ iS acceptable. Mr. George Beadles expressed concerns relative to ~he difficulty in understanding language in ~he cass as it C~esaDeake Bay and stormwatsr management designs and sta~d he feels the language will be confusing to the average citizen. Mrs. Fays Palmer, President of the S~lisbury Home~wuuers Association, stated the Association supports single family dwellings for this area and clarified that the Upper Swift Creek Plan was developed after the zenlng for Sc~marville, therefor=, it ~hould have been grandfath~red and that the developer should be able to develop the land as residential. proposal end the County's Economic Development Department looked at ~he property and assured that the property could not and would not be developed commercially, therefore, he feels this case warrants changing. Mr, Barber then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for condi=ions: 1. The Textual statement dated May 6, 1994, and the plan prepared by Balzer and As~ociat~, dated Decentber 2~, 1993, shall be considered the Master Plan. (CPC) (NOTE: Thi~ oonditicn ~up~de~ Condition i of Case ~75U64 and Condition 16 of Casa $7S064 for that portion of the request ~ro~erty only. All other ~onditions of Case 87SQ64 remain applicable.) With the exception uf timbering to remove dasd er disea~®d tree~ which has been approved by the Virg~nla Prate Department o~ ~orestry, there shall be no timber,ns until a land disturbance De,mit has been obtained from ~e Envlrcnmantal Engineering Department end the approved devica~ installed. (EE) Absent: Mr. colbert. ~. Gle~ ~arsun, Chief cf Cumprehensiv~ Planning, stated =his dubs and time ham been advertised for e public hearing to consider the proposed Ol~ Gun/Re~ious Area Plan. an amendment to the 1986 North93CD A~e.a__Lal~d..Use and Transportation Plan, par~ of the County's Comprehensive Plan. He further mtated in the Fall of 1993, the Board requested the Planning Department to review recommendations of the 1986 Northern %~9a Plan for the area roughly bounded by Euguenot Road, Wintmrfield Road. %he Powhaten county line~ and the James River. Ha presented a slide presentation on the Old Gun/Rebious Area Plan and stated based on a review of 94-514 ~/22/94 existing conditions, including the psttern of development since 1985, staff prepared a new proposed plan for the area~ tho Old Gun/R~bio~ Road Area Plan. He stated staff's original reconu~endation f~r the Plan included reducing the recommended density~in most of the area f~om 1.5 units per acre or less to I dwelling per acre or less; that staff recommended the northwestern Dart Of the area remain ut 1.5 dwellings per acre or less; that the northeast earner of Winterfield and Salisbury Roads bs deslgnat~d a~ a neighborhood convenience cemter; and a smaller area along Kuguenot Road have a residential density of 1.5 to 4 units par acre. Hu further stated at its April 26, 1994 mestlnq! the Planning Commission acted to recommend that the Board cf supervisors adopt the Old..~DD/Robious Area Plan with the provision of the original staff recommended density in the far northwestern portion of t~e planning e~ea be reduced from 1.5 dwellings per acre or less to 1 dwelling per acre o~ and as Dart of the same ~otion, the Planning Commission also voted to request the Board consider simultaneously, with the adoption of this Plan, whether or not it is appropriate to r~call the Riverton Zoning Case. Nr. Mc~al~ ularifi~d that the Planning Commission's reoo~sndation on the Plan amendment will only change land use plans and will not affect existing zoning, ~r. ~arson stated that is correct. Mrs. Fays Palm,r, President of the Salisbury Nom~own~r~ Administrator, on behalf of neighborhoods along Roblou~ Road, regarding reducing ~he reo~mmsnded density in the Northsrn and old Gun Road from 1.5 units Dar acre to not to exceed 1 unit per acre due to changes in the area ~uch a~ th~ addition of Jamm~ R~ve~ ~igh and Betty W~avsr ~lementary Bohools. She showed a video presentation of traffic on Robious Roa~, from Salisbury Road to the intersection of 5uguenot Road, and stated fram 198~ to 199~ traffic increased by ~1 percent at the in=er~ec~icn of Salisbury and Robious Roads; that the undevelope~ property along Robieus Read falls under the Chesapeake Bay ~reservation Aut; that higher rssidsntial d~n~ty will only bring ~ore ~raffiu to winterfleld and Salisbury Roads; that she fesl~ the density of the Salisbury neighborhood should ~t a precedent for ~his aras; and requssted the Board to support maintaining an area thab is and can remain a desirable par~ of the county. Ms. virginia ~ickey, President of the Old ~un Road Association, stated the Association i~ not against change, but does not want added humus un tho remaining lots to increase density and add traffic and that there is ~sun~ially only uno road into this aras an~ oas road Sh~ reed into tbs record a latter sent to the Board from an area resident supporting one house per acre and requested the Board to amend the Northern Ar~a Land Use and Plan tc allow for one house per acrs. Ms. Keri Easterly stated she is e resident of Old Gun Road; that eleven neighborhood asso¢iatien~ want the Master Plan c~anged to reflect one house per acre on the remaining undeveloped land and the associations met this month and reaffirmed that consensus; that residents in the arsa want to ~ini~i~ n~gativ~ i~pacts a~d ma×i~iBe ~he natural b~auty and historical significancs in this arsa; and re~ue~t~d the Board ~u assist in keeping tho density down by opposing the Mr. John Bain ~tated hs is a resident of Roxshire subdivision; that he shares th~ co~er~s that have been 94-~15 6/22/94 proposed change in residenhial density to one unit per acre or less; that residents of Roxshire are concerned about the increase of traffic on Rebious Road and the impact On the environment if the development is approved; that land use density o£ one acre or less, the area covered by impervious material will be less than lB percent of the total sit~ ar~a would require holding ponds for stormwater run-off and pollution control; and requested the Board to ~upport the Mr. Bruce Clark, Director of the O1A ~un/Robious Road Association on Old Gun Road East, stated he would like th~ area to re~ain th~ ~ame. Michael Kelly, Esquire stated he has resided in the County for approximately thirty-one years and that he is speaking as special counsel for the tames River Development Corporation and Mr. Lawrence Ashinoff. He further stated they are opposed to th~ ~ensity reduction; that they ~eeI the cur'rent Northern Area Land U~e Plan will funotio~ ~t a~ m~ll for future zoning cases as it did for Riverton; that his clients feel they have b~n m~de to ~uffer a~ part of a compromise investigate changes that huve occurred for any need for dwelling pe~ acre i~ unsupported ~y logic, by staff research, amd by zoning history in the County for this area. ~s can do now or in the future to stop Robious Road and Pewhatan County from developing in the manner in which the County may not like and feels it would be beneficial to have large lots Robious Road is developed, i~ wall have traffic problems and not cau~ major traffic congestion problems; and that hs hopes the State and federal governments will not allow road lanes to continue being added to existing roads as it relates become more involved in the zoning process and ~hat the and requested the ~eard to consider the Planning Ce~i~sion~s recommendation and support the ~esidents in the area by giving favorabl~ consideration to one unit par acre. There being no cna alms to address this issue, the public hearing was clo~d. could obtain their desired outcome and citizen input wag limited, however, this Board has collectively welcomed citizen input. ~e stated the d~velopm~nt plan was not part meeting~ regarding this issue in an effort to obtain citizen input. Mr. Berber then made a motion, s~cended .bY Mr. War~en, for the Board to adopt the Old Gun/Roblous Area Plan, an a~end~ent to the 1986 No,thegn Ar~u Land Use and Transportation Plan{ part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Hr. Daniel $%ated he concurs wi~h =he comments expressed and also f~els there has been a significant nuntber of changes mince 1986. He further stated that in 1986~ 1.2 and dwellings per acre for this area was reasonable bu= is not reasonable today, therefore~ he ~upporta ~ dwelli~q per acre. Mr. Warren stated the focus of the Board is for planned, managed growth and adoption of the Plan i~ an ~xample of the Board taking t~ia into consideration. M~. Barbe~ noted ~any improvements needed on Rebioum Road have been added to the Six Year Kead Improvement Plan~ which is the first step in having improvement~ made. Mr. Mc~al~ called for th~ vote, on the motion made ~y Bar, er, seocn~e~ by ~r. Warren, for th~ ~oard to ado~ 91d Guu/Robious Area Plan~ an umendment to the !986 ~orthern Area Land Use and TransRortation Plan, part cf t~m County's Comprehensive Plan. Ayes: Mr. ~cHal~, Mr. Barber, Mr. Daniel! and ~. Warren, Absent: ~r. (It is noted a copy of the Plan is filed with the papers of this Board.) 16. ADJOUP~ENT Os motion of ~r. ~arber~ seconded by Mr. McHele, the Board adjourned at 10:20 p-m, un=il July ~7, 1994 at ~:00 p.m. Ayes; Kr. ~oHa!~, Mr. Darber, Mr. Daniel, and ~r. Warren. Absent: Kr. Colbert.