2011-04-27 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
April 27, 2011
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Arthur S. Warren, Chairman
Ms. Dorothy A. Jaeckle, Vice Chrm
Mr. James M. Holland
Ms. Marleen K. Durfee
Mr. Daniel A. Gecker
Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Mike Bacile, Dir.,
Purchasing
Dr. Sheryl Bailey, Dep.
County Administrator,
Management Services
Ms. Janice Blakley,
Clerk to the Board
Ms. Patsy Brown, Dir.,
Accounting
Mr. Allan Carmody, Dir.,
Budget and Management
Ms. Mary Ann Curtin, Dir.,
Intergovtl. Relations
Mr. Jonathan Davis, Dir.,
Real Estate Assessments
Mr. Will Davis, Dir.,
Economic Development
Ms. Debbie Dugger, Dir.,
Adolescent
Reporting Program
Mr. William Dupler,
Dep. Co. Administrator,
Community Development
Ms. Kelly Fried, Asst. Dir.,
Mental Health
Mr. Michael Golden, Dir.,
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Lawrence C. Haake, III,
Registrar
Mr. John W. Harmon,
Real Property Manager
Dr. Parham Jaberi, Dir.,
Health Department
Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir.,
Public Affairs
Mr. Rob Key, Director,
General Services
Mr. Louis Lassiter, Asst.
County Administrator
Mr. R. John McCracken,
Dir., Transportation
Mr. Richard M. McElfish,
Dir., Env. Engineering
Mr. Jeffrey L. Mincks,
County Attorney
Sheriff Dennis Proffitt,
Sheriff's Department
Ms. Marsha Sharpe, Dir.,
Social Services
Ms. Sarah Snead, Dep.
County Administrator,
Human Services
11-253
Mr. Kirk Turner, Dir.,
Planning
Mr. Mike Westfall, Dir.,
Internal Audit
Mr. Rick Witt, Int. Dir.,
Building Inspection
Mr. Scott Zaremba, Dir.,
Human Resource Programs
Mr. Warren called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at
3:02 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 13, 2011
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Durfee, the Board
approved the minutes of April 13, 2011, as submitted.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
2.A. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
2.B. COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE PRESENTATION
Mr. Ed DeGennaro, Chairman of the Committee on the Future,
presented highlights of the committee's current report on
lifelong learning and global understanding, titled "Preparing
Residents to Thrive in a Global Society."
Mr. Holland commended the entire committee on the
presentation and outstanding work achieved. He stated he
hoped the next report would include the concept of human
capital and a heavy dose of civics.
Ms. Jaeckle commended Mr. DeGennaro on his presentation. She
stated the community meetings were very interesting and
started a lot of people thinking about the future.
Mr. DeGennaro stated the committee brings a level of
awareness to the community. He further stated the
implementation rate of recommendations over time is very
high.
Mr. Gecker commended Mr. DeGennaro and the committee for all
the work they have done. He stated drafting a report by
consensus through the committee is a very difficult process.
In response to Mr. Gecker's question, Mr. DeGennaro suggested
forming a group of citizens made up of government, industry,
business, education and other interested parties to look at
the skills and abilities needed in a global world and what is
currently being taught and bridge the gaps. He further
suggested taking a look at technology and creating ways to
partner with business and industry.
Mr. Gecker suggested that the Joint County/School Board
Liaison Committee discuss some of the recommendations.
J
J
J
11-254
Mr. Holland stated it is important to bridge education gaps
in regards to college graduates' skills and abilities needed
for our future society.
Ms. Durfee expressed appreciation to Mr. DeGennaro and the
committee for handling challenging issues and concerns in
regards to our future workforce.
Mr. DeGennaro recognized and congratulated the members of the
committee.
2.C. HENRICUS HISTORICAL PARK PRESENTATION
Mr. Warren recognized former Board of Supervisors member
Dickie King and noted that he is very active with the history
of Chesterfield County.
Mr. Charlie Grant, Acting Executive Director of the Henricus
Historical Park, updated the Board on activities at Henricus
and provided information on the 400th Commemorative Events.
Mr. John Pagano, Chief Historical Interpreter, elaborated on
the significance of Henricus and introduced a short
documentary film to the Board.
Mr. Dickie King, Vice Chairman of the Henricus Foundation,
expressed appreciation to the Board for its continued support
and allocated funds. He highly praised Ms. Jaeckle for her
role as a member of the Henricus Foundation.
Mr. Grant recognized those in the audience who contribute to
Henricus' historical interpretation and reenactments.
Ms. Jaeckle commended the Henricus Foundation for its
continued efforts in maintaining the historical park.
Mr. Warren expressed appreciation to Ms. Jaeckle for her
support and to Henrico County for their valuable
contributions.
Ms. Jaeckle announced on May 7-8th Henricus will host an
event titled, "Mount Malady - America's First Hospital."
• Mr. Stegmaier was proud to report that last week,
Standard and Poor's Ratings Services affirmed the `AAA'
rating, with a stable outlook, on the county's general
obligation debt.
• Mr. Stegmaier provided the Board with an update on the
housing foreclosure situation as it pertains to
Chesterfield. He stated Chesterfield has seen some
marked improvement on the foreclosure front.
• Mr. Stegmaier announced that the grand opening for the
new Costco behind Chesterfield Towne Center will occur
on Thursday, May 12th at 8:00 a.m. He further stated he
has received several positive comments about how
Community Development and other staff have work hard
with the contractor to ensure that the business will
open on time.
11-255
3. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Holland announced the Dale District will hold a community
meeting on May 16th at the Meadowdale Library relative to
transportation and implementation of the ZIP Code proposal.
Ms. Durfee reported that Genito Road will not be closed and
the project will be completed in November 2012. She expressed
appreciation to Utilities and Transportation staff for their
work on the Genito Road project. She announced the Matoaca
District held a meeting on March 28th regarding the Genito
Road bridge project. She also announced she will hold a
roundtable discussion meeting on May 2nd at Second Baptist
Church.
Ms. Jaeckle reported the citizens of Broadwater Townhomes are
doing all they can to catch the perpetrator who killed 13-
year-old Devin Hawkins. She commended the Fire Department for
helping the 44 displaced residents who lost their homes in a
recent fire. She further commended the Fire Department on the
successful Flag Raising Ceremony.
4. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADDITIONS,
DELETIONS OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Durfee, the Board
replaced Item 8.B.9., Designation of FY2012 Chesterfield Road
Fund (Revenue Sharing) Projects and Corresponding Funding
Sources; and removed the Consent Agenda Item 8.b.l.f.,
Supporting the Sustainable Transportations Initiative of
Richmond, for Board discussion.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for Board
discussion:
8.B.l.f. SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
INITIATIVE OF RICHMOND
Mr. Dupler introduced Mr. Robert Crum, Executive Director of
the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission.
Mr. Crum introduced Mr. Mark Creery, Secretary of the STIR
Executive Committee, and Mr. Kim Scheeler, Chair-elect of the
STIR Executive Committee, who presented the Board with
background information regarding the Sustainable
Transportation Initiative of Richmond.
In response to Mr. Holland's question, Mr. Crum stated the
status of electric vehicles is yet to be determined and
stressed the important involvement of elected officials to
guide this subject in the right direction moving forward. He
further stated the committee is planning to present
information to other county boards in the future.
Ms. Jaeckle stated this initiative suggests a multitude of
solutions.
J
J
J
11-256
Ms. Durfee expressed appreciation to Mr. Crum and those
involved with STIR for their presentation. She stated even
though we have different transportation modes in the Richmond
region, the purpose of the initiative is to educate and
advocate for an integrated transportation system.
On motion of Ms. Durfee, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Transportation Initiative of
Richmond (STIR) has been formed to ensure the Greater
Richmond Region's future transportation system by providing
an array of cost effective, sustainable transportation
choices all designed to move people efficiently and minimize
the environmental impact of travel; and
WHEREAS, the maintenance of a transportation system that
provides for the safe and efficient movement of people and
goods is key to the Richmond Region's quality of life and
economic well being.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors endorses the mission of STIR.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Chesterfield County
agrees to appoint a representative to the STIR Advisory
Board.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Durfee, the Board
suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/
appointment/reappointment to the Sustainable Transportation
Initiative of Richmond (STIR) Advisory Board and the Camp
Baker Management Board.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Ms. Marleen Durfee to
serve as member of the Sustainable Transportation Initiative
of Richmond (STIR) Advisory Board, effective immediately.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
5. RESOLUTIONS
There were no Resolutions at this time.
6. WORK SESSIONS
There were no Work Sessions at~this time.
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
There were no Deferred Items at this time.
11-257
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.A. APPOINTMENTS
8.A.1. CAMP BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Durfee, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed/reappointed Mr. Hubert
Urban, Mr. James Lumpkin and Mr. Robert Mills as members of
the Camp Baker Management Board, whose terms are effective
May 1, 2011 and expire April 30, 2014.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B. CONSENT ITEMS
8.B.1. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
8.B.l.a. RECOGNIZING LIEUTENANT ROBERT C. ROLLSTON, JR.,
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Robert C. Rollston, Jr. will retire
from Chesterfield Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Department, Chesterfield County, on June 1, 2011; and
WHEREAS, prior to beginning his career with Chesterfield
Fire and EMS, Lieutenant Rollston served as a dispatcher in
the Police Department from October 1979 to May 1981, and as a
deputy in the Sheriff's Department from December 1981 until
October 1982, while also serving as a volunteer firefighter;
and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston began his Fire and EMS
service as a volunteer at the Wagstaff Fire and EMS Station
in 1975 and faithfully served the citizens of Chesterfield
County for. more than 35 years, attended Recruit School #13 in
1982 and served in various assignments, as a firefighter at
the Manchester and Midlothian Fire and EMS Stations, and as a
lieutenant at the Bensley, Clover Hill, Swift Creek and Enon
Fire and EMS Stations; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston was an advanced life
support provider and an active technical rescue team member;
and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston was assigned to the Fire
and Life Safety Division in 2000 and obtained various related
certifications; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston graduated from the Virginia
Fire Marshals Academy as a sworn law enforcement officer in
November 2000; and
J
J
J
11-258
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston served on the Fire Marshals
Law Enforcement Process Action Team in 2002 and was
instrumental in establishing law enforcement sworn fire
marshals in Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston received his Department of
Criminal Justice general and firearms instructor
certifications in 2004; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston was selected for and
graduated from the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
accelerant canine handler's school in 2004 and served in that
capacity with his dog Hero for over six years; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston received a Certificate of
Commendation in 2005 for, the rescue of a citizen from a
structure fire; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Rollston obtained the necessary
requirements and experience to successfully receive his
certification as a Fire Investigator from the International
Association of Arson Investigators.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes the contributions of
Lieutenant Robert C. Rollston, Jr., expresses the
appreciation of all residents for his service to the county,
and extends appreciation for his dedicated service and
congratulations upon his retirement.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.l.b. RECOGNIZING LIEUTENANT STEVEN V. TRAYLOR, FIRE AND
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Steven V. Traylor will retire from
the Chesterfield Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Department on May 1, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Traylor joined the department as a
volunteer member in 1973, began his career attending Recruit
School #8 in 1977, and has faithfully served Chesterfield
County for 38 years in various assignments, as a volunteer
district chief at the Dale Fire Station, a firefighter at the
Wagstaff Fire and EMS Station, a sergeant at the Dutch Gap,
Bensley, and Dale Fire and EMS Stations, and as a lieutenant
at the Airport, Manchester and Buford Fire and EMS Stations;
and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Traylor has been a member of the
Hazardous Incident Team since 1993 and trained to the level
of Hazmat Specialist; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Traylor was assigned as one of the
first Tactical Safety Officers in the department; and
11-259
s
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Traylor was recognized, along with
his crew, with an EMS Unit Citation for his part in rescuing
trapped occupants from a vehicle accident in March 1995; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Traylor was recognized with an EMS
Lifesave Award for his actions in April 1995, which saved the
life of a cardiac arrest patient; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Traylor was awarded the Chesterfield
Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department Medal of
Valor, as well as an EMS Lifesave Award, for his heroic
actions during Tropical Storm Gaston in August 2004,
including breaching a roof and masonry walls, and carrying
people to safety over a makeshift ladder bridge during the
rescue of occupants at the Falling Creek Apartments, and was
also recognized by the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, receiving the Benjamin Franklin Fire Service Award of
Valor for those actions; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Traylor was recognized for being a
member of a team that rescued a tree-service worker who was
trapped 50 feet up in a tree and unable to descend due to a
malfunctioning harness in March 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes the contributions of
Lieutenant Steven V. Traylor, expresses the appreciation of
all residents for his service to the county, and extends
gratitude for his dedicated service and congratulations upon
his retirement.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.l.c. RECOGNIZING MS. YESHI LEMMA AS A CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY 2011 NATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT SCHOLARSHIP
FTAT~T.T CT
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is a four-time winner of
recognition as "One of the 100 Best Communities in America
for Young People" by General Colin Powell's organization,
America's Promise-the Alliance for Youth; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County Public Schools are
consistently rated highly for providing what parents want for
their children's education; and
WHEREAS, while the county and its schools can provide
many opportunities for young people to succeed, it is the
diligence and personal pursuit of excellence on the part of a
young person that ultimately ensures their success; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Yeshi Lemma of Manchester High School has
excelled in her academic pursuits; and
WHEREAS, this young scholar has been named as a finalist
in the 2011 National Achievement Scholarship program; and
J
J
J
11-260
WHEREAS, Ms. Lemma now has an opportunity to earn one of
approximately 800 Achievement Scholarship Awards, worth more
than $2.5 million, that will be offered this spring to
African American high school seniors who are among the
highest-scoring entrants this year; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is proud of the
accomplishments of Ms. Lemma, and on behalf of the citizens
of Chesterfield County, extends sincere congratulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes Ms. Yeshi Lemma for
her scholastic achievements, and extends best wishes for
continued academic and personal success.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.l.d. RECOGNIZING MAY 2-6, 2011, AS "BUSINESS
APPRECIATION WEEK" IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has a diverse base of
business and industry that supports our local economy; and
WHEREAS, these seven thousand four hundred seventy four
businesses are both domestically and internationally based
and range in size from very small entrepreneurial companies
to large corporations; and
WHERAS, these businesses have found Chesterfield County
to be a very attractive place to conduct business and recruit
and retain skilled employees; and
WHEREAS, nearly $120 million has been invested and 531
new jobs created by industry thus far in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011, with the total impact of County businesses being an
integral part of the local economy and vital to supporting
the high quality of life enjoyed by Chesterfield residents;
and
WHEREAS, these businesses provide 113,673 essential
employment opportunities for the residents of Chesterfield
County, as well as incorporate new technologies that make
them more competitive and sustainable long into the future;
and
WHEREAS, business tax revenues are critical in
offsetting the cost of county-provided services these
businesses created more than $165 million of new construction
in 2010 contributing more than $1.5 million an additional in
real estate tax revenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its gratitude on
behalf of county residents to all businesses and industries
located in Chesterfield for their contributions over many
years by recognizing May 2-6, 2011, as "Business Appreciation
Week . "
11-261
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this
resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.l.e. RECOGNIZING MAY 15-21, 2011, AS "NATIONAL EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK"
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, providing emergency medical services is a vital
public function; and
WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services are
ready to provide high quality lifesaving care to those in
need twenty four hours a day, seven days a week; and
WHEREAS, immediate access to high quality emergency care
dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those
who experience sudden illness or injury; and
WHEREAS, injury prevention and the appropriate use of
the EMS system will help reduce national health care costs;
and
WHEREAS, the emergency medical service is comprised of
emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical
technicians, paramedics, firefighters, communications
officers, educators, administrators and others; and
WHEREAS, working together, Chesterfield County's
emergency crews responded to more than 25,000 medical
emergencies in 2010, representing countless hours of
dedicated service to the community; and
WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services,
whether career or volunteer, engage in many hours of
specialized training and continuing education to enhance
their lifesaving skills; and
WHEREAS, the residents and guests of Chesterfield County
benefit daily from the knowledge, skills, and dedication of
these highly trained individuals; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the value and
the accomplishments of the emergency medical services
providers from Chesterfield Fire and EMS, Defense Supply
Center Richmond, Chesterfield County's Emergency
Communications Center, and the volunteer rescue squads of
Bensley-Bermuda, Ettrick-Matoaca, Forest View, and
Manchester.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes the week of May 15-21,
2011, as "Emergency Medical Services Week."
J
J
J
11-262
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this
resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.l.g. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2011, AS "FAIR HOUSING
MONTH" IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is proud to join the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development in celebrating
the 43rd anniversary of the passage of the. federal Fair
Housing Act (title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as
amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988); and
WHEREAS, the month of April has been designated by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as National
Fair Housing Month; and
WHEREAS the Fair Housing Act provides that no person
shall be subjected to discrimination because of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, disability, or familial
status in the rental, sale, financing or advertising of
housing, and the Virginia Fair Housing Law also prohibits
housing discrimination based on elderliness; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County supports the efforts of
local agencies, nonprofits, the private sector, and
individuals in ensuring compliance with Fair Housing laws;
WHEREAS, since 1994, using its allocation of federal
funds through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Chesterfield County provided housing
rehabilitation and repair to over 250 housing units, assisted
in financing over 85 units of new affordable housing and
provided assistance with down payment and closing costs for
200 first time homebuyers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes April 2011, as "Fair
Housing Month" in Chesterfield County and seeks to
affirmatively further fair housing throughout the year.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.2. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER TO UNITED REFRIGERATION OF
VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SECURITY, HVAC AND ELECTRICAL UPGRADES AT THE
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY JAIL ANNEX
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute a change order
with United Refrigeration of Virginia, Inc. in the amount of
$66,488.00 for the security, HVAC and electrical upgrades at
the Chesterfield County Jail Annex.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
11-263
8.B.3. REQUEST FOR A MUSIC/ENTERTAINMENT FESTIVAL PERMIT FOR
CHESTERFIELD BERRY FARM'S MUSIC FESTIVAL SERIES
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
granted a music/entertainment festival permit for
Chesterfield Berry Farm's Music Festival Series on Saturdays
and Sundays from April 30, 2011 through June 6, 2011.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.4. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCES
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the .Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation has advised this Board the
streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets
described below to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees
a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of
this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Project/Subdivision: Oxford Village Section A at Charter
Colony
Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways:
Reason for Change: New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1-229
Street Name and/or Route Number
• Nailor Way, State Route Number 7158
From: 0.02 miles northeast of Newburg Lane, (Route 7419)
To: 0.03 miles northeast of Newburg Lane, (Route 7419), a
distance of: 0.01 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 191, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Nailor Way, State Route Number 7158
From: 0.03 miles northeast of Newburg Lane, (Route 7419)
To: 0.06 miles northeast of Newburg Lane, (Route 7419), a
distance of: 0.03 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 191, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = var
J
J
J
11-264
• Nailor Way, State Route Number 7158
From: 0.06 miles northeast of Newburg Lane, (Route 7419)
To: Nailor Cr., (Route 7553), a distance of: 0.02 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 191, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Nailor Way, State Route Number 7158
From: 0.06 miles northeast of Newburg Lane, (Route 7419)
To: Nailor Cr., (Route 7553), a distance of: 0.02 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 191, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Nailor Way, State Route Number 7158
From: Nailor Cr., (Route 7553)
To: Nailor Cr., (Route 7553), a distance of: 0.06 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 191, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Nailor Circle, State Route Number 7553
From: Nailor Way, (Route 7158)
To: Nailor Way, (Route 7158), a distance of: 0.12 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 191, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation has advised this Board the
streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets
described below to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees
a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
AND, BE IT FURTHER .RESOLVED, that a certified copy of
this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Project/Subdivision: Hallsley Section 1 - remainder of
Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways:
Addition
Reason for Change: New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: X33.1-229
Street Name and/or Route Number
• Idstone Way, State Route Number 7550
From: Beedon Drive, (Route 7549)
To: Ripon Road, (Route 7551), a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
11-265
• Idstone Way, State Route Number 7550
From: Ripon Road, (Route 7551}
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Beedon Drive, State Route Number 7549
From: Idstone Way, (Route 7550)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.04 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 50
• Beedon Drive, State Route Number 7549
From: Old Hundred Road, (Route 652)
To: Idstone Way, (Route 7550), a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 50
• Draycot Drive, State Route Number 7454
From: Baltrey Lane, (Route 7552)
To: 0.05 miles south of Baltrey Lane, (Route 7552), a
distance of: 0.05 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Baltrey Lane, State Route Number 7552
From: Ripon Road, (Route 7551)
To: Draycot Drive, (Route 7454), a distance of: 0.14 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Draycot Drive, State Route Number 7454
From: Baltrey Lane, (Route 7552)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.04 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Baltrey Lane, State Route Number 7552
From: Ripon Road, (Route 7551)
To: Cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.02 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
• Ripon Road, State Route Number 7551
From: Idstone Way, (Route 7550)
To: Baltrey Lane, (Route 7552), a distance of: 0.08 miles.
Recordation Reference: Pb. 174, Pg. 1
Right of Way width (feet) = 44
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.5. REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION
8.B.5.a. FROM ANDREW L. WILHELM AND TIFFANY N. WILHELM FOR A
PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH WITHIN A TWENTY-FOOT
SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND A TEN-FOOT EASEMENT
ACROSS LOT 21, FOREST VIEW, SECTION 4
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
granted Andrew L. Wilhelm and Tiffany N. Wilhelm permission
for a proposed fence to encroach within a 20' sewer and
drainage easement and a 10' easement across Lot 21, Forest
View, Section 4, subject to the execution of a license
J
J
11-266
agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the
papers of the Board.)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.5.b. FROM JOE BYRD AND TERESA L. BYRD FOR APROPOSED
ABOVE GROUND SWIMMING POOL TO ENCROACH WITHIN AN
EIGHT-FOOT EASEMENT AND A TEN-FOOT TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 1, SECOND BRANCH,
SECTION 2, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 10 AND 11
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board.
granted Joe Byrd and Teresa L. Byrd permission for a proposed
above ground swimming pool to encroach within an 8' easement
and a 10' temporary construction easement across Lot 1,
Second Branch, Section 2, Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11,
subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted
a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of the Board.).
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.5.c. FROM MICHAEL H. LACKEY, JR. AND JENNIFER L. LACKEY
FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH WITHIN A SIXTEEN-
FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 9, GREENSIDE,
SECTION ONE, AT RIVER'S BEND
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
granted Michael H. Lackey, Jr. and Jennifer L. Lackey
permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 16'
drainage easement across Lot 9, Greenside, Section One, At
River's Bend, Subject to the execution of a license
agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the
papers of the Board.)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.5.d. FROM MARK A. MACINNIS FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO
ENCROACH WITHIN AN EIGHT-FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS LOT
14, SEDWICK VILLAGE, SECTION B AT CHARTER COLONY
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
granted Mark A. MacInnis permission for a proposed fence to
encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 14, Sedwick
Village, Section B at Charter Colony, subject to the
execution of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the
plat is filed with the papers of the Board.)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.5.e. FROM WACHOVIA BANK FOR A SIGN TO ENCROACH WITHIN A
TEN-FOOT WATER EASEMENT ACROSS PROPERTY ON
MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
granted Wachovia Bank permission for a sign to encroach
11-267
within a 10' water easement across property at 13530
Midlothian Turnpike, subject to the execution of a license
agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the
papers of the Board.)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.6. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE
AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING CONTRACT WITH AAC
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC, TO PROVIDE UTILITIES STAFF
WITH AN ADDITIONAL TWO MONTHS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES FOR THE NEW CUSTOMER
INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT REPLACES THE EXISTING BILLING
SYSTEM
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute an amendment
to an existing contract with AAC Technology Partners, LLC, in
an amount up to $45,866, for additional two months to provide
Utilities staff with project management and quality assurance
services for the new Customer Information System, with the
ability, under the authorization of the County Administrator,
to extend services an additional two months if further
project implementation and/or staff training services are
needed.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.7. DESIGNATION OF A VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG BRANDERMILL
PARKWAY
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
designated a Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easement along Brandermill Parkway and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the Declaration. (It is noted a copy
of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
8.B.8. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM SIXTEEN-FOOT SEWER EASEMENTS
ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF FERN SPRINGS LLC
On motion of Ms. Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate
16' sewer easements across the property of Fern Springs LLC.
(It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of
the Board.)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
J
J
J
11-268
The following item was removed from the Consent Agenda for
Board discussion:
8.B.9. DESIGNATION OF FY2012 CHESTERFIELD ROAD FUND (REVENUE
SHARING) PROJECTS AND CORRESPONDING FUNDING SOURCES
Mr. McCracken stated this proposal is an opportunity for the
county to seek additional matching funds with VDOT for
various transportation improvements. He further stated the
three options presented to the Board all involve priority
projects and some level of local project developments.
In response to Mr. Gecker's question regarding the widening
of Route 10, Mr. McCracken stated the cost estimate for the
project is $4 million. He further stated the $2.5 million
proposed in Alternate C for the Route 360 project would
complete improvements from Winterpock Road to Woodlake
Village.
Mr. Gecker stated the ability to begin and complete projects
is a high priority.
Mr. McCracken stated if the Commonwealth Transportation Board
sees that there is a strong interest by local governments to
address transportation problems, there should be support for
providing funds in the future.
In response to Ms. Durfee's question, Mr. McCracken stated
today was very active in terms of discussions with Board
members in compiling the three, alternatives. He further
stated the job of Transportation staff is to carry out the
will of the Board. He further stated each district has
individual needs, which are taken into consideration.
Ms. Durfee stated research data and supporting documents are
required to determine transportation needs. She expressed
concerns regarding lack of supporting language regarding Hull
Street from Winterpock Road to Hampton Park Drive and the
current bottleneck issue.
In response to Ms. Durfee's concerns regarding the widening
of Route 360, Mr. McCracken stated the priority list approved
by the Board was the determining factor staff used in terms
of allocating funds.
Ms. Durfee stated supporting
the bottleneck issues on Route
the county.
language is needed to address
360 or any particular area in
Mr. Holland stated he supports the idea of completing large
projects and getting the most out of the allocated funds. He
expressed concerns regarding lack of interest in road
projects within the Dale District.
Ms. Jaeckle expressed appreciation to Mr. McCracken and his
staff for their hard work. She stated it is important to
focus on the transportation system to support economic
development within .the county, not only in specific
districts.
In response to Mr. Warren's questions, Mr. McCracken stated
all three alternatives were approached in regards to the
priority list the Board approved. He further stated
11-269
Attachment B identifies the projects for the original $2
million magisterial district rotation. He stated there was
support from all Board members to continue with the program.
He further stated Attachment C identifies alternatives for
how the $18 million (maximum match) funding could be
allocated.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed supporting language
requested by Ms. Durfee to continue the widening of 360
westbound from Winterpock Road to Hampton Park Drive.
Ms. Durfee expressed concerns relative to the volume of
traffic from Commonwealth 20 westbound along Hull Street to
Hampton Park Drive.
In response to Mr. Holland's question regarding the project
savings and estimates, Mr. McCracken stated the economy is
improving and that costs will reflect the improving economy.
Ms. Jaeckle made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gecker, for the
Board to adopt Alternate C and discuss the use of any surplus
funds after the projects have been completed.
Mr. Holland made a friendly amendment for surplus funds to be
allocated to Newbys Bridge Road.
Ms. Jaeckle did not accept Mr
Mr. Holland made a substitute
Alternate C and that surplus
Newbys Bridge Road.
Holland's suggested amendment.
motion for the Board to adopt
funds be allocated first to
Discussion ensued relative to the unknown cost of
improvements for Newbys Bridge Road.
Mr. Holland clarified that his substitute motion included
allocation of surplus funds, in an amount not to exceed $5
million, for Newbys Bridge Road.
Mr. Holland's motion failed due to lack of a second.
Ms. Durfee made a friendly amendment to Ms. Jaeckle's
original motion for the Route 360 project to include language
from Winterpock Road to Hampton Park Drive.
Ms. Jaeckle did not accept Ms. Durfee's amendment.
Ms. Jaeckle restated her motion for the Board to adopt
Alternate C and discuss the use of any surplus funds after
the projects have been completed.
Mr. Gecker seconded Ms. Jaeckle's motion.
Mr. Mincks clarified that Ms. Jaeckle's motion would include
allocations requested by staff, including the adoption of
Alternate C.
Ms. Durfee made a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Holland,
for the Board to support Alternate C and include language for
the Hu11 Street project from Winterpock Road to Hampton Park
Drive.
Ayes: Durfee and Holland.
Nays: Warren, Jaeckle, and Gecker.
J
J
J
11-270
Mr. Warren then called for a vote on the motion of Ms.
Jaeckle, seconded by Mr. Gecker, for the Board to adopt the
following resolution designating Newbys Bridge Road (Valencia
Road to Shepherds watch Drive) Reconstruction, Route 1 at
DSCR Bridge Replacement Sidewalks, Genito Road/North Beach
Road/Harbour Pointe Road Headwalls, Genito Road/Old Hundred
Road/Charter Colony Parkway Intersection Sidewalk and
Streetlights, and Spirea Road (Mountain Laurel Drive to
Sunflower Lane) Sidewalk, and additional project(s) totaling
$20 million as the county's FY2012 Chesterfield Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing) projects:
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia
permits the Commonwealth Transportation Board to make an
equivalent matching allocation to any County for designations
by the governing body of up to $1,000,000 in funds received
by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to the "State
and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972" for use by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board to construct, maintain, or
improve primary and secondary highway systems within such
County; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised that changes to Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of
Virginia will increase the maximum amount of funds that can
be requested by a locality to $10 million; and
WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
has made available $10 million for the Chesterfield Road Fund
(VDOT Revenue Sharing Program) with the adoption of the
FY2012 Appropriation Resolution and other Board action; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
notified the county that $10 million is the maximum amount of
Chesterfield County funds that can be matched by the state
during FY2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors allocates $10 million to be
matched by the State for the FY2012 Chesterfield Road Fund
(VDOT Revenue Sharing Program).
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the matched funds be
allocated to the following projects:
$130,600 Newbys Bridge Road (Valencia Road to
Shepherds Watch Drive) Reconstruction
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$65,300-VDOT and $65,300-County
$634,493 Route 1 at DSCR Bridge Replacement
Sidewalks
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$317,246.50-VDOT and $317,246.50-County
$400,000 Genito Road/North Beach Road/Harbour Pointe
Road Headwalls
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$200,000-VDOT and $200,000-County
11-271
$400,000 Genito Road/Old Hundred Road/Charter
Colony Parkway Intersection Sidewalk
and Streetlights
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$200,000-VDOT and $200,000-County
$434,907 Spirea Road (Mountain Laurel Drive to
Sunflower Lane) Sidewalk
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$217,453.50-VDOT and $217,453.50-
County
$10,000,000 Powhite Parkway (East of Charter
Colony Parkway to Watermill Parkway)
Widening
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$5,000,000-VDOT and $5,000,000-County
$2,500,000 Route 360 (Winterpock Road to Woodlake
Village Parkway) Widening
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$1,250,000-VDOT and $1,250,000-County
$4,000,000 Route 10 (Route 1 to I-95) Widening
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$2,000,000-VDOT and $2,000,000-County
$500,000 Midlothian Sidewalk
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$250,000-VDOT and $250,000-County
$500,000 Cogbill Road (Meadowbrook High School
to Howell Drive) Sidewalk
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$250,000-VDOT and $250,000-County
$200,000 Route 10, Village of Chester,
Pedestrian Improvements
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$100,000-VDOT and $100,000-County
$300,000 Osborne Road (Cliff Lawn Drive to
Wilton Drive) Sidewalk
Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way
and Construction
$150,000-VDOT and $150,000-County
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors directed staff to come back to the Board
after these projects are completed, for consideration of the
use of surplus funds.
J
J
J
11-272
And, further, upon notification from VDOT, the Board
authorized the transfer of $5,500,000 from the 2044 bond sale
proceed balance on the Route 10 (I-95 to ware Bottom Spring
Rd.) project, $1,300,000 from the Industrial Access Account,
$1,000,000 in savings from other completed transportation
projects/general road improvement funds, $500,000 from the
FY2012 Capital Improvement Program for the revenue sharing
program, $634,700 from the reserve for capital projects, and
appropriation and transfer of up to $1,000,000 in Shed 6
transportation proffers (use per policy) into the
Chesterfield Road Fund local match account.
And, further, the Board authorized the County Administrator
to enter into the necessary county/VDOT agreements/contracts,
permits/mitigation agreements, and surety agreements,
acceptable to the County Attorney, for the projects; and
authorized the County Administrator to proceed with the
design and right-of-way acquisition, including advertisement
of an eminent domain public hearing, if necessary; and
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator to execute easement agreements for
relocation of utilities; and authorized the County
Administrator to proceed with the advertisement for
construction of the projects.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, and Gecker.
Nays: Durfee.
Ms. Durfee read the following statement:
It is extremely important for a locality to depend on its
staff, especially when the staff provides the expertise and
can back up the recommendations they provide. In the case of
Transportation, Mr. McCracken and his staff not only bring
strong expertise through local and state experience, but
history associated with borrowing projects. This should not
be overlooked, and I would rather rely on engineers than
lawyers to determine what criteria, and how it should be used
to determine our priorities in transportation. It is always
best to rely on current data, research, supporting
information and documents in the decision-making process.
Anything contrary to that creates havoc in the system. This
Board did not have the input and the criteria, nor did it
establish the criteria to be used in determining our
transportation priority list and it jeopardizes the trust
bestowed in us by the people on how we use taxpayer money.
Most concerning to me is how this process was considered,
either all of us were misinformed in March, misguided or
misdirected. Last month, the transportation priority list was
allowed to be crafted very haphazardly. If we had supported
and followed the original list by Mr. McCracken's office, we
currently would be talking about considering the top four or
five in the recommended list. The number one project, which
was a new project, could not be considered because it was
cost prohibited at this time. Therefore, if we were looking
at Mr. McCracken's list, we would be looking at number two,
three, four and five if we had stayed with his list and the
primary focus would have been on Route 10 and Route 360.
Route 360 from 288 to Otterdale has been a long-standing
regional and county project to be improved and based on
documented sources. According to the Richmond Regional
Planning District Commission, the Route 360 project to
Otterdale has been on the books since 1999. In 2000 and 2001,
11-273
the scope of the project was changed, not because of need,
but because of the funding; this is consistent with my
conversations with Mr. McCracken and other experts.
Conveniently, last month, Route 360 was pushed down on the
list and strangely Powhite Parkway was bumped up to number
three from the original spot of number 11. The question is
why, how could this happen, and more importantly who
benefits? Some folks would have the public believe that it is
in the name of economic development, and I do support
projects that have potential for economic development, with
supporting data, but not over-existing economic development
engines that we have here today, like the Swift Creek
submarket, which is from Commonwealth 20 all the way out, not
over existing projects, certainly not over data, research and
criteria like levels of service and accident rate volume and
information we have here today. What is most baffling, but
not surprising, unless there is another agenda, is how we
would consider putting money on the Powhite Parkway over
Route 360 or any other existing need. Given the instability
of the economy it becomes even more perplexing, no one knows
how long it will take for banks to ease up on lending money
for future projects, even the most reputable have trouble
getting money. It could be 5 years plus or more before we
would see any economic development potential that could
transpire from the Powhite Parkway to Watermill. What is
clearly overlooked is we need to take care of what we have to
strengthen our current businesses and business opportunities
on 360. Quite frankly the businesses and residents have
patiently waited for the county to deliver. Remember this was
a project that was on the books in the county since 1999. One
of our delegates owns a business in Harbour Pointe, I'm sure
she and others would not be pleased if this county hinders
their ability to thrive their businesses due to
transportation infrastructure that is overlooked; they would
not be very happy, they would be very disappointed that we
chose to take taxpayer money and put it on what we may
believe as future economic development with a big question
mark behind it. One of our themes in our new Comprehensive
Plan is to take care of what we have before the new, but I
guess that doesn't apply to the Matoaca District. Obviously
you saw the vote; three people decide that the bottleneck is
not important to solve in the Hull Street corridor. Tell that
to the businesses; tell that to Chamber; tell that to the
CBC. The determination of this revenue sharing money is
extremely important to the county and extremely dependant on
our ability to utilize our staff and other experts, both
state and local to make the very best decisions. The county's
process and the Board's action is a very bad example of
governing. We are to be encouraging and working towards a
more open and transparent government, but instead in the 11tH
hour we have created confusion and left our citizens, and
most importantly our businesses who are most effective, out
of the equation. At least if we wanted to include economic
development as a reason, then where were Mr. Will Davis and
his staff in this process? It would have been my hope that we
would have followed a better process, with data, analysis,
data-driven process, not a political driven one, and I would
hope that we would have focused our efforts on the
distribution of funding to our existing and long-standing
needs, and if there is a desire to extend beyond that, then
we should create a comprehensive strategic transportation
plan along with a revenue funding source to determine where
and how we should spend our money. Additionally, to that, we
J
J
J
11-274
should also communicate loosely with our state legislators to
determine what our future transportation needs will be. I
will finish by saying that yesterday evening I had attended
an event where a motor assistant had come up to me and was
aware of the situation and he indicated to me that he had
been a motor assistant for nine years with the county and he
wanted me to state that this is the section of Route 360,
from Winterpock out, is the most disconcerting section in the
county of all of the roads that he has to cover in
Chesterfield County, not just because of the congestion, but
because of the safety aspect of people's inability to have
nowhere to go in a bottleneck situation.' I also have to
deliver to the Board members letters from two business people
and residents of the Woodlake community, which represents a
large number of homes in that corridor. Woodlake has been
around almost thirty years, Mr. Dupler and I, you live in
Woodlake and have been there I don't know how many years and
we indicated that people have been waiting a long time to get
their facilities and services, maybe because others have
their hands out and won't let the Matoaca District have their
opportunities. While I support other districts' ability to
solve their bottleneck issues, I would greatly appreciate the
respect back from my colleagues; I know Mr. Holland does, to
be able to support the bottleneck that I have on 360.
Limiting a supervisor's ability to be able to have flexible
language to solve a bottleneck shows the short-sidedness that
we have, and also strengthens a political driven process
which is very disappointing to the public. I don't think the
people elected this new Board to resemble what the old Board
was, but I will say to you that you probably disappointed
many people in the business community who depend on
transportation infrastructure to be able to have people come
to their businesses. Thank you.
Mr. Gecker noted that Alternate C transferred more funding to
the Hull Street Project than Alternates A and B, at the
expense of projects in other districts. He stated the Matoaca
District was actually the beneficiary of the rearrangement of
the allocated funds.
Ms. Durfee expressed concerns that the Board had no data
criteria to use for analysis to determine the allocation of
funds.
9. REPORTS
9.A. REPORT ON STATUS OF GENERAL FUND BALANCE, RESERVE FOR
FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS, DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS AND
LEASE PURCHASES
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
accepted the following report: a Report on Status of General
Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District
Improvement Funds and Lease Purchases.
Ayes: warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
11-275
10. FIFTEEN-MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED
MATTERS
There were no requests to address the Board at this time.
11. DINNER
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Durfee, the Board
recessed to Room 303, for dinner.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
Reconvening:
12. INVOCATION
Reverend Jason Elmore, Pastor of Bethia United Methodist
Church gave the invocation.
13. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
Interim Deputy County Administrator William Dupler led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
suspended its rules to add an item to the end of the agenda
to approve the appointment of the Deputy County Administrator
for Community Development.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
14. RESOLUTIONS
14.A. RECOGNIZING THE MEALS ON WHEELS PROGRAM AND THE
RAPHAEL FAMILY FOR THEIR SERVICE THROUGH THE PROGRAM
Mr. Kappel introduced Mr. Buck Herbert, Vice President of
Human Resources for Feed More, Inc. and Ms. Ashley Raphael
who were present to receive the resolution.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, for many seniors, people with disabilities and
disadvantaged individuals, satisfying the basic human needs
for nutrition and contact with others can sometimes be a
challenge; and
WHEREAS, over the past four decades, Meals on Wheels, a
volunteer-driven organization under the umbrella of Feed
More, Inc., has helped feed these vulnerable members of the
community; and
J
J
J
11-276
WHEREAS, in Chesterfield
program operates out of the
Courthouse Road; and
County, the Meals on Wheels
Central Baptist Church on
WHEREAS, each day, Meals on Wheels serves more than
1,000 balanced, nutritious and appealing meals to clients in
Richmond, Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell and the
counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover,
Henrico, New Kent and Powhatan; and
WHEREAS, this year, about 265,000 meals will be
delivered to more than 1,500 clients throughout Central
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the program depends on many caring and
dedicated volunteers who not only deliver nutritious meals,
but also check on the well-being of the clients they serve;
and
WHEREAS, among those outstanding volunteers who serve
the community through the Meals on Wheels program are the
members of the Raphael family of the Clover Hill Magisterial
District; and
WHEREAS, Ashley Raphael and her children, Kieran, Selma
and Finlay, have helped to feed many clients, exemplifying
the "Neighbors Helping Neighbors" philosophy of the Meals on
Wheels program; and
WHEREAS, without caring people like the Raphaels, many
seniors, disabled and disadvantaged individuals in Central
Virginia would spend their days hungry and isolated; and
WHEREAS, the contributions of the Raphael family and the
many other volunteers involved in the Meals on Wheels
program, as well as the Central Virginia Food Bank and the
Community Kitchen, also programs under the auspices of Feed
More, Inc., are heartwarming and vital to the communities
they serve.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, this 27th day of April 2011,
hereby recognizes the tremendous contributions of the Meals
on Wheels program to quality of life for so many senior,
disabled and disadvantaged residents of Central Virginia, and
commends Ashley, Kieran, Selma and Finlay Raphael for their
outstanding civic-minded service through the Meals on Wheels
program, and expresses, on behalf of the residents of
Chesterfield County, appreciation for their charitable work
and that of the many other dedicated Meals on Wheels
volunteers.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this
resolution be presented to the Raphael family, and that this
resolution be recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
Mr. Warren presented executed resolutions to Mr. Herbert and
Ms. Raphael and expressed appreciation for their
contributions to the Meals on Wheels program.
11-277
Mr. Herbert expressed appreciation to the Board for their
support and to the volunteers for their charitable work.
15. FIFTEEN-MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED
MATTERS
Mr. Bob Herndon addressed the Board relative to public
transit.
Mr. L.J. McCoy addressed the Board relative to concerns
regarding redistricting procedures.
16. REQUESTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND REZONING
PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD IN THE
FOLLOWING ORDER: WITHDRAWALS/DEFERRALS - CASES WHERE THE
APPLICANT ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATION AND THERE IS NO
OPPOSITION - CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ACCEPT
THE RECOMMENDATION AND/OR THERE IS PUBLIC OPPOSITION
WILL BE HEARD AT SECTION 18
11SN0185
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Holiday Signs c/o Allen M.
Twedt requests conditional use planned development approval
and amendment of zoning district map to permit exceptions to
Ordinance requirements relative to signage in a Community
Business (C-3) District on 5 acres fronting 214 feet on the
south line of [Wiest Hundred Road, 210 feet west of I-95.
Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for commercial use. Tax IDs 800-654-2613 and
2833.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 11SN0185 and stated
Ms. Jaeckle has requested a 30-day deferral.
Mr. Allen Twedt accepted the deferral request.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
There being no one to address the deferral, the public
hearing was closed.
Ms. Jaeckle made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gecker, for the
Board to defer Case 11SN0185 until May 25, 2011.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
115N0174
In Dale Magisterial District, Shawn N. Stone and Larry D.
Stone request conditional use approval and amendment of
zoning district map to permit a family day care home in a
Residential (R-7) District on .4 acre known as 5933
Fieldstone Road. Density will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
suggests the property is appropriate for commercial use. Tax
IDs 800-654-2613 and 2833.
J
J
J
11-278
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 11SN0174 and stated
both the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
subject to the conditions and acceptance of the proffered
conditions.
Ms. Shawn N. Stone and Mr. Larry D. Stone accepted the
recommendation and presented the Board with a petition in
support of the request.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Holland made a motion, seconded by Ms. Durfee, for the
Board to approve Case 11SN0174, and accept the following
conditions:
1. This conditional use approval shall be granted to and
for, Shawn N. Stone and Larry D. Stone, exclusively,
and shall not be transferable nor run with the land.
(P)
2. There shall be no exterior additions or alterations to
the existing structure to accommodate this use. (P)
And, further, the Board accepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. This conditional use shall be granted for a period not
to exceed three (3) years from date of approval. (P)
2. There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use.
(P)
3. This conditional use shall be limited to providing
care, protection and guidance to a maximum of nine (9)
children, other than the applicant's own children, at
any one time. (P)
4. Hours and days of operation shall be limited to Mondays
through Fridays from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. There shall be
no Saturday or Sunday operation of this use. (P)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
11SN0186
In Dale Magisterial District, John Netto requests conditional
use approval and amendment of zoning district map to permit
office uses in an Agricultural (A) District on .5 acre known
as 7227 Iron Bridge Road. Density will be controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive
Plan suggests the property is appropriate for, mixed use
corridor use. Tax ID 773-675-0263.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 11SN0186 and stated
both the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
and acceptance of the proffered conditions.
11-279
Mr. Christopher Brown, representing the applicant, accepted
the recommendation.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Holland made a motion, seconded by Ms. Durfee, for the
Board to approve Case 11SN0186, and accept the following
proffered conditions:
1. Use. This conditional use shall be limited to use of
the existing structure for professional offices.
Outside storage shall not be permitted. (P)
2. Exterior Changes. Other than normal maintenance and
cosmetic enhancements, there shall be no exterior
additions or alterations to the existing structure to
accommodate this use. (P)
3. Signage. One (1) sign not exceeding one (1) square foot
in area shall be permitted to identify this use. (P)
4. Hours and days of Operation. The hours of operation
shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. There shall be limited operation
of the business to no more than five (5) transactions
on weekends. (P)
5. Deliveries. No deliveries shall be permitted on
weekends or before 9:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. (P)
6. Number of employees. No more than three (3) employees
shall be working on the property at any one time. (P)
7. Dedication. Prior to any site plan approval or within
sixty (60) days of a written request by the
Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, one
hundred (100) feet of right way on the east side of
Iron Bridge Road Route (10), measured from the
centerline of that part of Route 10 immediately
adjacent to the property, shall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County. (T)
8 . Access . There shall be no direct vehicular access from
the property to Route 10. (T)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
~~cun~Qa
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Catherine S. Shumaker
requests renewal of manufactured home permit 045R0126 to
permit a temporary manufactured home in a Residential (R-7)
District on .l acre known as 10041 Beaumont Avenue. The
density of such amendment is approximately 10 units per acre.
The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate
J
J
11-280
for residential use of 2.51-4 units/acre Tax ID 716-671-Part
of 6919.
Mr. Turner presented a summary of Case 11SN0189 and stated
staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions.
Ms. Catherine Shumaker accepted the conditions.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
Ms. Jaeckle made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gecker, for the
Board to approve Case 11SN0189, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the
manufactured home. (P)
2. This manufactured home permit shall be granted for a
period not to exceed seven (7) years from date of
approval. (P)
3. No additional permanent-type living space may be added
onto this manufactured home. This manufactured home
shall be skirted, but shall not be placed on a permanent
foundation. (P)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
11SN0150
In Dale Magisterial District, Three Hoos LLC requests
rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from
Agricultural (A) to Community Business (C-3) on 4.3 acres
fronting 510 feet on the north line of Beulah Road, also
fronting 350 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge Road.
Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is
appropriate for mixed use corridor use. Tax IDs 772-674-Parts
of 8642 and 9442; and 773-674-1653.
Ms. Darla Orr presented a summary of Case 11SN0150 and stated
the Planning Commission recommended approval and acceptance
of the proffered conditions. She further stated staff
recommended denial because the proposed commercial zoning and
land uses do not conform to the Central Area Plan, which
suggests the property is appropriate for a mix of office and
residential uses, except multi-family, and the proposed
zoning and land uses are not representative of, nor
compatible with, existing and anticipated area residential
development.
Ms. Carrie Coyner, representing the applicant, requested the
Board's approval of the request. She stated the proposed
location would be ideal for commercial services.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
11-281
Mr. Daren Gardner, a resident of the Dale District, expressed
support for the request.
There being no one else to address the request, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Holland made a motion, seconded by Ms. Durfee, for the
Board to approve Case 11SN0150 and accept the following
proffered conditions:
The Owner-Applicant in this zoning case, pursuant to Section
15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the
Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for itself and its
successors or assigns, proffers that the development of the
property known as Chesterfield County Tax ID 772-674-9442
(part of), 772-674-8642 (part of) and 773-674-1653 from A to
C-3, and subject to the conditions and provisions as set
forth below; however, in the event the request is denied or
approved with conditions not agreed to by the Applicant,
these proffers shall be immediately null and void and of no
further force or effect.
1. Timbering. Except for the timbering approved by the
Virginia State Department of Forestry for the purpose
of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall be no
timbering on the Property until a land disturbance
permit has been obtained from the Environmental
Engineering Department and the approved devices have
been installed. (EE)
2. Utilities. Public water and wastewater systems shall be
used. (U)
3. Buffers. A forty (40) foot buffer shall be provided
along the eastern property line adjacent to 773-674-
4162, for so long as such property is zoned or used for
residential purposes. The buffer shall conform to the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for buffers and
shall be inclusive of required setbacks. To provide
additional screening, the buffer shall be supplemented
with evergreen plantings along the property line
abutting 773-674-4162. The evergreen plantings shall be
approved by the Planning Department at the time of site
plan approval. No irrigation shall be required. (P)
4. Public Address Systems. Outside public address systems
or speakers shall not be used. (P)
5. Dedication. Prior to any site plan approval, or within
sixty (60) days of a written request by the
Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, the
following rights-of-way shall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County:
a. One hundred (100) feet of right-of-way, on the
east side of Iron Bridge Road (Route 10) measured
from the centerline of that part of Route 10
immediately adjacent to the Property;
b. Forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way, on the north
side of Kingsland Road measured from the
J
J
J
11-282
centerline of that part of Kingsland Road
immediately adjacent to the Property; and
c. Forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way, on the west
side of Beulah Road measured from the centerline
of that part of Beulah Road immediately adjacent
to the Property. (T)
6. Access.
a. There shall be no direct vehicular access from the
property to Kingsland Road.
b. Direct vehicular access from the property to Route
10 shall be limited to one (1) entrance/exit,
generally located at the northern property line.
The exact location of this access shall be
approved by the Transportation Department. Prior
to final site plan approval, an access easement,
acceptable to the Transportation Department, shall
be recorded from the Route 10 access to serve the
adjacent property to the north.
c. Direct vehicular access from the property to
Beulah Road shall be limited to one (1)
entrance/exit, generally located towards the
eastern property line. The exact location of this
access shall be approved by the Transportation
Department. Prior to final site plan approval, an
access easement, acceptable to the Transportation
Department shall be recorded from the Beulah Road
access to serve the adjacent property to the east.
(T)
7. Road Improvements. To provide an adequate roadway
system, the Developer shall be responsible for the
following road improvements:
a. Construction of an additional lane of pavement
along the northbound lanes of Route 10 from the
Route 10/Kingsland Road intersection to the
northern property line;
b. Construction of additional pavement along the
northbound lanes of Route 10 at the approved
access to provide a separate right turn lane;
c. Construction of an additional lane of pavement
along Beulah Road at the .approved access to
provide a left and right turn lane;
d. Widening /improving the west side of Beulah Road
for the entire property frontage to an eleven
(11) foot wide travel lane, measured from the
existing centerline of the road, with an
additional one (1) foot wide paved shoulder plus
a seven (7) foot wide unpaved shoulder, and
overlaying the full width of the road with one
and one half (1.5) inches of compacted bituminous
asphalt concrete, with modifications approved by
the Transportation Department;
11-283
e. Construction of a sidewalk along the entire
property frontage to Route 10, Kingsland Road,
and Beulah Road. The exact design and location of
this improvement shall be approved by the
Transportation Department; and
f. Full cost of traffic signal modifications at the
Route 10/Kingsland Road intersection, if
warranted, as determined by the Transportation
Department;
g. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and
unrestricted, of any additional right-of-way (or
easements) required for the improvements
identified above. In the event the Developer is
unable to acquire any "off-site" right-of-way
that is necessary for the road improvements
described in this Proffered Condition, the
Developer may request, in writing, that the
County acquire such right-of-way as a public road
improvement. All reasonable costs associated with
the acquisition of the right-of-way shall be
borne by the Developer. In the event the County
chooses not to assist the Developer in
acquisition of the "off-site" right-of-way, the
Developer shall be relieved of the obligation to
acquire the "off-site" right-of-way as determined
by the Transportation Department. (T)
8. Phasing Plan. Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing
plan for the required road improvements,, as identified in
Proffered Condition 7, shall be submitted to and approved
by the Transportation Department. The approved phasing
plan shall require, among other things, that prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit for any development with
sole vehicular access to Beulah Road and no more than
4,500 square feet of office use, or equivalent traffic
generation as determined by the Transportation
Department, only the road improvements as identified in
Proffered Condition 7.d. and part of 7.e. (sidewalk along
Beulah Road only) shall be completed. (T)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
11SN0198
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Donald B. Heslep requests
conditional use planned development approval and amendment of
zoning district map to permit an off-site directional sign
and exceptions to Ordinance requirements in an Agricultural
(A) District on 1.3 acres located at the northwest corner of
Hull Street and Cosby Roads. Density will be controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive
Plan suggests the property is appropriate for office/
residential mixed use. Tax ID 716-671-Part of 6919.
Ms. Orr presented a summary of Case 11SN0198 and stated the
Planning Commission recommended approval and acceptance of
the proffered condition. She further stated staff recommended
denial because the Zoning Ordinance adequately addressed the
identification needs of the use and approval could encourage
other businesses to seek similar requests.
J
J
J
11-284
Ms. Irene Williamson, representing the applicant, accepted
the conditions.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
There being no one to address the request, the public hearing
was closed.
Ms. Durfee stated this is a great opportunity for the
business to be seen from the main road.
Ms. Durfee then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holland, for
the Board to approve Case 115N0198 and accepted the following
proffered condition:
One (1) offsite directional sign for the purpose of
identifying a commercial indoor and outdoor recreational
use located on tax IDs 716-671-1195 and 716-672-9111
shall be permitted. Such sign shall be limited to a
maximum of thirty-six (36) square feet in area and six
(6) feet in height. (P)
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
17. PUBLIC HEARINGS
17.A. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A VARIABLE WIDTH
UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS MOSSY OAK ROAD WITHIN
FOXFIELD SUBDIVISION
Mr. Harmon stated this date and time has been advertised for
a public hearing for the Board to consider an ordinance to
vacate a variable width unimproved right of way known as
Mossy Oak Road within Foxfield Subdivision.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing
was closed.
In response to Ms. Durfee's questions, Mr. Turner stated the
Planning Commission approved the layout and felt comfortable
that the access requirements under the subdivision ordinance
were being met with other opportunities. He further stated
Quarter Horse Lane will extend to Otterdale Road.
Ms. Durfee made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holland, for the
Board to defer until May 25, 2011 action consideration of an
ordinance to vacate a variable width unimproved right of way
known as Mossy Oak Road within Foxfield Subdivision.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
17.B. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A REAL ESTATE
TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS
Mr. Mincks stated
a public hearing
providing for a
veterans.
this date and time
for the Board to
real estate tax
has been advertised for
consider an ordinance
exemption for disabled
11-285
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
Mr. Mark Smith, a resident of the Clover Hill District, spoke
in favor of the real estate tax exemption.
Mr. Wayne Moore encouraged the Board to adopt the ordinance.
Mr. David Rogers, father of a disabled veteran, asked the
Board to provide families of disabled veterans with relief
and requested clarification regarding the ordinance.
Mr. Bill Speeks expressed support of the ordinance.
Mr. Will Conklin recommended approval of the proposed
ordinance.
Mr. Bill Baker, a resident of the Bermuda District, expressed
support for the ordinance.
There being no one else to speak to the issue, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Holland requested that staff provide clarification to
those who presented the Board with questions regarding the
tax exemption.
Ms. Durfee commended all veterans for their service.
Mr. Holland made a motion, seconded by Ms. Durfee, for the
Board to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY ENACTING
SECTION 9-33 RELATING TO REAL ESTATE TAX
EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Section 9-33 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is enacted to read as
follows:
9-33. Exemption from taxes on property for disabled veterans;
application for exemption.
(a) Pursuant to Va. Code § 58.1-3219.5 the County
hereby exempts from taxation the dwelling and up to one acre
of land upon which the dwelling is situated, including the
joint real property of husband and wife, of any veteran who
has been rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or
its successor agency pursuant to federal law to have a 100
percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability,
and who occupies the real property as his principal place of
residence.
(b) The surviving spouse of a veteran eligible for the
exemption set forth in this section shall also qualify for
the exemption, so long as the death of the veteran occurs on
or after January 1, 2011, the surviving spouse does not
J
J
J
11-286
remarry, and the surviving spouse continues to occupy the
real property as his principal place of residence.
(c) The veteran or surviving spouse claiming the
exemption under this section shall file with the commissioner
of the revenue, on forms to be supplied by the county, an
affidavit or written statement (i) setting forth the name of
the disabled veteran and the name of the spouse, if any, also
occupying the real property, (ii) indicating whether the real
property is jointly owned by a husband and wife, and (iii)
certifying that the real property is occupied as the
veteran's principal place of residence. The veteran shall
also provide documentation from the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs or its successor agency indicating that the
veteran has a 100 percent service-connected, permanent, and
total disability. The veteran shall be required to refile the
information required by this section only if the veteran's
principal place of residence changes. In the event of a
surviving spouse of a veteran claiming the exemption, the
surviving spouse shall also provide documentation that the
veteran's death occurred on or after January 1, 2011.
(2) That this ordinance shall become effective as of January
1, 2011 .
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
17.C. TO CONSIDER THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS FOR THE
CHALKLEY ROAD CURVE REALIGNMENT PROJECT NORTH OF ECOFF
AVENUE
Mr. Dupler stated this date and time has been advertised for
a public hearing for the Board to consider the exercise of
eminent domain for the acquisition of right-of-way and
easements for the Chalkley Road Curve Realignment Project
north of Ecoff Avenue.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
In response to Mr. Bill Baker's question, Ms. Jaeckle stated
staff has been unable to reach agreement with one owner.
There being no one else to speak to the issue, the public
hearing was closed.
Ms. Jaeckle made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gecker, for the
Board to authorize the exercise of eminent domain on property
located at 11221 Chalkley Road, GPIN 7806574130, for the
acquisition of right-of-way and easements for the Chalkley
Road Curve Realignment Project, including the filing of
certificate of deposit, so that construction may begin prior
to the commencement of eminent domain proceedings.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
11-287
17.D. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REDISTRICTING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND ADJUSTING VOTING PRECINCT
BOUNDARIES AND POLLING PLACES
Mr. Mincks stated this date and time has been advertised for
a public hearing for the Board to consider an ordinance
redistricting magisterial district boundaries and adjusting
voting precinct boundaries and polling places. He further
stated in order to achieve population equality, each
magisterial district may vary by no more than 5o above or
below the average population figure of 63,247. He stated the
two advertised plans, Plan A and Plan B, both assure -that
each election district will be compact and contiguous, that
all election district boundaries will be clear and observable
as required by state law, and that no racial retrogression
will occur in districts represented by minority
representatives, as required by federal law.
Mr. Stylian Parthemos, Deputy County Attorney, presented the
Board with an overview of both plans, describing the
boundaries of each of the areas proposed to be moved from one
district to another. He stated Plan A creates three new
voting precincts and polling places. He further stated Plan B
creates two new voting precincts and polling places. He
stated in order to achieve population equality among the
districts, significant portions of Matoaca Magisterial
District need to be redistricted into Clover Hill, which is
below the population average.
Mr. Warren called for public comment.
Ms. Margaret Davis, a resident of the Bermuda District,
expressed support for Plan A. She commended Ms. Jaeckle for
her dedication as a supervisor.
Mr. Bill Kincaid, a resident of the Clover Hill District,
expressed support for Plan A.
Mr. Thomas Van Auken, a resident of the Midlothian District,
expressed support for Plan A; however, he stated the plan
should be changed to reflect the future growth that will
occur in Matoaca.
Mr. Casey Sowers, an area developer of the Roseland
development, stated the Matoaca District is too large for one
supervisor to represent. He recommended that the portion of
Midlothian District that is proposed to more to Matoaca be
retained in Midlothian, where it has been for many years.
Mr. Bob Olsen expressed concerns regarding the cost of moving
Evergreen West Precinct from Matoaca District to Clover Hill
District.
Mr. Bill Baker suggested that the Board determine the
geographical center of Chesterfield County and slice the
districts accordingly.
Mr. Donald Williams stated the least amount of people will be
affected by Plan A.
There being no one else to speak to the issue, the public
hearing was closed.
J
J
J
11-288
The following is a verbatim transcript of Board discussion,
at the request of a Board member:
Mr. Holland - Thank you Mr. Chairman. Certainly I would like
to take this opportunity to thank all of the citizens who
have come out tonight and who have spoken in regards to the
plans, and of course it has always been my intent, my desire
to represent well the citizens of Chesterfield. I have always
voted in what is the best interest of the citizens, not for
me, or what is the best for Jim Holland, but what is best for
the citizens, what's in their best interest. As I've said
from the outset is this process should be one that you look
at the citizen's interest first and foremost, what did they
think, and I've listened and I've heard them and certainly it
is my intent to as the Virginia Constitution states to
indicate that the plan should be contiguous, it really should
represent the area that it is and Dale under Plan B did that,
however it's also my intent to represent what's best for Dale
constituents. And, of course, in my interests and in the
interest of Dale, I believe Plan A does that as well and
better. Now, I do have a question that I would like to ask in
regards to Plan B. I'm not sure how it would be cheaper if we
impact twice as many citizens in Plan B as opposed to Plan A,
that's a question hopefully Mr. Haake can answer this
evening, so I can get clarity on that. And I understand this
process is not done either as the General Assembly has to
finish its work with respect to its house plans, but it's my
intent and its always been my desire to represent, to
include, not to exclude, to include our citizens, certainly
with respect to my School Board member and any other citizen
who wants to run for office, because after all when the last
vote is cast it's about America, it's about Virginia, it's
about Chesterfield, it's about the people and I have the
pleasure of representing the people of Dale and so certainly
I look forward to doing that even better and so my interest
will be to represent the interest of the people, not Jim
Holland, or any other political interest that might be
present. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Warren - Thank you. Ms. Durfee.
Ms. Durfee - If you don't mind I would like to yield to my
other supervisors and I would like to speak last.
Mr. Warren - Ms. Jaeckle.
Ms. Jaeckle - I agree that Plan A is the better plan. I think
its leaves the Dale and Bermuda District more balanced in
many ways. As far as that little piece, and I understand that
that could be a precinct problem, we have no idea what
precinct problems we're going to have at this point, so we
can't totally focus on precincts. This Plan A that was
presented to me, this is what was presented to me by the
county attorneys as the plan that met the requirement,
geographically, it fell along the railroad lines and that
little piece met the Federal Voting Acts Right requirement.
In some ways I hate to lose that area because I have been
working hard over the past six months to a year with Building
Inspections and the managers of some of the apartment
complexes there to better the living conditions there and I
have asked Mr. Holland if he does get that piece in his
district, if we can continue to work together on that
project, and he has agreed. The southwest part was
11-289
recommended by the County Attorney just to balance out some
splitting a precinct, at least the way the precinct is now
and it only involves 200 people, so I took their advice on
that. As far as the other areas, you know I think some people
made some very good points about this little corner up here,
was it Mr. Sowers that spoke? So, I would like to hear what
the Midlothian, Matoaca and Clover Hill supervisors have to
say about that.
Mr. Warren - Thank you. Mr. Gecker.
Mr. Gecker - Thank you Mr. Chairman. You know when this
process started, I'll be honest with you, I didn't take as
much interest in this as I normally do in affairs like this
believing as I guess Mr. Holland does that when the voters
speak, they speak, or whatever voters you end up getting, or
the voters you end up getting, you do a good job you stay in,
if you don't do a good job then you don't get elected. And, I
remember telling Mr. Mincks, I only have two criteria for
this, move as few people as possible district to district and
keep as many precincts as possible intact and it's pretty
clear that Plan A represents the embodiment of moving as few
people district to district and keeping as many precincts as
we can given the General Assembly's lack of action to date
intact. Having said. that, and as the time gets closer to
finality tonight, you know I will say that I do not believe
it appropriate to have Midlothian lose the triangle bounded
by southern railway, Otterdale and Old Hundred. I have heard
from constituents in that area who have indicated much like
Ms. Davis did, you know a desire not to choose one
representative over another, but to maintain the identity
that they've had as Midlothian District residents. Frankly, I
believe that we ought to keep Plan A with that triangle, if
you will, staying in Midlothian. I will say though Ms. Davis
that I did ask them to draw a map that would put Bensley into
Midlothian, because I really wanted you as my constituent, I
have for years and I keep begging them to redraw this in such
a way that I can have you, but they just keep telling me it
can't be done while keeping the contiguity of the requirement
intact. The other piece of this that has come out as we go
through this, that is sort of glaringly obvious is that you
know the Matoaca District still ends up over population
significantly; I think Mr. Sowers and Mr. Olsen make the
point that as we look toward the future, we ought to go ahead
and try to balance the districts, anticipating future growth
through in the next ten years. I do believe that communities
of interest ought to stay together. Right now, Roseland, for
example is split a little bit between Midlothian to a certain
extent and to Matoaca. I would propose at the appropriate
time that we expand; I guess the western part of my district,
to Midlothian District, to include a boundary running down to
Swift Creek, which would incorporate, if you will, the
southern boundary of Roseland and coming over and meeting in
the existing Midlothian District boundary. I think the County
Attorney probably has a map about this, at least I hope they
do.
Mr. Parthemos - *Comments inaudible*
Mr. Gecker - Exactly, the number of people in there right
now, the shift of people was fairly small, in the 300-400
range. I would also propose, I guess, that the area to the
east of the triangle piece would end up in Clover Hill, again
J
J
J
11-290
on the theory that the community of interest there is running
up that road way, there is a greater community of interest
with Clover Hill then there is in Midlothian. At the
appropriate time I would move that we adopt A with those
modifications.
Mr. Warren - Alright, thank you, and you wanted to go last?
Let me ask Mr. Haake, if you will, to comment and again I
think I know where you're coming from, but we don't know what
the General Assembly is going to do. Would you like to
comment on the statement that it costs less to move...
Mr. Haake - Yes sir, and to address Mr. Holland's question,
the biggest cost difference, obvious cost difference between
A and B, is the fact that A requires three new precincts and
B requires two. However, in B you have far more voters
affected, which means I have to mail notifications to a whole
lot more people in B then I do in A. So, in fact, it could be
a wash. But clearly three precincts versus two is a $25,000
difference, but when you factor the other in it's not as
dramatic.
Mr. Warren - Alright, I will make my comments. First of all I
support A and I like the modifications to A that Mr. Gecker
has indicated because it does at least balance the population
a little bit better and reduces the size of the district that
is so much larger than any of the other magisterial
districts. Let me ask the question, if that were done, as Mr.
Gecker has offered, how close to the ideal populations would
that mean for Midlothian, Clover Hill and Matoaca?
Mr. Mincks - And just to clarify, what Mr. Gecker was talking
about was the remainder of Evergreen would go to Clover Hill,
the portion, the triangle that is currently Midlothian would
stay in Midlothian and this piece as we just described would
go to Midlothian.
Mr. Parthemos - It would move all three magisterial districts
that you mentioned Mr. Warren closer to the ideal number. It
would move Matoaca so close to the ideal number it would only
be off by about ten or twelve people, I think the number we
came up with is nine. It would move Clover Hill to less than
half a point off of the ideal number. It would move
Midlothian two or three tenths of the percentage point closer
to the mid point, it would still be in the high ones, but it
would be closer to the mid point.
Mr. Warren - There would be no negative impact on the other
two districts?
Mr. Parthemos - It would have no impact on the other two
districts at all.
Mr. warren - Would it meet the voting rights requirement?
Mr. Parthemos - The areas that would be leaving Matoaca, I
haven't done the exact numbers, but the areas that will be
leaving Matoaca are areas that have lower minority
percentages in it than the rest of Matoaca District so it
would naturally lift the minority numbers in Matoaca up,
which would be more favorable from the voting rights
standpoint.
11-291
Mr. Warren - Thank you. Ms. Durfee.
Ms. Durfee - Thank you very much. Thanks all of you for
coming out this evening and also when we had the other public
hearings. This was a very good process, I know that all the
supervisors meet with the attorneys and we had a very, very
good process. As it relates to the Matoaca District, while
the comments are very, how do you say, appreciated about the
size of Matoaca District and my ability and time to cover
that. district, first of all, I love Matoaca District it has
such diversity, the small town where I come from, Ettrick and
Matoaca, I love. It's therapy for me to go to Ettrick and
Matoaca and also therapy for me to go back when I have to go
into a more suburban area and I actually love it that way. In
terms of the size of Matoaca District, the way you avoid
having such a large district, of course, is to consider
possibly figuring out how to split the district, which we
were not able to do, and so there was some thoughts could we
possibly take the geographical area of Matoaca District and
figure out a way to take either a southern portion or a more
eastern portion and do something with it, and of course due
to the guidelines not to dilute the minority vote we were not
able to do that. What people need to understand about Matoaca
District is the way in the future that we're going to be able
to deal with our structure in our county is to have some
consideration and this was one of, not only my campaign
suggestions prior to getting elected, but also the business
community supports this county exploring the opportunity of
looking at our government's structure and also looking at
what we do in terms of whether we have five districts or more
and this is what other counties like Loudon and Price William
and all the other counties that have grown a lot faster than
we have, they have already done that. Matoaca in the county
is going to have to and should have actually provided the
opportunity to look at how you could change the county in a
sense to provide probably for a better plan. Folks also need
to understand is that Matoaca District was very challenging
from one aspect but not challenging in another and let me
explain that, most of the population in the Matoaca District
is concentrated in the upper Swift Creek Area, there are
about 42,000-45,000 people in this section that is in the
western part of the corridor and there is much, much less,
obviously if we're trying to shoot for 60,000, sporadic
across the rest of the part of Matoaca. The only way,, you
quite frankly deal with changing that geographical land mass,
you know there's just not a concentration of population
evenly throughout the district, so you've got to figure out
the best way to handle such a large geographical area, but
also deal with the fact that you have density issues that are
quite different from one part to another part to another
part, so if you take the upper Swift Creek area, highly
concentrated 45,000-50,000 people, and then you take the rest
of the mid-portion and the southern portion and you're
talking 6,000-8,000, entirely different. When you do take a
look at changing Matoaca District then obviously you're going
to have to take into account all the other districts when you
decide to take a more comprehensive look at our county. I
spent a great deal of time concentrating on all the county
and the district and wanted to make sure that I focus
primarily on the contiguous and what was explained to me by
the attorneys and how we could possibly lose a large number
of population. Matoaca District, of all the districts had to
lose up to 12,000, no other district doesn't even come close
J
J
J
11-292
to what Matoaca had to lose, a significant amount of people
that you have to lose in one district. So, in talking to the
attorneys and I think, correct me if I'm wrong, our
population 316,000 plus whatever, and the amount of people
that we may consider moving in Plan A is about five percent
of the entire population,~so bear with me, if you have five
percent of the population, Matoaca District has to lose a
bulk, what's. the percentage, like 65-70 percent of that five
percent, we have to lose a lot of that 15, 000, so we're only
losing 14-15,000 one district has to move a lot of people.
So, therefore I did have to concentrate on being objective in
terms of the number I could go up to, but not to the point
where, when you're losing 10,000 people, that's a lot of
people, not so much disruption for the county. With that
being said, we then focused on what areas would make sense in
terms of the contiguous, what areas would protect the
minority vote, what areas would make sense from a current
map, and also moving into the future. While comments were
made about Matoaca District, the growth, actually, rate is
way less than it was in our peak years and we probably won't
anticipate the kind of growth that we once had because the
Comprehensive Plan is going to recommend and suggest that we
actually revitalize and go back into infill. And if that in
fact becomes some what of the direction of the county and if
the economy doesn't turn around for awhile it could be that
Matoaca District could stay stable for awhile in terms of its
population. I didn't want a drastic, you know 10,000 people
is pretty drastic out of a district, but that's a lot of
people. Then I was trying to be well-rounded, when you look
at my district and it has to effect four other districts
which I'm the only district, it affects four other districts,
you had to do your very, very best in saying if you move this
piece what does it do over here, if you move this piece what
does it do over here, and so I think we had maybe three
meetings with the attorneys and really decided that this was
ultimately the best plan, in fact we had one I think in the
second meeting and it deemed that this ended up being the
best. Now, when you start to change things, ok, if people
want to make considerations for changing, and quite frankly
I'll be pretty honest here, I have~not heard up until this
evening that there were any issues with the Matoaca District,
so I was not informed by the attorneys at all that we would
be having any issues with changing anything, I had been told
that everything was just fine and the only issues between
Plan A and Plan B were just the Bermuda and the Dale
District. So, that being said, when I was looking at this map
from the second meeting to the third meeting if we were to
change something then of course you have to look at those
changes and how it effects other areas. And so, one of the
things we were looking at were arterial roads, if you
remember, we were looking at main roads, where is Zach, is
Zach here? Zach was helping very much in terms of trying to
help us figure out a way that we weren't going to break up an
area or kind of, frankly minimize a possible area. And,
because Matoaca is so large and because there are different
types of areas that are split, for example Lucks Lane, the
right side of it being in the Matoaca District is really kind
of interesting of why it would have been in the Matoaca
District as long as it was. The size of Matoaca, you surely
don't need to go all the way up to Courthouse Road in some
respects, and of course it made very less sense to consider
that area, which was a large piece of population. We then
looked at other areas and the problems you come into is the
11-293
main arterial roads and/or side roads and how you work with
those. One example is the community of Charter Colony, a
piece of it is in Midlothian and a good piece of it is in the
Matoaca District. So, we were saying that we can't do it with
all of-them because that's just not possible, every district
has communities that are not complete, there's nothing you
can do to avoid. that, unless you decide not to deal with
districts as a structure in your government. If you chose to
just do it all at-large or whatever, you would never have the
issue that we're talking about in terms of the people wanted
to know where they are. The other thing is minimizing the
confusion, with moving almost 10,000, I don't know the exact
number, 9,000 whatever we're going to lose, you want to
minimize confusion out there to your population and my guess
is there's going to be some confusion, but we were trying to
minimize moving the x number of precincts because my
population is large it would be more. likely that you would
then have to move some more precincts that we want to
minimize moving any more precincts then we possibly can. The
section that folks are talking about in the upper part of the
Midlothian area, you know its interesting when people talk
about the Midlothian area, my church is in the Midlothian
area, but Midlothian in Matoaca is larger then Midlothian in
Midlothian. So, the ZIP Codes in Matoaca District which are
23112, 23113 and parts of 23114 is larger than Midlothian
District. So, we sometimes want to be territorial and we
can't look at that when we are looking at how we're going to
devise this map, because quite frankly, we have the
opportunity after we go through this process to be able to
put together a committee which the business community has
been asking for, for sometime now, that we put together folks
of certain institutions and non-political to be able to study
how we move forward in this county. It has been done in the
past, there have been committees put together before and at
one time the county actually did have six supervisors and it
was recommended at this time that we would probably be at a
point of where we would have potentially more supervisors,
but it has to be comprehensive, you just can't start to slice
and dice. So, what I feel is that we went through a very,
very strong, good process with the attorneys and feel that
we've come up with the best possible scenario and it would be
quite concerning to me and also maybe to some residents I
guess that we would start changing something that I was not
aware of at all until this point in time and had quite
confidence with the attorneys that what we decided to
consider was solid for the county. Now, keep in mind people
talk about the Roseland community; and again we have to stay
away from being territorial. The Roseland community is in the
Matoaca District, most of it is in the Matoaca District, so
moving it out of Matoaca District would confuse people
because it is in the Matoaca District. And, we also had to
look at roads, like Otterdale Road and one of the issues that
we discussed with the attorneys was how far do we go down Old
Hundred to Watermill that hits Genito and/or how far do we go
west and how far does it effect things in that respect and so
we tried it in many different ways, quite frankly, at the end
of the day it came to be that we would consider what we
currently have on the table. So, to me it just makes sense,
we're not supposed to look at, I think one person talked
about, I think is was facilities and services, an individual
brought up that we probably want to do something anyways
about making sure that we have people that are represented by
facilities and services, and it'`s sort of not the map that
J
J
J
11-294
does even though it's kind of misleading that it would be
anyways but how we do the. best job with our facilities and
services is through our Comprehensive Plan, it's not by a
district kind of mentality, we have to do our very best that
we're here collectively to be able to represent folks. At
this point, like I said, if I'm going to be asked to consider
anything I surely would not want to vote on anything until.
I'm given the opportunity, this is the first time, me hearing
anyone wanted to change Matoaca District and we've been at
this for two months. I would want to be given respectful
opportunity to analyze that because when we went through this
we were analyzing all ends of Matoaca District because it
abuts four districts and so I think it would be highly unfair
to a supervisor who spent a great deal of time with the
attorneys to be able to change something without having the
opportunity to analyze anything at this point. The population
percentages that the attorneys projected was within the
reason of what was expected and I just, quite frankly, don't
see that if you shifted sixty-five folks or less than one-
hundred folks or whatever it is that that's going to make any
difference in your percentage, what you have to look at is
being fair and being objective and I believe that this plan
does that. Now, in terms of Plan A and Plan B, the thing that
does concern me is when we talk about contiguous and I don't
know if you can put the map up, one of the attorneys put the
map for Plan A, again when one looks at that plan, and again
if Mr. Haake and others brought up points about cost of the
county, we had to be very mindful of costs to the county. If
you look at a map if you're a planner, that was one of the
very key things that I discussed with the attorneys about no
tails, no wings, no things sticking out. So, for instance, if
you see a small portion up there in the Clover Hill District,
that's going from Matoaca District to Clover Hill, was trying
to eliminate any tails and also anything that we would be
providing to Dale District, Bermuda District and Midlothian
District, that was a very key point that the attorneys were
trying to share. Looking at Plan A, if you're a planner
looking at the purple area or blue area it may be for you out
in the audience there, it's hard for me to, in vision from a
contiguous standpoint, that purple blue blob at the bottom of
the purple area, it just seems like it stands out there by
itself and it doesn't have any sense to it, it's down below,
I think the attorney described it wanted to be round and it
wanted whole, no it can't be perfectly round, but basically
it looks like it sticking down there and it's not sure what
it's doing. Now, in terms of looking at it, in terms of cost
and/or diluting the minority vote or doing the things that we
were supposed to follow, you know the attorneys have done a
very good job in terms of describing to us what was important
in this process. Let's see, I'm trying to get to Plan B, if
you were to go to Plan B, if we have it sorry, you can
envision from a planner's standpoint that the Bermuda
District then does become more contiguous and so does Dale
because it's seen more of a wholesome kind of boundaries to
its district . So, I do think that we've done a great j ob; I
appreciate all the citizen input. My residents would only be
concerned like some other residents, of course who stated
something in the public hearing about making sure that we,
what's the word, how do I describe it, even though it was not
something we were to consider, we do have to be mindful of it
and it is the ability to have certain facilities and services
that maybe the bulk of your population might need to use. So,
for instance, say you look at a precinct, and I think the
11-295
attorneys and Mr. Haake would say, we don't want to
necessarily move, if you had a precinct and they take 75
percent of that precinct and leave the 20 percent whole, it
wouldn't really make sense, we would have to figure out the
best way to try to do that so it wouldn't be costly and it
wouldn't be disruptive. Well, also too for the area up in the
northern part of Matoaca, Matoaca is somewhat limited because
we don't have enough sometimes facilities to serve our
population and a big concern at the time was Tomahawk School,
which is in the wrong place, now folks can argue that, but at
the end of the day I think it's 83 percent or plus of the
students that go into the Cosby High School, attend Tomahawk
High School, you can't deny a large percentage and you don't
want to be confusing the public anymore then you have to. So,
at the end of the day the lines were looked at from
Watermill, that dividing line, it was also looked at
Otterdale, it was also looked at Mount Hermon and it was also
looked at other arterial roads and it was just difficult to
decide what would be best and so, at the end of the day, this
was the best after four scenarios, or five scenarios of
mapping at we had provided. And so, I thank you for your time
for listing, but it requires thorough process, it requires
not to be too reactive, it requires the advice from our
attorneys and it requires being forward-thinking about some
future changes that will occur in this county, just because
we are the fourth largest county in the state and we will be
like the other counties, Virginia Beach, Loudon County, all
those counties who had to make major changes because when you
deal with 350,000-400,000 people then what you once had known
would be a district or what would be representative may just
not be, and we really have that opportunity after approving
this plan to have the special group come to together and
really comprehensively look at our county and envision, even
next year or the year after, or the year after, we do not
have to wait, I think someone made a comment that we have to
wait ten years and it's so important to get it right now; no
that's not the case. We have the opportunity, even after we
approve this plan to be able to look at our structure in this
county and it just may make the necessary changes that will
better represent the citizens in this county and that's most
important, we're here to represent the citizens. So, with
that in mind, I'm very satisfied and I think at the end of
the day it's the Department of Justice will ultimately decide
how we've done this and we should be very careful that we
don't try to do too many things at the last minute of what
we're doing, but I would be quite comfortable with Plan A or
Plan B, but I would determine which one based on pros and
cons of information that we were to look at from our
attorneys. Thank you.
Mr. Gecker - As I said before, I am prepared to make a motion
that we adopt and modify Plan A, but let me just actually say
one thing first, Mr. McCoy if you don't mind, I would just
like to point out I proudly represent the Davis precinct, I
know in your letter you said it's in a different magisterial
district, but Davis is actually mine and very proud to have
it with me and it's not proposed to move.
Mr. Gecker - I proposed we adopt Plan A modified as I
suggested before, having that triangle bounded by the
southern railway, Otterdale and Old Hundred stay with
Midlothian. Therefore, keeping, because of the contiguity
requirement, the part to the east of that, not really a
J
J
J
11-296
triangle but it's a number of sided geography in Clover Hill,
or moving it from Matoaca to Clover Hill, and also again on
the idea that community of interest and where growth is
likely to occur in the county, ought not all be in Matoaca,
to go ahead and expand the boundary of Midlothian to Swift
Creek and run it across as Mr. Parthemos put on the board
before.
Ms. Jaeckle - Second.
Mr. Warren - Ok, it has been moved at seconded. Discussion.
Ms. Durfee - Yes, the public needs to know this is the first
time I'm hearing this as the Matoaca supervisor, but once
again this is probably not surprising to some people as we
had discussions today on transportation projects and we seem
to have three supervisors in this county who are determining
what happens in the Matoaca District without respecting that
supervisor and the process that we had with the attorneys.
Again, this is the first time in two months that I have heard
that we would be changing any lines within the Matoaca
District. That can be supported by the fact that if we had a
Plan A and a Plan B for Bermuda District and Dale District,
then why wasn't there a Plan A and Plan B for Matoaca and
Midlothian or a Plan A and Plan B for Matoaca and Clover
Hill? It was never provided to me. It's unfair, it is
entirely unfair. However, we have three people on this Board
who are operating very unfairly and it' s unfortunate because
the citizens of this county are the ones that lose out when
we are not more open and transparent in our governing. Now, I
can't do anything about three, if three is three, three is
three. But, we are seeing a pattern here since January of
what has occurred and what the citizens expected of us as
elected officials which is to conduct ourselves in a more
fair and objective manner, and of course if one supervisor,
and I'm sure if it was one of the others sitting on this
panel, I surely would not treat another colleague like that,
I would never do that. But, surely if it was one of them,
they surely would not want to be surprised on the night of
trying to make a decision that changes were going to be made
without your knowledge. Now, without that knowledge, I'm left
entirely in the dark of how I could consider this map and
potential changes if this was going to be considered. I
should be given the opportunity with those changes to
consider anything else that I might want to consider
adjusting. I'm not going to be given that opportunity if the
three decide that's what they want to do. It's unfortunate
and I do think that the Matoaca residents are becoming very,
very, very aware of how it actually has been pushed aside.
Prior to me running for this county, I heard a lot of
citizens in the Ettrick and I know L.J., you will confirm
this that a lot of citizens in the Ettrick and Matoaca area
talk about how they felt that they've been neglected and
overlooked to the rest of Matoaca. But, let me tell you,
Matoaca, if we were to look at the size of the population and
what we have actually been provided it's a big eye-opener and
I didn't know that, I knew some of it prior to becoming
elected but extremely an eye-opener as being an elected
official in this county and on this Board of Supervisors.
Once again, I have a high expectation of professionalism from
my colleagues to be able to be fair and objective in a
process and unfortunately maybe they just don't have that
same expectation.
11-297
Mr. Holland - Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the Matoaca
Supervisor, certainly I think it bears repeating that we
clarify the amended changes as stated. I do think it is
unfair to do that to the Matoaca Supervisor at the last
minute as she so well stated. So, I would ask before we vote
that we reiterate and repeat what was requested in changes to
Matoaca and could the attorneys address that as well.
Mr. Mincks - The motion that is on the floor right now would
be to adopt Plan A with the following changes: Change One
would be the blue portion of Evergreen Precinct that is shown
in Matoaca (referring to the map) be moved to Clover Hill,
that the triangular portion of the Midlothian District, which
is adjacent to it on the west, which is showing there as
being proposed in Matoaca would actually remain in Midlothian
and then west of the triangle that portion of the Skinquarter
Precinct, which is north of Swift Creek.
Ms. Durfee - Use a pointer on the colored map, because the
reason I'm saying that as you know, a map was sent to me with
not a colored map which makes it confusing of the two areas
that could be considered and so what I believe you're saying
is the lined one and the non-lined one. You need to point to
that so the public can understand and so that Mr. Holland can
understand, because obviously the three other supervisors
understand because they've had this figured out.
Mr. Mincks - So, that portion of the Skinquarter, which is
adjacent to the triangle, would move to Midlothian under the
motion. That effectively encompasses the remainder of the
Roseland property.
Ms. Jaeckle - And, would that to the right of that Midlothian
triangle go to Clover Hill?
Mr. Mincks - That would go to Clover Hill, and that is the
remainder of Evergreen Precinct.
Ms. Jaeckle - So, to me that looks more geographically
correct than the proposal quite frankly. I did wonder, I have
a couple of questions from several people as to why that
little piece coming down from Midlothian would possibly be
switching to the Matoaca District, since they were. trying to
lose population in Matoaca that was raised by several people
with me, and I just said well I didn't really know.
Mr. Mincks - The purpose for having the triangle go to
Matoaca was to allow that portion of the Evergreen Precinct
to remain in Matoaca. And, without that triangle going to
Matoaca, then there would not be contiguity. As Mr. Parthemos
explained, during the public meetings it was pointed out why
would that triangle go to Midlothian and what we pointed out
at that time was if you kept that triangle in Midlothian,
then you could not leave the rest in Matoaca. It had to go
some place else because there would no longer be contiguity.
Ms. Jaeckle - What was the purpose of leaving Evergreen in
Matoaca if you were trying to lose population with Matoaca?
Mr. Mincks -.There was a request for that to remain in
Matoaca and it still let the range of population that was
available.
J
J
11-298
Ms. Durfee - You don't need to lose a hundred percent of the
population unless you have some sort of agenda. I think the
Matoaca District had to lose almost 10,000 people and I think
that quite frankly, if you had to say that's being quite
generous of a district. Now, with still staying within reason
of the federal guidelines and the attorneys assured me
through this entire process and working through it on several
different scenarios that this was the best. I think to decide
to change things was entirely unfair but you know what we're
looking at and I'm real concerned because there was one
person, I attended the public hearing, there was one person
who made comment and we know why they made it it's Casey
Sowers, but there was .nobody else that spoke...
Ms. Jaecke - I had some of my people call me.
Ms. Durfee - Well that's great Dorothy, but my Matoaca
residents would be happy because they realize that I
represent them and also the facilities and services in that
area, even though we're not to look at that, that is
important to them and I think at the end of the day we are to
look at what is most important to our citizens. And, keep in
mind, Roseland is in the Matoaca District, it's not being
moved out of the Matoaca District. Now, you're asking me for
it to be moved out of the Matoaca District and it's always
been apart of it, so you're asking me to do something with no
population when it's been a part of Matoaca District for a
very, very long time. This should not be about a community
but it appears that that's what it's coming down to. It
appears that it's coming down to a community wants to be
apart of another district than looking at the contagiousness
of the district and the guidelines that the attorneys assured
me we were to look at.
Mr. Gecker - Of course, the piece of Midlothian you wanted to
take has been Midlothian forever and those people have
expressed the desire to stay in Midlothian. I quite frankly
don't care about .the Evergreen piece; however, except for
your request to the attorneys to keep that piece of
Evergreen, you wouldn't need to take a piece of Midlothian.
And frankly, taking that piece of Midlothian is not something
that I consider to be the right thing here. The folks in that
area consider themselves Midlothian residents and I said
before, I don't think it's because they like me or it's
anything to do with me or you, I think it's because, I'll
tell you I had one resident who called, his father I know was
the last superintendent of the Midlo Mines and she said, `I
want to stay in Midlothian, I've been in Midlothian forever,'
and you know to accommodate essentially the desire to keep
that one piece of Evergreen, you're basically saying let's
sacrifice that area of Midlothian and, I appreciate, let me
just finish here, because a couple of things you've said
leave an impression that is just not true. I'm not going to
say whether you knew or didn't know...
Ms. Durfee - I did not know. That's the truth. I'm telling
you, I did not know.
Mr. Gecker - I can't tell you whether you knew or didn't
know, let me say this, the County Attorney who we met with a
number of times was fully aware of this proposal, fully
vetted this proposal and indicated much like he indicated
11-299
with the original Plan A that this proposal meets the Justice
Department guidelines and works. Now, what information you
got I can't speak to, but I can tell you because you now
twice today have talked about this idea of a group of three
running the county, you know we run our information, as you
know, back and forth through staff, we don't get to meet
between meetings, that's illegal, and we run our information
back and forth through staff. There is no question that the
County Attorney was not surprised at all tonight about this
proposal. This proposal was going to be made, and in fact, it
makes sense to make it. So, if you're surprised, I'm sorry,
but don't look to us and say `you surprised me here'. I mean
frankly, as I said, staff was fully aware what was coming
here and you talk to` staff. I talk to staff, what they
communicate between us, I don't know, but it is unfair to
suggest that supervisors are keeping information from other
supervisors. Given the constraints of how we have to operate,
we do communicate quite a bit through the staff and that was
done here, above Board with the numbers run, that's how I
knew how many people were in that little sliver, I mean I
don' t know that of f hand, I called up and said `hey, what if
we do this, what happens,?' and the answer was you've got
340-something people who end up moving.
Ms. Durfee - Let me address two points here, you made two
comments about how staff had known. The attorneys, neither
one of them, Mr. Mincks and the other one, ever in any of my
meetings came to me and told me there would ever be this
consideration or change. I never heard it. Now, you are now
putting the attorneys on the spot and the public is now
seeing that the attorneys are on the spot, which goes back to
the way we are doing processes in this county, so the
attorneys are on the spot because I have never been told to
this date about this change. Now, if you are going to put the
burden on the attorneys and not yourselves, and I will
address yourselves in a minute, then basically you have
created a situation where it is unfair, you have to admit
that it is unfair for a supervisor of this county to not be
told anything about this change. Now, it's consistent with if
there was a change, don't you think then we would have had a
Plan A and a Plan B map like there was in the Dale and the
Bermuda District, don't you think you would have showed the
public the changes? So, my question to you is, the three of
you did know, so whether you want to couch it as the three of
you have some little deal, you communicated amongst
yourselves, because you just admitted you three knew. Mr.
Holland did you know?
Mr. Decker - Actually, what I said is the attorneys knew.
Ms. Durfee - You said you knew.
Mr. Gecker - I said the attorneys knew. I can't speak for
either Mr. Warren or Ms. Jaeckle.
Ms. Durfee - Obviously you just made a comment that you knew.
You knew and the others too.
Mr. Decker - How do you know that they knew?
Ms. Durfee - Obviously they knew. They are acting like they
knew.
J
J
11-300
Mr. Gecker - They're sitting there Marleen, they're not
acting like anything, other than they're mystified about
what's going on here.
Ms. Durfee - They just said that they knew that they would
like to have that information. The attorneys communicated it
with them. The attorneys didn't communicate this with me. Mr.
Holland, did the attorneys communicate with you about this
potential change?
Mr. Holland - No.
Ms. Durfee - Okay, so here we have two supervisors in this
county that the attorneys did not communicate with about this
potential change. Now, my next question is, to the attorneys,
did you communicate with the other three supervisors about
this potential change? I am absolutely flabbergasted that we
would conduct business in this county this way.
Mr. Mincks - Ms. Durfee, I can say is when you and I
discussed this, the discussion we had at the time was, and it
was following the commentary from Mr. Sowers, that we
discussed was the notion that if indeed stayed in Midlothian
in this portion, this triangle, then Evergreen could not stay
in Matoaca. That actually was communicated to you. Where that
was going to go, I don't know.
Ms. Durfee - It wasn't communicated to me, let me tell you
why, Jeff. I attended the public hearing where Mr. Sowers
made that comment and then I left out of the country. I was
out of the country, it wasn't communicated to me, it wasn't
communicated, but my point being we seemed to be spending a
lot of time on a little area that one person brings and then
we want to have concentration on that, but yet I believe that
there were- other citizens who spoke about other areas that
they thought were questioned in terms of how we do this map.
Yet we're concentrating, quite frankly, on a little area that
belongs in the Matoaca District, but yet we had a discussion,
I believe it was Mr. Olsen who brought up the Manchester,
Midlothian and Clover Hill, no discussion on that yet. We had
a discussion between Dale and Bermuda, no discussion on that
yet. I mean, it is amazing, it is pretty obvious. Now, you've
gotta do what you've gotta do, and it's a shame, because what
it represents, that a supervisor in this county is hearing
for the first time of this potential change with no ability,
no maps provided, and no ability to be able to determine if
this actually works in terms of the other kinds of
adjustments we made to make this the best contiguous Matoaca
map. Mr. Mincks, you told me and the other attorney that when
we worked on this and said this was the best map.
Ms. Jaeckle - I would just like to say at that hearing I do
recall there were several people wondering why that little
piece of Midlothian would be going into Matoaca. I never had
a discussion with the County Attorney on it and I just came
and listened to that they said. I looked at the map, and in
my opinion, it just doesn't make sense to craft out that
piece to keep Evergreen in Matoaca, so I'm wondering what is
in Evergreen. I mean, I understand nobody likes to lose
constituents and you are a very hard worker in your district
and I know that you have a lot of constituents and you hate
to give them up, I understand that and you are unfortunate. I
would hate to lose 12,000 but when you look geographically it
11-301
really doesn't make any sense and that is the reason I am
agreeing to it.
Ms. Durfee - Well, in your eyes. But, again, if my citizens
were looking at that and saying `Well, how does that affect
us?' they might be just like Casey Sowers or someone else who
comes and says `what's in that section?' and they would say
`wait a second, there's something in that section that
affects me or that affects my precinct or that affects this.'
You're not even giving me the opportunity to let my citizens
have that say-so because quite frankly, when you had the
public hearing you showed Plan A and Plan B, you did not show
to the public a different consideration. So, it's very, very
unfair on a lot of fronts, but you have to vote how you have
to vote.
Mr. Warren - Just for the record, because the question did
come up as to why Evergreen remained in Matoaca District ten
years ago. The reason was, quite simply, that the elected
school board member from Matoaca happened to live in that
precinct; otherwise it would have gone to Clover Hill because
it is contiguous on two sides and it' s a sliver so to split
that in the first place didn't make any sense. We are
actually modifying it by keeping it all in the same
magisterial district now and that would be Clover Hill and it
would have happened ten years ago had it not been for the
fact that the elected school board member was from Matoaca
District . We have a lot of public hearings here and we learn
a lot from those public hearings and the people who spoke
tonight overwhelmingly supported A, so we are modifying A in
order to bring all the populations closer together and so
that's a good point for supporting the modified approach. The
voting rights requirement is met by the plan, the cost, Mr.
Haake indicated because of the mailing costs is pretty much
is a wash than an expense. I don't know how many of you read
the newspaper this morning but Henrico covered their plan
last night and they shifted I think it was Three Chopt
roughly the same amount of population that Matoaca is
shifting and they made a lot of other shifts throughout their
plan that if you read the article in the Richmond Times-
Dispatch you will see that they were made at the last minute
as a result of the public hearing. One of our
responsibilities is to listen to the public and make our
final decisions on that basis. I would hope that we don't get
into personalities but stick with policy.
Mr. Warren called for a vote made on the motion of Mr.
Gecker, seconded by Ms. Jaeckle, for the Board to adopt Plan
A with modifications, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 7.3 RELATING TO
PRECINCT BOUNDARIES AND POLLING PLACES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Section 7.3 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to
read as follows:
J
J
J
11-302
BERMUDA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
0 0 0
Drewry's Bluff Voting Precinct (105):
Beginning at the point where the center line of the
Seaboard Coast Line right-of-way on the west side of U.S.
Route 1/301 (Jefferson Davis Highway) intersects the boundary
line between the County of Chesterfield and the City of
Richmond; thence southeastwardly along said boundary line to
its intersection with the James River; thence southwardly
along the James River to the point where said river is
intersected by the southern boundary line of Richmond
National Battlefield Park; thence southwestwardly along the
center line of Richmond National Battlefield Park to its
intersection with the northern boundary lines of Census
Blocks 1004033006 and 1004033007; thence westwardly along
these northern boundary lines to their intersection with
Interstate 95; thence southwardly along the center line of
Interstate 95 to its intersection with Bellwood Road; thence
southwestwardly along the center line of Bellwood Road to its
intersection with U. S. Route 1/301 (Jefferson Davis
Highway); thence north along the center line of U.S. Route
1/301 to its intersection with the CSX.Railroad right-of-way;
thence southwestwardly along the center line of said right-
of-way to its intersection with Kingsland Creek; then
westwardly along the center line of Kingsland Creek to its
intersection with the Seaboard Coast Line right-of-way;
thence northwardly along the center line of said right-of-way
to its point and place of beginning.
The voting place for Drewry's Bluff Voting Precinct
shall be Bensley Elementary School, 6600 Strathmore Road.
0 0 0
Iron Bridge Voting Precinct (111):
Beginning. at the point where the center line of Iron
Bridge Road (State Route 10) intersects the center line of
Centralia Road (State Route 145); thence eastwardly along the
center line of Centralia Road (State Route 145) to its
intersection with Chalkley Road (State Route 632); thence
southwardly along the center line of Chalkley Road (State
Route 632) to its intersection with Iron Bridge Road (State
Route 10); thence southeast along the center line of Iron
Bridge Road (State Route 10) to its intersection with
Branders Bridge Road; thence southward along the center line
of Branders Bridge Road to its intersection with Swift Creek;
thence along the center line of Swift Creek as it meanders
northwestwardly to its intersection with Franks Branch Creek;
thence southwestwardly along center line of Franks Branch
Creek to its °intersection with Woodpecker Road; thence
northwestwardly along center line of Woodpecker Road to its
intersection with Eastfair Drive; thence northwardly along
center line of Eastfair Drive to its intersection with Second
Branch Creek; thence eastwardly along center line of Second
Branch Creek to its intersection with Swift Creek; thence
northeastwardly along the center line of Swift Creek to its
11-303
intersection with Lewis Road; thence northward along the
center line of Lewis Road (State Route 632) to its
intersection with Iron Bridge Road; thence west and north
along the center line of Iron Bridge to its intersection with
Centralia Road (State Route 145), the point and place of
beginning.
The voting place for Iron Bridge Voting Precinct shall
be Chesterfield Community High School, 12400 Branders Bridge
Road.
0 0 0
DALE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
0 0 0
Nash Voting Precinct (211):
Beginning at the point where the center line of Beach
Road (State Route 655) intersects the center line of Iron
Bridge Road (State Route 10); thence southwardly along the
center line of Iron Bridge Road (State Route 10) to its
intersection with Lewis Road (State Route 632); thence
southwardly along the center line of Lewis Road (State Route
632) to its intersection with Lake Dale; thence
southwestwardly along the center line of Lake Dale to its
outfall at Swift Creek; thence southwardly along the center
line of Swift Creek to its intersection with Second Branch
Creek; thence northwardly along center line of Second Branch
Creek to its intersection with Eastfair Drive; then
southwardly along the center line of Eastfair Drive to its
intersection with Woodpecker Road; thence northwestwardly
along the center line of Woodpecker Road (State Route 626) to
its intersection with the eastern boundary of Pocahontas
State Park; thence northward along the eastern boundary of
Pocahontas State Park to its intersection with Swift Creek;
thence eastwardly along the center line of Swift Creek to its
intersection with Beach Road; thence northeastwardly along
the center line of Beach Road to its intersection with Iron
Bridge Road (State Route 10), the point and place of
beginning.
The voting place for Nash Voting Precinct shall be Iron
Bridge Baptist Church, located at 10900 Iron Bridge Road.
0 0 0
Hopkins Voting Precinct (214):
Beginning at the point where the Seaboard Coast Line
right-of-way intersects with Dalebrook Drive (State Route
1601); thence northwestwardly along the center line of
Dalebrook Drive (State Route 1601) to its intersection with
Chippenham Parkway (State Route 150); thence eastwardly along
the center line of Chippenham Parkway (State Route 150) to
its intersection with the Seaboard Coast Line right-of-way on
the west side of U.S. Route 1/301 (Jefferson Davis Highway);
thence southwardly along the center line of said right-of-way
to its point and place of beginning.
J
J
J
11-304
The voting place for Hopkins Voting Precinct shall be
Hopkins Elementary School, 6000 Hopkins Road.
MATOACA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
0 0 0
Winfree's Store Voting Precinct (304)
Beginning at the point where the center line of Hickory
Road intersects with Matoaca Road thence westwardly along the
center. line of Hickory Road (State Route 628) to its
intersection with Graves Road (State Route 630); thence
southwestwardly along the center line of Graves Road (State
Route 630) to its intersection with River Road (State Route
36); thence southward on River Road to the southeastern
boundary line of census block 1007034006; thence southwest
along the said census block boundary to the boundary line
between the County of Chesterfield and the County of
Dinwiddie; thence westwardly along said boundary line to its
intersection with the western line of Nooning Creek, as
flooded by Lake Chesdin; thence northwardly along the western
line of Nooning Creek and continuing along the center line of
Nooning Creek; thence northwardly, to its intersection with
the southwestern boundary line of census block 1007034014;
thence northwardly along said boundary to its intersection
with Second Branch Road (State Route 653); thence northwardly
along the center line of Second Branch Road (State Route 653)
to its intersection with a creek known as Second Branch;
thence along the center line of Second Branch as it meanders
in an eastwardly direction to its intersection with Nash Road
(State Route 636); thence northwardly along the center line
of Nash Road (State Route 636) to its intersection with
Woodpecker Road (State Route 626); thence southeastwardly
along the center line of Woodpecker Road (State Route 626) to
its intersection with Franks Branch Creek; thence
northeastwardly along its center line of Franks Branch Creek
to its intersection with Swift Creek; thence southeastwardly
along the center line of Swift Creek to its intersection with
Branders Bridge Road (State Route 625) at the boundary line
between the County of Chesterfield and the City of Colonial
Heights; thence southeastwardly along the boundary line to
its intersection with Lakeview Road (State Route 626); thence
westwardly along the center line of Lakeview Road to its
intersection with Woodpecker Road; thence southwestwardly
along the center line of Woodpecker Road to its intersection
with Matoaca Road; thence west and south along the center
line of Matoaca Road to its intersection with Hickory Road,
the point and place of beginning.
The voting place for Winfree's Store Voting Precinct
shall be Phillips Volunteer Fire Department, 10630 River
Road.
0 0 0
South Manchester Voting Precinct (308):
11-305
Beginning at the point where the center line of Route
288 intersects the center line of U.S. Route 360 (Hull Street
Road); thence westwardly along the center line of U.S. Route
360 (Hull Street Road) to its intersection with Swift Creek;
thence eastwardly along the center line of Swift Creek to its
intersection with Qualla Road (State Route 653); thence
northwardly along the center line of Qualla Road (State Route
653) to its intersection with Route 288; thence westward
along the center line of Route 288 to its intersection with
U.S. Route 360 (Hull Street Road), the point and place of
beginning.
The voting place for South Manchester Voting Precinct
shall be Manchester High School, 12601 Bailey Bridge Road.
Skinquarter Voting Precinct (309):
Beginning at the point where the center line of
Otterdale Road (State Route 667) intersects the center line
of U.S. Route 360 (Hull Street Road); thence westwardly along
the center line of U.S. Route 360 (Hull Street Road) to its
intersection with the Appomattox River, the boundary line
between the County of Chesterfield and the County of Amelia;
thence along said boundary line in a westwardly and
northwardly direction as it follows the Appomattox River to
its intersection with Skinquarter Creek, the boundary line
between the County of Chesterfield and the County of
Powhatan; thence continuing northeastwardly along said
boundary line to its intersection with Swift Creek; thence
eastwardly along the center line of Swift Creek to its
intersection with the Southern Railway Right-of-Way; thence
northeastwardly along the center line of said Right-of-Way to
its intersection with County Line Road; thence southward
along the center line of County Line Road to its intersection
with Mt. Hermon Road; thence southwardly along the center
line of Mt. Hermon Road to its intersection with Swift Creek;
thence southeastwardly along the center line of Swift Creek
to its intersection with Swift Creek Reservoir; thence
southwardly along the center line of said reservoir to its
intersection with Woolridge Road (State Route 668); thence
southwestwardly along the center line of Woolridge Road
(State Route 668) to its intersection with Otterdale Road
(State Route 667); thence southeastwardly along the center
line of Otterdale Road (State Route 667) to its intersection
with U.S. Route 360 (Hull Street Road), the point and place
of beginning.
The voting place for Skinquarter Voting Precinct shall
be Mt. Hermon Baptist Church, 18100 Genito Road.
0 0 0
CLOVER HILL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
0 0 0
Brandermill Voting Precinct (403):
J
J
J
11-306
Beginning at the point where the center line of Old
Hundred Road (State Route 652) intersects the center line of
Tomahawk Creek; thence northwardly along the center line of
Old Hundred Road (State Route 652) to its intersection with
Otterdale Road (State Route 667); thence southward along the
center line of Otterdale Road (State Route 667) to its
intersection with Swift Creek; thence southeastwardly along
the center line of Swift Creek to its intersection with
Genito Road; thence eastwardly along the center line of
Genito Road to its intersection with Charter Colony Parkway;
thence northwardly along the center line of Charter Colony
Parkway to its intersection with Old Hundred Road (State
Route 652); thence in a westwardly direction-along the center
line of Old Hundred Road (State Route 652) to its
intersection with the point and place of beginning.
The voting place for Brandermill Voting Precinct shall
be Swift Creek Elementary School, 13800 Genito Road.
0 0 0
Manchester Voting Precinct (409):
Beginning at the point where the center line of Belmont
Road (State Route 651) intersects the center line of
Dortonway Drive; thence southwestwardly along the center line
of Belmont Road (State Route 651) to its intersection with
Falling Creek; thence northwestwardly along the center line
of Falling Creek to its intersection with Newbys Bridge Road;
thence northeastwardly along the center line of Newbys Bridge
Road to its intersection with Dortonway Drive; thence
southeastwardly along the center line of Dortonway Drive to
its intersection with Belmont Road, the point and place of
beginning.
The voting place for Manchester Voting Precinct shall be
Manchester Middle School, 7401 Hull Street Road.
0 0 0
Crenshaw Voting Precinct (414):
Beginning at the point where center line of U.S. Route
360 intersects the center line of Genito Road; thence
westwardly along the center line of U.S. Route 360 to its
intersection with Route 288; thence eastward along the center
line of Route 288 to its intersection with Qualla Road;
thence northeastward along the center line of Qualla Road to
its intersection with Courthouse Road; thence northwest along
the center line of Courthouse Road to its intersection with
Genito Road; thence northwest along the center line of Genito
Road to its intersection with U. S. Route 360, the point and
place of beginning.
The voting place for Crenshaw Voting Precinct shall be
Crenshaw Elementary School, 11901 Bailey Bridge Road.
Evergreen Voting Precinct (415)
11-307
Beginning at the point where the center line of
Otterdale Road (State Route 667) intersects the center line
of Old Hundred Road (State Route 754) thence northward
along the center line of Otterdale to its intersection with
the Virginia Power Company easement; thence southeastwardly
along the center line of said easement to its intersection
with Route 288; thence southeastwardly along the center line
of Route 288 to its intersection with the western boundary of
Census Block 510411009281043; thence along the center line of
said boundary to its intersection with the western boundary
line of Census Block 510411009292006; thence northward along
the center line of said boundary to its intersection with
Miners Trail (State Route 720); thence eastwardly along the
center line of Miners Trail (State Route 720) to its
intersection with Lucks Lane (State Route 720); thence
eastwardly along the center line of Lucks Lane (State Route
720) to its intersection with Courthouse Road (State Route
653); thence southwardly along the center line of Courthouse
Road (State Route 653) to its intersection with Powhite
Parkway (State Route 76); thence westwardly along the center
line of Powhite Parkway (State Route 76) to its intersection
with Old Hundred Road (State Route 652); thence
northwestwardly along the center line of Old Hundred Road
(State Route 652) to its intersection with Otterdale Road
(State Route 667), the point and place of beginning.
The voting place for Evergreen Voting Precinct shall be
Evergreen Elementary School, 1701 Evergreen East Parkway.
MIDLOTHIAN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
0 0 0
Midlothian Voting Precinct (503):
Beginning at the point where the center line of
Winterfield Road (State Route 714) intersects the boundary
line between the County of Chesterfield and the County of
Powhatan; thence southwestwardly along said boundary line to
its intersection with the center line of Swift Creek; thence
southeastwardly along said line to its intersection with the
Southern Railway Right-of-Way; thence northeastward along
said right-of-way to its intersection with County Line Road;
thence southward along the center line of County Line Road to
its intersection with Mt. Hermon Road; thence southwardly
along the center line of Mt. Hermon Road to its intersection
with Swift Creek; thence southeastwardly along the center
line of Swift Creek to its intersection with Otterdale Road;
thence northward along the center line of Otterdale Road to
its intersection with the Virginia Power Company easement;
thence southeastwardly along the center line of Virginia
Power Company easement to its intersection with Route 288;
thence southwardly along the center line of Route 288 to its
intersection with the Western boundary line of Census Block
510411009281043; thence north along the center line of said
boundary to its intersection with western boundary of Census
Block 510411009292006; thence north along the center line of
said boundary to its intersection with Coalfield Road (State
Route 754); thence northwardly along the center line of
Coalfield Road (State Route 754) to its intersection with
J
J
J
11-308
U.S. Route 60 (Midlothian Turnpike); thence eastwardly along
the center line of U.S. Route 60 (Midlothian Turnpike) to its
intersection with Falling Creek; thence northwardly along the
center line of Falling Creek to its intersection with the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; thence westwardly along the
center line of said right-of-way to its intersection with
Winterfield Road (State Route 714); thence northwardly along
the center line of Winterfield Road (State Route 714) to its
intersection with the boundary line between the County of
Chesterfield and the County of Powhatan, the point and place
of beginning.
The voting place for Midlothian Voting Precinct shall be
Midlothian High School, 401 Charter Colony Parkway.
0 0 0
Watkins Voting Precinct (514):
Beginning at the point where the center line of the
Virginia Power Company easement intersects the center line of
Charter Colony Parkway (State Route 754); thence
southwestwardly along the center line of Charter Colony
Parkway (State Route 754) to its intersection with the Route
288; southeastwardly along the center line of Route 288 to
its intersection with Lucks Lane (State Route 720); thence
eastwardly along the center line of Lucks Lane (State Route
720) to its intersection with Walton Bluff Parkway; thence
north and west along the center line of Walton Bluff Parkway
to its intersection with Ashbrook Landing Road; thence
northeastwardly along the center line of Ashbrook Landing
Road to its intersection with Lakestone Drive; thence
southeastwardly along the center line of Lakestone Drive to
its intersection with Falling Creek; thence northwardly along
the center line of Falling Creek to its intersection with the
western branch of Falling Creek as it meanders along in a
northwestwardly direction to its intersection with Coalfield
Road (State Route 754); thence southwardly along the center
line of Coalfield Road (State Route 754) to its intersection
with the Virginia Power Company easement; thence
northwestwardly along the center line of the Virginia Power
Company easement to its intersection with Charter Colony
Parkway, the point and place of beginning.
The voting place for Watkins Voting Precinct shall be
Watkins Elementary School, 501 Coalfield Road.
0 0 0
Pocoshock Voting Precinct (516):
Beginning at the point where the center line of U.S.
Route 360 (Hull Street Road) intersects the center line of
the Commonwealth Natural Gas Pipeline easement; thence
southwardly along the center line of said easement to its
intersection with Belmont Road (State Route 651); thence
southwestwardly along the center line of Belmont Road (State
Route 651) to its intersection with Dortonway Drive; thence
northwestwardly along the center line of Dortonway Drive to
its intersection with Newbys Bridge Road; thence
11-309
northwestwardly along the center line of Newbys Bridge Road
to its intersection with Proctor's Creek; thence west and
north along the center line of Proctor's Creek to its
intersection with U. S. Route 360; thence northeastwardly
along the center line of U.S. Route 360 (Hull Street Road) to
its intersection with Pocoshock Boulevard; thence northward
along the center line of Pocoshock Boulevard to its
intersection with Elkhardt Road; thence eastward along the
center line of Elkhardt Road to its intersection with Turner
Road; thence southward along the center line of Turner Road
to its intersection with U. S. Route 360; thence
southwestwardly along .the center line of U. S. Route 360 to
its intersection with the Commonwealth Natural Gas Pipeline
easement, the point and place of beginning.
The voting place for Pocoshock Voting Precinct shall be
Manchester Middle School, 7401 Hull Street Road.
(2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon adoption.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, and Decker.
Nays: Holland and Durfee.
18. REMAINING MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND ZONING REQUESTS
There were no remaining requests for manufactured home
permits and zoning requests.
19. FIFTEEN-MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED
MATTERS
Mr. Raymond Walsh, a resident of Woodland Pond, addressed the
Board relative to a recent homicide in his neighborhood.
APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE APPOINTMENT OF
DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINSTRATOR
Mr. Warren recognized the accomplishments and credentials of
Mr. William Dupler and nominated him for Deputy County
Administrator for Community Development.
Mr. Warren then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Decker, for
the Board to approve the appointment of Deputy County
Administrator.
Mr. Stegmaier stated Mr. Dupler has been filling in as
Interim Deputy County Administrator for Community Development
for more than a year. He further stated he is confident Mr.
Dupler will continue to do a great job for the citizens of
Chesterfield County.
Mr. Holland congratulated Mr. Dupler on his promotion.
Mr. Durfee congratulated Mr. Dupler on his promotion and
advised him to continue his hard work and learn from his
experiences as Building Inspector.
Ms. Jaeckle commended Mr. Dupler on his efforts to
communicate with the citizens and bring them to success.
J
J
J
11-310
Mr. Warren called for a vote on his motion, seconded by Mr.
Gecker, for the Board to approve the appointment of Mr.
William Dupler to serve as the Deputy County Administrator
for Community Development, effective April 27, 2011.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee, and Gecker.
Nays: None.
Mr. Dupler expressed appreciation to the Board for being.
selected to serve Chesterfield County and its administration.
He .stated he will continue to serve well in the capacity he
has been given.
Mr. Holland recognized May 1st through 7th as "National
Teacher Appreciation Week", May 3rd as "Teacher Appreciation
Day" and May 11th as "National School Nurse Day". He
encouraged citizens to show teachers their support.
20. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Durfee, the Board
adjourned at 9:30 p.m. until May 25, 2011, at 3:00 p.m.
Ayes: Warren, Jaeckle, Holland, Durfee and Gecker.
Nays: None.
Arthur S. Warren
Chairman
11-311
J
J
J