Loading...
02-09-2000 PacketJean Tompkins Smith, retired Director of Chesterfield- Colonial lteights Department of Social Services, died Saturday, February 5, 2000 after a lengthy illness. Miss Smith, a graduate of Mary Washington Coil©go, began her career in social work as a child welfare worker in 1956 and retired as dkcctor in ~.~. Miss Smith scrved the citizens of Ch~terfldd County and Colonial Heights for 39 ycars through her dedicated service with the Department and strong commitment to adults, familic~ and children. The customers remained h~' top priority while nwor losing sight of thc importance and value ofh~ staff. When asked what they would mis~ about Miss Smith when she retired, ataffmemb~rs said her friendly smile, her generous spirit, her positive thinking and her sincere dedication. Mi~ Smith ~p~eaded cooperative efforts with County and City agvn¢i~ to support now and innovative progrmns and was actively involved in furthering metropolitan and regional efforts, She exhibited in ~untleas ways a commmfity vision for services. She was instnm~entai in developing the first conununity-bascA Multi- Di~ipline Child Abuse Team. M/ss Smith waz a~tivc in the Virginia League of So~ial Services Exe~utivez, having ~ ~ vic~president ~d ~ a m~bcr cftc $~ CommiRe~. She ~ on the Bo~ of D~wrs for M~ofi~ ~i~ C~nic, Volun~ Emerg~ F~li~ for CMldr~, ~vent Child Ab~ V~ ~d Uni~ Way of Sou~sidc Vi~i~ She w~ a member of tho H~ Sc~ces Planing ~vision ~d All~atio~ ~mmiit~ ofUnit~ W~ S~ces and ~ed on num~ and v~ co~i~s arm t~k f~os at thc s~tc and local lcvcls. Shc ~so s~vcd on thc M~poli~ ~chmond ~v~o ~dus~ Council. She was a member of the Amerie. an Public Welfare Association and Child Welfare League of America and Reoipiont of the State Department of Social Scrvices' Meritorious Service Award and tho Commissioner's Award. Jean T. Smith ~et no higher work standard that the one she sot for herself; exhibi/ed the best of professional qualities; maintained a powerful sens~ of humor; and was open arid accessible to staff and cuztomers. A service will be held at the Bliloy Funeral Home's Chippenham Chapel, 6900 Hull St. Road at 7 p.m. Tuesday, after which the family will receive friends there. Graveaide svrvives will be at Amherst Cemc~ry, Amherst, Va., 11 a,m. Wcdnoglay. The family will receive/Hends following the Service at Tho Pariah House, Ascension Church. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of I Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: Subject: County Administrator' s Comments County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Mr. Chesterfield Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, will brief the Board of Supervisors on their snow removal efforts. Lisa H. Elko Attachments: --~ Yes No Title: Clerk to the Board CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 5.A. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mrs. Hattie R. Scott on Her 100th Birthday County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached resolution Summary of Information' Mrs. Humphrey requested that the attached resolution be adopted in recognition of Mrs. Hattie R. Scott's 100th birthday. Mrs. Scott, accompanied by family members, will be present to receive the resolution. Preparer: Lisa Elko Title:Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachments: Ycs RECOGNIZING MRS. HATTIE R. SCOTT ON HER 100TH BIRTHDAY WHEREAS, Mrs. Hattie R. Scott was born in Dinwiddie County on January 26, 1900, and accordingly will mark her centennial on January 26, 2000; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Scott received her teaching certificate from The Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute, now known as Virginia State University; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Scott married Mr. Charles A. Scott in 1925 and together they established a farm in Amelia County; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Scott taught first through third grades in Amelia County until the birth of her daughter in 1930; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Scott has one daughter, two grandsons and two great- grandchildren; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Scott loaned her talents for many years to the Amelia County Fair Association and the Homemakers Club; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Scott has been living for the past ten years as a resident in Chesterfield County with her daughter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the significant contributions of Mrs. Hattie R. Scott, wishes her a happy 100th birthday, and is proud to have her as a resident of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Scott and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CH ESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of I Meetin~ Date: Subject.: February 9, 2000 Item Number: Adoption of Resolution Recognizing Mr. William N. Crowder Upon His Retirement From Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing Mr. William N. Crowder upon his retirement from the Department of General Services. Mr. Crowder will be present at the afternoon meeting. See attached resolution. Preparer: Title: Director, General Services Attachments: Yes ~'1 No RECOGNIZING MR. WILLIAM N. CROWDER UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. William N. Crowder retired on February 1, 2000 after providing nearly sixteen years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crowder has served the County in the Department of Buildings Inspections as well as the Construction Management and Buildings and Grounds Divisions of the Department of General Services as Electrical Supervisor; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crowder has seen the County's physical plant and complexity grow by a substantial amount; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crowder always performed his duties and responsibilities in a thorough and dependable manner often responding to emergencies after normal work hours as well as holidays and weekends; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crowder always placed the welfare and safety of citizens and fellow County employees above his own personal comfort and feelings and will be missed by his fellow co-workers; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crowder was recognized many times for his money saving and innovative ideas as well as his willingness to go the extra mile for his customers; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crowder is known for his quick wit and keen sense of humor; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crowder was five times the Commonwealth of Virginia Golden Gloves champion and fought 56 amateur and 22 professional boxing matches; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crowder generously and unselfishly gave of his time and talents to the youth of this area by teaching boxing and physical education at the Petersburg YMCA and Richard Bland College; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. William N. Crowder and extends their appreciation for his dedicated service to the County, their congratulations upon his retirement, and their best wishes for a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Crowder and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Vleeting Date: February_ 9, 2000 Item Number: 5.C. Subject: Resolution Recognizing February 2000 as "PetFix Month 2000" County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Ms. Marsha White, Treasurer of the PetFix Coalition, will be present to accept the resolution. Preparer: ~C.~- ~.~ Lisa Elko Title: Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachments: Yes ~--] No I# ~':~ [ RECOGNIZING FEBRUARY 2000 AS "PETFIX MONTH 2000" WHEREAS, dogs and cats give companionship to and share the homes of over 50 million individuals in the United States; and WHEREAS, two unaltered cats and their kittens can produce 420,000 more kittens in seven years and two unaltered dogs and their puppies can produce 67,000 more dogs in six years; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that millions of dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the United States, although many of them are healthy and adoptable, simply because there are not enough homes; and WHEREAS, the latest report from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Divisien ef Animal Industry Services, states that 128,205 degs and cats were euthanized in Virginia in 1998; and WHEREAS, the problems of pet overpopulation costs the taxpayers in this country millions of dollars annually through animal control programs trying to cope with the millions of unwanted animals; and WHEREAS, spaying and neutering dogs and cats has been shown to drastically reduce dog and cat overpopulation; and WHEREAS, veterinarians have supported the PetFix Coalition February programs in the Commonwealth of Virginia during the past four years and have performed 10,045 spays and neuters, which has prevented millions of unwanted births; and WHEREAS, veterinarians, humane organizations and concerned citizens throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia have again joined together to advocate the spaying and neutering of companion animals during "PetFix Month 2000." NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes February 2000 as "PetFix Month 2000" and encourages all citizens to observe this month by either having their dogs or cats spayed or neutered or by sponsoring the spaying or neutering of a companion animal for another. Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA 2000 Item Number: Page 1 of 1 6.Ao ect: Projected FY2001 Revenues Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested:, Work session on projected FY2001 Revenues Summary of Information: A work session on projected FY2001 revenues has been scheduled for this date. This work session will be the Board's first in a series of work sessions on the FY2001 Budget. Staff plans to review the attached presentation at the work session. Preparer: ~ * Rebecca T. Dickson Attachments: Yes Director of Budget and Mana,qement Thousand Number of Teams Number of GradUates Number Received rn r- ZC3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ [] [] 0 0 0 (in millions) [] [] [] [] 0 0 0 0 Z Transfer Station' Collection Recycling Bulky Waste Collection Post Closure Maintenance 0 X '~ 0 '~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 6. B. Subject: Work Session for the Board of Supervisors on the Amendment to the Introduction to The Plan for Chesterfield County_ Administrator's Comments: County_ Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of information; This update to the Introduction to The Plan for Chesterfield highlights the five guiding philosophies of the Plan: An Approach To Reasonable Growth Management The foundation of The Plan for Chesterfield is orderly development as an overall approach to managing the County's future growth. Economic Development The Plan supports sustaining a healthy economy. Shaping The Character The Plan for Chesterfield strives to shape the character of the County's development by preserving the natural and rural beauty of the County. Important Resources The Plan works to preserve environmental, cultural and historic resources. Neighborhoods The Plan works toward assisting the County's established neighborhoods. Preparers: ~ t~----7~3~~ Thon~as E. Jacobson Title: Director of Planning C:DATA/AGENDA/2000/FEB900.2/gok Attachments: Yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of I Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 7. Subject: Consideration of an Amendment to{} 5-6 of the County Code to Authorize the Removal of Graffiti at Public Expense Coun~ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Defer any decision and readvertise to repeal the existing ordinance and adopt an ordinance permitting the removal of graffiti at public expense. Summary_ of Information: The current County ordinance permits the County Building Official to repair or remove graffiti on private buildings that is visible from the public right-of-way and to charge the costs and expenses to the property owner. At Mr. Barber's request the Board held a public hearing in December to consider amending the County Code to authorize removal of graffiti at public expense. The public heating was closed and the Board requested that staff prepare administrative procedures if the ordinance is adopted. (See attached procedures) Staff investigated the possibility of the cost of graffiti removal being covered by normal property owners' insurance policies. Since standard policy deductibles would normally exceed the costs, it is unlikely that insurance would be a viable option. Since the last Board meeting, the City Manager of Richmond has agreed to use city resources to remove a number of the existing graffiti sites in Chesterfield County at no expense to the County. The Board considered the ordinance at its January meeting and deferred action until February. Since then, we have prepared a report which concludes that there is questionable legal authority to charge property owners for the cost of graffiti removal. (See attached report) Under the proposed modified ordinance, the existing ordinance would be repealed and the amended ordinance would provide that graffiti will only be removed by the County at County expense in accordance with the administrative procedures. Henrico and Richmond currently have similar ordinances. Budget Comments: Steven L. Micas Attachments: · Yes [] No Title: County Attorney 1918(14):47664.2 Current Process ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR GRAFFITI NOTIFICATION 1. Investigate complaint to determine if in compliance with County Ordinance. 2. If in violation, a Notice of Violation is prepared giving the owner thirty days to remove graffiti. Notice is mailed to the property owner and posted at the property if necessary. 3. The complainant is contacted and advised of the status of their complaint. 4. Property is reinspected thirty days after the date of the Notice of Violation for compliance. 5. If not in compliance removal contractor is scheduled by the County without further notice to owner. 6. After removal, bill for costs of removal is forwarded to property owner. If owner fails to pay within 90 days, the bill is forwarded to the County Attorney to attach a lien on the property. Proposed Process 1. Investigate complaint to determine if in compliance with County Ordinance. 2. If in violation, Building Official will confer with County Administrator to determine if the County will pay for costs of removal. 3. Owner is mailed a letter advising graffiti must be removed within thirty days or it will be removed without the owner's permission. If they complete an authorization form, the County will make arrangements to have it removed as soon as possible, i.e. before thirty days expires, without any cost to the owner. 4. Complainant contacted and advised of status of their complaint. 5. If the authorization is not returned after thirty days, the County will schedule the graffiti for removal. 6. Upon removal by contractor, the County pays any cost of removal. 0422:48015.1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 5-6 RELATING TO THE REPAIR OR REMOVAL OF THE DEFACEMENT OF BUILDINGS, WALLS, FENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 5-6 of the Code qf the Coun~ of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 5-6. Authority to remove, repair or secure unsafe or defaced structures. (a) The building official may require property owners to remove, repair or secure any building, wall or other structure which is located on their property and which the building official has determined (-i-) poses a danger to public health or safety or ~ has a u~.,~,.~,,L (b) If the building official determines that a building, wall or structure poses a danger to bli lth fety --' ....~-~ ........... '--~ :---;-:~'- ~ ......... '-':- ~-;-'-~ -" ...... h 11 pu c heaor sa , ut iia3 o. uula~.~UiilUllt tilat 1~ VlOlOlU iiUiil a [ytlOll9 ii,ltl-ut-way, he s a cause a notice to be served on the owner of the building, wall or other structure, requiting the owner to remove, repair .or secure the building, wall or other structure. The property owner shall be served in person unless he cannot be found after a diligent search, in which case the notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the owner at his last known address. A copy of the notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the property on which the building, wall or other structure is located. (c) The property owner shall remove, repair or secure the building, wall or structure, as required by the notice, within 30 days (i) after the notice is issued to the owner; (ii) the notice is mailed to the owner; or (iii) the notice is posted; as provided in subsection (b), whichever is later. If the owner fails to take the action required in the notice within the 30-day period, the building official may remove, repair or secure the building, wall or structure, as required by the notice and the costs and expenses of removing, repairing or securing shall be charged to and paid by the owner of the property and may be collected by the county as taxes and levies are collected. (d) Every charge assessed against the property owner pursuant to subsection (c) shall constitute a lien against the property. (e) The building official may also undertake or contract for the repair or removal of a defacement of: (1) any public building, wall, fence or other structure; or (2) any private building, wall, fence or other structure provided that the defacement is visible from a public tight-of-way and the property owner fails to remove or repair the defacement within 30 days of the mailing of written notice to the owner's address as shown on the real property records of the county. At the option of the county administrator, the building official may have the defacement removed or repaired by county employees or agents at county expense. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1918:47024.1 PR OTED BY ATTORNEY-CLtEN'r PRIVILEGE TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA MEMO Mi unt Attome StevenL. 'cas, Co y y David W. Robinson, Assistant County Attorney~ ~" ~ January 27, 2000 Graffiti Ordinance County Code § 5-6 permits the County to remove defacements upon private property (provided that the defacement is visible from a public fight-of-way) and to charge the cost of the removal to the property owner. The Richmond Retail Merchant's Association disputes that the County has the authority under the state enabling statute, Va. Code § 15.2-908, to charge the property owner for the cost of removal. Primarily, the Merchant's Association relies upon the fact that in 1999 the General Assembly defeated a number of legislative items that would have explicitly permitted localities to charge property owners. 1. Virginia Code § 15.2-908 The current state enabling statute relating to a locality's authority to address defacement of public and private property, Va. Code § 15.2-908, reads as follows: Any locality may by ordinance undertake or contract for the removal or repair of the defacement of any public building, wall, fence or other structure or any private building, wall, fence or other structure where such defacement is visible from any public right-of-way. The ordinance may provide that whenever the property owner, after reasonable notice, fails to remove or repair the defacement, the locality may have such defacement removed or repaired by its agents or employees. As can be seen, the statute is silent as to whether the property owner or the locality shall be responsible for the cost of removing or repairing the defacement. January 27, 2000 Page 2 2. Legislative History of the State Enabling Statute In 1995, the General Assembly enacted § 15.1-11.2:2 that permitted a locality to remove graffiti from a private structure when the defacement is visible from a public right-of-way. The statute read as follows: The governing body of any county, city or town, by ordinance, may undertake or contract for the removal or repair of the defacement of any public building, wall, fence or other structure or any private building, wall fence or other structure where such defacement is visible from any public right- of-way. Prior to such removal, the locality shall seek the written permission of the property owner. Should the property owner fail to provide such permission within ten days, the locality may maintain a public nuisance action against the property owner in order to compel the property owner to allow removal or repair of the defacement. After receiving the written permission or the appropriate court order, the locality may undertake the removal or repair of the defacement. All such removal or repair shall be at the expense of the locality. In 1997, the General Assembly amended § 15.1-11.2:2 (House Bill 2458) and enacted § 15.2-908. The amendment removed the provision relating to filing a public nuisance action and added a provision that, after providing notice to the property owner, the locality "may have such defacement removed or repaired by its agents or employees." It also deleted the language stating that "[a]ll such removal or repair shall be at the expense of the locality." Significantly, an earlier version of House Bill 2458 provided that the locality could "require" the owner to remove or repair the defacement and that, when removed by the locality's own agents or employees, the costs "shall be chargeable to and paid by the owner of such property and may be collected by the locality as taxes are collected." This language was deleted during the legislative process. In 1998, a bill was introduced in the General Assembly (HB447) that would have amended § 15.2-908 and adopted the language that was not accepted during the 1997 amendment, thereby making the property owner responsible for the costs of removal or repair. Also in 1998, Senate Bill 361 was introduced that would have permitted localities in the Northern Virginia Planning District to adopt ordinances charging the property owner for graffiti removal or repair. These bills were continued to 1999 and not adopted. 3. Conclusion and Recommendation Section 15.2-908 is silent as to who must bear the cost of removing or repairing graffiti. I have found no cases or attorney general opinions that address the issue. I suspect that this silence is intentional on the part of the General Assembly, considering that language that explicitly placed the cost upon a particular party (such as the locality in § 15.1-11.2:2 or the property owner in the original 1997 bill and the 1998/99 proposed amendments) has been defeated. Nonetheless, under Dillon's Rule, this silence or ambiguity is likely to be construed against the locality. Further, an implication exists that the locality would bear the cost since the work is being done by its agents or employees. The defeat in the 1999 General Assembly of a number of bills that would have explicitly granted authority to localities to charge the property owner also weighs heavily in favor of an interpretation that § 15.2-908 does not permit the locality to charge the property owner. Further, for what it's worth, both Richmond's and Henrico's ordinances provide that graffiti removal shall January 27, 2000 Page 3 be at the locality's expense. On the other hand, the deletion in 1997 of the language that "[a]ll such removal or repair shall be at the expense of'the locality" implies that the cost would be borne by the property owner. In summation, while some valid arguments exist that the County has the authority to charge the property owner for removing graffiti, the greater weight of factors indicate that the County does not possess that authority. I recommend that we advise the Board of Supervisors accordingly and that the Board amend County Code § 5-6 to place the cost solely upon the County. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 ofl Meeting Date: Februar~ 9, 2000 Item Number: $ .A. 1. Subject: Nominations/Appointments to the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: __ Board Action Requested: Nominate/appoint members to serve on the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force. Summary_ of Information: The purpose of the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force is to study the nature and extent of substance abuse within the County and to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to prevent or eliminate such problems. The terms of Task Force members are at the pleasure of the board. Supervisor Miller has recommended that the Board nominate and appoint Mr. Robert B. Richardson to serve on the Task Force representing the Dale District. '- ....... - Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board members present. Nominees are voted on in the order in which they are nominated. Preparer: ~ Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Title: Director, Youth Services MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Art Warren From: Lane Ramsey, County Administrator Subject: Appointment to the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force Date: January 28, 2000 Ms. Laura Ballard has expressed an interest in serving on the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force. Her application was forwarded to you under separate cover by Youth Services. If you would like additional information on this candidate, please contact Jana Carter at 748- 3549. MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: The Honorable Ed Barber Lane Ramsey, County Administrator Appointments to the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force January 28, 2000 Mr. Tom Comstock and Mr. Christopher Lindbloom have expressed an interest in serving on the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force. Their applications were forwarded to you under separate cover by Youth Services. If you would like additional information on these candidates, please contact Jana Carter at 748-3549. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting! Date: February9~ 2000 Item Number: 8.A.2. Subject:. Nomination/Appointment to the Tax Structure Committee County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Nominate/appoint member to serve on the Tax Structure Committee Summary of Information: The Board of Supervisors Tax Structure Committee is a newly formed committee whose charge will be to examine all aspects of the local tax structure to ensure its equity and appropriateness for the future and to recommend a reliable and stable tax structure that ensures tax equity and that fairly balances the responsibility for service delivery among all segments of the community. Committee members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors to serve until their work is complete. The industry represent,a, tive from..~,.I. Dupont has been named. E.I Dupont is recommending~ RObert Pa]mer~to serve on the committee. Mr. Palmer is an engineer and new Projects leader at Dupont. Mr. Palmer has indicated his willingness to serve. Preparer: ~,/-~;_ ~ Attachments: [~ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board of Supervisors No ]# CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 2 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.A.3. Subject: Nomination/Appointment to the Camp Baker Management Board County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Nominate/appoint two members to serve on the Camp Baker Management Board. Summary_ of Information: The Camp Baker Management Board has the responsibility of overseeing and monitoring the operation of Camp Baker. The position representing the Richmond Area Association of Retarded Citizens is currently vacant. The RAARC is recommending ~e approved to fill this opening. Preparer: ~~~ Title: Michael S. Golden Director, Parks and Recreation Attachments: Yes [-~ No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: Summary. of Information: (Continued) Mr. Burgess is currently the representative for the Clover Hill District to the Camp Baker Management Board. The Camp Baker Management Board would like to request that Mr. Herman Taylor be appointed as the Clover Hill District representative to the Camp Baker Management Board. Name Representing Action Requested Mr. Vince Burgess Mr. Herman Taylor RAARC Appoint Clover Hill District Appoint Mr. Warren has concurred with the appointments. The terms would be effective when appointed. Mr. Burgess's term would expire April 30, 2002. Mr. Taylor's term would expire April 30, 2001. Under the existing Rules of Procedure appointments to board and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board members present. Nominees are voted on in the order in which they are nominated. Camp Baker Services Civitan Vocational Services Day Support Services Infant Intervention Services January 20, 2000 Mr. Arthur Warren Clover Hill District P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA. 23832-0040 Dear Mr. Warren, I would like to recommend Mr. Herman Taylor as the Clover Hill District representative to the Camp Baker Management Board. Mr. Taylor has expressed a sincere interest in becoming a board member and has been previously involved with Camp Baker in the 70's and 80's. He was instrumental in the first stage of renovations for several camp buildings during that time. On behalf of the Management Board we would appreciate your consideration of this appointment. Thank you for your continued support of services at Camp Baker. Respectfully, Vince Burgess ~ Chairman, Camp Baker Management Board 1901W[STWOOD AVENU[ RICIIHOND, VIRGINIA 8Of,. 158-181~, i:AX 80J~- 151- 0161 Herman L. Taylor, Jr. 6213 Heather Glen Road Midlothian, Virginia 23112 (804) 739-0151 6/1/99 Objective: Flight Experience: Work Experience: Sep 99 - present Oct 98 - Sep 99 Mar 98 - Sep 98 Sept 97 - Mar 98 June 93- July 97 June 92- Mar 93 Jan 92 -Dec92 Jan 87 -Dec91 Feb 84 - Jan 87 Nov 79 - Feb 84 Jun 69 - Jul 88 Obtain a position as a corporate or commercial pilot. Total Time ........... 7,030 hrs. Long's Design Group, Custom Home Designer, Residential computer draftsman Midway/Corporate Airlines, First Officer JSTA 32, (retired from aviation) Air Virginia, Inc. First Officer on JSTA 32 (Company Closed down) Heart of Virginia, Inc., Chief Pilot Long's Professional Services, Inc., Associate, custom home designer draftsman Owner, VCR Works, Inc., VCR repair service Attended School computer and electronic technician classes Philip Morris, Line Captain, Saab 340 and co-pilot Hawker 800 Aero Industries, Inc., Manager/Line Captain, PA-31, PA-34, and Piper Singles Davenport Airlines, Inc., Manager/Line Captain, Cessna 421, Piper Aztec Worked for several commercial architectural firms as a draftsman (17 years total drafting experience.) Aviation Training: Reflectone BAE Simulator Training Center - JS3201, Mar 1998 & Nov 1998, Flight Safety- Cessna Caravan 208, Aug 1997, Flight Safety - SAAB 340, 1987-1990, Hawker 800, 1990-1991, Cockpit Resource Management Seminar, 1991; Aero Industries, Inc. Flight School, 1971 Type Rating; Saab 340 Certifications: ATP, and NSAA Safety Awards Education: Columbia Technical Institute; Graduated Architectural Design,'John Tyler Community College, Computer courses; Virginia Commonwealth University Community school of music, classical piano and flute. Items Highlighted are experience related to Camp Baker requirements. Adult Services Camp Baker Civitan Workshop Infant Intervention Mr. Arthur Warren Clovcr Hill District P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA. 23832-0040 January 18, 2000 Dear Mr. Warren, The previous Camp Baker Management Board representative to the RAARC Board of Directors has resigned and I have been asked to fill the vacancy. I am formally requesting your consideration of this appointment. IfI were appointed a vacancy would exist on the Camp Baker Management Board for the Clover Hill District. Chairman, Camp Baker Management Board 1901W[STW00DAV[HU[ RICflHOHD, VIRGIHIAB2Z7 804.~58.187~ FAX80~.)B.016] Adult Services Camp Baker Civitan Workshop Infant InterventJon January 18, 2000 Mr. Arthur Warren Clover Hill District P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA. 23832-0040 Dear Mr. Warren, The Richmond Area ARC Board of Directors has a vacancy for the Representative from the Camp Baker Management Board. We are requesting that Mr. Vince Burgess fill that position given that he is currently serving on both boards for the agency. Respectfully, Donald D. Darr Chairman, RAARC Board of Directors 1901 WI:STWOOD AVENUE RICNHOND, VIRGINIA Z)ZZ7 80~. 958.187Jl tAX 80~,.)5).016) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meetin~l Date: February 9, 2000 Subject: Nomination/Appointment/Reappointment to the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board County Administrator's Comments: Item Number: 8.^.4. County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Nominate/Appoint/Reappoint members to serve on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board Summary of Information: The Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board is made of citizen representatives of the five magisterial districts and a representative of local government. This Board oversees the Litter and Recycling Grant received by the County from the Department of Environmental Qualityl Its purpose is to ensure that educational programs and activities are conducted to inform Chesterfield residents of the problems with littering and the benefits of recycling. Persons being submitted for Nomination/Appointment/Reappointment: Joan Cole has served as a Bermuda District Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and is eligible for reappointment to a term from February 1, 2000 - January 31, 2001. Mr. McHale concurs with this reappointment. Lucy Merchan has served as a Midlothian Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and is eligible for reappointment to a term from February 1, 2000 - January 31,2001. Mr. Barber concurs with this reappointmen~;~_~ _ ~ Preparer: ~ ~ Title: Extension Agent Suzan Craik Attachments: [----~ Yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Alma Smith has served as a Dale District Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board. Mr. Miller recommends Charles R. Lewis of 3548 Marquettette Road, Richmond for a term from February 1, 2000 until January 31, 2001. Diane Semach has served as the Clover Hill District Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and he~: term expires on January 31, 2000. Julie Stykemain has expressed interest to serve as the new Clover Hill Representative for a term from February 1, 2000 - January 31, 2001. Staff recommends this appointment. Mr. Warren concurs with this appointment. Caroline Bosh has served as a Matoaca District Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and is eligible for reappointment to a term from February 1, 2000 - January 31, 2001. Mrs. Bush Humphrey concurs with this reappointment. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by an unanimous vote of the Board members present. Nominees are voted on into the order in which they are nominated. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetino Date: Fobruarv 9. 2000 Number Budget and Management Comments: This item requests Board approval for the Sheriff's Department to accept a grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services. This is the second year of an existing grant for the implementation of video arraignment capabilities in the Circuit and General District Courts. The total grant funds to be received is $55,496 with a required local match of $18,499. Funds are available from other sources identified by staff for the required local match. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Manaqement CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of I Meeting Date: Sub!ect: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B.2.a. II Adoption of Resolution Recognizing Mr. Richard T. Limerick Upon His Retirement From Chesterfield County County_ Administrator's Comments: County Ad m i n istrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing Mr. Richard T. Limerick upon his retirement from the Department of General Services. Mr. Limerick is unable to be present at the meeting. See attached resolution. Preparer: Title: Director, General Services Attachments: Yes ~--~ No RECOGNIZING HR. RICHARD T. LIMERICK UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Richard T. Limerick retired on February 1, 2000 after providing twenty-seven years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Limerick began his service in 1972 as a Laborer and retires as a Labor Crew Chief in the Buildings and Grounds Division of the Department of General Services; and WHEREAS, Mr. Limerick has seen the County's physical plant grow from sixty thousand square feet to over one million square feet and fifty-five buildings; and WHEREAS, Mr. Limerick always performed his duties and responsibilities in a faithful and dependable manner often responding to emergencies after normal work hours and on weekends and holidays; and WHEREAS, Mr. Limerick always placed the welfare and safety of citizens and fellow County employees above his own personal comfort and feelings and will be missed by his fellow co-workers; and WHEREAS, Mr. Limerick is known for his friendly easy going manner and his ability to get along with his fellow workers. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mr. Richard T. Limerick and extends their appreciation for his dedicated service to the County, their congratulations upon his retirement, and their best wishes for a long and happy retirement. Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 9, 2000 AGENDA Item Number: Page ~__of 2 $ .B.2.b. ,Subject: Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department Grant -Development of Resource Protection Area Fact Sheet County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: ~ BoardAction Requested: Adoption of Resolution that authorizes County Administrator to apply for a grant from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. Summary oflnformation: The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board has issued a Request for Grant Proposals for projects relating to the development and implementation of Chesapeake Bay Programs. Water Quality staff plans to submit a grant proposal to develop and distribute an educational Fact Sheet on the important role Resource Protection Areas play in the protection of County waters. Once developed, the Fact Sheet will be distributed to citizens living in or near RPA's through homeowners' associations or similar entities. Staff is proposing this type of grant project in light of the fact that enforcing RPA requirements, particularly with individual homeowners, has proven difficult. Therefore, it is proposed that a solid educational program, using the Fact Sheets as the chief element, be initiated to educate citizens on the functions of RPA's and the role they play in the protection of our waters. The total project cost is $9,000. The County's contribution for the project would be $4000. There are sufficient funds available to cover the County's contribution as well as the full project cost in the proposed FY 01 operating budget for the Department of Environmental Engineering. Preparer: ._~~,~J.~ ~-t.~ < .~A ' Title: / Joan SCati - Attachments: Yes ~ No Water Quality Administrator CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetino Date: Februarv 9. 2000 Number Budget and Management Comments: This request is for adoption of a resolution to authorize the County Administrator to apply for a grant from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department in the amount of $5,000. If approved, these funds, combined with $4,000 in a local match (from the Environmental Engineering Department budget), will be used to develop and solicit a fact sheet to educate citizens on the functions of RPA's and the role they play in the protection of our waters. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Manaqement WHEREAS, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act establishes that the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board is responsible for carrying out the purposes and provisions of Chapter 21 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board has promulgated a Request for Proposals to the Local Assistance Competitive Grants Program; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is the duly elected legislative body for Chesterfield County, Virginia, an eligible entity under the Local Assistance Competitive Grants Program; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the FY 2001 Competitive Grants Program Request for Proposals, it is required that a Resolution Authorizing the Submission of a Grant Application be received from all localities party to a grant proposal~ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors that the County Administrator, Lane B. Ramsey~ be authorized to apply on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for a grant in the amount of $5,000 from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department for the purpose of development of a fact sheet on resource protection areas. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if the grant is awarded, Chesterfield County hereby agrees to pay for the full costs of the grant project, not to exceed $9,000 in total costs, providing that certain of these costs are subject to grant reimbursements totaling $5,000, which shall be payable from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department in accordance with a contractual agreement to be executed between the County of Chesterfield and the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, and that, if the County of Chesterfield subsequently elects to cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees to reimburse the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department for the total amount of funds expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 ~eeting Date: January 26, 2000 Item Number: 8 .B.2.c. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mr. George O. Urquhart, Director of Preparedness and Mitigation Division, Virginia Department of Emergency Services, Upon His Retirement County. Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached resolution Summary of Information: Mr. Arthur Warren requested that the Board recognize Mr. Urquhart for service as the Director of Preparedness and Mitigation Division for the Virginia Department of Emergency Services. Lisa Elko Title: Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachments: Yes ~-~No I# ~, ~-.?~ RECOGNIZING HR. GEORGE O. URQUHART UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. George O. Urquhart, has retired from the Virginia Department of Emergency Services as Director of the Preparedness and Mitigation Division, to become the Executive Director of the Commission on Local Government under the Secretary of Administration; and WHEREAS, Mr. Urquhart has served the citizens of Virginia since 1979 through his dedication and sincere effort for the good of emergency services; and WHEREAS, Mr. Urquhart has provided his leadership in assisting local governments with developing their Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plans; and WHEREAS, Mr. Urquhart has developed and facilitated many projects, including the Hurricane Inland Sheltering Plan; and WHEREAS, Mr. Urquhart has co-chaired the Virginia Emergency Management Agency Conference Program Committee for the Severe Weather Conference 1999 and 2000, serving emergency managers around the state; and WHEREAS, Mr. Urquhart has assisted state and local emergency management in state legislative matters, including the review of the State Disaster Law. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. George O. Urquhart and extends their appreciation for his outstanding performance and selfless dedication, and congratulations upon his retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Urquhart and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B. 2.d Subject: Resolution in Support of Promoting Our Virginia State Parks System County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Parks and Recreation Department has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution in support of the State Parks System. Summary_ of Information: The Virginia Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils has requested that the Board of Supervisors support a resolution that would be passed on to the County's elected representatives at the General Assembly. Preparer: ...- - Title: Michael S. Golden Director, Parks and Recreation Attachments: Yes ~ No Resolution In Support Of Promoting Our Virginia State Parks System Whereas, the Commonwealth of Virginia has 34 state owned and operated parks and historical sites that attract over five million visitors annually and which contribute more than $100 million annually to the local economy, and Whereas, the 7,625 acre Pocohontas State Park is located within Chesterfield County, and Whereas, citizens of the Commonwealth supported a $95 million bond referendum to purchase new parks and repair existing parks so these publicly-held lands can provide the citizens the opportunities to improve their outdoor experience and understanding of the environment in which we all live and benefit, and Whereas, every state park ahs received or is scheduled to receive a strategic master plan for the continuing improvement of the visitor experience supported by the community, and Whereas, visitation at our state parks has risen 3.71% annually over the last decade and interpretation and educational programs offered have doubled and participation in these programs has tripled, and Whereas, the Commonwealth of Virginia support for the state systems ranks 48th out of the 50 in state per capita spending, and there is a demonstrated need for additional funding to continue the improvements and implementation .of the master plans, and Whereas, state parks are exempt from local taxes and the tourists visiting the state parks support local businesses and economy and provide sales tax to assist local governments in providing resources to the citizens, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Chesterfield County and Development Councils supports the concept of strategic planning and encourages the General Assembly to appropriate addition funding that will afford the Virginia Division of State Parks the opportunity to continue to improve and implement the strategic plans. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: Februar~ 9, 2000 Item Number: $.B.2.e. Subject: Resolution of Opposition to Public Private Transportation Act Proposal to Construct Route 288 as a Toll Facility County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: (~ Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to adopt a resolution expressing opposition to Public Private Transportation Act Proposals to construct Route 288 as a toll facility. Summary of information: Ronte 288 is currently under construction in Chesterfield from the Powhite Parkway to just north of Lucks Lane. Virginia Transportation Constructors (VTC) has submitted a proposal, under the terms of the Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA),. to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) wherein VTC proposes to construct the remaining sections of Route 288 as a toll facility. Chesterfield County has long expressed its opposition to the construction of Route 288 as a toll facility and should oppose VTC's proposal. Recommendation: Staffrecommends the Board adopt the attached resolution expressing opposition to the construction of Ronte 288 as a toll facility and requesting the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation to reject VTC's PPTA proposal. District: Midlothian Preparer:  Cl~ken~~ Title: Agen444 Yes ~ No Dkector of Transportation Attachments: # WHEREAS, Route 288 is under construction in Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the completion of Route 288 from the Powhite Parkway to 1-64 has long been a priority for Chesterfield County and the Richmond region; and WHEREAS, the Route 288 Freeway Committee, comprised of business executives from the metropolitan area, civic groups and citizens at large have recognized the importance of completing Route 288 as a non-toll facility; and WHEREAS, the Govemor of the Commonwealth announced in 1997 that funds were being provided for the construction of Route 288 as a non-toll facility to boost economic development throughout the region; and WHEREAS, VDOT also announced the construction of Route 288 would be completed by 2002; and WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted by Virginia Transportation Constructors (VTC), under the provisions of the Public Private Transportation Act, to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to construct Route 288 as a toll facility; and WHEREAS, the VTC proposal is in total opposition to the Commonwealth's commitment to construct Route 288 as a non-toll £acility and is opposed by Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation to reject VTC's and any future proposals which provide for the construction of Route 288 as a toll facility. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution be forwarded to Chesterfield County's Congressional and Legislative Delegations with a request that they take all actions necessary to prohibit the imposition of tolls on Route 288. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARTHUR S. WARREN CHNRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT RENNY BUSH HUMPHREY VK~E CHAJRMAN MATOACA DISTRICT J. L. McHALE, III BERMUDA DISTRICT KELLY E. MILLER DALE DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT February 7, 2000 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 (804) 748-1211 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Commissioner Charles Nottingham Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: Virginia Transportation Constructors Route 288 PPTA Proposal Dear Commissioner Nottingham: We recently received a copy of Virginia Transportation Constructors' (VTC) PPTA proposal for the construction of Route 288. There is no support for the construction of Route 288 as a toll facility. We respectfully request that the Department reject all proposals to build Route 288 as a toll facility. Chesterfield County has long been a supporter of the completion of Route 288. We have done everything we can to help get Route 288 completed. We have provided over $30 million in local funds for its construction. We support efforts to use the PPTA to finance the completion of Route 288. However, Chesterfield strongly opposes any efforts to make Route 288 a toll road. We expect the State to live up to its commitments to Chesterfield and the region to get Route 288 completed quickly and to get it constructed as a non-toll road. Please let us know of your intentions regarding the VTC proposal. If you would like to discuss this subject further, please let me know. Sincerely, Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator cc: Honorable Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Honorable Chesterfield Legislative Delegation Route 288 Freeway Committee M.D. (Pete) Stith, Deputy County Administrator R.J. McCracken, Transportation David E. Bottorff, P.E. (VTC) Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1__ of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: $. B. 3. Subject: State Road Acceptance County. Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary. of Information: MATOACA: Poplar Creek, Section E Preparer: Richard M. McElfish, P.E. Attachments: Yes ~ No Title: Director, Environmental Engineering # ~-, TO: Board of Supervisors FROM~ Departn'ent of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - POPLAR CREEK, SEC. E DISTRICT: MATOACA MEc3rlNG DATE: 9 February 2000 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: LAUREL TOP DR LAUREL TOP PL OAK TIMBER CT Vicinity Map: POPLAR CRFFK, SEC. E CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: S.B.4. Subject: Set Public Hearing for Amendments to the Midlothian Area Community Plan, the Route 288 Corridor Plan and the Upper Swift Creek Plan and Related Ordinance Amendments to Reduce Suggested Densities for Residential Development that Generally Drains to Swift Creek Reservoir County Administrator's Comments County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Planning Commission and staff recommend the Board of Supervisors set March 15, 2000, for a public hearing to consider that attached Plan and ordinance amendments. Summary of information: At a worksession on October 19, 1999, the Planning Commission instructed Planning Department staff to prepare amendments to the Midlothian Area Community Plan, Route 288 Corridor Plan and Up~r Swift Creek Plan that, if adopted, would reduce the suggested residential development densities for properties that drain to the Swift Creek Reservoir. The Planning Commission further instructed staff to prepare an amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance to reference reduced residential densities suggested by these Plan amendments, thereby binding the affected land areas to the water quality standards of the Ordinance. Planning staff recommended that the Plan and Ordinance amendments, as outlined in the November 1, 1999, memorandums, not be adopted. However, staff recommended an alternative amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance which would include areas within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed that are not currently subject to the water quality performance criteria of the Ordinance. At a public hearing on January 18, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Plan and Ordin~ce amendments ~as outlined in the November 1, 1999, memorandums. .,., ,j'~ (..~ .-/ rreparer.: .- - ~._)/~_...'w,-{,.Cc~~ Title: Director of Plannim, tThomas E. Jacobson c - :DATA/AGENDAJ2000/FEB900.4 Attachments: Yes ~-~ No # ('~51 BOARD OFSUPERVISORS HARRY G. DANIEL CHAIRMAN DALE DISTRICT ARTHUR S. WARREN VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. L. McHALE, III BERMUDA DISTRICT RENNY BUSH HUMPHREY MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 (804) 748-1050 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Members of the Chesterfield County Planning Commission Thomas Jacobson, Director of Planning Richard McElfksla, Director of Environmental Engineering October 1571999 Review of residential density for the Upper Swift Creek Plan (2.2 units per acre or less) to determine if residential projects having a density of 2.2 units per acre can comply with Zoning Ordinance water quality performance criteria (the 0.22 standard) for development within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Summary Residential projects developed under various actual and hypothetical scenarios can yield densities of 2.2 units per acre or greater and still comply with the 0.22 standard. However, depending on topography and hydrology which influence the amount of pollutant that can be captured within a given project, compliance with the 0.22 standard can make it difficult to achieve residential densities as high as 2.0 or 2.2 units per acre for typical single family residential subdivisions. When this happens, developers of subdivisions .typically choose to reduce the subdivision density to the extent needed to achieve compliance. Under the same set of topographic and hydrologic conditions, residential projects that reduce the percentage of impervious area in ratio to the overall area of a project and that further minimize land disturbance (such as cluster and townhouse projects) may achieve a higher density (units per acre) and, at the same time, comply with the 0.22 standard. An overview of Research The following briefly describes current Zoning Ordinance regulations designed to protect the water quality of Swift Creek Reservoir and anticipates how well recently approved residential projects of various densities will comply with the adopted regulations. Also included is a review of how new residential developments, with a density in the range of 2.2 units per acre, can meet the water Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. quality performance criteria, and a review of how compliance with this criteria is influencing residential development densities for projects in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Current Re~tmlations The Zoning Ordinance addresses protection of water quality through the following Divisions of the Countywide Development Standards (Article IV.): Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (Division 4); Upper Swift Creek Watershed (Division 5); and Stormwater Management and Best Management Practice Basins (Division 6). The Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance, in particular, requires new development which drains to Swift Creek Reservoir to meet performance criteria designed to protect water quality of the Reservoir. This criteria requires development to: minimize land disturbance; preserve indigenous vegetation; minimize impervious areas; control of stormwater runoff in a manner that limits phosphorous and other pollutants; and provide for the maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) used to achieve the water quality performance criteria. This Ordinance regulates all new residential, office, commercial and industrial development or redevelopment within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. All new residential developments, located in areas identified by the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for residential use of 2.2 units per acre or less, have to meet a specified water quality performance criteria (the 0.22 standard) regardless of the number of units per acre that could be developed based on current or future zoning actions, unless exceptions were granted as provided by the Ordinance. This performance criteria applies to all types of residential projects including, but not limited to, single family residential subdivisions, residential townhouse subdivisions, and multi-family and condominium complexes. A~$essing the Design Performance of New Developments Relative to Compliance with Upper Swift Creek Watershed Water Ouali .ty Regulations Environmental Engineering staff reviewed the design of recently proposed and/or approved residential subdivisions located within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed and assessed their compliance with the 0.22 standard. The subdivisions examined included: Cloverhill Estates and Watermill Phase I, (currently under construction); Edgewater at The Reservoir, (recently recorded); Hampton Park Sections Six through Twelve, (parts of a subdivision granted tentative approval); and. a possible residential scenario for DFI-Spring Run Extension, part of a zoning request proposing a mix of residential, office and commercial uses along Hull Street Road (see Attachments A and B). These subdivisions range in density from 1.52 (Watermill, Phase I) to 2.27 units per acre (Hampton Park, Sections Six through Twelve). Through the subdivision review process, Environmental Engineering staff determined that these developments will comply with the 0.22 standard using on-sim BMPs of various designs. Of particular interest was Hampton Park, Sections Six through Twelve. As noted herein, this subdivision achieved compliance with a density of 2.27 units per acre. BMPs for thi,q subdivision include two wet ponds in series which capture runoff from the subdivision as well as runoff from undeveloped off-site areas. Assessing Possible Development Scenarios Relative to Compliance with Upper Swift Creek Watershed Water Ouality Regulations Planning and Environmental Engineering staff also analyzed hypothetical development scenarios to determine how well various residential types might comply with the 0.22 standard under similar density and/or site characteristics. Planning staff developed four hypothetical scenarios. Three scenarios reflected conventional single family residential subdivisions having development densities of 1.91, 2.0 and 2.2 units per acre respectively. The fourth reflected a townhouse project having a development density of 2.2 units per acre (see Attachment C). For purpose of this analysis, staff assumed identical topographic and hydrologic conditions for all scenarios. Staff's analysis determined that all four hypothetical scenarios could be designed to achieve compliance with the Ordinance. Staff further determined that, under identical site conditions, the townhouse project could achieve compliance more easily than could a single family residential subdivision of conventional lots of the same or even lesser overall density. This ease of compliance was due primarily to a reduced percentage of overall imperviousness and land disturbance resulting from clustering home sites (see Attachments D and E). It should be noted that scenarios using different site criteria could demonstrate a greater or lesser ability to achieve compliance. Assessing the Impact the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Water Quality_ Regulations have on R~$idential Densities Many factors can affect the development densities within residential projects. These include, but are not limited to, market demand for residential type and/or lot size and environmental constraints such as wetlands and Resource Protection Areas. However, as noted herein, compliance with the 0.22 standard has been a significant factor in the design and density of new subdivisions in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Specifically, this compliance has generated lower development densities as a means of meeting the 0.22 standard. In general, staff has determined that water quality protection measures, such as BMPs, often consume land that could otherwise be used for residential development, having the effect of reducing development density in much the same way that rights-of-way for roads reduce lot yield (density) from yield calculated on a gross density basis. The ultimate density of development is, therefore, influenced as much by the requirement to comply with the 0.22 standard as by either conditions of zoning approval or the Land Use Plan suggested density. In particular, while the Land lJse Plan suggested density plays an important role as a guide in zoning and subsequent project layout, it should be noted that the Plan does not factor into the review and approval process of the Environmental Engineering Department for achieving water quality compliance. Attachment A Analysis of five proposed or approved residential projects Compliance with 0.22 lb/ac/yr Water Quality requirement Cloverhill Estates 128 lots / 71.9 acres = 1.78 units/ac gross density. The BMP is a single 50% efficient wetpond. Capture of the entire subdivision provided 75 % of pollutant removal needed for compliance. Capture of 131.5 acres of low impervious off-site area provided the rest of the pollutant removal needed. The project is currently under construction. Watermill Phase 1 103 lots / 67.9 acres = 1.52 units/ac gross density. 30.26 ac in lots, 12.41 ac in r/w, 25.23 ac in open space, 3.48 ac in CUPD recreation and retail. Three BMPs are used. A 40 % wetpond, in series with a 65 % wetpond further downstream, and another 65 % wetpond. 50 acres on-site are captured. Only 2 acres of off-site area were available for capture. The project is currently under construction. Edgewater at The Reservoir 32 lots / 17.1 acres = 1.87 units/ac gross density. of future Woolridge Road extension. 1.5 ac in r/w. Includes compliance for 2.0 acres Three BMPs are used. Two marshy bottom dry ponds in series which capture a total of 13.2 acres on-site and 29.7 acres of undeveloped off-site area. An additional dry pond captures 1.6 acres on-sim. The project has been recorded. Hampton Park, sections 6 - 12 148 lots / 65.3 acres = 2.27 units/ac gross density. 9.9 acres in r/w, 13.7 ac in open space. (Zoned prior to 2.2 requirement) Two wet the pond (35% and 50%) BMPs in series provide compliance with 0.22 requirement. 60.3 acres on-site area and 125.7 acres of undeveloped off-site area are captured. The on-site area provides 93.6% off the pollutant capture needed for compliance. Sections 6 & 7 are beginning construction. Sections 8 - 12 have received tentative approval. jimc:klala\plans\usc.wlxl 7 DFI - Spring Run Extension (Proposed) 11.6 acres of residential and 22 acres of commercial / office, located between Clover Hill High School and the Southshore subdivision. 11.6 acres * 2.2 units/ac = 25 lots. The topography captures half of the roof and most of the parking lot of Clover Hill High School -I= 35%, 15 acres of commercial - I= 70%, and 1.6 acres residential - I= 23 %, to the proposed BMP. The smallest size and efficiency, 35 %, wetpond provides 0.22 compliance for all the residential and 0.45 compliance for all the commercial. The CBLAD manual P-loading factors for existing off-site areas over 20% impervious (I) provide a higher pollutant generation rate than new development. jing:~lala\plam\usc.wlXl 8 Attachment B New Residential Projects within the area suggested on the Upper Swift Creek Plan for Residential Use of 2.2 units per acre orless, Edgewater REI:ER TO o~ ,, / Hampton Park Cloverhill Estates DFI-Spri~ng Watermfll Run Extensior Attachment C Analysis of three hypothetical residential projects Compliance with 0.22 lb/ac/yr Water QualiW requirement The following scenarios were provided by Planning and analyzed by Environmental Engineering. Single Family An R-12 subdivision layout on 43 acres. In the absence of topographical information, it was assumed the BMP captured all the onsite and no offsite area. This topography assumption is not representative of actual projects. The site had an RPA and a BMP located in open space. Under this scenario, R-12 zoning setbacks and minimum lot widths reduced the maximum lot yield to 82, or 1.91 units per acre. Townhouse The layout of an actual project with 94 units was used. 43 acres are required to meet the 2.2 units per acre maximum density. 11 acres of the site are developed, not including the BMP easement. It is reasonable to assume capture of the entire impervious area of the site based on the typical grading and storm sewer systems. Com ~arison Table Type Density # Lots % P Removal Treatment BMP design Imperv. Required (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (effic. & size) SF 2.2 94 23 16.34 16.77 65% 100'x300' SF 2.0 86 22 15.48 16.21 65% 99'x297' SF 1.91 82 21 14.62 15.65 65% 97'x291' TH 2.2 94 10 4.73 5.46 50% 49'x146' Attachment D Hypothetical Single Family Residenti; 43 Acres 82 Lots 1.91 Units per Acre Attachment E Hypothetical Townhouse Residential · 43 acres 94 lots 2.2 units per acre BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY G. DANIEL CHAIRMAN DALE DISTRICT ARTHUR S. WARREN VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. L. McHALE, III BERMUDA DISTRICT RENNY BUSH HUMPHREY MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 (804) 748-1050 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR To; From: D ate: Subject: Chesterfield County Planning Commission Thomas E. Jacobson, Director of Planning~,/ December 31, 1999 Amendments to the Midl0thian Area Community Plan, the Route 288 Corridor Plan and the Upper Swift Creek Plan to reduce suggested densities for residential development that generally drains to Swift Creek Reservoir. Amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance (Article IV, Division 5 of the Zoning Ordinance) to reference reduced residential densities suggested by the Midl0thian Area Community. Plan, Route 288 Corridor Plan and Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendments. Staff can find no basis to suggest that the proposed Plan amendments will provide better protection of water quality in Swift Creek Reservoir than the protection already provided through current Plans and Ordinances. However, an amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance may achieve better protection of the Reservoir by including areas within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed that are not currently subject to the water quality performance criteria of the Ordinance (the 0.22 standard). At a work session on August 17, 1999, you instructed the Planning and Environmental Engineering Departments to review the suggested residential development density of the Upper Swift Creek Plan, 2.2 units per acre of less, for compliance with the water quality performance criteria of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance. You reviewed staff's findings at your October 19, 1999, work session (see memorandum reviewing residential density for the Upper Swift Creek Plan, 2.2 units per acre or less, dated October 15, 1999). Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. December 31, Page 2 1999 You then instructed Planning Department staff to prepare amendments to the Midlothian Area Community Plan, Route 288 Corridor Plan and Upper Swift Creek Plan that, if adopted, would reduce the suggested residential development densities for properties that drain to the Swift Creek Reservoir (see memorandum outlining amendments to the Midlothian Area Community Plan, Route 288 Corridor Plan and Upper Swift Creek Plan, dated November 1, 1999). You further instructed staff to prepare an amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance to reference reduced residential densities suggested by these Plan amendments, thereby binding the affected land areas to the water quality standards of the Ordinance (see memorandum outlining amendments to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance, dated November 1, 1999). You reviewed these Plan and Ordinance amendments at work sessions on November 16, 1999, and December 13, 1999. After reviewing these amendments, you set a public hearing to consider these amendments at your regularly scheduled meeting on January 18, 2000. Staff does not support the proposed Plan amendments. As stated in the October 15, 1999, memorandum, staff determined that residential projects of 2.2 units per acre, or of even greater density, can be designed and developed to comply with the water quality standards (the 0.22 standard) of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance. Reducing suggested residential densities of the Midlothian Area Community Plan, the Route 288 Corridor Plan or the Upper Swift Creek Plan will not achieve any better protection of water quality in the Swift Creek Reservoir than can presently be achieved through the current Plan suggested residential densities. Specifically, all residential developments in areas regulated by the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance must achieve the water quality standards of the Ordinance regardless of the actual density developed. Given these considerations, staff can find no basis to suggest that adopting the reduced residential densities of the proposed Plan amendments would provide better protection of water quality in Swift Creek Reservoir than the protections already provided through the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance alone. However, staff has estimated that approximately 1,000 acres within the Midlothian Area Community Plan and the Route 288 Corridor Plan, suggested for residential densities of up to 2.5 units per acre, are not currently regulated by the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance. These areas represent an estimated three percent of the land area within Chesterfield County that drains to Swift Creek Reservoir. Requiring development within these areas to comply with the water quality standards (the 0.22 standard) of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance should be considered (see Attachment A). Should the Planning the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Midlothian Area Community Plan, Route 288 Corridor Plan, and Upper Swift Creek Plan amendments to the Board of Supervisors, the attached resolutions will be forwarded to the Board along with the Plan amendments (see Attachments B, C and D). Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. Attachment A ~.. VERSION 2 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-238 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: That Section 19-238 of the Code o_f the Coun_ty o_f Chesterfield, 1997, aa' amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-238. Development regulations. Any use, development or redevelopment of land in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed shall meet the following performance criteria: (a) No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for the desired use or development; (b) Indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible consistent with the use or development allowed; (c) Land development shall minimize impervious cover consistent with the use or development allowed; (d) (1) Stormwater runoff shall be controlled to achieve the following: For any new use or development, the post-development, nonpoint-source pollution runoffloads of phosphorous and lead shall not exceed the following: (i) Phosphorus: The post-development total phosphorus load for residential uses located in areas identified in the acre-orless Midlothian Area Community Plan for Low Density Residential (1.01 to 2.5 units per acre), in the Route 288 Corridor Plan for Residential (1 to 2.0 dwellings per acre) and Residential (1 to 2.5 dwellings per acre), and in the Upper Swift Creek Plan for Single Family Residential: (2.2 Units/Acre or less) shall not exceed 0.22 pounds per acre per year. (ii) Lead: VERSION 2 The post-development total phosphorus load for all other uses shall not exceed 0.45 pounds per acre per year. The post-development total lead load for nonresidential uses and residential uses at a density greater than 2.2 2.5 units per acre located in areas identified for such uses in the comprehensive plan shall not exceed 0.19 pounds per acre per year. 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 2014:46883.2 2 Attachment B Resolution I. Amendment to the Midlothian Area Community Plan Chesterfield County: At a regular meeting of the Chesterfield County Planning Commission, held at the County Administration Building on January 18, 2000. Whereas, Title 15.2, Article 3 of the Code of Virginia provides for the preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Comprehensive Plan which, as amended, is now referred to as the Plan For Chesterfield. Whereas, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission has reviewed and held a public hearing on the amendment to the Midlothian Area Community Plan, a proposed amendment to the Plan For Chesterfield. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Planning Commission hereby recommends the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approve the proposed amendment to the Midlothian Area Community Plan, an amendment to the Plan For Chesterfield, with any revisions as agreed to by the Commission. Attachment C Resolution II. Amendment to the Route 288 Corridor Plan Chesterfield County: At a regular meeting of the Chesterfield County Planning Commission, held at the County Administration Building on January 18, 2000. Whereas, Title 15.2, Article 3 of the Code of Virginia provides for the preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Comprehensive Plan which, as amended, is now referred to as the Plan For Chesterfield. Whereas, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission has reviewed and held a public hearing on the amendment to the Route 288 Corridor Plan, a proposed amendment to the Plan For Chesterfield. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Planning Commission hereby recommends the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approve the proposed amendment to the Route 288 Corridor Plan, an amendment to the Plan For Chesterfield, with any revisions as agreed to by the Commission. Attachment D Resolution III. Amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan Chesterfield County: At a regular meeting of the Chesterfield County Planning Commission, held at the County Administration Building on January 18, 2000. Whereas, Title 15.2, Article 3 of the Code of Virginia provides for the preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Comprehensive Plan which, as amended, is now referred to as the Plan For Chesterfield. Whereas, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission has reviewed and held a public hearing on the amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan, a proposed amendment to the Plan For Chesterfield. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Planning Commission hereby recommends the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approve the proposed amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan, an amendment to the Plan For Chesterfield, with any revisions as agreed to by the Commission. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY G. DANIEL CHAIRMAN DALE DISTRICT ARTHUR S. WARREN VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. L. McHALE, III BERMUDA DISTRICT RENNY BUSH HUMPHREY MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 (804) 748-1050 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR To: From: Date: Chesterfield County Planning Commission /j Thomas E. Jacobson, Director of Planning November 1, 1999 Subject: Amendments to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance (Article IV, Division 5 of the Zoning Ordinance) to reference reduced residential densities suggested by the Midlothian Area Community_ Plan, Route 288 Corridor Plan and Upper Swift Creek PI~ Amendments for properties within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. At a work session on October 19, 1999, you instructed the Planning Department to prepare Plan amendments to reduce the Land Use Plan suggested residential densities for areas that lie within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed and to prepare an amendmem to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance to reference these reduced densities. Please find attached this Ordinance amendment. Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD., 1997, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-238 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: lhat Section 19-238 of the Code of the Coun_ty o_f Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-238. Development regulations. Any use, development or redevelopment of land in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed shall meet the following performance criteria: (a) No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for the desired use or development; (b) Indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible consistent with the use or development allowed; (c) Land development shall minimize impervious cover consistent with the use or development allowed; (d) (1) Stormwater runoff shall be controlled to achieve the following: For any new use or development, the post-development, nonpoint-source pollution runoff.loads of phosphorous and lead shall not exceed the following: (i) Phosphorus: The post-development total phosphorus load for residential uses located in areas identified in the am'e-m--J~ Midlothian Area Community Plan for Low Density Residential (1.01 to 2.0 units per acre), in the Route 288 Corridor Plan for Residential (1 to 2.0 dwellings per acre), and in the Upper Swift Creek Plan for Single Family Residential: (2.0 Units/Acre or less) shall not exceed 0.22 pounds per acre per year. The post-development total phosphorus load for all 2018:46883.1 (ii) Lead: 1. other uses shall not exceed 0.45 pounds per acre per year. The post-development total lead load for nonresidential uses and residential uses at a density greater than 2.2 2.0 units per acre located in areas identified for such uses in the comprehensive plan shall not exceed 0.19 pounds per acre per year. OOO (2) That this ordimmce shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 2018:46883.1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY G. DANIEL CHAIRMAN DALE DISTRICT ARTHUR S. WARREN VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. L. McHALE, III BERMUDA DISTRICT RENNY BUSH HUMPHREY MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 (804) 748-1050 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR To: From: D ate: Subject: Chesterfield County Planning Commission // Thomas E. Jacobson, Director of Planning November 1, 1999 Amendments to the Midlothian Area Community Plan, the Route 288 Corridor Plar~ and the Upper Swift Creek Plan relative to suggested densities for residential development within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. At a work session on August 17, 1999, you instructed the Planning and Environmental Engineering Departments to review the suggested residential development density of the Upper Swift Creek Plan (2.2 units per acre of less) for compliance with the water quality performance criteria of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance. You reviewed staff's findings at your October 19, 1999, work session, then instructed the Planning Department to prepare Plan amendments that, if adopted, would reduce the suggested residential development densities for properties that drain to the Swift Creek Reservoir. Specifically, the following amendments, if adopted, would lower suggested residential densities for the following areas in the following Plans: Midlothian Area Community. Plan - a new the land use category would be created for areas the current Plan suggests are appropriate for 'Low Density Residential 1.01 to 2.5 units per acre', and which also generally drain to Swift Creek Reservoir. This new category would be 'Low Density Residential 1.01 to 2.0 units per acre'; Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in PubEc Service. November 1, 1999 Page 2 Route 288 Corridor Plan - the land use category for areas the current Plan suggests are appropriate for 'Residential (1 to 2.5 dwellings per acre)' would be deleted. These areas would be included in the 'Residential (1 to 2.0 dwellings per acre)' category; Upper Swift Creek Plan - the land use category for areas the current Plan suggests are appropriate for 'Single Family Residential: 2.2 Units/Acre or less' would be amended to 'Single Family Residential: 2.0 Units/Acre or less'. Staff has prepared the requested draft Plan amendments for your consideration. The amendments prepared by staff suggest that, should the Planning and Commission and Board of Supervisors wish to lower the residential densities of the Midlothian Area Community Plan, the Route 288 Corridor Plan and the Upper Swift Creek Plan as discussed herein, it may be appropriate to consider the ridge line of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed drainage basin only as a general guide in applying the reduced residential densities to the respective area Plans. Specifically, the ridge line of the drainage basin meanders in an irregular fashion, sometimes cutting through subdivisions and crossing and recrossing roads. In addition, the exact location of the ridge line has not been accurately surveyed for all properties. For these reasons, using the ridge line as the delineation could lead to confusion in interpreting the exact location of the boundary of the drainage basin and the boundary between respective land use categories. This can be especially confusing in the case of the Upper Swift Creek Plan, a large area Plan that includes most properties within the County that drain into the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir as well as surrounding properties that do not drain into the Reservoir. (See attached Generalized Boundaries map) The Plan for Chesterfield The Midlothian Area Community Plan Amendment Proposed LAND USE PLAN The Midlothian Area Community Plan Amendment An amendment to the Midlothian Area Community Plan Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Plan amendment is to lower the suggested densities of residential development for properties that generally drain to Swift Creek Reservoir. GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Refer to the land use categories of the adopted Midlothian Area CommunitY Plan and the attached Plan Amendment map. This Plan amendment suggests that a new the land use category be created for areas the current Plall suggests are appropriate for 'Low Density Residemial 1.01 to 2.5 units per acre' and which also generally drain to Swift Creek Reservoir. This new category would be 'Low Density Residemial 1.01 to 2.0 units per acre'. (Note: The defmitions of land use categories in the Midlothian Area Communi _ty Plan are included on the Plan map rather than in the text of the document. The attached map reflects the addition of the 1.0 to 2.0 units per acre residential category for areas that generally drain to Swift Creek Reservoir.) Refer to the goals and recommendations of the adopted Midlothian Area Community Plan. 0 The Plan for Chesterfield The Route 288 Corridor Plan Amendment Proposed The Route 288 Corridor Plan Amendment An amendment to the Route 288 Corridor Plan Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Plan amendment is to lower the suggested densities of residential development for properties that generally drain to Swift Creek Reservoir. GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Refer to the goals and recommendations of the adopted Route 288 Corridor Plan. LAND USE PLAN Refer to the attached amended land use categories for the Route 288 Corridor Plan and the attached Plan Amendment map. This Plan amendment suggests that the land use category for areas the current Plan suggests are appropriate for 'Low Density Residential 1.01 to 2.5 units per acre', and that also generally drain to Swift Creek Reservoir, be amended to 'Low Density Residential 1.01 to 2.0 units per acre'. (Note: The definitions of land use categories in the Route 288 Corridor Plan are provided in Chart 3, Land Use Categories, within the text of the Plan document. The attached text reflects amendment of the 1.0 to 2.5 units per acre residential category, for areas that generally drain to the Swift Creek Reservoir, to 1.0 to 2.0 units per acre. In addition, the attached Plan map reflects the deletion of the 1.0 to 2.5 units per acre residential category for areas that generally drain to the Swift Creek Reservoir. This map now suggests that such areas may be appropriate for residential use of 1.0 to 2.0 units per acre.) Route 288 C 'ridor Plan Amendr,.ent Legend  R esidential (One dwelling or less per acre) Residentia} (1 to 2.0 dwellings per acre) Office/Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Light Industrial/Flex Regional Employment Center Refer to Midlothian AJrea Comm unity Plan Refer to Upper Swift Creek Plan 288 At~a ~p~an (Note: All boundaries are be confirmed with the Chesterfl Department.) Note: Consult the Thoroughfare Plan for detailed information about Thoroughfare Plan roads, ;hould lib This map was prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and is an ArcView GIS applicatioon of Chesterfield County GIS base map data. January 24, 2000 jim c:\data~arcviewproj~.uscplan~layout2 75,000 The Plan for Chesterfield The Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment Proposed LAND USE PLAN The Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment An amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department INTRODUCTION Refer to the attached land use categories for the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan and the attached Plan Amendment map. This Plan amendment suggests that the land use category for areas the current Plan suggests are appropriate for 'Single Family Residential: 2.2 Units/Acre or less' would be amended to 'Single Family Residential: 2.0 Units/Acre or less'. The purpose of this Plan amendment is to lower the suggested densities of residential development for properties that generally drain to the Swift Creek Reservoir. GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Note: The definitions of land use categories in the Upper Swift Creek Plan are provided in the Land Use Categories within the text of the Plan document. The attached text reflects amendment of the 2.2 units per acre or less residential category to 2.0 units per acre or less. The attached Plan map further reflects this amendment.) Refer to the goals and recommendations of the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan. Upper Swift Creek Plan Land Use Categories · SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: 2.20 2.._.Q.0 units per acre or less Appropriate land uses in these areas include conventional single family housing; churches, synagogues; and public schools, parks and other public uses. Uses permitted in circumstances limiting their negative impacts could include private schools, recreation facilities, and day care facilities. Overall residential density should not exceed two,~,,,.~-" '-,.... ....... ,..,,.,,~" units per acre; however, where new development adjoins existing residential development of a lower density, significant transitional areas of intermediate density must be provided. Such transitions should be gradual, and be based upon characteristics of the land involved depending upon the size and type of buffers and street layout. In addition to conventional single family development, innovative development styles would be appropriate in these areas, when included in large coordinated planned developments. Rural villages of clustered houses ranging from 150 to 500 dwelling units are one such possibility. Such villages could integrate townhouses, apartments, or condominiums with clustered detached single family housing. They could also incorporate a Convenience Node -- or possibly a Neighborhood Node, depending on the number of dwelling units in the planned community and on adequate access. (See Convenience Nodes below.) Such villages would be internally focused; would center on a community plaza, green, park, or other facility; would provide a continuous network of pedestrian ways; and would be surrounded by open space. Upper Swift reek Plan Amendr ent Legend DSingle Family Residential: (1.0 Units/Acm or less) [~ Single Family Residential: (2.0 Units/Acm or less) Note: Projects that drain awayfrom Swift Creek Reservoir may be appropriate for densities of up to 2.2 Units/Acre. IRegional Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Mixed Use Corddor Conservation: Passive Recreation Conservation: Open Water O Community Mixed Use Node Q Regional Mixed Use Node Refer to Old Gun/Robious Plan Refer to Refer-to Midl~hian Area corn, ~,i .ty Plain. Refer to POWhite/Rt. 2~8 Duval Rd. West Refer to ~ Southern & Western Area Plan (Eo,,~, s Note: Sites for Neighborhood Mixed Use and Convenience Nodes are not shown on this map but may be developed under certain conditions. See Plan text for details.) Note: Consult the Thoroughfare Plan for detailed information about Thoroughfare Plan roads. Refer tO Southern Area Plan (Note: All boundaries are generalized and should be confirmed with the Chesterfield County Planning Department.) This map was prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and is an ArcView application of Chesterfield County GIS base map data January 24, 2000 imc:\data~arcviewprojAuscplan3~layout2 131,313 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: $.B. 5. Subject: Authorization for American Tower to Apply for Substantial Accord and a Conditional Use and Variances for Height and Setbacks or a Conditional Use Planned Development with Height and Setback Exceptions for the Use, Extension or Replacement of the Communications Tower at Harrowgate Park County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize American Tower to apply for substantial accord and a conditional use and variances for height and setbacks or a conditional use planned development with height and setback exceptions for communications tower/antenna at Harrowgate Park. Summary_ of Information: American Tower has requested permission to use, extend or replace the existing tower and install communications antenna at Harrowgate Park. If American Tower meets the County's criteria and receives substantial accord and conditional use and variances for height and setbacks or a conditional use planned development with height and setback exceptions approval, the tower/site could be leased. The lease would require approval by the Board at a Public Hearing. District: Bermuda Preparer: J~hnW -~' (~7~~ · Harmon Yes Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer Attach_merits: No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 MeetingDate: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B.6. Subject: Authorization to Exercise Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of an Easement for the Ruffin Mill Road Waterline County_ Administrator's Comment~: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Sections 15.2-1904 and 1905 of the Code of Virqinia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on February 11, 2000, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. Summary of Information: On July 8, 1999, an offer of $55.56 was made by the Right of Way Office to Allen M. Halloway, PIN 8126429231 for the purchase of the remaining 1/9 interest in a water easement for the Ruffin Mill Road Waterline. The other 8/9 interest has been conveyed to the County. Since this offer has not been accepted and since the contract for the installation of the waterline has been awarded, it is necessary to proceed with eminent domain immediately for the health and safety of the public. Staff will continue to negotiate with the owner in an effort to reach a settlement. District: Bermuda Harmon Attach_merits: YesI INo Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer VICINITY SKETCH AUTHORIZATION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AN EASEMENT FOR THE RUFFIN MILL ROAD WATERLINE 00 · ~0 <m~ ~J 0~:: ~ U CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: Februar 9y__~_t__2000 Item Number: 8.B.7. Subject: Conveyance of a Variable Width Easement to Virginia Electric and Power Company County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a variable width easement agreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company to relocate an existing power line across County property to serve Old Hundred Mill Subdivision, Section A. Summary_ of Information: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company to relocate an existing power line across County property to serve Old Hundred Mill Subdivision, Section A. This request is on the Swift Creek Middle School site. The developer of Old Hundred Mill Subdivision has agreed to landscape the area impacted by this easement. District: Clover Hill J~n W. Harmon Attach_merits: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manager VICINITY SKETCH CONVEYANCE OF A VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RANDERMILL SEE GRID D8 SAG~WOOD TRACE SAGEWDBD TERR SAGEWDGD CT SAGEWOOD PL STERLING BRIDGE PL eek P/IS -RED CHESTNUT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B.8.a. Subject: Conveyance of an Easement to Virginia Electric and Power Company County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company to relocate power lines in conjunction with the Warbro Road Widening Project. Summary_ of Information: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company to relocate power lines in conjunction with the Warbro Road Widening Project. District: Clover Hill Preparer: ~c-.. ~,-~ AJ, ~o-~ - ~hn W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer VICINITY SKETCH CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RANDERMILL SEE GRID D8 SAGEWROD TRACE SAGEWOOi] TERR WOODBRIDGE CROSSIN~ SAGEWOOD CT SAGEWODD PL STERLING BR4DGE PC eek MS N' OFC PK ! i ! / ! / CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B.8.b. Subject: Conveyance of an Easement to Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. to install underground cable across County property to serve Chesdin Shores Subdivision, Section 1. Summary_ of Information: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. to install underground cable across County property to serve for Chesdin Shores Subdivision, Section 1. District: Matoaca Preparer. ' ~,~~~ 7~-CZ~-a~-~ J~hn W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Right of Way Manaqer VICINITY SKETCH CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO BELL ATLANTIC-VIRGINIA, INC. CHESDIN SHORES SUBDIVISION, SECTION 1 ? / / / \ 'NORTH / / DESIGNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. 4821 BETHLEHEM ROAD RICHMOND, VA 23230 (8o4) 2~3-38~5 Prepared for Bell Atlant/c- Vf_rgim'~, Inc. DISTRICT: MATOACA B/A3OB NO: 93015-RIV DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1999 R/W PERMIT NO: BC-101223-R PLAT SHOWING BELL ATLANTIC-VIRGINIA, INC. EASEMENT UPON THE PROPERTY OF COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD known as TAX MAP PARCEL NO. {G.P. LN'.} 7'34-630-1881-00000 (14 700 N. Ivey Milt Road, COUNTY: CHESTERFIELD WIRE CENTER: CHESDIN PREPARED BY: D-TEL/SHB AREA/TAX DIST: 83000/2199 STATE: VIRGINIA D-TEL 2OB NO: 4226 SCALE: NTS SHEET 3 OF 3 · '~'" DENOTES LOCATION OF 15' BELL ATLANTIC-VIRGINIA, INC. EASEMENT AS SHOWN HEREON. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B.9.a. Subject: Request to Install a Private Water Service Within a Private Easement to Serve Property at 5300 Carteret Road County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve a request to install a private water service to serve property at 5300 Carteret Road and authorize the County Administrator to execute the water connection agreement. Summary_ of Information: David R. Russell and Karen F. Russell have requested approval to install a private water service within a private easement to serve property at 5300 Carteret Road. This request has been reviewed and staff recommends approval. District: Dale Preparer: ~~ _7.J .~ Jo~n W. Harmon Attach_merits: No Title: Right of Way Manaqer David A & Karen F. Russell 5300 Carteret Road Pin # 751-680.3642 10' private water 10'xl 0' water 5221 3 RT 24~3 Robert D. & Joyce C. -Sheets Carteret Road .- Pin # 751-679-5959 ~"~ e ? 5401 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2O0O Item Number: 8.B.9.b. Subject: Request to Install a Private Water Service Within a Private Easement to Serve Property at 1013 Point of Rocks Road County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve a request to install a private water service to serve property at 1013 Point of Rocks Road and authorize the County Administrator to execute the water connection agreement. Summary_ of Information: Carter L. Burkey, Sr. and Shelia B. Burkey have requested approval to install a private water service within a private easement to serve property at 1013 Point of Rocks Road. This request has been reviewed and staff recommends approval. District: Bermuda Preparer: W. Harmon Attach_merits: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer VICINITY SKETCH. REQUEST TO INSTALL A PRIVATE WATER SERVICE WITHIN A PRIVATE EASEMENT TO SERVE PROPERTY AT 1013 POINT OF ROCKS ROAD £oin~ of Iount Bapt on Co 6 lgB? 10' X 10' WATER - EASEMENT Alton W. Rawlings Lorine H. Rawlings m~ 919 Enon Church Road Pin # 820-643-6145 / 10' private easement Carter L. Burkey, Sr. Shelia B. Burkey HI)3 point of Rocks Road Pin # 820-6420-4241 Carter L. Burkey, Sr. Shelia B. Burkey 1013 point of Rocks Road Pin # 820-6420-4241 I00§ 1021 Evelyn C. Cox 1005 Point of Rocks Road Pin # 820-641-9725 4411 1101 1471G (~) 295 1011 NE Coardin~ 11821~ttZ5 3644100 MAP OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY VIRGINA 120.5 ~ tie 1: 3600 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meetin~ Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8. B. 10. a. Subject: Appropriation of Funds for the Coalboro Road Paving Project County. Administrator's Comments: County_ Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to appropriate an additional $120,000 from anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Coalboro Road Paving Project. Summary of information: The Board has appropriated $870,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Coalboro Road Paving Project. The estimated cost of the project has increased. An additional $120,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements should be appropriated. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board appropriate $120,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Coalboro Road Paving Project. District: Matoaca Preparer: ~t~ ~t~.J. McCracken Agen438 Attachments: ~-~ Yes Title: No Director of Transportation CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetino Date: February 9. 2000 Number Budget and Management Comments: This request is for an additional appropriation of $120,000 in VDOT reimbursement for the Coalboro Road Paving Project. The right-of-way cost estimates have increased in addition to the preliminary construction estimates. Subsequent to this appropriation, the project budget will total $990,000. No local funds are involved. Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Management CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B.10.b. Subject: Appropriation of Funds for the Old Hundred Road Shoulder Project County_ Administrator's Comments: County_ Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to appropriate an additional $200,000 from anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Old Hundred Road Shoulder Project. Summary of information: The Board has appropriated $530,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Old Hundred Road Shoulder Project. The estimated cost of the project right-of-way acquisition and construction has increased. An additional $200,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements should be appropriated. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board appropriate $200,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Old Hundred Road Shoulder Project. District: Clover Hill Preparer: ~.J~ I~lc~-racken Agen439 Attachments: ~ Yes Title: No Director of Transportation CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: February 9. 2000 Number Budget and Mana.qement Comments: This request is for an additional appropriation of $200,000 in VDOT reimbursement for the Old Hundred Road Shoulder Project. The right-of- way cost estimates have increased in addition to the preliminary construction estimates. Subsequent to this appropriation, the project budget will total $730,000. No local funds are involved. Rebecca T. Dickson CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of~ 2 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B. 11. Subject: Award of Construction Contract for County Project #99-0235 Pocoshock Creek Aerial Sewer Line Crossing Emergency Rehabilitation County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors award the construction contract to InfraCorps of Virginia, Inc. in the amount of $581,918.00 and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary construction contract documents and appropriate $400,000 from wastewater fund balance to 5P-898601R - Sewer Facilities Rehabilitation to cover the cost of construction and contingencies. Summary of Information: Utilities maintenance crews identified an emergency condition that exists on a 48 inch aerial sewer line crossing Pocoshock Creek. This sewer line is supported above the creek on concrete piers. Several of these existing piers are failing and no longer supporting the 48 inch concrete pipe. Without support, the sewer line has the potential to fail and spill sewage into the Falling Creek Reservoir. This 48 inch sewer line is the main .sewer that transports wastewater from the north end of the county to the Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. This repair must be made on an emergency basis. Following appropriate purchasing procedures InfraCorps of Virginia, Inc. has been selected to make the repairs at a cost of $581,918.00. The Sewer Facilities Rehabilitation Project does not have sufficient funds to cover this repair. Therefore, $400,000 needs to be appropriated from Fund Balance to make up the difference. Preparer:craig ~-.~ryant,~. E. Title: Director Utilities Yes Attacl%ments: No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetino Date: Februarv 9. 2000 Number Budqet and Manaqement Comments: This request is for award of a contract in the amount of $581,918 for repairs to the piers supporting the Pocoshock Creek aerial sewer line crossing. The available balance in the sewer facilities rehabilitation project is $211,138. Therefore, staff is requesting an appropriation of $400,000 from Wastewater fund balance to enable award of this contract and support a contingency for unforeseen expenditures. Sufficient funds are available in Wastewater fund balance to appropriate for this request. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Management CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B.12. Subject: Consider a Transfer of $5,000 from the District Improvement Funds ($1,000 from each district) to the Fire Department to 'SPonsor a Regional Firefighter Combat Challenge Competition in the County County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Transfer $5,000 from the District Improvement Funds ($1,000 from each district) to the Fire Department to sponsor a regional Firefighter Combat Challenge competition in the County. Summary_ of Information: For a number of years the National Firefighter Combat Challenge competitions have been conducted throughout the United States. At these events, firefighters compete with each other in performing the fire- suppression skills they are trained to use on the job. The Chesterfield Fire Department's Combat Challenge Team has previously competed in Ohio, Florida, Maryland and New York. The County has the opportunity to sponsor one of the regional competitions in July of this year. In order to be a sponsor, the County must pay $7,500 to offset the cost of the competition including the cost of renting the equipment that is used. The Fire Department request that each Board member donate $1,000 in District Improvement Funds toward the cost of the event. The Fire Department will raise the additional $2,500. The Firefighter Combat Challenge Competition is a legitimate part of the training program of the Fire Department and the Board is legally authorized to approve this transfer. The balance in the Bermuda District Improvement Fund account is $25,265.72; use of $1000 will leave a balance of $24,265.72. The balance in the Clover Hill District Improvement Fund account is $89,583.41; use of $1000 will leave a balance of $88,583.41. The balance in the Dale District Improvement Fund account is $34,275.42; use of $1000 will leave a balance of $33,275.42. The balance in the Matoaca District Improvement Fund account is $56,744.47; use of $1000 will leave a balance of $55,744.47. The balance in the Midlothian District Improvement Fund account is $57,301.20; use of $1000 will/!~ave a balance of $56,301.20~ Preparer: ~J-Y~' ~'-( ":'~ i(-~ Title: Rebecca T. Dickson Director, Budget & Management Attachments: ,Yes [ENo I# I 9422:48065.1 DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS APPLICATION This application must be completed and signed before the County can consider a request for funding with District Improvement Funds. Completing and signing this form does not mean that you will receive funding or that the County can legally consider your request. Virginia law places substantial restrictions on the authority of the County to give public funds, such as District Improvement Funds, to private persons or organizations and these restrictions may preclude the County's Board of Supervisors from even considering your request. What is the name of the applicant (person or organization) making this funding request? Lonnie L. Lewis Chesterfield Fire Combat Cna£1enge Team If an organization is the applicant, what is the nature and purpose of the organization? (Also attach organization's most recent articles of incorporation and/or bylaws to application.) The organization is a team of Chesterfield Firefiqhters that compete ~n firefiqhter competitions test~nq ph_vs~ca] ~h~] ~ What is the amount of funding you are seeking? $5,000.00 Describein detailthe funding requestand how the money, ifapproved, willbe spent. The firefighter combat challenge is an event that travels to regional sites for competitions. We would host an event in Chesterfield County. Is any County Department involved in the project, event or program for which you are seeking funds? yes, Chesterfield Fire Dept. If this request for funding will not fully fund your activity or program, what other individuals or organizations will provide the remainder of the funding? Chesterfield Professional Firefi§hters Chesterfield Fire Dept. EMS & Fire Volunteer Workers 0407:23380.1 Page 2 If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Is the organization non-profit? Is the organization tax-exempt? · Yes No Yes x No Yes x No What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? What is the telephone number, fax number, e-mail address of the applicant? Chesterfield Combat Fire Challenge Team P.O. Box 40 ~nester~lel~, Virginia 23832 Contact Person: Lonnie L. Lewis (w) 744-6990 (h) 739-6871 email: llonnie@hotmail.com Signature of applicant. If you are signing on behalf of an organization you must be the president, vice-president, chairman or vice- chairman of the organization. Signature Title (if signing on behalf of an organization) Printed Name 0407:23380.1 CHIEF OF DEPARTMENT ST~.PH~:N A. EkSWlCK (804) 751-4732 DEt, UW CHIEF OF OPERATIONS PAUL W. MAUGER (804) 751-4726 CHESTERFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 40 10031 IRONBRIDGE ROAD CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 (804) 748-1360 FAX: (804) 751-9022 fire @co.chesterfield.va.us DEPUTY CHIEF OF SUPPORT SERVICES PAUL A. SHORTER (804) 796-7161 SECOND DEPUTY CHIEF OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES F~NKL1N H. EDWARDS (8O4) 768-7869 January 6, 2000 The Honorable Penny Bush Humphrey Matoaca District Supervisor Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mrs. Humphrey: Happy New Year! Thanks for your help on the Firefighter Combat Challenge. The event will be a great addition to the County's Health Fair in July. The competition will attract teams and families from many different states. For example, Chesterfield's Combat Challenge Team has competed in Ohio, Florida, Maryland, and New 'York. The national cttamp~onship ~s aired on ESPN each year. Chesterfield will have the opportunity to host one of approximately 20 regional events. This will be a great opportunity to show off our Fire Department and our fantastic County. Please review the enclosed five minute video. I think you will be impressed. Any concerns about the integrity of the event can be relaxed. This is a first class operation with all of the bases covered. To help offset the cost of the event, the host is asked to pay $7,500. I am confident that I can produce the additional money if the Board Members are willing to contribute $1,000 each. If you have any questions, please call me at (home 739-6871) or at (work - 744-6990). Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Firefighter Lonnie Lewis CHESTERFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT C: Lane B. Ramsey Steve A. Elswick Encl. "OUR MISSION IS To PROVIDE VALUED SERVICE THROUGH THE DEDICATION AND EXCEL£ENCE OF OU~? PEOP£~..' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 8.B.13. Subject: Approve blaming the Western Area Park Site After Mr. Irvin G. Horner County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to name the 232 acre Western Area Park Site "Irvin G. Homer Park" after Mr. Irvin G. Horner. Summary_ of Information: Mr. Irvin G. Horner served on the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors for twenty-eight years. He was instrumental in the development of Rockwood Park in 1975 and in the subsequent establishment of the County's Parks System. Mr. Homer would be recognized for his substantial contributions through the naming this beautiful park site in his honor. Preparer: ~~~~ Title: Micl~ael S. Gold-'~n Director, Parks and Recreation Attachments: ~-] Yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Su~ect: Status of General Fund Balance, District Improvement Fund, and County Administrator's Commen~- Reserve for Future Lease Purchases Item Number: Capital Projects, 10. County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Informationl Preparer: __~ Attachments. Yes Title: Ceunty A~l ministrator BOARD MEETING DATE 07/01/99 11/23/99 11/23/99 11/23/99 11/23/99 11/23/99 11/23/99 12/15/99 11/23/99 12/15/99 11/23/99 12/15/99 11/23/99 12/15/99 11/23/99 12/15/99 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE February 3, 2000 DESCRIPTION FY2000 Actual Beginning Fund Balance Designate excess revenue (County) for non recurring items in FY2001 Designate expenditure savings (County) for non-recurring items in FY2001 Designate excess revenue (Schools) for non recurring items in FY2001 Designate excess revenue (Schools) for non recurring items in FY2001 Designate expenditure savings (Schools) for non-recurring items in FY2001 Reappropriation of FY99 County Results of Operations for Police Reappropriation of FY99 County Results of Operations for Parks and Recreation Reappropriation of FY99 County Results of Operations for Libraries Reappropriation of FY99 County Results of Operations for Fire Reappropriation of FY99 County Results of Operations for Presidential Primary AMOUNT (1,653,055) (793,967) (94,422) (470,514) (1,940,408) (540,800) (280,000) (135,000) (342,000) (106,000) BALANCE $36,694,598 35,041,543 34,247,576 34,153,154 33,682,640 31,742,232 31,201,432 30,921,432 30,786,432 30,444,432 30,338,432 11/23/99 12/15/99 11/23/99 12/15/99 06/30/00 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE February $, 2000 Reappropriation of FY99 County Results of Operations for Economic Development Incentives Reappropriation of FY99 County Results of Operations for Relocations in Administration Building FY00 Budgeted Addition to Fund Balance (750,000) (100,000) 1,246,900 29,588,432 29,488,432 30,735,332 Board Meeting Date "' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY DEBT February 3, 2000 Description Amount FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 04/28/1999 FY2000 Budgeted Addition 8,034,500 04/28/1999 FY2000 Capital Projects (7,120,900) 08/25/1999 Transfer to LaPrade Library Project for construction (15o,ooo) 09/17/1999 Partial Release of designation for Henricus Land Purchase based on final grant award 104,425 12/15/1999 Transfer to Circuit Court Project for construction of courtrooms/chambers/parking lot. (300,000) Balance 8,650,602 1,529,702 1,379,702 1,484,127 1,184,127 DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS February 3, 2000 District Prior Years FY2000 Carry Over Aoorooriation Funds Used .... Balance Bermuda $19,428 $38,500 $32,663 25,265.72 Clover Hill 108,410 38,500 57,326 89,583.41 Dale Matoaca Midlothian County Wide 41,494 38,500 45,718 34,275.42 53,542 100,906 0 38,500 38,500 13,500 35,298 82,105 0 56,744.47 57,301.20 15,500.00 Prepared by Ac~:ouating Department January 31, 2000 Date Began 12/88 Description SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES APPROVED ANDEXECUTED Airport State Police Hangar Additions County Warehouse Total * 12/93 Real Property Lease/ Purchase 04/99 Public Facility Lease Juvenile Courts Project $128,800 3,31,200 460,000 17,510,000 !6,100,000 Date Ends 12/00 12/01 11/19 Outstanding Balance 01/31/00 $15,019 38,619 53,638 4,835,000 16,100,000 TOT~PRO~D ANDE~CU~D $34.150.64~9 PENDING EXECUTION None *Second Refunding of Certificates of Participation, Series 1985 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page '1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 14.A. Subject: County's Annual Black History Month Celebration County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of Resolution Summary of Information' The purpose of this resolution is to formally recognize February as Black History Month in Chesterfield County. Preparer: ! t ~'~'~"~ ~ '~'~'~.~,~'-J~, Title: Director, Human Resource Manaqement Karla J. Ger~ner Attachments: Yes No II CHESTERFIELD COUNTY  BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meetin~l Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 14.B. Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Recognizing Mr. Richard M. King for His Eight Years of Service to the Airport Advisory Board County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Staff requests the Board adopt a resolution recognizing Mr. Richard M. King for his service to the Airport Advisory Board representing the Bermuda District. Summary of Information: See attached Preparer: ~~ Title: Director, Aviation S~rvic~s S~'e/v e-~/. Calabro Attachments: l Yes ~-~ No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 14.C. Meetin~l Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: I II I Subject: Adoption of Resolution Recognizing Mr. Keith Wayne Sprouse Upon His Retirement From Chesterfield County III County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing Mr. Keith Wayne Sprouse upon his retirement from the Department of General Services. Mr. Sprouse will be present at the meeting. See attached resolution. Preparer: Francis M. Pitaro Title: Director, General Services Attachments: Yes RECOGNIZING HR. KEITH WAYNE SPROUSE UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Keith Wayne Sprouse retired on February 1, 2000 after providing thirty years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Sprouse began his service on October 1, 1969 as a mechanic's helper in the Chesterfield County Fire Department and then as Superintendent, Heavy Vehicle Maintenance Shop, Department of General Services; and WHEREAS, Mr. Sprouse has seen the County's automotive vehicle fleet grow from approximately 300 vehicles to more than 2,500 vehicles; and WHEREAS, Mr. Sprouse was responsible for service, repair and maintenance of all County and School Board medium and heavy vehicles; and WHEREAS, Mr. Sprouse performed his duties and responsibilities in a most dependable and proficient manner; and WHEREAS, Mr. Sprouse is known for his friendly, easy going manner, his ability to work with others in an effective way, and caring for his fellow co-workers. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Keith Wayne Sprouse and extends their appreciation for his dedicated service to the County, their congratulations upon his retirement, and their best wishes for a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Sprouse and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1__. of_.l Meeting Date: Febrlli~ry 9, 2000 Item Number: 14.D. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Bill Bevins County_ Administrator's Comments; County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached Resolution Summary_ of Information; Mr. Barber requested that the attached resolution be adopted. This resolution is in recognition of Bill Bevins for his philanthropic work, entertainment and dedication to Chesterfield County citizens and the region. Prepa~Cer: _;~~ ~~."o~.?~ Title. //~Do~ald J. Ka~j~l/ f/,//f'/ Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Director, Public Affairs RECOGNIZING MR. BILL BEVINS FOR HIS PHILANTHROPIC WORK WHEREAS, Mr. Bill Bevins is Lite 98's well-known morning personality and is one of the Richmond area's most popular local celebrities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bevins also is the News Channel 6 Saturday morning weatherman; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bevins hosts the televised Virginia State Lottery drawings; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bevins has received the "Broadcaster of the Year" award from the Richmond Broadcasters Hall of Fame; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bevins' radio program has been voted "Best Morning Show" by the readers of RICHMOND magazine for the past four consecutive years; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bevins' other awards and accolades are too numerous to list; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bevins has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Easter Seals, the March of Dimes and other charities throughout central Virginia; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bevins is currently actively involved in raising funds for Easter Seals and the Children's Home Society of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Hr. Bevins is a Chesterfield County resident. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Hr. Bill Bevins, expresses its appreciation for his years of philanthropic work and entertainment, and wishes him continued success in his future endeavors. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Bevins and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA February 9, 2000 Item Number: Page 1 of 1 14.E. Subject: Resolutions Recognizing Former Members of the Chesterfield Community Services Board for Dedicated Service County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: That the Board adopt each of the three Resolutions of Recognition. Summary of Information: · Dr. Carolyn S. Cockrell, represented Bermuda Magisterial District as a member and Chairman of the Chesterfield CSB for two three year terms of appointment, ending December 31, 1999. · Mr. Ernest E. Johnson, represented Midlothian Magisterial District as a member and Chairman of the Chesterfield CSB for two three year terms of appointment, ending December 31, 1999. · Mrs. Judith A. Warren, represented Matoaca Magisterial District for a total of nine years. She was originally appointed in 1990, serving one three year term. She was then appointed to serve two additional three year terms, beginning in 1994, ending December 31, 1999. Preparer: Burt H. Lowe, Ph.D. Title: Executive Director, Community Services Board Attachments: Yes I I RECOGNIZING CAROLYN S. COCKRELL, Ph.D. FOR HER SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD WHEREAS, Carolyn S. Cockrell, Ph.D., representing the Bermuda Magisterial District, has served as a valued and dedicated member of the Chesterfield Community Services Board (CSB) since her appointment by the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors in January 1994; and WHEREAS, Dr. Cockrell has served as a CSB Board member for six years, serving with distinction as CSB Chairman in 1998, Secretary in 1997, as a faithful member of each CSB Standing Committee and Chairman of the Finance Committee; and WHEREAS, Dr. Cockrell is recognized as an articulate spokesperson and advocate for mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services, locally and statewide, having been appointed by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to serve as a member and Co- Chair of the Task Force to Determine the Feasibility of an Alternative Structure for the Chesterfield Community Services Board; and WHEREAS, Dr. Cockrell demonstrated thoughtful guidance and commitment during her terms as a member of the Community Services Board. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Carolyn S. Cockrell, Ph.D. and expresses its sincere gratitude and appreciation for her significant contributions in the provision of quality mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services to the citizens of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Dr. Cockrell and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. RECOGNIZING MR. ERNEST E. JOHNSON FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE CHESTERFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD WHEREAS, Mr. Ernest E. Johnson, representing the Midlothian Magisterial District, has served as a valued and dedicated member of the Chesterfield Community Services Board (CSB) since his appointment by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors in January 1994; and WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson has served as a CSB Board member for two terms, serving with distinction as Chairman of the CSB in 1999, Vice Chairman in 1998, as a faithful member of each CSB Standing Committee and Chairman of the Policy Committee in 1996; and WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson is recognized as an articulate spokesman and consumer family advocate for mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services, locally and statewide, having served on the Board of Directors and as Chairman of the non-profit corporation Chesterfield Alternatives, Incorporated; and WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson demonstrated thoughtful guidance and commitment during his terms as a member of the Community Services Board. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Ernest E. Johnson and expresses its sincere gratitude and appreciation for his significant contributions in the provision of quality mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services to the citizens of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Johnson and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. RECOGNIZING MRS. JUDITH A. WARREN FOR HER SERVICE TO THE CHESTERFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD WHEREAS, Mrs. Judith A. Warren, representing Matoaca Magisterial District, has served as a dedicated and faithful member of the Chesterfield Comraunity Services Board (CSB) since her appointment by the Board of Supervisors in January 1990; and WHEREAS, during her nine years as a member of the Chesterfield Community Services Board, Hrs. Warren has served with distinction as Secretary in 1996 and as a faithful member of each CSB Standing Committee and Chairman of the Program and Finance Comraittees; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Warren has for a number of years been an active volunteer and concerned citizen of Chesterfield County, serving in numerous leadership capacities including the Civic and Political Action Association of the Matoaca Magisterial District (CAPAMMD), the Richmond Area Visiting Teacher/School Social Worker Association and the Richmond Chapter of National Association of Social Workers; and WHEREAS, Hrs. Warren was appointed by the State Human Rights Committee to serve as a member of the Chesterfield Local Human Rights Committee in 1988 and was also appointed in 1990 by the State Mental Health Board to serve on the Housing Education Subcommittee; and WHEREAS, Hrs. Warren is recognized locally and throughout the Commonwealth for her steadfast dedication and genuine concern for persons with mental disabilities. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mrs. Judith A. Warren and expresses its sincere gratitude and appreciation for her many years of commitment and significant contributions in the provision of quality mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services to the citizens of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Judith A. Warren and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date: February 9, coo0 Item Number: 16.A. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider the Conveyance of a Portion of a 60' Right of Way Known as Wood Dale Road Extended County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny a request to quitclaim a portion of a 60' right of way known as Wood Dale Road extended. Summary_ of Information: Fred H. Minson and Sherry M. Minson requested the quitclaim of a portion of a 50' right of way known as Banbury Road and a portion of a 60' right of way known as Wood Dale Road extended. On December 15, 1999, the Board of Supervisors authorized the conveyance of the portion of 50' right of way known as Banbury Road extended and continued the public hearing on conveying the portion of a 60' right of way known as Wood Dale Road extended due to opposition of the request by the adjoining owners. The Minsons and the adjoining owners have not reached an agreement, therefore, staff recommends denial of the request to quitclaim the portion of 60' right of way known as Wood Dale Road extended. District: Bermuda Preparer: ~ '2~ (~a~o~ · Harmon Attach_merits: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF A 60' RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS WOOD DALE ROAD EXTENDED FRED H. & SHERRY M. MINSON fO N Board of Supervisors Chesterfield County February 9, 2000 Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors: I am Erwin Jacobs of 3212 Wood Dale Road in Chester where we have lived for 19 years. I have been in medical practice here for 20 years, the last five years ! have been with the State Department of Corrections. My wife, Joan, has developed the library at the State Police Academy and is their librarian. We thank you for the opportunity to present our objections to the quitclaim sought by Mr. Minson for the land, which is in front of our house. He had wanted us to sign the vacation of easements agreement, which would be harmful to our interests. The acreage at the end of Wood Dale Road was obtained by the Trueharts on August 7,1957. They gave a 64 foot right of way to the county on December 22,1976 as a dedicated continuation of Wood Dale Road. (Map l). This road is still on the county maps. (Map 2) The Trueharts filed a request for subdivision of the land as shown on Map 3. Their plan showed an extension of Route 1587 (Wood Dale Road) from the turn-around. Mr. Mack Daniels purchased his lot on the east side on the road in 1976. We purchased 0.75acres on the west side of the road in 1980. We both built homes and improved the lots. When we purchased the lot, through Longest and Wells, we were told that the 100 foot turn-around was temporary and that, when the road was extended, our frontage being used for the turnaround would be put back to its prior state. Our lot would then be rectangular again. (Map 4) We planned a different style house and orientation to the street but were told that the county required the house to face the temporary street. We put a road in the woods - where the dedicated road was located- for 100 feet from the turn-about so that we could reach our front door. We added lights, and maintained the road with gravel. It ~was used for parking and deliveries. At this time, Mr. Minson, the purchaser, wants a quitclaim to the dedicated road. On the county maps this area is shown as a road at the eastern border of our property. We had 80 feet taken by the county for the turn-around and our front drive is 100 feet beyond that point. The current paved portion of Wood Dale Road is 20 feet wide. Our objections to a quitclaim being given to Mr. Minson are the following: l.The Code of Virginia Sec. 15.2-2272. cation of plat after sale of lot. -- "Va " In cases where any lot has been sold, the plat or part thereof may be vacated, according to either of the following methods: by instrmnent in writing agreeing to vacation signed by all the owners of lots shown on the plat and also signed on behalf of the governing body of the locality in which the land shown on the plat or part thereof to be vacated lies for the purpose of showing the approval of the vacation by the governing body. In cases involving drainage easements or streets right of way where vacation does not impede or alter drainage or access for any lot owners other than those lot owners immediately adjoining or contiguous to the vacated area, the governing body shall only be required to obtain the signatures of the lot owners immediately adjoining or contiguous to the vacated area." Neither the Daniels nor we have signed an agreement. 2. State Code sec. l 5.2-2008 - Sale of public rights -of-way, easements, etc., to certain purchasers.- Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of law, general or special, any locality, as a condition of a vacation or abandonment, may require the fractional portion of its public rights-of-way and easements to be purchased by any abutting property owner. The price shall be no greater then the property's fair market value or its contributory value to the abutting property, whichever is greater, or the amount agreed to by the parties. No such vacation or abandonment shall be concluded until the agreed price has been paid. If any abutting property owner does not pay for such owner's fractional portion within one year, or other time period made a condition of the vacation or abandonment, of the local government action to vacate or abandon, then the vacation or abandonment shall be void as to any such property owner.---- We would be willing to purchase the Wood Dale Road extension from the county and give a right-of-way to Mr. Minson. 3. The State Code Sec. 33.1-165. Conveying sections of roads or other property no longer necessary. When any road abandoned as above provided is deemed by the governing body no longer necessary for the public use, it shall certify such facts upon its minutes and it may authorize the sale or conveyance in the name of the county a deed or deeds conveying such sections, either for a consideration or in exchange for other lands that may be necessary for the uses of the county. But before any such deed either for the sale or exchange of land is executed conveying any section of road upon or along which any person or persons reside, notice shall be given by the governing body to the owner or owners of the land upon which such person or persons reside of the intention to convey the section of road and if, after a reasonable notice of such intention, any such landowner requests, a hearing shall be ordered by the governing body. If, upon such hearing, it is made to appear that such section of road should be kept open for the reasonable convenience of such landowner, or the public, then such section of road shall not be conveyed. 4. The County right-of-way office does not recommend transfer of the property to Mr. Minson. 5. The front road to our entryway is essential for deliveries and emergency vehicles. We want to put in propane gas but the truck hose will not reach the tank from the turn around area. 6. The value of our properties would decrease due to restricted access and restricted parking. Another family purchasing our home will need more area for parking vehicles. When our family gathers they park in the turnaround, which is a hazard to fast moving cars and delivery trucks can not negotiate it. 7. Mr. Minson has not been amenable to an equitable agreement among the interested parties to share the road. He has stated that he wants this to be his road so that he can "announce" his property. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. 3218 45 7887 32.13 46 7578 3242 36 5272 3230 5164 3219 47 ~ 7370 3225 7163 3231 3237 1576 3214 33 4748 54 53 4425 5325 301 3261 5O 6748 51 ~ 6540 3249 52 6130 3255 3 4709 4 6311 6187 ::::::::::::::::::::: 5 7621 3224 MAP 2 ~) 1527 MAP 3 ! ~ ~1 .,~ , / CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 16.B. Subject: Public Hearing for an Amendment to the Introduction to Th~ Plan for Chesterfield CountvAdmini r r' mm n · County_ Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Planning Commission and staffrecommend the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached amendment to the Introduction to Tho Plan for Chesterfield. Summary of information; This update to the Introduction to The Plan for Chesterfield highlights the five guiding philosophies of the Plan: An Approach To Reasonable Growth Management The foundation of The Plan for Chesterfield is orderly development as an overall approach to managing the County's future growth. Economic Development The Plan supports sustaining a healthy economy. Shaping The Character Th~ Plan for qlhesterfield strives to shape the character of the County's development by preserving the natural and rural beauty of the County. Important Resources The Plan works to preserve environmental, cultural and historic resources. Neighborhoods The Plan works toward assisting the County's established neighborhoods.  , Thomas E. Jacobson Attachments: ~-~ Yes Title: Director of Planning C:DATA/AGENDA/2000/FEB900. l/gok NO Advertiskl9 Affidavit P O. IBc× 85333 Richmond~ Virgiriia 23293~0001 (804) (This is riot a bill. Please pay from invoice) CHESTERt; IEI.D BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTN I ISA ELKO P O BOX 4i CH}-iSTE RFi}:~I ,D VA 2 ~32~0040 Descr~tion Ad Size TAKE NOTiCETAKE NOTIC, E THAT THE BOARD 2208O6 01/27/2000 2.00 × 13.00 125.32 ATTACH Richmond Newspapers, Publisher THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH This iS to certify that the attached TAKE NOT was pubfished by Richmond Newspapers, thc, in the ( RiChMOnd, State of virginia, on th~ following dates: 01127/2000 HERE Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ 4res 03/31/01 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 16.C. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the Sale of Surplus County Property on Harrow Drive County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept an offer of $2,100.00 for the purchase of a parcel of land containing 0.1580 acres on Harrow Drive and authorize the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to sign the necessary deed. Summary_ of Information: Staff has received an offer from Donald R. Cornett and Lorna L. Cornett in the amount of $2,100.00 for the purchase of a parcel of land containing 0.1580 acres, located on Harrow Drive. This parcel is a portion of the property acquired by the County for Carver Middle School. School Administration and County staff reviewed the request and determined that there is no current or future need for this portion of the property. On October 13, 1999, the Board declared the parcel surplus and on January 12, 2000, set this public hearing to consider the sale. District: Bermuda Preparer: Jo n~W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manager VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF SURPLUS COUNTY PROPERTY ON HARROW DRIVE CREE~ GREEF,!ERIAR WINI Harr~wgate Perk PI N ELAI'~, D tiLL TIN~ B EF, MT.;G,~ .=,UN 2 Excess County Property Carver Middle School 3800 Cougar Trail Pin # 7936359737 An Affiliate of Media General Advertising Affidavit (This is not a bill P~ease pay from invoice) CHESTERFfLD CO RIGHT WAY RIGHT OF WAY DEPT CHESTERFIELD VA 23832 P.O. Box 85333 Richmond, Virginia 23293~0001 (804) 649-6000 IAccount Nurn, 1 220686 02/02/2000 COde Des cri~tion Ad Size TOt 02/02/2000 121 T?d4~ NOTICETHAT ON FEBRU)fl<Y 9 2000 AT 70 2.00 x 11.00 106.04 ATTACH Media General Operations, Inc. Publisher of the RICHMOND T~MES-D~SPATCH This is to certi~ that the a~ached TAE~ NOTICETHAT ONFE was PUblished bythe ~iChmond Times.Dispatch in the City of Richmond~ State of Virginia, on the following dates: 02/02/2000 The first insertion being given.,, 02/02/2000 HERE -Sworn to and subscribed before me this I ._) i~ NOtary Public Supervisor State of Vir9 inia City o~ Flichmond My Commission expires 03/31/01 THiS IS NOT A BILL, PLEASE PAY FROM INVO~CE. THANK Y UTI UT! E S OEP R/W SECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 16. D. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Consider Amendments to Section 18-33 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield Relating to Adjusting Utility Charges County Administrator's Corn m ents: ' ~ t~ County A ' ' Board Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the ordinance amendments following the public hearing. Summary of Information: The changes allow staff more flexibility in determining adjustments to be made for water leaks. Currently the only adjustments that are allowed for leaks on the customers property are for concealed underground leaks and some unexplained leaks that meet certain qualifications. The amendments, which make the County's ordinance more comparable to those of other locations in the Richmond area, attempt to focus on the County goal to exceed customer expectations, by expanding the criteria for which adjustments are allowed. The cost of this change is estimated to be in excess of $130,000 annually, but no adjustment to the rate structure is anticipated. Preparer: ~/~~ Craig'S. Bry~ Attachments: Yes ~No Title: Director of Utilities AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERF~!ELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 18-33 RELATING TO UTILITY RATES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: That Section 18-33 of the Code of the Coun~ of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 18-33. Adjusting utility charges. _a.~_ .When unseen und,~.s,,,~-,, leaks in water lines that the consumer is responsible for maintaining cause excessive amounts of water that the consumer does not use to pass through the meter and the consumer repairs the leaks within 30 days after he first learns of the excessive water floW, the director shall reduce the consumer's water charge by 50 percent of the water volume that exceeds the consumer's average consumption for his three previous bills. '~, ,m.,.. ......... ,,,,~,~oo,: .......... · ,~ ,., .~,~, .,,'~ .... ,~ (b) When excessive water flow results from leaks in a portion of the water system that the director is responsible for maintaining,, the consumer's consumption shall be reduced to the amount of the average of the three previous bills for the property. (-d-)(c) If the three previous bills that are used to establish bill and consumption averages do not represent the consumer's actual consumption because the consumer has had unusual seasonal use during the previous three billing periods for irrigating or filling swimming pools, the director may select another method that more accurately reflects the consumer's normal water consrmaption for determining the amount of the adjustment. (d) When the excessive consumption was due to plumbing leaks in toilets, inside faucets, dishwashers, ice makers and washing machines and the consumer repairs the leak wit!bin 30 days after he first learns of the excessive water flow, an adjustment shall be based on 50 percent of the 0505:47589.1 1 billed consumption for water (.and.wastewater if appropriate), that exceeds the consumer's average. consumption for his three previous bills. The consumer shall only be allowed one adiustment in any 18-month period. (e) The director may adjust a single family residential consumer's utility charges when a consumer's billed consumption in a billing period is more than two times the consumer's previous o, ..... ,'-o~,,v,,,,,, average consumption for his three previous bills, if the director determines after an investigation by the director and the consumer that the increased consumption is unexplainable or due to documented vandalism and,.*her~,%-,~,,.,~, ,,,,~,j':'-~'- ,,,~" ...... ,,, ,, ,,~,~,'~-'- mctcr c~or, ~,, ,-,. ..... ~,..~,,..,~n not related to actual consumption. Such an adjustment shall be based on 50% o__f the average billed consumption for water (and wastewater if appropriate) that excee, ds the consumer's average consumption for his three previous bills, and shall only be given to a consumer r .....~.:,: ..... :^..! ry thr · ~,, u.~. u...~ v,~.uu once eve ee years. .CO. If the consumer establishes that excessive water flow resulted from a leak or act of vandalism that did not affect his wastewater use, the director shall reduce the wastewate~ consumption to the amount of the average of the three previous bills. f.g) The director shall only adiust the bill that immediately preceded the consumer's inauirv and the unbilled consumption that occurred after that bill was sent, but before the leak wa.,: repaired. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 0505:47589.1 An Aff[i[ate el Media General Ricfmlond, Virginia 23293-0001 /8041 649-6000 Advertising Affidavit (Th~s ~s not a bill Please pay from invoice) u2]u2t2000 l 2 1 FAKE NOTICETAKE NOTICE THAT THE BOARD IA 220806 02/02/2000 2.0t~ x i(iO0 192.80 Media General Operations, Publisher of the ATTACH RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH T Is Is to certify that the attached 7[AI~E NOTiCETAKE NOTIC was published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, on the foBowi~g dates: HERE 01/26/2000 02/02/2000 [he first insertion being given. Sworn to and subscribed before State of Vita inia Oiiy of Richmond By CommiSSion expires 03/31/01 () 1126 20(!0 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 16.E. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider the Leasing of County Property at 15610 Harrowgate Road to Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: BOard Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors approve the leasing of County property at 15610 Harrowgate Road to Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. and authorize the County Administrator to execute the lease agreement in a form approved by the County Attorney. Summary_ of Information: In 1996 the County purchased property at 15610 Harrowgate Road for the construction of the new Carver Middle School. The residence on the property is not needed by the school system. Staff recommends leasing the property to Chesterfield Alternatives, which is a not for profit corporation that was incorporated in 1986 to complement the programs of the Chesterfield County Community Services Board. As consideration, for the lease Chesterfield Alternatives will pay nominal rent, make improvements to the property and provide services to the Community Services Board. The terms of the lease will be for 10 years and may be renewed as long as the property is maintained to County standards and CAI continues to provide services to clients of Mental Health programs offered by the Community Services Board. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparer: Joh~W.Harmon ~/' ~~ Attach_merits: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE LEASING OF COUNTY PROPERTY AT 15610 HARROWGATE ROAD Harrowgate Park G Ivey P~emori HITEHOUSE ~O , Port Walthall Shop Ctr ~lappy Mill Shop Cfr Richmond Cath An Affiliate of Media General Richmond, Virginia 23293~0001 (804) 849~6000 Advertising Affidavit (Th~s ~s not ~ bill Please pay from invoice) C~ESTER~FIELD BOARD OF- SUPERVISORS A. TTN LiSA ELKO P O BOX 40 C~STEJ4~IELD VA 23832~0040 Des cdpti~ n Ad Size 02, 02/2000 'FAKE NOTICETHAT ON FEBRUARY' 9 2000 AT ?0 2.00 × 9.00 220806 86.76 ATTACH ~r~ ~'~r~l 8f S~pbwisors ~ C~t~nyd. ~trb/a~ j~ r.egUl.~,,i ~ der ~e I~n~ cfi Cou,~ prope~ at 1~0 H~[~te R~, ~ I ~edia General Operations, lnc, Publisher of the RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH This is to certi~ that the attached 'TAKE NOTICETHAT ON FE Was published by the RichmOnd Times-DiSpatch in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, on the following da~es: 02/02/2000 The first insertion being given... 02/02/2000 Sworn to and subscribed before HERE State of Virginia City of Richmond l~ly commiskion expires 03/31/01 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 16.F. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider the Conveyance of Right of Way and Easements along Robious Road County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors approve the sale of parcels of land containing 1.356 acres and .0050 acres together with temporary construction easements to the Virginia Department of Transportation, and easements to Virginia Power, and authorize the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute the deeds and easements agreements. Summary_ of Information: The rights of way.and easements are required for the Robious Road widening project. Staff has reviewed this request and recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve these conveyances. District: Midlothian Joh~ W. Harmon Attacbanents: Yes No Title: Right of Way Manager VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS ALONG ROBIOUS ROAD , ' ~ ' ' ' OLD GUN · = PL, ~CE ~ · ~ ~ - - ~ ~:~> :~q,~~ ~'~,~.. ~/~ ' ~;,~ ~]~ ~ HERITAGE ~VON , ~; ~'~. J~ KOGE ~ -- ~ i~ ~'..~ ;: :~(~]Willi, B ~ COMMERCIAL~ ~ 1~ ~ ~s.." ~~PLAZA ~¢ _ ~ so JTFIPORT~ ~ , N © ~ co,',c. ~v .50 CM. 14otch [Ir~ $1a, 119 ' ~ Si'~f 13 o o '.o Uotclt Une 51o. 119 · O0 She~l IZ VIS'WAqATH CH,eSNAIAH _._~# 28 IZ 50 E 8000 Match Line MIK.~L .A. SUlT H & BARBARA I..S/VEX DB 2775 P9.50 ..................... VERNON L. 8OOKER & BETTY J. CARTER OB 2153 Pq.419 · o~ 6~ ! ....... i.- -¢ ~- ,.:/.q, ~ , JESSE S.I~N~ON. JR.& ~ i JESSE 5.LENNON. III ~ & HARLEY N. HENSI..EY ~ OB 2018 Pq.1719 ~ An Affiliate of Media Genera~ P. O, Box 85333 Richmond, Virginia 23293-0001 (804) 649-6000 Adve~ising Affidavit (This is not a bill PI:ease pay from invoice) CHESTERFILD CO ~GHT WAY R/GHT OF WAY DEPT C:[~STERFiELD VA 23832 Account Num. ] 220686 02/02/2000 l Date Code Ad Size 02/02/2000 121 TAKJE NOTICETHAT ON FEBRUARY 9 2000 Al' 70 2.00 x 11.00 106.04 ATTACH Media General Operations, lr]c. Publisher of the RICHMOND TiM ES-D~SPATOH Th!s !s to cetti~ that the attached TA~; NOTICETHAT ON FE was PUbliShed by the Richmond Times. DispatCh in the city °f Ri°bm°nd, State of Virginia, on the f°How~ng dates: 02/02/2000 The first insertion being givem.. 02/02/2000 HERE Sworn to and subscribed before State of Virginia City of R~chmond ~Y Commi~ion expires 03/31/01 Supervisor THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FRO~ INVOICE. THANK CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 ofl Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 16 .G. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Vacate and Rededicate 70' Unimproved Rights of Way Known as Proposed Tartan Drive and Proposed Fortenberry Drive County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a deed to vacate and rededicate 70' unimproved rights of way known as proposed Tarton Drive and proposed Fortenberry Drive. Summary_ of Information: Foxfield Construction, Inc., a Virginia Corporation, has requested the vacation and rededication of 70' unimproved rights of way known as proposed Tartan Drive and proposed Fortenberry Drive. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval. District: Matoaca Preparer~-~ -z~ ~ ~~.~-~ ~ohn W. Harmon Attachments-. Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manager ® ® ® L~iVG WEST OF CORTE CASTLE ROAD An MfJ[iate o[ Media General P. O, Box 85333 Richmond, Virginia 23293~000t (804) 649-6000 Advertising Affidavit (This is not a bill P]ease pay from invoice) CHESTERFILD CO RIGHT WAY RJ[GHT OF WAY DEPT CHESTERFIELD VA 23832 Code__ Des cdp tien Ad Size Account Num. ] 220686 02/02/2000 Total Cost 02/02/2000 TAKE NOTICETHAT ON FEBRU/LRY 9 2000 AT 70 2.00 x 12.00 115.68 ATTACH HERE Media General Operations, Inc. Publisher of the RICH MeN D T~M ES-DiS PATCH This is to ce~i~ that the attached TAKE NOTICETHAT ON FE was Published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, on the following dates: 02/02/200O The first insertion being given... 02/02/2000 Sworn to and subscribed before ! ~,.../ ~ Notary PuNic State of Virginia City of Richmond My Commission expires 03/31/01 Supervisor THiS IS NOT A B LL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of I Meeting Date: February 9, 2000 Item Number: 15. Su~ect: Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting of the Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Motion of adjournment and notice of the next scheduled meeting on February 23, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. Preparer: ~c~_ Title: Lisa H. Elko Attachments: --~ Yes No Clerk to the Board