The URL can be used to link to this page

10-10-2007 Packet ~~ r~rG.~' ( ,: -~. ::; ~d~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 6. Subiect: Work Session on Proposed 2008 Legislative Program County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Qj () Board Action Reauested: None Summary of Information: Attached are our various items for the Board to consider for inclusion in the county's 2008 legislative program. Title: Director, Interaovernmental Relations Attachments: DNO # f)f)Of1\ll1 ~ "V' v ...,. " ..... Support documentation for 2008 Legislative Program Transportation/Growth · Continue to seek opportunities for additional funding · Protect cash proffer and road impact fee authority . Prevent cost shifting to localities . Oppose additional unfunded state mandates . Protect land use and zoning authority The inclusion of these policy positions reflect the strong possibility that the 2008 General Assembly will consider legislation amending both transportation and cash proffer statutes. The General Assembly has in recent years often amended local land use and zoning statutes to shorten review periods for various plans, mandated th~ inclusion of particular items in local land use plans and other changes which limit county flexibility to manage local growth issues. In addition, a difficult state budget has, in the past, resulted in responsibilities being transferred to localities without resources needed to perform those responsibilities. Financial Strength · Support a $358,000 state budget appropriation for the Dual Treatment Track Program This innovative program in Community Corrections provides supervision to offenders diagnosed with both mental illness and substance abuse. It serves the long- term interests of the state by reducing the need for additionaljaiVprison beds to serve this population. . Support a review of staffing standards for sheriffs and other constitutional officers Increasing workload and responsibilities have made current staffing standards inadequate for existing workload in all constitutional offices. · Oppose changes to the jail inmate phone commission The existing collect call system provides the county with revenues of approximately $75,000-$100,000 per year which offsets expenses at the jail. . Protect local revenues It is anticipated that legislation will be introduced to limit local revenue sources (primarily the real estate tax) . Support Riverside Regional Jail receiving Compensation Board funding for personnel to staff the jail's Pre-release Center. This would correct a state error. Quality of Life and Safety and Security . Support legislation on illegal immigration that assists local governments in addressing community concerns. Staff anticipates the introduction of numerous bills dealing with illegal immigration. Staff will analyze those and recommend to the board which legislation is appropriate for the county. . Support creation of a Dill court for Chesterfield/Colonial Heights This initiative would serve as a pilot project for the courts and would operate similar to the existing drug court model. ~ - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 3 AGENDA Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 8.A.1. Subiect: Nominations to the Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: aJ Board Action ReQUestV The staff requests that the Board approve the nomination of Ms. Karen C. Carr, Chesterfield Police Department for the Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee. Summary of Information: The intent of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 is for the local community to work with first responders, to create a working plan that outlines emergency response to natural disasters and hazardous materials situations, and to coordinate the Community's Right-to-know Act. The Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee is authorized to function under this Act. The Act specifies that the Governor of each state shall appoint members to local emergency planning committees and shall supervise and coordinate activities of such committees. Accordingly, the Board of Supervisors' nomination will be forwarded to the Governor for official appointment. Preparer: Paul W. MauQer Title: Fire Chief Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000012 Chesterfield County, Virginia Metnoranduln DATE: AUGUST 10,2007 TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: PAUL W. MAUGER, CHIEF CHESTERFIELD FIRE AND EMS ....... ----- ....... "'-:::: <S SUBJECT: CHESTERFIELD EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE The following individuals have resigned from the Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee during the 2007/2008 terms: Earl Little, Community Group Dennis Lacey, Community Group Carol Smithson, Hospitals Please consider the following nominees for the 2007/2008 Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee: Karen C. Carr, Chesterfield Police PWM:bb Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service 00001.3 s; ~ ~:;~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 8.A.2. Subiect: Nominations/Appointments to the Youth Services Citizen Board County Administrator's Comments: Q~ -7 t' Board Action ReQuested: V County Administrator: Nominate/appoint members to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board. Summary of Information: The purpose of the Youth Services Citizen Board (YSCB) is to advise the Board of Supervisors regarding planning and policies affecting youth development and to provide a community forum to focus on youth issues. Matoaca District Supervisor Humphrey recommends that the Board nominate and appoint Kellan Latif, a student from Manchester High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. Ms. Latif meets all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and has indicated her willingness to serve. Under 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: Jana D. Carter Title: Director. Juvenile Services Attachments: DYes .NO 000014 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 8.8.1. Subiect: Acceptance of a Grant Awarded by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing for the 2007 Secure Our Schools Program County Administrator's Comments: Board Action Reaues County Administrator: Authorize the Police Department to accept and appropriate the award from the u. S . Department of Justice, Office of Communi ty Oriented Policing 2007 Secure Our Schools grant program in the amount of $282,904 and authorize the County Administrator to execute all documents. Summary of Information: The Chesterfield County Police Department has been awarded a $282,904 federal grant from the U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Communi ty oriented Policing Grant Program. The funding will be used to purchase security equipment for Chesterfield County Public Schools. The required $282,903 cash match has been identified by the Chesterfield County Public School System and will be supported by schools per the application agreement. Preparer: Colonel Thierrv G. Dupuis Title: Chief of Police Attachments: DYes .NO # 000015 .-1iilf~ ~ \, -O~~ .!fa~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Budaet and Manaaement Comments: This item requests that the Board accept and appropriate funds for a u.s. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing, for the 2007 Secure Our Schools program grant in the amount of $565,807. The grant will be used to purchase security equipment for Chesterfield County Public Schools. The required $282,903 local cash match will be paid for by Schools. Preparer: Allan Carmody Title: Director. BudQet and ManaQement 000016 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 8.8.2.a. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Judith A. Davis, Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Department of Social Services, Upon Her Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing Judith A. Davis for 20 years of service to Chesterfield/Colonial Heights Department of Social Services. Preparer: Sarah C. Snead Title: Director-Social Services Attachments: . Yes DNO 1# 000017 [ WHEREAS, Mrs. Judith A. Davis began her public service with Chesterfield County as an eligibility worker in the Department of Social Services in June 1987, having come to the county with several years of experience with Petersburg Social Services; and WHEREAS, in July 1994, Mrs. Davis was promoted to senior eligibility worker; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Davis was a member of the Application Benefit Delivery Project (ADAPT) implementation process for the Chesterfield- Colonial Heights Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Davis served on the department's Quality Council in 1999; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Davis has provided the Heights Department of Social Services with 20 dedicated service; and Chesterfield-Colonial years of loyal and WHEREAS, Mrs. Davis has been a dedicated and loyal advocate for the citizens of Chesterfield County and the City of Colonial Heights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mrs. Judith A. Davis, and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, appreciation for her service to the county, congratulations upon her retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. 000018 Q: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 8.B.2.b. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Ms. Marlene K. Pascarella, Treasurer's Office, Upon Her Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Qj () Board Action Reauested: Adoption of attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognlzlng Ms. Marlene K. Pascarella of the Treasurer's Office for 22 years of dedicated service to Chesterfield County. Preparer: Richard A. Cordle T it Ie: Treasurer Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000019 RECOGNIZING MRS. MARLENE K. PASCARELLA UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mrs. Marlene K. Pascarella retired effective October 1, 2007 after providing over 22 years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella began her tenure with the Chesterfield County Treasurer's Office on January 7, 1985 as a part-time account clerki and WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella was promoted to full-time employment with the Treasurer's Office on September 16, 1985 and has been promoted to multiple positions throughout her years in the office, most recently to the position of Principal Account Clerk; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella has been instrumental during her career in helping implement accounting practices in the Treasurer's Office of the highest integritYi and WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella has consistently performed above her normal responsibilities, assisting the office issuance and tax collections were offered off-site; and over and when decal WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella has faithfully and effectively discharged her duties in each and every capacity with proficiency, passion and uncompromising commitment to world-class customer servicei and WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella will be tremendously missed quality and caliber of her commitment and performance Treasurer's Office and to our citizens. for to the the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mrs. Marlene K. Pascarella and extends its appreciation for her 22 years of dedicated service to the county 1 congratulations upon her retirement 1 and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. 000020 19 - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 8.B.3. Subiect: Award a Contract for the Construction of Phase II of the Fire Logistics Facility to Sun Bay Contracting, Incorporated in the Amount of $3,400,000 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Q() D Board Action ReQuested: Authorize the County Administrator to execute a contract with Sun Bay Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $3,400,000 for the construction of Phase II of the Fire Logistics Facility; transfer $550,000 from projects nearing completion; and transfer $150,000 from the County I s Reserve for Capital Projects. Summary of Information: Sun Bay Contracting, Inc. submitted the low bid out of three responsive bids for construction of Phase II of the Fire Logistics Facility project. Phase I, completed summer 2007, consisted of additional parking and improved access, site lighting, utility lines and a new perimeter security fence around the existing industrial support area. This contract for Phase II will provide the construction of the building to complete the project. Preparer: Robert C. Kev Title: ActinQ Director of General Services Attachments: DYes II No # 000021 .-=- ;, · '~J ~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Budaet and Manaaement Comments: This item requests that the Board award the construction contract to Sun Bay Contracting in the amount of $3.4 million to construct the Fire Logistics Facility. The facility will replace eight storage buildings and five equipment repair shops that are located within fire stations and free up needed space at the fire stations. This centralized warehouse will facilitate delivery of fire fighting and EMS equipment and supplies and expedite the repair of equipment. This facility was first included in the capital improvement program in FY2005 and was funded for construction over FY2007 and FY2008 for a total revised cost of $4.769 million for both phase one (site development) and phase two (building construction). Construction bids exceed the remaining available funding and an additional $550,000 is requested to be transferred from projects that are either finished or nearing completion ($400,000 from the CADS/Mobile Data Project, and $150,000 from the Community Development Building capital project). Transfer of an additional $1501000 from the County's Reserve for Capital Projects is also requested to cover furniture and equipment needs for the building project. The requested additional transfers (totaling $700,000) will bring the total revised budget for this project to $5.469 million. The balance in the County's Reserve for Capital Projects is $1,729,798; transfer of $1501000 will leave a balance of $1,579,798. Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budaet and ManaQement 000022 ~~~~ i~\1 1''.l!l'f'1\~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 8.8.4. Subiect: Conveyance of an Easement to Southside Electric Cooperative County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Qj Board Action ReQUested:U Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Southside Electric Cooperative for underground cable to provide service to the new River Road Pump Station. 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 Southside Electric Cooperative for underground cable to provide service to the new River Road Pump Station. District: Matoaca Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Riaht of Way ManaQer Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000023 ., .' ... -~ oM: ...:. .....IIl. r , .. I' ": 7DW ~~ , i}:... . I.~ ..:~ ... lor ~ ~ ~ r.:. .. hi: iIi ...... !~ ~ J .J~ ~ .. .. ..... .. ~ .. .. I I" -... ~, ~ ~~, -. ~ ...;.;. .r-. I I- ... .. ., ~ ~.. ~ .., - .. ~ t ; ~ -: ...... .1." :J4:~ . . f _ I r:;:~'" ~~ -=i~ ~ ~ ~r ~~ ~.=-=:.. IIfIi :--:) . I -- - I ...pl.... . I '.&.-. : -- A .,.. ~ ' ii-~ 1 : ~.' ...:-.....l1lI iI ~tr. ~ ~ ,.. ... · ~ ~ .. .. ., III ..... ~ 1:L5FIIi. II . r'I ~ ~ . =--" 1-:. ~~'.. ~~ .;:; ~ · i ~I ..~ ~ ~~.;:~ . ,- '., :1}IMi;:~1~'~;r,:;~U ~~..~~~_I"JII~r.IIL~. ~ --~. -.....I~.,i. -..;;?:u~" _.:~.~ !Ii~Z:~~~. -=--: ~.:~~ .....:~tt~~..~.:.W-........ __......v ,.~... ~~..;i:.>~~r.... ~..~ · ...., ';,~~~.. .-~- '-I~. :. i' · if. ....: ~~ J r..~ I.~. ~ ~~ · -=. . ..~ u. -=.f......-R..IIi..l ~ It'-..~. J · .... ,...... L .... · ~ I.. · ... riJPIri "IIi .. :"1.iI'~......." -= . ..... ~ k=":...:.... ~ ::! ~ · ......... . ..... . , .. ~ .. -:.. --:.. ... .... ~ ...: "C- .-. . I"'l"'1o&.." -:i '= ... ...... .. ., · .11.. .:..-:. ~.""."",,,.~:,,:....; p ~ ."Ii: ........ 1'-'1. ,Ii......: ~ :::-.:...iI' ~, :w. ~ ~ ~ ..-n -....-:- ,..:.,:" , r: :::. ........ I~ 'i".a. !:.: ,.' .. , .. ~ ! . ~ I ~~ ~I ' -I ~ I_~~ I ~k ~ ....... . ~~.~~~r..~'! .. .. ,J ~ ..,. ~:~~~~ ~ ...~~~t.. · I~~ ~ 117t 68} ~ ........ --............: ~ 11730 RIVER ROAD PARCEL 10 #746630212400000 DB 2025 PAGE 356 I ......... :21. .. .. Plat to Accompany Right-af-Way Agreement SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC CO Crewe, Virginia DATE: SCALE: DESIGNEQ: DRAWN: CHECKED: AUG 31. 2007 SHOWN: ACW TEP: TEP: RIVER_ROAD_PUMP _STATION CH ESTERFI RLD_COUNTY.VA OFFICE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE 15' UTlUlY EASEMENT DATE 1 OF 1 SHEETS oooo~~~ ~~l - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1. of 2 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 8.B.5. Subiect: Approval of Utility Contract for Belfair Townhouses, Contract Number 07-0145 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: (I() 0- Board Action Reauested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve this contract and authorize the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents. Summary of Information: This project includes replacing 200 L.F. of existing 16" water line, whereby staff has requested that 54 L.F. of the total be considered as additional work as defined by the ordinance. The additional work reconstructs a portion of the existing 16" water line that is exposed in a creek bed. In accordance with the ordinance, the Developer is entitled to refunds for the construction cost of the additional work. Developer: Contractor: Belfair Associates, LLC Perkinson Construction Company Contract Amount: Estimated County Cost for Additional Work............. $25,271.64 Estimated Developer Cost............................. $155,413.25 Estimated Total .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $180,684.89 Code: (Cash Refund - Additional Work) SB-572WO-E4C District: Dale Attachments: William O. WriQht . Yes Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Preparer: DNO # 000026 U-~~' II fi~~~ " CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Budaet and Manaaement Comments: Sufficient funds have been appropriated in the Utilities water and sewer operating budgets to cover the estimated cost of $25,271.64 to refund the developer for the additional improvements. Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director. Budaet and ManaQement 000027 8-~Y>~ ~:~ . II ~~r~' ~ El~J~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 8.B.6. Subiect: Request permission for a Proposed Fence to Encroach Within a Sixteen-Foot Drainage Easement Across Lot 24, Tanner Village, Section A at Charter Colony County Administrator's Comments: Board Action Reauested: 01 7/~ County Administrator: Grant Gregory Brewer and Leslie Brewer, permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 16 I drainage easement across Lot 24, Tanner Village, Section A at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Gregory Brewer and Leslie Brewer, have requested permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 16 I drainage easement across Lot 24, Tanner village, Section A at Charter Colony. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Riaht of Way Manaaer Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000029 i I ~'1 . .... "+'" LI ~~;I ~I ~~ . ... ~ ... :--:w dr ...~.. ., . 1Ir:: .:r.. . ~ ~g - ~ '1"'1 __ _____ ~~~ · .I'P.- . I ' i I · ~ I ~ I ... I f:I:. ~ I ij ... 1: .... .. ...... ~ ... ... "S .~ 1 ~ . y .~.~.~. ~ iNJ ~ ~ ~I ~ - ~ .$J~ ~ ~7~~~. N ~ - ~-. I ) ~ ...... -']I~_ !i f : ~ ~b;--~ ~~ j I ~ · ,... .- ~ ~ .... ~ ~ -.... ... ......... . ~ ~ \.&I II ...Ji r · i~~~M~r ~ ~ ~ 1Il~ ~ I , :lL ~~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~.. .... : 1&:1 :"J ~~ ~ r- -- l~ ~ ~ .f.:..... ~. :II!I:J 1:E'PlJl1L IIIl:I ':-1.. ~::.~ :I.,~ -----... ~ -...: I ~'i:J ~~~ ItJ~ 1 ~ ~J!t .,:"~~ . ~ ~.~. ~:5 q:.{~ j , ~~l~+ "~ ....~~ . r I I :.'i~ ~ _~ .." ~1;;~~1 I ~~~t~1 .:. ~~ ~ ~ ;::-. L: ~. 7 ~~ _-::-..- . . ..- .. · .. ~ .:i i; _ ..:, ~ ...... ...-.. .. -.. .... ~~... ;IIii' I't · .... ~ J r ~.... II ~ l'iI 1- .~. ': ~ i: .' ~ ~ ... ~,; = ij ~ ..d 'oti"':I: ...~ -. .T .. -.i. '. -rt.... · ~ d. i-i ~.t. - "1"1 .- ............ ~~ /.... ... R..: ... ':E11f. J~ ....... - r ... · /:' -'" r r... ~~ r 'I ::.--r.;;;..... ~:-.~ I. r :-:~ ~ ~ - t::i; r,.'. ~ 1'" i ~ IE ::'~I:!..:I ~ .: 1.....l1::li.... -=- r,. -:;-; I~":-=-j I ~!:.II: ~~i~~\?~~~') 2~ JI ;:~.?t-~ ~ ~~ C ~~~ ~ ~~ l:r...:~ ::=... - ""? ..~ .~'\ ~ A ~ · - ~. ......~ rtj~ 1?:.-:}t:~ ~ _.. ... ........ :t ~ -:.. ~=-"--Ib';""'~I~ .~ ..._r:~ _~.-:-- ;.~w ...~ ... .... or _.. ::...... :. -.:... ....... _ _ {_ 8.:, .IF _ _ T _ _. · :.-;.:.J :. .~ ...1Ii .::L.: . I. _ · i't,.' -.;: .,}-lIfI" -- . _ 'I ~ · . ... e t 11- y ~ ...... ~.. "": .... .. .~ ~~ ~~L ~. ~ :I._~~ I ~~ "':S ~~ .:i~!I: ~ 5f:-;. .;;G ~ . . ~........~. .~.,'" r. ~. .~. ..~-~ II" !.. . - ......- ~ I~"""" ~-::- ~ r ~~' ~~~l7~~ ~ . .". ~ L.. :l ~ "-:' -== ~ .. , ~ ~ ~ .\, ~ ~ '" "~ '-O~ ?;y ThJs property ~oes not ~ppear to lJe within B desjgnBted F.E.M.A. flood zone IIrl1B, Zone -'- J~f)~ ~Z'<?~ . F.l.R.N. C.P.I effective ~.- <0/ ~ c9 XX - FENCE ~ ...... /G .. ~ ~..-'- t;;) 5" o......~ ~ c:.<1~ ........~ r"...;JI('Q y<:<,> 0,>( GREGORY BREWER LESLIE BREWER 14231 CAMACK TL 4'), : > DB. 6161 PG. 861 ~ " " "- P~N: 725698697900000 ,~ t d I t 4 " ~ .~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/. ~ ~ c/, \ I?,~ ~ , C"O"'?s ~-?;>pq"...u . "i ~ ('5(/ ttJ ~;j ~ .....,....~./ ~ I. tf; , Jell' ~~~~<.'"'~b-? e!C: '. :", ,~," (~~1 ~, ell oj t ddf~:-~ q~~..... Telff. tfJnf' ~~'t..~. ,~~ l'A/ay,_t- -~~ '_~ ~\ ~~~""'" (v;:::;~.. --.. -- PMt'J ~ .: ~ ~ '. ~ \i~ ~(1t . N · · ~ ::3:' ':'. ~ ~ ~ ~r'" , ----- - ';' ~'~.~ .~ ~'df9/~ ,.a-/~oq .~. 1 ~ ~:. F,1!()t:f ~ . : I fbtNcr ef L tit d'& ~t:" 'j(?'!iIU. 41)1 ~ 7f1J1'i'V{)rt11 L" C' /?M/1C K r;efll Pial ShlJlAlln,? L (J /' 2~, Tt1nn4!"r t/i//~~t!!, Sec/ton /'1 @ ~hQ,rer ep/ony M {) loae Q lOts !l'le 1/ Chr:sI1:'7/e-ltI {1tJun~ 1/;1j1?7la. t'- ~ ~ "" \j\ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ n '"'" ~ ~ o ~ '"'" ~ ~ ~ ...... IMPROVEMENT SUR"VEt fit,. ,. to nrU~ t".e M J/8n, $~: ?i?&:'., 1 ...... ... lCeur... flaJrJ' ~ ., ",. pm,... .".., ,.,..." IhIIf IJJI ~. .. _~'. .,.. .. "'''~ .,.. ....... ~.......~ ",.. ......-,::11 .~""C. .,,,,,.,. _.'A_~=:~ ... .".... . .,. 'HIS PLAT 1MB NME IIITIIJIJT IlElEFJT iF A TITLE SIlWEr OR REPORT SCAL E: DEED BOO/(: DA TE," PAGE: PROJ. NO.: 2 T. M. PAR. NO.: DRA WN BY.' ~~-""""l' v.....,.-Nnrth CuelI.. 1900 Byrd Aftftue, SuIte 203 Rlchniond. VlraInil. 2)230 ..... .(804) ."..,. PAX (104)613-9990 000031 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 8.8.7. Subiect: Approval of an Amendment to the Crater Planning District Commission's Charter Adding Charles City County as a Member County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action ReQuested: () The Board is requested to approve an amendment to the Crater Planning District Commission's Charter adding Charles City County as a member. Summary of Information: Chesterfield County has been a member of the Crater Planning District Commission (the "Commission") since 1985. The other current members of the Commission are the Counties of Dinwiddie, Greensville, Prince George, Surry and Sussex as well as the Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Petersburg and Emporia. The Commission's purpose is to promote orderly and efficient development of Planning District 19. Charles City County is located within Planning District 19 and is eligible for membership. Its Board of Supervisors has expressed a desire to become a member of the Commission in light of other significant relationships that it has with neighboring localities, such as the Riverside Regional Jail. Charles City County would pay the same per capita rate that the other jurisdictions in the Commission pay and would have two members. Adding Charles City County as a member of the Commission has been approved by the Commission1s Executive Committee and unanimously approved by the full Commission. Amendment of the Commission I s Charter must be approved by a quorum of current members. The proposed resolution amending the Charter is attached. Attachments: Steven L. Micas . Yes Title: County Attornev 2723:76679.1 Preparer: DNO # 000032 r~ -..,- AlVlENDlVIENT OF CHARTER AGREElVlENT OF eRA T-ER PLANNING DISTRICT COl\lMISSION WHE,REAS, Charles City County has requested Crater Plallning District Con1mission membership, and WHEREAS, the Crater PlalU1ing District Commission agreed to accept Charles City COllnty as a member of the Crater PDC at its June 28,2007, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Charter Agreement of the Crater Planning District Commission be amended as follows: 1. That Section 1 of Article II be amended as follows: ARTICLE II Membership Section 1. (a) Each county, city and town of more than 3,500 population which is a party to this Charter Agreement shall have at least two represeniatives on the COMMISSION, who shall be appointed by the respective governing bodies of the participating governmental subdivisions. At least a majority of the members of the COMMISSION shall be officials of the governing bodies of the governmental subdivisions within the district, and the remaining members shall be qualified voters and residents of the district who hold no office elected by the people. An alternate may serve in lieu of one of the elected of each of the governing bodies of the participating governmental subdivisions. 000033 AI. t , ,. \.. (b) A tOVv'n of 3,500 or less population may petition the COMMISSION to be represented thereon. The COMMISSION may, in its discretion, grant representation to such town by a majority vote of the members of the COMMISSION. ( c) Chesterfield County may become a member of the Crater Planning District upon such terms and conditions as may be mutllally agreed upon by the board of supervisors of said county and the COMMISSION. (Amended - November-December, 1985) (d) Charles City County may become a member of the Crater Planning District upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the board of supervisors of said county and the COMMISSION. 000034 ~ - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 8.B.8. Subiect: Initiation of a Rezoning Application for Tax I.D. 709-668-0844 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: (j) 0- Board Action Reauested: Initiate an application to rezone Tax I.D. 709-668-0844 from Community Business (C-3) to General Business (C-5) and appoint Russell Harris, Manager of Community Development Services, as the Board's agent. Summary of Information: The subject property was zoned on September 26, 2001 to Community Business (C-3) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit General Business (C-5) uses on thirty (30) percent of the land area (1.89 acres of the 6.3 acres tract). Case 01SN0238 is attached for the Board's information. Mrs. Humphrey has indicated that the property owner desires General Business (C- 5) uses on a greater land area and requests that the Board initiate the rezoning. Staff notes that such a proposal will not conform to the adopted Uoner Swift Creek Plan nor staff's recommended amendment to the Plan. Pre parer: Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planninq Attachments: . Yes DNO I # 0000351 June 19, -2001 CPC . . ,.&.~..ugust 21, 2001 CPC, September 26, "2001BS STAFF'S " REQueST ANALYSIS AND..- RECOlMMENDATION .0 lSN023 8 Ernest Belvin Mato~ Magisterial District 1671-6 Hull' street Road . REQUEST:" Rezone.froinAgDcultural (~)to Conrnlunity Busin~s (C-3) with Conditional Use , Pl~ed Development to .allow General BusineSS (C~5) ilses. " PROPOSED LAND 'USE:-,:._ Community commercial uses \Vith the possibility of General Business (C-5) ,:!ses on . thirty (30) .pe~cent.ofthe land area ~.pI~ed. " PLANNING COM}vfiSSION RECOIvlMENDATIQN RECOrvfl\ffiND DENIAL. . STAFF .RECOMI\1ENDA TION. . . Recommend d~ for the follo~g reasons": . . - . ... . A " The prop-osed G~nera1-l3usiness (C-S) uses do" not. 90mpJy with the ,UPrier -.Swift ,. . Creek Plan which _ sliggests the property ~s. approptiBte "for. community mixed use developments. " B. The applicatio:p. fails to address the re~ommeridatio-ns o(the -UDner S.vVift Creek"Plan_ whi~h suggest~ that deyelop~ei1t sh~Uld qse public uti~iti~~,. ' C. The application fails to address theinipact on tl)e."~Qrtation system. , - " Providing a FiRsT CHOICE Community. Through ~cellence in Public SerVice. 000036 (NOTE: CONDITIONS'MA Y BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MA YPROFFER' CONDITIO~~., TlIE "c;ONDI1~IONS'NOTED ~n[ "ST AFF/~C" ~~ AGRE~ UPqN B,Y": Born STAF.F AND THE. CO~SSION.' _C9NI?ITI9NS..~ ONLY. A IISTAFF-" ARE RECOMMENDED _SOLEY -BY..STAFF.'. CONDITIONS 'WIlli ONLY A. "GPC" -ARE, ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOlVlMENDED BY THE PLANNING CO~SSION.) . PROFFERED .CONDmONS 1. At sUch time as the public water system has been exteIl.de~ towitlilii200 feet of the site, the owner/developer s~a1l extend'a water .line to ~e:site and. ~omie~t all e~sting . stnictures to the ,public '~ater system. Jbe'~ecesSary'watCr liiie'~xtension-s1Wl.-b:e': des~gn.ed to. pr,?vide . flow '~d pre~~e fot"_ fire prote~~tiOn' purposes "as ~eem;ed:: ", ai?propriate by"the Fire pepartmenf. In a4ditiori, if'dOOni~,~e~~sary, fire.hydran~' s~8.J.l.be ptO~ded at.loc~o~ to be aw~oved' by th~ F~eDepartm.ent. (U) - ., . 2. At stich ~e as' any struc~e built on-sit~ 'w~'ch, incidental--fp.~' structute '.~ ~e. Or". .. operati~n, ge~e~te~ wastewater~, cOnc~n~' With, the ~~blic Vfastewatef., ~~yst~l~,: " ha~g'been extended to witbin.200' f~.of:the,site~ the ()Wne~/deye19per shall ~~d' a wastewater-line to the sj~e' and ~DIiect-.al1 struc~ to the public W~~~~~.,_ -syst~'. (11).. 3. .Prior to any site plan approval, 100 feet ofright~of-wayori the north side of Hull. , ~treet 'R~ad (Route 360)~ ~e.asured-from'.the cen~rlin/~~:.of-$at-part. ofRo~e:'~60., , jmmediately ~djaCent to the Property, shall be. ~e4icatec;l, 'free ~ untestricted; ~~ arid.. for the benefit of Ch~.~eld Coulrty. (I). - 4. .' Direct acc~s from the property to Route 360 shall be limited to: 1) one (l)access,' · . . . which $dl_align the e~s~g 'RoUte -36<>"crossover adj~~ to 1:lw properl)';:a:Q.d.:2)_. ,'.' . '. . one (1) entrance/eXit, locate_d towards the eastern propertylme. T~eexact loca.ti911' of . "these ac~esses shall ~ .approv~ .by 1he. Tr~po~on..~paitment.. (t) . - . " ' . . s'. To provide.an .adeq~te.r~~dWay System, the' deVeloper--slnW..re responsible,forth~ following:' ' a. Constructionofadditional pavemeD.t along the westbound lanes of Route 360 .., at..~h"-apptov~4 ~cess to' proVide a s~Para~ ~ight.turn lane, ifwarrante4 based on Transportation Department standards;. .'. · . - . . . A . b. Contribution of $10,000 -towards the construction of additional pavefi1~t..' . along the eastbound lanes of Route 360 at the western access for a left turn · lane; an~ 2 . ~ . . OlSN023S!WP/SEPT26P" '_ 000037 c. Dedication .~. CheStErlield CoUnty, .froo anq unrestricted, of any w4litional - 'right-of-way (or' e~ements) required for.the improvement identified above. m .' .. . . . . 6. Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing plan for required road improvements, as idei1~_ed- in Proffered Con4itio~ 3,.shall b-e subm~tted ~oand approved by the, '_._ Transp'ortation Dep~ei1t. (T) . . 7. . To accommodate runoff from. development of the property and to protect a pond on .. . a4jace~t-pfOPerty fr<?m additional runoff, the follomng ~~es shall be ~~: -.' '. a. Retain the lO-yearpost-development storm and release ata 2~yearpre- . d.evelop~ent; -or ' . 'b. Improve the ~ to :rtt~et the county's ~eIit criteri~ or c. . Provide improvements that would bypass the pond and dam and diScharge at ... -, aD. adequateriatural_Watercourse ,with ~11ow flQws 'entering.' the existiD.g, ,9tf~,' . s.i~ pond; or. . ._ . . . , d. . Acquire the pond andiricorporate it into the development of,the reqllestsite, -. (EE) - - . . "GENERAL INFORMATION. Location:' . -. -. . ' North line of Hull street Road and known-as-16716 Hull Street Roa4. 'Tax ID 709-6-6.3':'O:~#' . . . . . .' .. t" .. ." ~ ,. (S~ 1 ~). Existing, Zoning: A- ' Size: 6.3 acres. . EXislin&; LaD.d Use; Single 'fa.mJly..re;iid~ti~, 3 OlSN0238IWP/SEm6P .' 0'00038' Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North .:. 1-1 with C.onditional Use Pl~ed Deve~opment and A; Vacant South - A, C-2 and C-5; Commercial, single .family residential or vacant East --~; Publiclsemi~public (church) West ~ C-S-; Vacant UTILITIES Public Water System: . . .There is an existing- twenty-foul (24) mch water, line extending along the north side. of-Hull. Street Ro~d. and.'t~g adjacent to HamptC!n:Park Driv~, approximately 6,500 feet ~ of this ~te.. ~e public-water s)'"stem is not available to the request site. Future' extensions of this water line by the developers of ~'Hampton Park" to the ~teri1.. boundary of their development, approximately 2,800 feet east of the request site, and by developers of "Magnolia Green" to the eastern boundary. oftheiJ ~eVelopment,..will pring, pUblic water adjacent to the. request site. An acwal time-table for 'these extensions.~ ~ot . been determined. . . . . ~ keeping With the recommendatiol1s o~ the Upper. Swift Creek P1an~ .the .Utilities. Departm~nt recommends that the public water system be Used for'de~elopment ofthe,~equest, site. The applicant has submitt~ a proffer agreeing ~o .~o~ect all ~ctures on the r~quest site to the public water system when it ,has been extend~d io:within 200 feet of.the reqUest . . ' site..-_ (proffered Con~tion 1) . Public.Wastewater System.: There. is an existing eighteen (18) inch wastewater trunk line .extending .alo~g. W est.arari~~ . - . and terminating adjacent to Fox Haven Lane in Fox Croft SubdiviSIOn, approximately 9700 . . feet. northeast of the request site. The public wasteWater system is- not ptesently availa~le-tO the reqUest site. There. are no current proposalS for extensiori'~f.this wastewater tnmk lin~;. . . . .It appeals that ~t may-1;Je qui~ some time before the publlc.Wastewater systein is,_extended tt?wards th~ request site. It 18 m;Lticip.ated that a joint venture ~ong multiple property oWners . will' be n~~sary tC!. accO~iish thi~ extension. 'Allowing 4evelopment to occur Without"the. , - use of the public 'wa$tewater 'system may jeopardize that prospect ., . .. . . .' . .. In -keeping with the reco~endatio~ of the t!pper- S~ft.. ..Creek ~lan, the U~~ities Department recommends that ~e'public \yastewater system b.e':used f~r.developm.~nt Qf.the . request site. .The applicant h8s submitted, a proffer. basi,?a11Y- -agreein~ to cO~ect' all 4 OlSN0238/WPfSEP1'26P .- 000039 . ' structures on the request site to ~e public wastewat~ system when it has, been extended to,. ~thin 200 feet of,there.questsite. (Pro~ered Condition. 2).' , . Private .Septic System: '. ~e Health .pepartment ni~st approve. the use of. private' well ,.and' septic t~dt~eld . syStems_. .. ' ..,. ENVIRONMENTAL . DrainNte- and Ei"osion: . ' The .property,~.to' an adjacent.p~d';and then ri.or$~~a..~ai'water~oUr:se~ to ~~Wift' Creek Re~rvoir. There arena on-site drainage prob~ems;however~ this property drains to au".. adjacentpqnd-tbat ~PPears.t9 ~,inadeqUate.~to aCc~~Q~~'ll~p.Qtr'~m this,'~ey~lop~e~~;:. . therefore, meaS~'::s~o.1ild l:~er.take:n" to~' ~~ess these con~' SUCh 'as <;>~-si~ .rete#ti.o1.1~:, .... '..- improvemen~ .to.th~ d~"or.~pr9v~ents ,which .w1?U1d.'4iv~,:~~ff aWRy. fro,m.~e;pO,rld,'.,:.:. '. and 41t9..anatural ~erCo~se. ~e applicant has not.a4dr~s'ed'~~~se.coi1cems..:':,M~~ei".' ',' alt~atiye woul~ be f~r':the"appli~ai1t-to acquire the..po~d. "-'-', . - To insure that therear~'no.erosit:mproblems~ th~ shou14be ~nq'timberingwithOllt-ijrSt'd' . . obtainiri.g a land disiurb,ance perinitand the approvedei'osiol1.controlmeasures aremplaee'.: " There are 1)0 on~:or'off~si:te'e~Sion"prOblems. ,. . Water Quality: .. ~ : ~ . 4 ~ , . .... . ~ . . . . . - Thedevelopefwill be requtredto. participate in the Upper. Swift C~ekW atersh.ed I!NlR Pla1l'. '" .., .and must pay 'a.-prO-rata~'shate.',for..co~tructiOti of.B~s~ '.' '." . '. . - . ~. . PuBLI.C, FACILITIES" .:"'. Fire Service: Fire and emerg~cy medical service is, provided' to this" property. by the. clov~lfill', '.' FirelMedic _ Sta:q~n, }Joni~y', 7.. . . , , .- Public water is liot propoSed for this request.Anade<luaiewater~mpply is neededt~~ure .':' ,', optimum fire protection., Water shuttles and '. drafting · opetaiions::require vah:iilbl~#$e,to ...... '. establish an adequate.. watel' suPPly . If this request iS~ted'witholit ..pu.blic"~ter. .... '. availability, the time for the Fire 'Deparbnent to obtain an: adequate water:.s~p~y:'~ay' ," adversely affect. fire' suppression operations~ . l11is pr,?blem.. is, '~yi~~ced by the ~,..~at occurred on the adjacent chutch property to the' eastwhichde~trOY~ tha.tstructUre]aBfye~. ",,-..' . , ' . . . . - 5 - . .' .,. OlSN0238I\VPiSE~P ,.... 000040 Transportation: This request will not limit development to specific land uses; .therefore, it is difficult to anticipate.tr~c generation: .B~d on, shopping ~ter trip ~s, 'development-.c.ould generate approximately_ 5,070 average daily-trips. Th~se vehicl~ ~ ~e diStributed a1~rig .'. Hull Street Road (Route 360) which had a 1997 traffic count of 19,113 vebi,cles per day. . Development mUst ~ere to the pevelopmerit Standards' ManUal i~ the Zoning Or~ce relative to access and internal circulatio_ri (DiVision 5). The ~ppli~~ ~as proff~red.'right o~. .. way dedica"tjon and :cert8jn ~ad' improy~ments along, ~~ute. 360. . J:iowever, 'the~e commitments will' not. adeqUately address the - traffic impact o,f the proposed development.. Staff cannot support this request . The ThorouJIhfare Plan i4entifies R~ute'~360, 8:5 a major art~~ with a ~o~ended 'right of ~y Width of 120-to i09"feet. The applicant has profferedto dedicate .100 feetofpg1itof way, measured from the ~nterline ofRout~ 360" in accordance-with tlIatPlan~. {protIere4 - Conditjon 3) , ' .. Access to ~or arterials, such as Route 360, sho~d'be controlled.. An existing.cro~~veron, Route 360 is 'located towards.the we~-part of the prop~rty. Developers:ofproPert;ies located- at crossovers should provide access' from -those crossoyers to the sUrro~~g~'~a. This "is, acco~plis~~d by .th~ -dedication of.right. or w~y' ~d1or- ~cordatioi1.- of :~ce~~:- easement(s). The.,-adjaceIit prop.eqy..to the north is a 7~ .acte,.parcel that: is zoneq'. Ljght: . Industrial (1-1). Staff reoommendsthat aright of way, for a'~Special Access. Street" . be . ... dedicated ,from the Route 3~9 cr~~~ver. through the .,property, t<?~..~etve "that .adJace~t' parc~L' -. . The- aPPlicant.has proffer~ -.~t ~t-.ac<?ess to: Route 360 :-~..~e .'limited.to-: -' .}J "on~. (1) en~e/e~t, which will aIignJh~,existing ctossQvei adj~~t tQ.t~e property;' an~ 2).one (l)~ entrance/exit locat~d towardS. the eastern- pro~::lii1e.-.(&<:>ffe~ .Condition ~)~', .Th~ -' applic~t is tmwillmg to. s~e -the~ acce~~es With a4jacerit properti~s. . - .. Road improvements must be provided to address the traffic ~pact of thisdevelopment... . . . Thes.e improvements should ~clude: -1) oonS~tion.of81l a4djtio~.-l~e ofp~v~ent ~ong . Route_ 360: f~r-the entire..propeIo/ frOntage; 2) co~~ticjn..of'addit~oti~ paveni~t"81png " :': Route 3~ at ~~. apProved aCcess .to provide' a -sq,~te. ~.ghttum'lane~ 3)consttucti~n:of . additional pavement along. Route" 369' at. the __cros~over . to.". Proyide a ,le~ turi11~e; .--lUid' 4) '. .' conStruction' of part of the Special Access -S~t to iijclude a:.tbIee .(3) lane. ~ica1 s~~~n.at . . Ro.ute 360; and -S):fuJ.l cost for the'insta1iatio~f of a tmffic si~~at"the:.It~#:te' ~60 Cr?~S9v~r{if- ' warranted. The applicant has proffered to provide a rightturn lane along Route 3:60 at each. access, ~d'contribute.; $10,OOO.towards..the constrUction. ()f a,..leftturri. lane &~ffered,'- . Cond~tion 5).' 'These proffered road improveme~. 'WillO::not.lnitigate the -iinpact"ofthis. devel~pment~ ' -. . "6 . . . . 'OlSN0238lWP/SEPT26P. . 000041 Without a commitment to share the Route 360 accesses Withadjcicen1 properties and to provide additional road im.provements~ the Transportation Departinent cannot support .this, request. LAND.USE Comprehensive Plan: ',. . .. . . Lies within the. b01;1Ildaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan which suggests the pr.operty is ..... ' . . appropriate for' communitY. mixed... US~. 'Appropriat~ laT.d, ,.u~~.'.:in these. areas. - iDclud~ . community-scale commercial developments. The Plan further suggests th8.t develOpnlent in · .... this area sh6Uld,use public :utili~es. '. . .. " . . . Area DeveloJ)~ent Trends: . .' While adj acent properties are zoned for a mix of cOmmercial andiiidustri~ uses, as wellas. ., . agricultural, the' are~:~. seen' little commercial. or in~iJSt:tjaJ...':.'4~elopment.. :.: TheJ?e'. is . ' . commercial aDd singlefan.illytesidential development to the south, acroSs Hull Str~:Jtoad:. ... . and a church use to the 'east. ..Remaining adj8:cent property...js. va~.~t. 'Lirirlted'Co~~rCial-.'.' development surrounding the (jtterdaleRo~dIRo~te 360~on is anticipateduiiti.l SUch .... time as public utilities are extended toseivethearea:.' . ..... . . , . . While asubsta.titial,amountofGeneral Business{CS)zrinin.g ~sto the west , of the request site, thosezoniDgs were granted prior to the adoption of ihe.utiPer'SWiftCreekPlan;O~e:of the goals in the Plan is . to insure . a land. uSe pattern wbich.dQes,not tesult,fu typical-strip COmmercial development 81ongtooRoute 36() COtridor~, 1;'he Plan suggests ~key. intersectionst such as the.1andart:a. iil the vicinity of the OtlerdatetRoute 360 intersec.tion ; , . sho~d be '~~servedior uses 1P~t"serve.',a community-~caIe:~k~~ ;"'" . . . . Zonina History: On June 7, 1989, the Board of Zoning Appeals apptoV;ed,a$peqial,Exception tope~t'a contractor's storage yard on the property (Case 89 AN(244).The<SpecialExceptieD. was granted for a periodriotto ~xceed two (2) years from the date of approval. . ,. .,., . ., . On June 5, 1991 t the Board of Zoning Appealsapprovedarenewal of Speci~:Ex9wAon., '.. 89AN0244 to'penni~ 3:cOntm~Q:r's,.storage.yard ,pn..the'.prOp~'~~(Case 91AR:Ol'80)~":-".,~e ,,'. . renewal was grailtedfor a periQd not to exceed five (5) yearsAil)D1th~dateC)fapprc;faL ...... . . . , . . . .. .. . Case 91AROlSO .eXpired Without ~newal.oi1,,~une. 5, 199.~",-'::: ' 7 - . ~,. .OlSN0238iwP/SEPfZ(iP.~~-' . 000042 Site Desi2lL The request property lies within an Emerging Growth Area. RtXtevelopment of the site or new ~onstru~tion must comoim to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which address " . access, parking, . landscaping, . architectural treatment, setbacks, signs, buffers; utilities and . screening of dumpsters' and loading areaS. - Architectural Treatment: . Cwrently, the Zoning O~~c.e requires that the ~hitec"qJral treatment 'of .b~4irigs, including ~teria1s,. color ~d so/Ie, ~e compatible with ,bujl~gs'located wi~ the,'s~e project. . Compatibility. may be achieved through the use 'of'simllar building.'massing;".. materials, scale~ colors and other atc~tecturaI features. . .. Currently, within Emergip.g Growth .Areas, no building"exteri~r.which would be vis~b'le to- any. A District .or any public right of'way may c'onsist of architec~al.materia1s fu!erio~ m : quality, appearance; or de~.to any other exterior of.the sam~.]?l;iilding. There, is,:however, ..." nothing to preclude the use of different materials ondifferentbullding exteriors, but rather, the Use of inferior materials on sides which face adjoining property. ; No portion of a buildID.g constructed ofunad6med. concrete'-block .or corrugated 'and/or sh.eet.~etaI may be' :visible:. from' any adjoining A. District 'or any p~bli~ right of way...' No';~Uil4ing exterior ',may ~ . . . . constructed. of'unp~ted co~~rete block or co~ated 3:fldlor' sheet me~. . ' All junction and accesscrryboxesmust be m.j.nimiied from "view of adjacent property and public rights ofyray by.landsCaping'~r,arc~tectural treatinent}ntegrated with the'.~~ldirig serve.d. Mechanical 'equipment, .~hethei ground-level-or ro~~p,.'.ni.ust be scree~~? {(om' . view, of.adjacent property and'-public rights of way and~ desi~d' to be perCeiv~ 'as'.an integtal.p~ of the building. . . . Buffers'and Screening: . CUrrently, the Zoning Ordinance requires that solid waste ,storage areas (i.e.;dumpster~ .. 'garbage cans, trash co~pactors~ .etc.) be screened fromvie"Y by;'a. ~oli~ ~a11~',f~~~.,d~~~":" evergreen p1aJltings'or'architectural feature.~d that s~~h'~.:Wi~ 1,O~..teet':of_~y:^'. District, notbe serviced between the hours of9:00 p. m; and 6:00 a.. m. In addition, sites . must be designed and buildings Oriented so that loading areas are screened from~djaceri.t properties where loading..are~ are.not 'pennitted,.' froin. prop~rty.,fu 'an A Dismct..that is designated onthe Comprehensive Plan for a district in whichloadin~ areas are notpemiitted ai1d'frOitll?ublic.righ~ of way.. . , . .' With the approval of this request, outside storage would be permitted by right in conjun<:tion · with. C-5 ,use's ,and with restrictions. in conj~c~on wi~ c- 3 .1l:s~s~,' . Outside storag~ ~)nust be screened from view of a~jaCent properties. where suchuses:are not permitteci,from . 8' . ..otsN0238/WP/SEPT26P.... 000043 . - property in an ~ District that is ,designated. on. the Co~prehensive Plan for R., R- TH, R-W', _ A, 0 or 1-1 Districts and from p~blic'rightsofway.', ' . CONCLUSIONS Jbe proposed Gene~ Business- (C-S) uses 40 not comply with the u-ppE,f Swift creek PWl Which suggests the pr~perty 1~ 'appropriate for community mixed -use d~velopme~ts with the use of public' utilities. . . . . - . , - . ". - The requested. C-.5 uses represent more intense development ~ that which. is suggested by. th~ . Plan. In a.d.dition,-the Plan suggests that new development shoul4.;>ccur \Vith the extension of~blic, w~er and sewer. . ~e 'applicant ~as failed to address those reeomp1eJ.:ldations of the Plit.iL ..one' of the _ ,- purposes ,of the reco~end8.tions'''regard~g tise,.ofpubli~ utilit~e~ is-tt? jtis~ or4~~ly gi~wth,and dev~I~l]1e~t. and avoid leap frog develop~ent. .In addition, the-~plica~on .fails to addt;ess"~e-, impact on ~e transportation sY$tem. Given these considerations, denial of-this request is ~commended.; CASE .WSTORY . . Planning Commission Meeting (6/l.?/O.1-): . . On th~ir own motion, the Commission deferred this case to August 21, 200 1 ~ . . Staff(6120/0~): . ... . rr .. The applicant was advised in \Vri.tjpg that. any sigriificant new or'~~,~edj~Ifonnatio~. S1i~i1:l(r :') be subm.i~'iio later than Jurie.~5; .2001, for'colisiderati9~lat.the:-C:~~ssiori-'s A"*gllst21;-:: _.' 2001, public hearing. ' .' Staff (7/26(01): To date, no neW information has b~n receivelt Applicant.(7/30/01 and 8/~/Ol): - , ..- ". - . The applic~t submitted the proffered -conditj,?ns _ discus~ed .~ere~' 9 - ' . - , .- -, 01SN023'SIWP/SEl1'Z6P. 000044 Planning CoimDiSsion Me~ (8/zi/9J): The applicant .did'not acqept.the recommendation. There ~as no ~pposition present~ Mr. Marsh expressed concerns that the applicatlthad. failed to adequately address the transportation - impacts. On motion of Mr. 'Marsh, s~nde(rby Mr. Gnlley".the Commission'reconuiiendeddenjal of - ", ' this r~uest. .' . A YE'S: Unanimous. . .. ... . . . The Board.ofSupetvisorS, on.Wednesday, September 26,2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m.~ willtRke . tinder consideration of,~s 'requ~. - . 10 " OlSN023'SrWPisEPTUlP',. . 000045 ~ c R...9 .' A,.' N +. · ~O.QQ ." I o. '.1.000 --Feet . I . . .01SN0238 .... '. . . . ". .' '..~j~~~WtTO..C-3 . 'SH. 15 . - 00004G . ,. , , \ \ \ \ \ '".'" \" . ",\ \ "" '\-" \"- :\-"" "" \ " '" . ," J: " " 1--'. . 0::... "0 " z . -' ,-" "\. " \:., '...: ~~,....; , ,~r . " . " '1- .' " . ....~., . 'OlSNG23S",1 "000047 for use as open space, as defined in the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance, for the benefit of the residents of Chesdin Landing and Chesdin Shores. (EE) 3. For each of the 100 single family residential lots developed in excess of 535 residential lots, the Applicants shall pay the following to the County prior to the time of building permit application for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the Property: a. $7,000 per lot if paid on or prior to June 30, 2002, or, b. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed $7,000 per lot adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2001 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30, 2002. (B & M) (Staff Note: Proffered Conditions 2 and 3 are in addition to conditions approved with Case 95SN0161.) Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren. Nays: None. OlSN0238 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ERNEST BELVIN requested rezoning and amendment of zoning district map from Agricul tural (A) to Communi ty Business (C-3) with Conditional Use Planned Development to allow General Business (C-5) uses. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for community mixed use uses. This request lies on 6.3 acres and is known as 16716 Hull Street Road. Tax ID 709-668-0844 (Sheet 15). Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case OlSN0238 and stated that the Planning Commission and staff recommend denial because the proposed General Business (C-5) uses do not comply with the Upper Swift Creek Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for community mixed use developments; the application fails to address the recommendations of the Plan which suggests that development should use public utilities; and the application fails to address the impact on the transportation system. Mr. Ernest Belvin stated that all parcels from Otterdale Road to Baldwin Creek Road are zoned C-5 except for his parcel and an adjoining parcel owned by Chesterfield Baptist Church. He further stated that, if he were to provide the right of way requested by staff, he would lose the dwelling, septic field, garage and new well. He stated that he is surrounded by C-5 zoning, and requested that the Board approve his reques t. Mr. McCracken stated that, if the applicant would agree to provide a public access, alignments could be made on the property to avoid taking the dwelling a~d improvements. Mrs. Humphrey stated that there are four to f:..ve crossover accesses within 2,000 feet of the vicinity of the applicant's property. She further stated that she feels access issues in the area have been addressed, and does not feel it is necessary to request that the applicant provide an access for the subject six-acre parcel. Mr. George Beadles stated that he feels the property should have been developed m.any years ago and indicated that even if the Board grants relief 0:1 the access issue, the applicant will still have a number of other issues that need to be addressed. He stated that he feels the Board should deny the request. There being no one else to speak to the case, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphrey stated that she is confortable with the proffered conditions made by the applicant. 9/26/01 000048 Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, for the Board to approved Case 01SN0238 and accept the following proffered conditions: 1. At such time as the public water system has been extended to within 200 feet of the site, the owner/developer shall extend a water line to the site and connect all existing structures to the public water system. The necessary water line extension shall be designed to provide flow and pressure for fire protection purposes as deemed appropriate by the Fire Department. In addition, if deemed necessary, fire hydrants shall be provided at locations to be approved by the Fire Department. (U) 2. At such time as any structure buil t on-si te which, incidental to that structure's use or operation, generates wastewater, concurrent with the public wastewater system having been extended to within 200 feet of the site, the owner/developer shall extend a wastewater line to the site and connect all structures to the public wastewater system. (U) 3. Prior to any site plan approval, 100 feet of right-of-way on the north side of Hull Street Road (Route 360), measured from the center line of that part of Route 360, immediately adj acent to the property, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. (T) 4. Direct access from the proper~y to Route 360 shall be limited to: 1) one (1) access, which shall align the existing Route 360 crossover adjacent to the property; and 2) one (1) entrance/exit, located towards the eastern property line. The exact location of these accesses shall be approved by the Transportation Department. , T ) 5. To provide an adequate roadway system., the developer shall be responsible for the following: d. Construction of additional pavement along the westbound lanes of Route 360 at each approved access to provide a separate right turn lane, if warranted based on Transportation Department standards; b. Contribution of $10,000 towards the construction of additional pavement along the eastbound lanes of Route 360 at the western access for a left turn lane; and c. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, of any additional right-af-way (or easements) required for the improvement identified above. (T) 6. Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing plan for required road improvements, as identified in Proffered Condition 3, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. (T) 7. To accommodate runoff from development of the property and to protect a pond on adjacent property from additional runoff, the following measures shall be taken: a. Retain the IO-year post-development storm and release at a 2- year pre-development; or b. Improve the dam to meet the county's current criteria; or c. Provide improvements that would bypass the pond and dam and discharge at an adequate natural watercourse with all low flows entering the existing off-site pond; or d. Acquire the pond and incorporate it into the development of the request site. (EE) Ayes: Humphrey, Miller, Barber, McHale and Warren. Nays: None. 9/26/01 000049 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 8.8.9. Subiect: Declaration of Mandatory Water Use Restrictions County Administrator: Board Action Reaueste Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors confirm and approve the declaration of mandatory water use restrictions to assure maximum beneficial use of available water resources for the public welfare during the prevailing drought condi tions . Staff further recommends that the Board establish the effective date for mandatory water use restrictions to be October 15, 2007. Summary of Information: Based on the current drought and low water level conditions in Lake Chesdin, the Appomattox River Water Authority (ARWA) has issued a request for its members to enact mandatory water use restrictions. with no additional rainfall, it is estimated that less than 200 days of available water-supply is contained in Lake Chesdin. provisions related to enacting water use restrictions are provided in the county code sections 18-151 through 18-158. The attached document, excerpted from the code, lists the specific items required upon the declaration of mandatory public water use restrictions. Other items related to implementation of these restrictions such as public notification, violations and penalties are also addressed in the code. It is anticipated that all members of the ARWA will declare similar mandatory restrictions in response to the Authority's request. The mandatory restrictions will be nullified when water-supply conditions recover to normal status. District: Attachments: Roy E. CovinQton . Yes Title: Director of Utilities Preparer: DNO # 000050 Sec.. 18-153. l\landatorv Du.blic \\~at.er use restrictions. lfpon the declaration of mandatorY public \\~ter use restrictionS4 users of the pllblic \\?ater s\rstem shall limit their use of Dublic ,vater as follo\;ls: lill Decorati\te or landscape fountains. \\rater use is prohibited. ail Pa"~ed areas.. Washing is prohibited except for imlnediate healtll and satetv reauirements. (0. S\\~imming pools. Linlit to tilling and replenishing to maintain health and safetv. All other uses are prohibited. @ Vehicle washing. Non...commercial washing is limited to one dav per week using only hoses with an automatic shut-off nozzle. Commercial vehicle washing businesses are permitted to operate under normal conditions. ill Established landscaping and gardens. Watering is limited to three days per week by address. Addresses ending with an odd number may water only on Tuesdays~ Thursdays and Saturdays. Addresses ending with an even number and locations with no street number may water only on Wednesdays~ Fridays and Sundays. Watering is prohibited on Mondays. Watering with buckets of up to five gallons per day is permitted any time. ill Ve€!etable gardens. Limit watering to any two days per week and from 8 p.m. - 10 a.m. on any day. Watering by bucket is unlimited. (g} New landscaping. All watering is permitted for the first 1 0 days after planting. Thereafter. the restriction for established landscaping and vegetable gardens sllall apply. .Q1l Golf courses. Watering re.stricted to Tuesday through Sundav between 8:00p.m. and 4:00 a.m. Greens are exempted from this restriction. ill Businesses. Limit to essential use only. .ill Restaurants. No restrictions. ili) All other consumption.. Conservation by any means encouraged. 000051 fj~-~~ -~i ~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 8.8 10. Subiect: Transfer $2,000 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to Make Field Improvements to the Existing Baseball Field at James River High School County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: c:tJ [l Board Action Reauested: The Board is requested to transfer $2 ,000 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to make field improvements to the existing baseball field at James River High School. Summary of Information: Supervisor Sowder has requested the Board to transfer $2,000 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to make field improvements to the existing baseball field at James River High School. These include: regrading of the field to provide positive drainage; amending and importing topsoil to improve soil qualitYi installing a drain outside foul lines to improve drainage; providing new skinned baselines; providing an irrigation systemi installing new vinyl-coated fencing; installing new sod in both the infield and outfield; installing a new backstop system; and moving an existing scoreboard from an adjacent field. Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director. Budaet & ManaQement 0400:76752.1 Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000052 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 The James River High School Athletic Boosters originally requested funds from the County for these improvements. The County is not legally authorized to give money to private organizations like the Athletic Boosters but the County can give money to the Parks and Recreation Department to make capital improvements on County property for a public purpose. All purchases must be made by Parks and Recreation itself and the purchases must comply with the County's purchasing policies. For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. 000053 Page 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. 1. What is the name of the applicant (person or organization) making this funding request? James River High School - Athletic Boosters, Inc 2 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. ) 3. To foster school spirit, teamwork, fair play and academic excellence for the student athletes. To raise funds needed to s~pport the activities fo all James River HS Athletic prng~ms , _,{) ft" a~ What is the amount of funding you are seeking? ./ Total pr~J~ $500,000; Phase I - $170,000 - 200,000. ../' 4& Describe in detail the funding request and how the money, if approved, will be spent. The estimated cost of the project is $500,000. We have broken the project into phases; the estimated cost of phase I is $170,QOO - 200,000, The funds will be used to construct a baseball diamond; playing surface; drainage; irrigation and fencing. 5. Is any County Department involved in the project, event or program for which you are seeking funds? We have met with Mike Golden on several occasions to seek support and assistance. He is supportive of the project however has been unable to support financially. 000054 Page 2 Met with county's site development team for approval - likewise, they supported the project. 6r 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? Currently we are seeking funds; have received financial support from Village Bank; Huguenot Little League; Ukrops Foundation; Dave's Auto Spa; Evans Carpet and players families. Fundraising is currently on-going. 7. If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Yes r8] No D Is the organization non-profit? Yes r8] No D Is the organization tax-exempt? Yes r8] No 0 8. What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? James River High School- Athletic Boosters, Inc; 3700 James River Road; Midlothlan, VA 23113 9. What is the telephone number; fax number~ e-mail address of the applicant? Ray McGowan; raymond.mcgowan@awin.com; 804.543.4782' (M), 804.226.6199 (F); Craig Schwartz; craig.g.schwartz@pmusa.com; 804.852.3921 (M), 804.484.8264 (F) Signature of applicant. If you are signing on behalf of an organization you must be the president, vice-president, chairman/director or vice-chairman of the organization. 000055 Page 3 ~~~~Ji . Sig1ture Past.. President Title (if signing on behalf of an organization) Raymond McGowan Printed Name 9/4/07 Date 000056 ~ - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 9.A. Subiect: Developer Water and Sewer Contracts County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: oj {J Board Action Reauested: The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Administrator to execute water and/or sewer contracts between County and Developer where there are no County funds involved. The report is submitted to Board members as information. Summary of Information: The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County Administrator: 1. Contract Number: Project Name: 03-0391 Elm Crest and Ashley Woods at Elm Crest Developer: Contractor: Elm Crest Development LLC R.M.C. Contractors, Incorporated Contract Amount: Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - $210,069.00 $202,176.00 District: Clover Hill Preparer: William O. Wriaht Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: DYes .NO # 000057 Agenda Item October 101 2007 Page 2 2. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 3 . Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 4. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 5. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 06-0235 Springdale at Lucy Carr village Lucy Carr Village Liesfield Contractor Incorporated Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - $361,909.00 $226,621.00 Dale 06-0309 Watkins Centre Offsite Sewer - St. Ives Subdivision Leroy Vaughan R.M.C. Contractors Wastewater Improvements - $61,370.00 Midlothian 07-0045 Somers Lark, Section B Jacobs Glenn LC Excalibur Construction Corporation Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - $43,038.00 $53,405.00 Clover Hill 07-0146 Hawthorne Village at charter Colony, Section B B. B. Hunt, LLC Rhyne Contractors, Incorporated Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - $89,629.60 $52,007.65 Matoaca 000058 ti}= ~li, ; ~ ~II . ~~~lNrll CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 9.8. Subiect: Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Fund, and Lease Purchases County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Q:) 7J Board Action Reauested: Summary of Information: Preparer: James J. L. SteQmaier Title: County Administrator Attachments: DNO . Yes I # 000059 I BOARD MEETING DATE 07/01/07 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY UNDESIGNATED GENERAL FUND BALANCE October 10, 2007 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FY2008 Beginning Budgeted Balance *Pending outcome of FY2007 Audit Results BALANCE $49,945,000 * 000060 Board Meeting Date 6/30/2007 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS October 10,2007 Description FY07 Ending Balance FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2007 4/11/2007 4/11/2007 FY08 Budgeted Addition FY08 Capital Projects *Pending outcome ofFY2007 Audit Results Amount 15,521,300 (14,889,300) Balance $1,097,798 16,619,098 1,729,798 000061 I:J) ~ = ~ .- ,.. "'C c = - ~ =:< C.J""O = .. e.; e.; ~ 0 ~= = e.; 0""CS r:I.J = a ~ ~< ~\C ~ 0\ 00 Q Z ~ ~ ~t" Zo ~= ~~ ~N > o ~- ~e ~~ 1--1 ~ ~ ~ UOO ;: E- 00. 1--1 ~ "'CS ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ Q "'CS...... = .. = e.; ~ ~ ~ QO = = Q =~ ~ .! ~ a. F7l .. ~ u = ln C"\ M QC fA o fA- o 0"\ \Or. ~ N fA- o o t.r) 00 'o::::t' fA- o ..q- ~ O\r. lr) fA- QC ~ QC rrS ....-I ....-I o o o 00 ~r. ~ o o lr) 00 ~ 00 ..q- ,.......01 V) 00 fA- ~ 0\ l() r.e N ~ o N o ~ ..q- o o lrl 00 ~ tr) 0\ .....-I ~r. 00 fA- N ~ ~ ~ Q ~ o o o Or. f'1i o o lrl 00 ~ N ~ 00 tr) If) fF:t ~ ~ 0\ ~ QC = = tn ~ ~ o o Or. N o ("f") ~ V) a-.,r. o o o V1 00 ~ o o V1 ("f") ~ l'-- N 0\.., .....-I lr) fA- ~ ~ = ""CS ."""" ~ ~ ~ ."""" e.; == ~ ...., ...... ""0 ~ ,.C ,C C.J = .. ~ ...... ...., e ~ Q C = .. ,.. Q.} ,..... ..... ...... ""0 = r:I.J - 0 ~ ~ ~ ...., 0 .- ~ ,..... ~ ~ Q = U Q U 000062 Prepared by Accounting Department September 30, 2007 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES APPROVED AND EXECUTED Outstanding Date Original Date Balance Began Description Amount Ends 9/30/07 04/99 Public Facility Lease - Juvenile Courts Project $16,100,000 11/19 $10,465,000 01/01 Certificates of Participation - Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; AcquisitionlInstallation of Systems 13,725,000 11/21 9,125,000 03/03 Certificates of Participation - Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation 6,100,000 11/23 5,140,000 03/04 Certificates of Participation - Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 21,970,000 11/24 19,690,000 10/04 Cloverleaf Mall Redevelopment Project 9,225,000 10/08 9,225,000 11/04 School ArchivaIIRetrieval System Lease 21,639 01/08 3,139 12/04 Energy Improvements at COlUlty Facilities 1,519,567 12/1 7 1,383,317 12/04 Energy Improvements at School Facilities 427,633 12/10 306,953 05/05 Certificates of Participation - Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 14,495,000 11/24 13,465,000 05/06 Certificates of Participation - Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 11,960,000 11/24 11,155,000 08/07 Certificates of Participation - Building Expansion/Renovation, Equipment Acquisition 22~220~OOO 11/27 22~220~OOO TOTAL APPROVED $117.763.839 $102.178.409 AND EXECUTED PENDING EXECUTION Approved Description Amount None 000063 .~' : ,~:'; .~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 9.C. Subiect: Report of Planning Commission Substantial Accord Determination for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Case 08PD0134) to Co-locate an Antenna on a Virginia Power Structure Located on the North Line of Spring Run Road, West of Raven Wing Drive County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: C1J {) Board Action Reauested: On September 18, 2007, the Planning Commission found Case 08PD0134 in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan, as per the attached. (AYES: Messrs: Gecker, Gulley, Bass, Litton and Wilson.) Staff recommends no action. Summary of Information: State law provides that the Board may overrule the Planning Commission's determination or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for an additional public hearing and decision. If the Board takes no action, the substantial accord determination will become final. Pre parer: Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of PlanninQ Attachments: . Yes DNO 1# 0000641 September 18, 2007 CPC SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD REVIEW 08PDO 134 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Matoaca Magisterial Districts North line of Spring Run Road REQUEST: Substantial accord review for a proposed public facility (communications tower). PROPOSED LAND USE: A communications tower, incorporated into an existing electrical transmission structure, and associated improvements are planned. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval for the following reasons: A. The proposal conforms to the Public Facilities Plan and Tower Siting Policy. Incorporation of the communications facilities into an existing electrical transmission tower eliminates the need for an additional freestanding structure in the area, thereby minimizing tower proliferation. B. The Ordinance minimizes the possibility of any adverse impact on the County Communications System or the County Airport (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS.) GENERAL INFORMATION Location: North line of Spring Run Road, west of Raven Wing Drive. Tax IDs 737-663-Partof8598and 738-664-Part of 1115~ Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service 000065 Existing Zoning: A Size: 0.2 acres Existing Land Use: Single- family residential Adiacent Zoning and Land Use: North, East and West - A; Single-family residential South - R-25; Single-family residential UTILITIES: PUBLIC FACILITIES: AND TRANSPORTATION The proposed use will have no impact on these facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL Ifmore than 2500 square feet of land is disturbed, a land disturbance permit must be obtained from the Department of Environmental Engineering. COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS The Zoning Ordinance requires that any structure over eighty (80) feet in height be reviewed by the County's Public Safety Review Team for potential detrimental impacts the structure could have on the County's Radio Communications System microwave paths. This determination must be made prior to construction of the communications tower. COUNTY AIRPORT A preliminary review of this proposal indicates that, given the approximate location and elevation of the proposed installation, there will be no adverse affect on the County Airport. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: Lies within the boundaries of the Southern and Western Area Plan which suggests properties is appropriate for residential use of 1-5 acre lots; suited to R-88 zoning. 2 08PD0134-SEP18-CPC 000066 The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, suggests that energy and communications uses should be co-located, whenever feasible, to minimize impacts on existing and future areas of development~ Area Development Trends: The property is occupied by a Virginia Power high-tension transmission line. Area property is characterized by single-family residential uses on acreage parcelse Residential development is expected to continue in this area for the foreseeable future, in accordance with the Plan. Development Standards: The Zoning Ordinance allows communications towers in an Agricultural(A) District provided that antennae are co-located on electric transmission structures; are flush-mount; are restricted to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet above the height of the transmission structure; and are gray or other neutral color. CONCLUSION The proposed communications tower satisfies the criteria of location, character and extent as specified in the Code of Virginia. Specifically, the Public Facilities Plan suggests that communications towers should be located to minimize the impact on existing or planned areas of development and that energy and communications facilities should co-locate whenever feasible. The communications tower will be incorporated into an existing permitted electrical transmission structure. The addition of the communications facilities into the structure of the existing transmission tower does not generate a visual impact that is significantly greater than the visual impact of the existing electrical transmission tower. This co-location will eliminate the need for additional freestanding towers in the area, thereby minimizing tower proliferation. In addition, the Ordinance minimizes the possibility of any adverse impact on the County Communications System or the County Airport. Given these considerations, staff recommends the Commission find the proposal consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3 08PD0134-SEP18-CPC 00'0067 <( ~ ~. ~ . . . ..' ~'. '. ' .' . ': . :': e ~ . . . . - . . . . . . '. . - . . . IlIfI~-. If"t.'~.II:-~.:<.tl.:~"~'1II . . '" .. .. ..-. ...... ..... ....... ..~ .... .........4...... ........W.......... ....... z+ c a:: o (J !el ~ t- ~ ~lii ~m 0::) OU) ~. I 1 u... 8 M NI? o o o ('I') 000068 tT. ~\.B~II - _~ . ---' ::) ~ ~ - a "'~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 14.A. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Mr. William M. "Willie" Harrisl Waste and Resource Recovery Division Cashier/Attendant I General Services Department, Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Adoption of attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognlzlng Mr. William M. "Willie" Harris for 28 years of service to Chesterfield County. Preparer: Rob Kev Title: ActinQ Director Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000069 RECOGNIZING MR. WILLIAM M. HARRIS UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. William M. "Willie" Harris retired on October I, 2007 after providing 28 years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Harris began his service February 1, 1979, collecting refuse for the Department of General Services, Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Harris transferred from the collections section to convenience center operations in February 1998; and WHEREAS, Mr. Harris helped the county's Sani tation Department change and become the Division of Solid Waste, and then the Division of Waste and Resource Recovery, representing a shift to protection of the environmentj and WHEREAS, Mr. Harris is known for his friendly, easy-going manneri his ability to work with citizens in an effective waYi caring for his fellow co-workers; and performing his duties in a most professional manner; and WHEREAS, Mr. Harris provided the wisdom of his experience in contributing to the division'S strategic conferences, process action teams, and other activitiesi and years and planning WHEREAS, Mr. Harris always performed his duties and responsibilities in an excellent manner placing the welfare and safety of co-workers, other county employees, and the public above his own personal comfort and feelings and will be missed by his fellow co- workers. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 10th day of October 2007, publicly recognizes Mr. William M. "Willie" Harris and extends appreciation for his 28 years of dedicated service to the county, congratulations upon his retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Harris and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. 000070 S-=- ~II' ~ ~ I, _. _~ _ _- ~ ~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 14.8. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing "Christmas Mother Day" in Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: Board Action Reauested: ill {/ County Administrator: Adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Mrs. Barbara Chapman has been elected Christmas Mother for 2007. She will be present at the meeting to accept the resolution. Preparer: Attachments: Janice Blaklev . Yes Title: Deputv Clerk to the Board DNO # 000071 RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 16, 2007, AS nCHRISTMAS MOTHER DAY" WHEREAS, most families in Chesterfield County enjoy peace and happiness during the Christmas holidays; and WHEREAS, there are many children, elderly and the less fortunate, who do not have the means to enjoy this special time of year; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Christmas Mother Program has successfully provided food, gifts and clothing to many of our citizens in the past; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Barbara Chapman has been elected Christmas Mother for 2006 and requests support of all the citizens of Chesterfield County to ensure that those less fortunate may enj oy this special season of the year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes October 16, 2007, as "Christmas Mother Day" and urges all citizens of Chesterfield County to support this worthy endeavor. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors publicly commends the Christmas Mother Program for its successful efforts in past years and extends best wishes for a successful 2006 season. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Chapman and that this resolution be permanently recorded - among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. 000072 6-b'. ~\ I ~ :: fi.~Df CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 14.C. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Mr. Matthew Ryan Bukas, Troop 800, Sponsored by Bethel Baptist Church, and Mr. Elliott Reuel Howell, Troop 806, Sponsored by Woodlake United Methodist Church, Upon Attaining Rank of Eagle Scout County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: c; Board Action Reauested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff has received requests for the Board to adopt a resolution recognlz1ng Mr. Matthew Ryan Bukas, Troop 800, and Mr. Elliott Reuel Howell, Troop 806, Upon Attaining Rank of Eagle Scout. They will be present at the meeting, accompanied by members of their families, to accept their resolutions. Preparer: Janice Blakley Title: Clerk to the Board Attachments: . Yes DNO 1# 0000731 WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered by Congress in 1916; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America character, provide citizenship training fitness; and was and founded to build promote physical WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to their community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the Scout Oath and Law Mr. Matthew Ryan Bukas, Troop 800, sponsored by Bethel Baptist Church, and Mr. Elliott Reuel Howell, Troop 806, sponsored by Woodlake United Methodist Church, have accomplished those high standards of commitment and have reached the long- sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by only four percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through their experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and endeavoring to prepare themselves for roles as leaders in society, Matthew and Elliott have distinguished themselves as members of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 10th of October 2007, hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Matthew Ryan Bukas and Mr. Elliott Reuel Howell, and acknowledges the good fortune of the county to have such outstanding young men as its citizens. 000074 tii:\ . CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 15.A. Subiect: Public Hearing to Consider Conveyance of 3.44-Acres of Property Located on Reycan Road in the Chesterfield County Industrial Airpark to Courthouse III, LLC County Administrator's Comments: OJ () County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Staff recommends that the Board hold a public hearing and authorize the County Administrator to convey a 3.44-acre parcel located on Reycan Road to Courthouse III, LLC. Summary of Information: On February 14, 2007, the Board authorized granting Courthouse III, LLC an exclusive option to purchase from time to time up to 13 acres of land in the Airpark for a purchase price of $57,600 per acre, exclusive of any wetlands. Courthouse III has now notified the County that it wishes to exercise its right to purchase 3.44 acres of the property (as highlighted on the attached plat) . Courthouse III, LLC will be constructing two 8,000 square foot buildings on the property. They are currently working with a prospect to occupy 4,000 square feet of the first building while occupying the rest of the building themselves. The Option Agreement for the remaining approximately 6.3 acres of the property will remain in effect and expire on the 31st of January 2009. Staff recommends that the County Administrator be authorized to convey the parcel pursuant to the terms of the Option Agreement. Preparer: E. Wilson Davis, Jr. Title: Director, Economic Development 0623:76453.1 Attachments: . Yes DNO I # 0000751 ~I ............_ - .............. ':1 -~~ .. t ~~: -.. , , ...... r.~ i:Q... I =- D 1 .. .- .... , ~ ~. i- ~ : ~: y =-.: , ':ro' ~ ~~~ \ ~I ~~ ~ ~~ ,q , i ~ ~~I · "J .. L:' -, .~. . ~ .... .. ~ ,.. .~~ ~. I~ I .. l. t LA.: .... ~ ... ~Jl~ , !~ .. ...: ..:.. .:.. L.I ~ ..,.....~. "lot r. ~~~,,_. ~ 1'-=:aJ __ ".. .. ..E r._ ~ I ~. ~, Ili.:..'~" ~~..~. · ~. ~~'~ ~~- ~ ~ ~.... 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.i, ~ ':,."":i..'_ ~ J '=J ~!I ~ ".'. ~ ~~t: - I ~ II.:) I... ." ... .r_ ' v: .... ~ :;I: .-. J,j r:-: -.:A. I .... · ::I I! il 11 ~-r;.1P "I~ · ~ I.. . 01...... ::I II .. ~. ""'.. . -..::.. - ~~ i . . ..=-:~. 01"1 .. "':"I. ...... ..~.. ~.. _.. ~. " lilii1ii ~ 1 . I ':I - ..~ ... -.,1 ; fir:::. . "~,.. I~~ ~ I' ~~! :~~~ I - .... r:.. .. - .... ..v.~ ~ IIIIIIIIiI · ,"- ~~~ x~ ,. L~::-"~:A .. ~ :..-: Jf' Ii';::' i:;: ~ ~ ~ ::::: ~ ~ ~~~~~ it ::.~ .. .. ~..~.r~. ~"3": ~.~, _~~iI"..:~ ':..' ~.J T.;.!!i: I ~I~'" .....-:: .;~~ -::' [~~~- .. ~~ ~ :i! ~!~ _ ~ .. .. _ . ., -. ~-::4: ~.,... ... :. _:. ...........: ~ .y:." ....... --. .: ""- ......... .....-:.:- J - ~ ~ · · ~~II. ! ., .',,= · . .. . I ;0,. ~ i: :..~~.!. r..~~. T'.,E~lf.-~'~~~~ t.7: .... . r~..- "tr II: ~ ....... i .. ...- ..... yo .II I~ ... "I": H ., ..: (. 7G.OIt ._ ,\--------- ~---------- ~_~m \\~----------------~~---- ,\ \ , \ \ \ :--u \ \ \i , l' \ \, ~ 1r' , IWI&::.El :1 ~~ - 1lI"."!6'18-r 5'" \ I ( [ 1 I r ..GCE\.C'.... I _~.tAC: e =,",1 N..s - - . NRia. WAl'l J4 'C =:".Fg:: _~I "" "': GRAPHIC SCALE tOO 0 ~ 51J 1~ ,JOO [ . I 1 -- :~ (DfPDT) 1 moh := 100 1t. +00 ~ MAP SHOWING 12.93 ACRES OF LAf'D SITUATED ON TIE NOfff}ERI\I LIE OF REYCAN ROAD. lOCATED IN THE CHESTERFIELD COUTY INDUSTRIAL PARK SECllON B, CHESJEt1Ht=lD CO., VA DALE DISTRICT f."~~~ DA TE: JOB NO.~. KEVIN L. FLOYD, P.E., L.S. P..O. BOX 1178 Chesterfield Vi'rginia. 23832 Phune : (804) 778-4518 -~ I r ~ t I J ) ~ 'I j 000077 Your Community Newspaper Since 1995 P.O. Box 1616. Midlothian, Virginia 23113 . Phone: (804) 545-7500 . Fax: (804) 744-3269 . Ernail: news@cbesterlieldobserver.com . Internet: www.chesterfieldobserver.com Client Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors TAKE NOTICE: Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of C~esterfield County, VIrginia, at an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, VIrginia, will hold a public hearin~ w~ere persons may appear and present theIr VIews concernipg: Conveyance of a 3.44-acre parcel located on Reycan Road in the Chesterfield County Industrial Airpark to Courthouse III, LLe. Inf~rrnation regarding the conveyance is on file In the Economic Development Office in Che~terfield CO':lDty, Virginia, and may be obtaIned by all Interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Th~ hearing is held at a public facility d~sIg?~~ to be accessible to persons with dIsabilItIe~. ~y persons with questions on the acceSSIbilIty of the facility or the need for reasonable accommodations should contact Lisa Elko, Clerk to th.e Board, at 748-.1200. Persons needing interpreter serVIces for the deaf must notifY the Clerk to the Board no later than Friday. October 5, 2007. ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Reycan Road 1 co1 x 3.5" $121.15 The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 10/03/2007 Sworn to and subscribed before me this Y+-h day of Oc.:toter ,2007. ~0- Joann Lupo, otary Public My commission expires: November 30,2010 Commission I.D. 7040138 (SEAL) ~\,\\lllllt." I' ~\\"\" L ""~ ~\...~.... . / " ~\ ~ ...........' V:.'~~. I ,,'tI...~\.ON W #' :". ~ \ .l:'_.'~;P "'4['('_" i :':i IeI' ..>.... v ; :.u s~:. i: OF ::} . . . : ... " .. . .. ~ to .. ... tI to.. ; . I. ~ . ..~ ....vl f'! \t"".... ..... ....... o~ ~...,,~.,f'.';:)V ......." """ 4 p? y {:l\) ...... '1, "" ~., I' t ,~, ,,,,, 'T'TTTC' TC' ~T.n.'T' ~ DTT T DT D ~ C'I;' n ~ " Dn.n.1\,t' T~T'T.n.Tr<V Tll A l\.TV VnTT .." . ~ II Ii . ~~~o · CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 15.8. Subiect: Public Hearing to Consider FY2009 Enhancement Projects Count ments: County Administrator: Board Action Reaue d: Hold a public hearing to consider FY09 Enhancement Projects; approve the FY09 Enhancement Priority Project list and forward to area Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs); adopt resolutions of support for the proj ects; and authorize the County Administrator to enter into agreements for the projects. Summary of Information: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Enhancement Program is intended to creatively integrate transportation facilities into the surrounding communities and the natural environment. proj ects eligible for funding include pedestrian and bicycle facili ties; pedestrian and bicycle educational/safety activities; scenic easement/ historic site acquisition; scenic/historic highway programs; landscaping; historic preservation; rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings or facilities; preservation of abandoned railroad corridors/conversion to trails; inventory/control/removal of outdoor advertising; archaeological planning and research; mitigation of water pollution and wildlife protection; and establishment of transportation museums. In FY08, $1 7 million was available statewide for VDOT to carry out the program. The county did not receive any Enhancement funding for FY08. Transportation Enhancement Projects are financed with 80% VDOT funds and a minimum 20% local match. The local match is usually provided from county funds, from other sources, and/or by in-kind contributions. VDOT staff will evaluate project applications and make a recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for inclusion in the FY09-FY14 Virginia Transportation Six-Year Improvement Program. Preparer: R.J. McCracken Agen669 Title: Director of Transportation Attachments: . Yes DNa # 000078 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 3 Summary of Information: (continued) The proposed FY09 Enhancement Projects list (see Attachment A) reflects two changes from last year's list: 1) Falling Creek Bridge Restoration project was added and 2) Chesterfield Avenue Sidewalk Rehabilitation project was added. The Board should confirm support for the priority enhancement projects by adopting a resolution of support, which guarantees the county will provide the local match. If approved and funded by VDOT, staff will prepare another agenda item requesting appropriation of the required match. The amounts for the local match, totaling $402,000, are as follows: Falling Creek Bridge Restoration Project ($192,000), Genito Road Streetlights ($10,000), Cogbill Road Sidewalk, Phase I ($85,000), Chesterfield Avenue Sidewalk Rehabilitation ($40,OOQ) and Walton Park Sidewalk, Phase II ($75,000). Enhancement projects are required to have endorsement from area Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The project list, as approved by the Board, should be forwarded to the Richmond MPO. The Genito Road Streetlight project will require the county to bear the operating expense associated with the lights (approximately $7,000 per year). Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board take the following actions: 1. Approve the proposed FY09 Enhancement Project list (Attachment A), and forward it to the Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization for endorsement; 2. Adopt the attached resolutions requesting VDOT approval and guaranteeing the local match for the projects. NOTE: If projects are approved and funded by VDOT, staff will return to the Board with an identified source for the required match, up to a total of $402,000. 3. Authorize the County Administrator to enter into agreements between VDOT/county/consultant/contractor, for designl environmental permit, right-of-way acquisition, and/or construction agreements, acceptable to the County Attorney, for projects approved by VDOT. District: Countywide 000079 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Budaet and Manaaement Comments: This item requests that the Board schedule a public hearing to consider projects that could potentially be included in the VDOT road enhancement project program. If project funds are approved from VDOT, staff will present a subsequent agenda item to identify a source of funds for the required local match. Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budaet and Manaaement 0000,80 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PROPOSED FY09 ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS Falling Creek Bridge Restoration Funding Local Match Request Transfers $960,000 $192,000 $50,000 $10,000 $425,000 $85,000 $200,000 $40,000 $375,000 $75,000 Genito Road Streetlights (Fox Chase Ln to Watercove Rd) Cogbill Road Sidewalk (Meadowbrook HS to Meadowdale Library), Phase II of a $1.2M project Chesterfield Avenue Sidewalk Rehabilitation Walton Park Road Sidewalk, located between N Woolridge Rd & Queensgate Rd, Phase II of a $1.1 M project Attachment A 000081. WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that the local governing body request, by resolution, approval of a proposed enhancement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for the restoration of the Falling Creek Bridge on Jefferson Davis Highway BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $960,000 for planning, design, right-of-way, and construction of the Falling Creek Bridge Restoration Project, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. 000083 WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that the local governing body request, by resolution, approval of a proposed enhancement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for the installation of streetlights along Genito Road from Fox Chase Lane to Watercove Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $50,000 for planning, design, right-of-way, and construction of the Genito Road Streetlight Project, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. 000084 WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that the local governing body request, by resolution, approval of a proposed enhancement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for Phase II of the Cogbill Road Sidewalk Project from Meadowbrook High School to Meadowdale Branch Library. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $425,000 for planning, design, right- of-way, and construction of Phase I of the Cogbill Road Sidewalk Project from Meadowbrook High School to Meadowdale Branch Library, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. 000085 WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that the local governing body request, by resolution, approval of a proposed enhancement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the eTB establish a project for the rehabilitation of sidewalk on Chesterfield Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $200,000 for planning, design, right- of-way, and construction of Chesterfield Avenue Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. 000086 WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that the local governing body request, by resolution, approval of a proposed enhancement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for Phase II of Walton Park Road Sidewalk Project located between North Woolridge Road and Queensgate Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $375,000 for planning, design, right-af-way, and construction of Phase II of the Walton Park Road Sidewalk Project, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. 000087 efl~' k ;~ j: l'i:>ur Community Newspaper Since 1995 P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 . Phone: (804) 545-7500 . Fax: (804) 744-3269 . Email: news@cbesterfieldobserver.com . Internet: www.chesterfieldobscrvcr.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT (S~AL ) ,~i\\i,,'.I'tl/"'111 .~ \\~~\. '1/1<'. L . ," .' .....~ . . . . ("" ~""{ ~ ....C..:...I~~.... e,,::~ ,~_"".. L\.' IJH1~~ '. ......,. ~. y ..:.......7 ""l~.. 0 ~ ~'b:~. ~~~ ":. r! ':0 'Si i t "'... Of to'" ~; \ l j ~ .... V~ \~ e': f ,. ." "... '''''1 ()~ ".fI..,.,.,'" r:':J..V ..~'" "*'1\eV~\l\~y'" \l\4-b(.~ei "'" 'ARv p\}v,.,., , ""....'f........'.',," THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. Client Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PROPOSED FY09 ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS Take notice that the County Administrator has submitted a recommended FY09 Transportation Enhancement Program to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at its regular meeting on October 10, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting room at the Chesterfield Government complex, at 10031 Iron Bridge Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, to consider the Program. The County intends to apply for funds allocated by the VIrginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for the Program. Activities of the VDOT Transportation Enhancement Program include: . Pedestrian and bicycle facilities . Pedestrian and bicycle safety and education . Acquisition of scenic or historic easements and sites . Scenic or historic highway programs including tourist and welcome centers . Landscaping and scenic beautification . Historic preservation . Rehabilitation and operation of historic traJISportation buildings, structures, or facilities . Preservation of abandoned railway corridors . Inventory, control and removal of outdoor advertising Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Enhancements 1 co1 x 10" $408.75 The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 10/03/2007 Sworn to and subscribed before me this L1~h day of OctDCer ,2007. ~ d~~ Legal Affiant upo, Notary Public My commission expires: November 30,2010 Commission I.D. 7040138 .-=~ ~..}~; Ii:_~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 15.C. Subiect: Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to Substantial Accord Determination County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: (j) (f Board Action Reauested: Staff is requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve the attached Code Amendment. Summary of Information: Substantial Accord Determination with the Comprehensive Plan is required prior to construction of a public facility. The prior administrative policy allowed the Planning Director to make an administrative determination of plan compliance with confirmation by the Planning Commission. This procedure did not require notice of any area property owners. The Planning Commission expressed a desire to amend the administrative policy to require public hearing and hence notice to area property owners. The County Administration has amended that policy accordingly (attached). As a result of that modification the Planning Commission on August 21, 2007 recommended the attached Code Amendment to clarify that public hearings are required. Preparer: Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of PlanninQ Attachments: . Yes DNO I # 000088 I "~ .., CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ADMINISTRA liVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Department: Subject: Planning S~bstantial Accord Policy for Public Facilities Policy Number: 10-1 Supersedes: 11/15/02 Date Issued: _107 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to assure that certain proposed facilities, such as those described below, are "substantially in accord" with the Chesterfield County Comprehensive Plan. This authority is found in the County Charter and the Code of Virginia. By establishing this procedure, the Substantial Accord Policy promotes coordinated planning in the siting of public facilities and maintains compatible land use patterns, thereby further improving the County's ability to provide effective and cost efficient services to the public. II. DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC FACILITY Public areas, facilities and uses (hereinafter referred to collectively as '~Public Facilities") include, but are not limited to, streets, parks or other public areas and connections theretot public buildings or structures, public utility facilities and public service corporation facilities, whether such areas, facilities or uses are publicly or privately owned; provided, however, that such terms do not include railroad facilities; electrical transmission lines of 150 kilovolts or more subject to review and approval by the Virginia State Corporation Commission; public telecommunication facilities subject to review and approval by the Virginia Public Telecommunications Board; or public facilities constructed by the State or Federal government. III. GENERAL RULE Except as stated herein, no street or cormection to an existing street, park or other public area, public building or public structure, public utility facility or public service corporation facility other than a I railroad facility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed, established or authorized unless it is first determined to be substantially in accord with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan or element thereof (i.e., Planfor Chesterfield, Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and Countywide special plans). . IV. FACILITIES EXCEPTED FROM SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD REVIEW A~ Public Roads - Public roadst which are identified within, but not the entire subject of submission of a subdivision plat or site plan submission to be constructed in accordance with the construction and design standards contained within the Chesterfield County Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance, are excepted from the requirement of a substantial accord determination. B. Public Facilities Required as a Condition of Zoning - A Public Facility which bas been approved by the Board of Supervisors through acceptance or imposition of a zoning condition and which is identified within, but is not the entire subject of, a subdivision plat or site plan submission is excepted from the requirement of a substantial accord determination. c. Board Approved Public or Private Facility - Any public or private public facility which has been approved by the Board of Supervisors following a public hearing held pursuant to the County's Zoning Ordinance so long as such public or private facility or use remains subject to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance~ 1925:74791.2 000089 D. Service Extensions and Repairs - Paving, rep3.ir, reconstruction, improvement, drainage or similar work. and nonnallservice extensions of public utilities or public service corporations are excepted from the requirement of a substantial accord determination unless involving a change in location or extent of a street f;>r public area E. Projeets not Involving Substantial Cbange in Seale of Existing Facility - Improvements to Public Facilities at existing, approved sites which are necessary to the primary site purpose and which do not involve a significant change in scale or level of facility service are excepted from the requirement of a substantial accord determination" Such excepted projects may include building additions, replacement, upgrade, or phased completion of a facility complex. However, if a facility is to be added to an existing site, which expands the level of service beyond the original site purpose, such a project will not be excepted from the requirement of a substantial accord determination. For example, a regional size swimming pool proposed at an existing neighborhood park will require substantial accord approval_ . f F. Railroads; Electrical Transmission Lines; Public Television and Radio - Railroad facilities; electrical transmission lines of 150 kilovolts or more subject to review and approval by the Virginia State Corporation Commission; and public telecommunication facilities subject to review and approval by the Virginia Public Telecommunications Board are excepted from the requirement of a .substantial accord determination. G. State and Federal Facilities - Public Facilities constructed by the State or Federal Government are excepted from the requirement of a substantialliccord determination. v. SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD APPLICATION A. Pre-Application Conference - Prior to making an application for Substantial Accord Determination, an applic.ant or their agent shall have a pre-application conference with the Planning Department and other co-reviewing agencies. B. Applications for Substantial Accord Determinations - With respect to any proposed Public Facility ~ a request for substantial accord determination must be made on an application form supplied by the Planning Department. The persons entitled to initiate an application are identified in the zoning ordinance. However, any application initiated by the Director of a County Department or Office must first obtain approval from the County Administrator or his designee. The Director of Planning shall promptly examine all applications to detennine whether they are in proper fonn, and shall advise the applicant of the date on which his application was accepted for review~ or what further information is required to constitute a satisfactory application~ A request for a substantial accord determination shall not be deemed to have been made Wltil ail required information is received by the Planning Department.. c. Fee - The cost of processing each request as required by the Zoning Ordinance shall be paid simultaneously with the filing of the application. Chesterfield County departments, with the exception of enterprise funded departments and the school board, \'\rill not be required to pay this fee.. VI. SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION PROCEDURE A. Review by the Director of PJanning-Upon receipt of an application for a substantial accord determination, the Director of Planning shall analyze the general location, character and physical extent of the proposed public facility in light of the adopted elements of the County's Comprehensive Plan, including the Thoroughfare Plan and the Public Facilities Plan. The Director of Planning shall examine the siting and planning criteria contained in those J 925 :74791.2 000090 documents and shall solicit comments from relevant co....reviewing agencies. The Director of Planning shall then make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding compliance with the County's Compliance Plan~ B.. Consideration by the Planning Commission 1 Put,lic Hearing - The Commission shall consider the general location, character and physical extent of the proposed Public Facility in relation to the adopted elements of the County's Comprehensive Plan and siting criteria contained in such documents. In addition, the Commission shall hold a public hearing and consider public comments and other relevant factors in arriving at its substantial accord determination, which may be conditional. ' 2 Failure of the Planning Commission to approve or disapprove a request for a substantial accord determination within sixty (60) days from receipt of proper application in the Planning Department, unless such time is extended by the Board of Supervisors or the applicant requests a deferral, shall b~ deemed approval by the Commission~ Subject to any contrary instructions from the Board of Supervisors, and time permitting, the Commission may defer any request to a subsequent meeting. Vll. NOTIFICATION OF COMMISSION'S DECISION The Director of Planning shall promptly file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a written report of each substantial accord determination made by the Planning Commission indicating whether the Commission approved or disapproved such request and thq reasons therefore~ The Director of Planning shall also promptly notif:y,the applicant of the decision oft'he Planning Commission.. VIII. APPEALS BY THE APPLICANT The applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission by filing with the Director of Planning within ten (10) days following the Commission's decision a written petition to the Board of Supervisors setting forth the reasons for the appeal. Any appeal by the applicant to the Board of . Supervisors must be heard and determined by the Board within sixty (60) days from the date of its . filing. IX. REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS By a majority vote of its members, the Board of Supervisors may overrule a substantial accord determination made by the Planning Commission, or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission directing that an additional public hearing be held, after notice as required by the County Code, and a new determination be made within a specified time period. J 925;74791.2 000091 ATTACHMENT I SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION PROCESS CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Applicant Appeal 1925:74791.2 Pre-Application Meeting Determine if Project is Consistent With Comprehensive Plan Application Determined Complete Staff Recommendation/Comprehensive Plan "Consistent~' List Prepared and Sent to CPC BOS Notified of Decision Site Plan Review (Conditions Enforced) Project Approved for Construction BOS Consideration 1) Applicant Appeal 2) Overrule Action 3) Refer to Planning Commission for Additional public hearing 000092 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19wo5, 19-6, 19-24, 19-25 and 19-301 OF TIIE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINA nONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-5, 19-6, 19-24~ 19-25 and 19-301 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: See. 19.5~ Enforcement. (a) (1) General Enforcement Duties of Director of Planning~ 000 (2) Enforcement of conditions. The director of planning shall administer and enforce conditions attached to zoning approvals; and development approvals 8ftd subst8fttial aeeord approv"als for \\'hieh a public hearing does not aeour and he shall have the authority to: issue a written order to remedy any noncompliance with a condition; bring legal action, including injunction, abatement or other appropriate action, to insure compliance with such conditions; and require a guarantee, in a form satisfactory to the county attorney, and in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of any physical improvements required by the condition, or a contract for the construction of such improvements and the contractor's guarantee, in like . amount and so conditioned~ which guarantee shall be reduced or released by the county) upon the submission of satisfactory evidence that construction of such improvements has been completed in whole or in part. Failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required occupancy or building permits. (b) Penalties for violation;. right of entry. (1) Any person who violates this chapter or fails to comply with any conditions of zoning and development approvals and substantial aeeord appro'vals for vihieh B. publie hearing does not eeeur, other than those provisions set forth in section 19...6, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $10.00 and not more than $1,000.00. 000 (5) If the director of planning determines that any person has violated this chapter or failed to comply with any condition of a zoning or development approval or of a substantial aC00rd appro.,w fer 'Wl.1"hich a public hearing does not oocur, then he shall serve upon that person a notice to comply by either: 1925:73426.1 Rev'd 6/4/07 @ 12: 10 p~m~ 1 000093 , ! a. Delivering the notice to the person by hand; or b. Mailing the notice by first class mail to the last known address of the person. The notice shall set forth the nature of the violation or failure to comply. Upon failure of the person to remedy the violation, comply with'the condition or receive an extension within ten days after the date of delivery or mailing of the notice, the person shall be subject Ito the penalties set forth above. With respect to violations or failures to comply involving portable signs or the parking or display of motor vehicles, the person shall remedy the violation or comply with the condition within 24 hours of service of the notice or receive an extension, or the person shall be subject to the penalties above. See. 19-6. Civil penalties for certain violations. (a) Any violation of the following provisions shall be punishable by a civil penalty of not more than $100.00 for the initial sununons and not more than $250.00 for each additional summons: (1) Operation of a business that is not a home:occupation, on a lot or parcel inside or outside of a dwelling unit or accessory building, in any R, R... TH~ R-MF or A district, without a special exception or conditional use. (2) Violation of any condition of zoning and development approvals and substantial accord approvals for 'IC.vhieh a p1:lblie hearing does not oeeur that relates to the hours of operation of the use of land or that relates to reduction or control of noise from the use of land. 000 Sec. 19-24. Applications. (a) (1) Any application for zoning approval (except suesmntiaJ. accord), or modification to development standards or requirements, may be initiated by resolution of the board of supervisors; by motion of the planning commission; or by petition of the property owner, contract purchaser with the property owner's written consent, or the property owner's agent, with the property owner's \\litten consent An application for substantial accord of a Countv facility may also be initiated by the Director of any Countv Department or County Office and by School Board administration with the approval of the School Board. 000 (c) Each application shall have attached a list of names and addresses of all persons owning any adjacent property to include property across any street, road, railroad right-of-way, body of water or political boundary. In addition, if the property is 1925:73426.1 Rev'd 6/4/07 @ 12:10 p.m. 2 000094 situated at or 'Within 100 feet of the intersection of any two or more roads or highways or within 100 feet of the intersection of the right-of~way of any two railroads, the names I and addresses of all property owners situated at all comers of the intersection shall be furnished. The information shall be obtained from the assessors records~ (d) Any applicant" other than one seeking to modify development standards or requirements, shall furnish the follomng information: (1) A list of the names and addresses of all persons owning any legal or equitable interest in the real property which is the subject of the application or petition as a title owner, lessee, easement owner, contract purchaser, assignee, optionee, licensee or noteholder, including trustees, beneficiaries of trusts, general partners, limited partners and all other natural or artificial persons o'Nning any such interest; however~ the names and addresses of governmental entities and public service companies owning recorded easements over the subject property need not be disclosed~ (2) If any of the persons disclosed under section 19-24( d)(l) is a corporation, then the application shall also list the names and addresses of any shareholders who own ten percent or more of any class of stock issued by such corporation and, if such corporation has ten or fewer shareholders, a list of the names and addresses of all the shareholders~ If any of the persons disclosed under section 19-24(d)(1) is a partnershjp~ joint venture, trust or other artificial person other than a corporation, then the application shall also list the names and addresses of any persons having any interest therein equal to ten percent or more of the total of all such interests and, if ten or fewer persons own all such interests, a list of the names and addresses of all such persons. For any corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other artificial person whose owners are unknown to the applicant and whose identities cannot be ascertained by the exercise of due diligence and for any corporation that has more than 100 shareholders or whose stock is regularly traded on a stock exchange or in the over the counter market, the applicant may so certify in lieu of providing a list of its stockholders or other persons having an interest therein. 000 Sec. 19-25. Fees. The following fees~ which include the costs of hearings, advertisements and notices when required, shall be deposited simultaneously with the filing of the application: 000 (k) Substantial accord determinations: (1) Existing zoning R; R...TH, R...MF~ MH or A classificatioffi...3~100.00 1925: 73426.1 Rev'd 614/07 @ 12: 10 p.m. 3 000095 a. Plar~ing commission hearing. . " 3 t 100.00 b. t\.dministrativc determination ~ ~ ~ ~5Q.OO (2) Existing zoning 0, I or C classification;. 1 'k540..00 Q. Plar~iing commissiea hear.J1g . ~ ~ 1,540,,{)O b. .L^~dministmti'l/e aetermination . . . 240.00 000 See. 19..301. Def'mition5. For the purposes of this chapter~ the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 000 Substantial accorda. A detennination pursuant to Va. Code &15a2-2232" the County's Charter and the County's Substantial Accord Policy that certain proposed public features.. uses areas~ structures and facilities are substantially in accord with the County's Comprehensive Plan" Zoning approval: Includes conditional use, conditional use planned development, conditional zoning, variance, special exception, substantial accord for "Nhieh a publie hearing eeetifS, mobile home permit and rezoning approvals. (2) That these ordinances shall become effective immediately upon adoption. ]925:73426.1 Rev'd 6/4/07 @ 12: 10 p.m4 4 000096 Your Cummunity Newspaper Since /995 P.O. Box 1616. Midlothian, Virginia 23113 . Phone: (804) 545-7500. Fax: (804) 744-3269 . Email: news@cheslerlieldohscrver.com' Intemct www.chcstcrficldobservcr.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors PUBLIC NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, VIrginia, at a regular scheduled meeting on October 10, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Rt.1O and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold a public hearing where persons affected may appear and present their views to consider: An Ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield. 1997, as amended, by amending and re-enacting Sections 19- 5, 19-6, 19-24, 19-25 and 19-301 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Substantial Accord Determinations. This amendment will require a public hearing for substantial accord determinations. After the public hearing, appropriate changes or corrections may be made to the proposed amendments. A copy of the ordinance is on file in the County Administrator's Office and the Clerk to the Board's Office (Room 5(4) at the Chesterfield County Administration Building, Chesterfield, VIrginia, for fublic examination between the hours 0 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.rn. If further information is needed, please contact the Ms. Beverly Rogers at 748-1048 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facilitv or need for reasonable accommodations should contact Lisa Elko, Clerk to the board, at 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify the Clerk to the Board no later than Friday, October 5, 2007. Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Substantial Accord $188.65 1 co1 x 5" The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 9/26/2007 & 10/03/2007 Sworn to and subscribed before me this Lf +-h day of OGtD~v' ,2007. t1eil~t; Joann My commission expires: November 30, 2010 Commission LD. 7040138 (~~AL ) f\"~\\"'l~; ~\\\\ to.. /., ""+ 1.", ~\ tII..\.'" i.,:.- ...(... .:1" ,\:" ~... .......... ~ ~'" f .~...:\.~NW~.... ro\ $ a l.J;;1' ~ .. 0 ~ ':"';):Q" ,).~ ~ ! : t> oJ! ::c. : ........ i . : : : ~ .. .'" ~ ". V s"~\~... f'., . ~ ." ".... ,..... .......... O)-A~y..~.~~v ""'1 ..'~' "",,,,,,,,,,, THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. U~ , ~., ,I , II , " -~N.rJ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10,2007 Item Number: 15.0. Subiect: Public Hearing to Consider the Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment and Companion Ordinance Amendments County Administrator's Comments: CYJ V Board Action Reauested: County Administrator: Staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment and companion ordinance amendments. Summary of Information: At a Board of Supervisors meeting on August 22, 2007, the Board deferred the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment and companion ordinance amendments to October 10, 2007. Preparer: Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Plannina Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000097 Chesterfield County, Virginia Melnoranduln DATE: OCTOBER 1,2007 TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: KIRKLAND A. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SUBJECT: UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS In anticipation of your October 10, 2007, public hearing, please find attached the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment and supporting documents, together with the associated ordinance amendments. Specifically, attached are the following: . The Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment, together with supporting documentation regarding the land use, transportation and water quality recommendations of the Plan amendment. Some of the background information is briefly summarized in the draft Plan document under the heading: 'Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations'. . Amendments to the Subdivision and Utility Ordinances requiring mandatory water and wastewater connections for areas of the Plan geography suggested for uses other than deferred growth. These amendments are similar to those previously adopted for other areas of the county and would implement Land Use Goal 1, Recommendation C of the proposed plan amendment. . Amendments to the Subdivision and Utility Ordinances prohibiting water and wastewater connections with the deferred growth area. These amendments would implement Land Use Goal I, Recommendation B of the proposed plan amendment. . Amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances increasing buffers along arterial roads for residentially zoned properties within the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment geography, from fifty (50) feet to 200 feet. These amendments would implement Land Use Goal 4, Recommendation B of the proposed plan amendment. . Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reduce phosphorous loading for development withing the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Vested developments would not be affected. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jimmy Bowling by phone at 748-1086, or by email at bowlingi~chesterfield.gov. 1 OOOOt?b Blank page 2 000099 Chesterfield County, Virginia Memorandum DATE: AUGUST 10,2007 TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: KIRKLAND A. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SUBJECT: UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDA TIONS On July 25, 2007, you set a public hearing for August 22, 2007, to consider the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment and associated ordinance amendments. In anticipation of your August public hearing, the following summary of the Planning Commission's recommendations is provided. The Planning Commission, at a public hearing on July 19, 2007, made the following recommendations. Planning: Commission recommendations - Unner Swift Creek Plan amendment The Commission recommended the following amendments to the Plan (see detailed language on pages 2 and 3): . Amendment to the Plan to provide level of service standards for roads . Amendment to the Plan to provide level of service standards for public schools. . Amendment to the Plan relative to the Plan amendment to allow additional commercial uses for properties located on the south side of Route 360, between Route 288 and Winterpock Road between the AT&T Easement and Route 360, provided there is a buffer between commercial and residential uses The Planning Commission then recommended denial of the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment. 3 000100 Plannin!! Commission recommendations - associated ordinance amendments The Commission recommended the following: . Approval of amendments to the Subdivision and Utility Ordinances requiring mandatory water and wastewater connections for areas of the Plan geography suggested for uses other than deferred growth. . No recommendation on amendments to the Subdivision and Utility Ordinances prohibiting water and wastewater connections with the deferred growth area. . Denial of amendments the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances increasing buffers along arterial roads for residentially zoned properties. . Denial of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to water quality. Detailed Language Following is the language of the Planning Commission's recommended amendments to the Plan: Transportation -Recommendation A (page 11) All rezoning applications are expected to pass a test for Adequate Road Facilities. A proposed rezoning does not pass the test for Adequate Road Facilities if the nearest major road and/or existing signalized intersection that will carry the majority of the traffic expected to be generated by the future development on the property proposed to be rezoned will have a Level of Service ("LOS") of"E" or "F". The LOS shall be determined by the Chesterfield Department of Transportation or designee based on current traffic studies and other reliable traffic data. Further, a proposed rezoning will pass the test for Adequate Road Facilities only if roads to be impacted by the proposed development have adequate shoulders, or where roads with inadequate shoulders are carrying, or are projected to carry, less than 4,000 vehicles per day. Goals and Recommendation - Schools (Insert on page 22 after Water Quality Recommendations) School Goal: Provide adequate facilities to relieve overcrowding and to respond to new growth. Recommendation - a. All residential rezoning applications are expected to pass the test for Adequate School Facilities. A proposed residential rezoning will pass the test for Adequate School Facilities if all public elementary, middle and high schools that would serve the future development on the property proposed for residential rezoning currently have adequate capacity to accommodate additional students to be generated by the proposed rezoning. Schools shall be responsible for determining 1) the current enrollment for each school; 2) the capacity of each school; and 3) the anticipated impact of the proposed development based on the maximum number and type of residential dwelling units or lots, including proffers for limited or delayed development. 4 000101. b. If any of the applicable public schools which would serve the future residential development on the subject property exceed 120% of capacity at the time of the review of the subject rezoning request, the proposed rezoning does not pass the test for Adequate School Facilities. In addition, the proposed rezoning will not pass the test for Adequate School Facilities if the anticipated enrollment at any school to serve the subject rezoning will exceed 1200/0 of capacity upon the development of 1) the property proposed for rezoning; and 2) all unimproved residential lots in the service area shown on approved preliminary site plans, preliminary subdivision plans and construction plans. c. When the capacity of any public school in the service area is determined to exceed 120% under the conditions described above, and where such school is expected to be improved to less than 120% of capacity within one year of the date that the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider the subject rezoning request, the residential rezoning will pass the test for Adequate School Facilities. Land Use Plan map: On the south side of Route 360 (between Route 288 and Winterpock Road) Commercial uses including neighborhood convenience, retail, restaurant and personal service uses are appropriate for properties between the AT&T easement and Route 360 provided there is a buffer between the Commercial and Residential uses. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jimmy Bowling by phone at 748-1086, or by email at bowlingi@chesterfield.gov. 5 000102 Blank page 6 000:103 Upper Swift Creek Plan (Proposed) A proposed amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan, first adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on February 13, 1991. Status of This Proposed Amendment Version: Proposed plan amendment recommended by Planning, Transportation and Environmental Engineering Department staff as of April 3, 2007. This is a proposed amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan, first adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on February 13, 1991, then amended by the Board on March 15, 2000. The supporting documents referenced in this plan are not part of the plan and will not be published in the Plan for Chesterfield, but will be available through other sources. For more information on the status of the proposed Upper Swift Creek Plan, see the Planning Department website at www.chesterfield.Qov/plan or contact project manager Jim Bowling at Bowlinai@chesterfield.aov or 804/748-1086. Note: This section will be removed from the plan upon adoption Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations . Balanced, Orderly Growth: The proposed Upper Swift Creek Plan balances the demand for residential, commercial and industrial growth in the Upper Swift Creek watershed with a recommended orderly development pattern based on three important concepts: a deferred growth area in the northwestern part of the planning area, mandatory utilities extension ordinances for development outside the "deferred growth" area, and a prohibition on extending utilities into the deferred growth area. . Economic Development: The proposed Upper Swift Creek Plan encourages economic development by recommending that many areas along Hull Street Road and around interchanges be reserved primarily for employment and other revenue generating uses. . Residential Development Potential: Analysis undertaken in the development of this plan identified 16,186 dwellings in the planning area as of December 31, 2006, and projected that about 15,256 additional dwellings could be built on vacant land already zoned for development as of that date. This same analysis projected total residential build out for the planning area at about 51 ,094 dwellings under the 1991 Upper Swift Creek Plan, and about 43)434 dwellings under this new plan (not including any subsequent development in the recommended deferred growth areal other than the suggested development recommended by this plan). . Unzoned Land Recommended For Residential Development: Under this new plan, only about 11 percent (4,956 acres) of the total parcel acreage within the Upper Swift 7 000104 Creek watershed remains vacant and agriculturally zoned, but recommended for development. . Deferred Growth: This area, which totals about 4,900 acres, is recommended for primarily very low-density (non-subdivision) uses, with other types of development deferred until the plan is amended through a subsequent review. . Water Quality: The plan recommends future land uses and initiatives that, combined with established and planned best management practices, are projected to result in Swift Creek Reservoir phosphorous levels not exceeding the established 0.05 milligrams per liter standard. . Transportation: This plan identifies transportation needs and recommends modifications to the county's Thoroughfare Plan. . Forested Views: This plan promotes protection of scenic resources by recommending consideration of ordinance amendments to increase buffering along arterial roads. . Mandatory Utilities Extension: The plan recommends that the utilities extension policy recommended by the 1991 Upper Swift Creek Plan be made mandatory through the adoption of county ordinances to require water and wastewater system connections for most types of development. I. Introduction In April of 2003, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors asked County staff to undertake a review of the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan in response to concerns regarding the impact of growth on infrastructure, water resources, and the environment. In particular, development trends within the planning area generated interest in reviewing recommendations of the plan, first adopted in 1991. The Upper Swift Creek Plan is a tool that the county can use to shape the pace and pattern of development within the plan geography over time. Other tools are needed to address present, or near-term, growth issues. The plan also implements, updates, and refines selected recommendations of the 1991 plan based on what the county has learned and the area has experienced since that plan's adoption. The 1991 Upper Swift Creek Plan had as its goals: 1. Maintenance of Swift Creek Reservoir's water quality. 2. Balance between residential and commercial growth. 3. Conservation of environmental and aesthetic resources. 4. Variety of housing types and opportunities. 5. Provision of high quality, yet efficient public facilities. 6. Phased growth 7. Access to both active and passive recreational opportunities. The 1991 plan pursued these goals with recommendations for land useJ phasing of development and public facilities. The county has subsequently implemented many of these goals through ordinance (such as the Historic Districts, Landmarks and Landmark Sites Ordinance, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas Ordinance, and the Upper Swift Creek 8 000105 Watershed Ordinance), through amendments to other elements of the comprehensive plan (such as the Water Quality Plan and the Public Facilities Plan) and by using the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan as a guide in the zoning process. The Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment, as outlined herein, continues and expands upon this work. Planning Area Boundaries The Upper Swift Creek Plan includes most of the geography of the 1991 Upper Swift Creek Plan. That small portion of the 1991 plan physically separated from the planning area by the 1998 Route 288 Corridor Plan is not included in the geography of this plan, but is included in the pending Robious Area Plan. The planning area includes most of the Upper Swift Creek watershed located within the jurisdiction of Chesterfield County. Magisterial Districts The Upper Swift Creek Plan geography lies within the Matoaca Magisterial District (about 82 percent of the planning area geography), the Clover Hill Magisterial District (about 14 percent of the planning area geography), and the Midlothian Magisterial District (about four percent of the planning area geography). How this Plan Works Chesterfield County's comprehensive plan, The Plan For Chestet1ield, is used by citizens, staff, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as a guide for decisions affecting the county, including, but not limited to, those regarding future land use, transportation networks and zoning actions. However, the Upper Swift Creek Plan represents only one part of the county's comprehensive plan. It is one of about twenty area, corridor and village plans, each of which focuses on managing and directing the future pattern of development within a specific geography of the county, taking into account the unique development pattern and development history of the area. As any plan geography is but one part of the larger community of Chesterfield County, the needs of a specific area must be considered within the context of the needs of the county as a whole. Other components of The Plan For Chestetfield are countywide plans, which address issues and needs on a countywide basis. These include: the Thoroughfare Plan, the Water Quality Protection Plan, the Public Facilities Plan, the Bikeway Plan and the Riverfront Plan. Some of these plans, such as the Public Facilities Plan, require a countywide review process to determine how limited county resources should be distributed. 9 000:106 Background Analysis The Planning Department, in conjunction with other county departments, assessed existing conditions and development trends within the planning area. The results were summarized and shared with public officials and interested citizens throughout early phases of the plan development process. The following assessments and analyses serve as the basis for the Goals and Recommendations of this plan, and are available for review as supporting documents, A through I. . Supporting Document A - Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment: Existing Conditions and Issues . Supporting Document B - Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment: Land Use Analysis - Residential, Office, Commercial and Industrial . Supporting Document C - Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment: Transportation Options . Supporting Document D - Technical Memorandum: Upper Swift Creek Plan Total Phosphorus Loading Analysis for Planned Land Use Scenarios . Supporting Document E - Existing Conditions, Environmental Inventory . Supporting Document F - Assessment of Biology, Habitat and Chemistry of Streams in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed, Chesterfield County, Virginia. . Supporting Document G - Upper Swift Creek Watershed - Riparian Buffer Analysis . Supporting Document H - Technical Memorandum: Construction Site Sediment and Total Phosphorus Loading . Supporting Document I - Education and Outreach Program Citizen Participation Planning Department staff, together with representatives of other county departments, met with area residents, community groups, property owners and businesspersons throughout the winter, spring, and summer of 2004 to discuss amending the 1991 Upper Swift Creek Plan. These meetings included: an education component on the comprehensive plan and its relationship to zoning, land development, and existing and future land use patterns; opportunities for citizens to share their concerns about existing development conditions and their desires for the future of their community; and opportunities for county staff to explain the limitations and opportunities, inherent in the plan amendment process, to address citizen concerns and desires. II. A Plan for Action The Upper Swift Creek Plan will help guide future development in ways that balance the interests of Chesterfield County's current and future residents, landowners, businesses and development community. Specifically, the Code of Virginia defines the primary purpose of the comprehensive plan as follows: To guide and accomplish a "coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development" of county lands "which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare" of county citizens. The Upper Swift Creek Plan makes no attempt to determine the current or short-term marketability of anyone parcel for anyone use. Rather, it attempts to anticipate future needs for broad categories of 10 000107 uses throughout the planning area for the next twenty years. In addition, the Upper Swift Creek Plan does not rezone land, but serves as a guide for making decisions relative to future rezoning applications. Finally, the plan attempts to suggest the proper relationship of land uses to one another and to the wider community. Market forces (availability and price of land, location, character and age of competing businesses, site specific characteristics such as topography and visibility from roads, accessibility to roads, area demographics, etc.) will determine the desirability of a specific use on one parcel over another) as well as the timing for developing such use, based on the principle of 'highest and best use'. The zoning process will determine the appropriateness of such use on a case-by-case basis by applying principals of desirable land use development patterns and adequacy of public facilities embodied in the comprehensive plan. The Upper Swift Creek Plan does seek to promote a balance between residential, commercial and industrial growth. Such balance contributes to the area's long-term economic strength, to revenue generation, and to fostering a greater sense of community by recommending future land uses that encourage housing, services, and employment, which can interrelate to create a sense of place. To these ends, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have incorporated into Land Use Plan amendments guidelines that promote development patterns, which facilitate the orderly, harmonious, predictable and efficient use of the 446.5 square miles of land and water within its boundaries. These guidelines, as they apply to specific plan areas of the county, are embodied in the goals and recommendations of adopted plan amendments. Goals and Recommendations - land Use land Use Goal 1: Promote orderly development patterns. The foundation of The Plan for Chesterfield is orderly development as an overall approach to managing the county's future growth. Orderly development means that future growth should be directed into appropriate locations within existing, developed areas with fringe development being an orderly extension beyond current developed areas. The Plan for Chesterfield strives to manage growth by fostering an orderly and generally predictable pattern of development and promoting a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of publiC facilities and services to serve existing and future development. Recommendations A. Deferred Growth: Adopt the Deferred Growth area shown on the land use plan map for the western portion of the Upper Swift Creek Plan geography. Public water and wastewater should not be extended into this area until the plan is amended through a subsequent review. Providing a Deferred Growth area in the western portion of the plan geography will promote orderly development by discouraging leapfrog or sprawl development and promote efficient delivery of infrastructure to support growth. Activities within the Deferred Growth area should be limited primarily to agricultural and forestall uses with single-family residences permitted along existing area roads on large 11 UtJ4J1 08 parcels. Other types of development should be deferred until the plan is amended through a subsequent review. The Deferred Growth area would discourage a leapfrog development pattern, with new subdivisions interspersed with undeveloped land. This pattern of development could overburden other public facilities, such as roads and schools, and adversely impact ground and surface water quality in the area for those area residents dependent on wells and septic systems. Adopting the Deferred Growth area in the western portion of the plan geography will reinforce current practices to promote orderly development and efficient delivery of infrastructure to support growth. B. Delay Utility Extensions: Adopt ordinance amendments designed to prohibit expansion of the public water and wastewater systems for uses within the deferred growth area until the plan is amended through a subsequent review. Development within the deferred growth area should be delayed until the plan is amended through a subsequent review. Prohibiting public water and wastewater extensions within the deferred growth area would be one means of ensuring that development is limited primarily to agricultural and forestall uses, with single-family residences permitted along existing area roads on large parcels, until such time that the status of the deferred growth area is reviewed through a subsequent plan amendment. C. Subdivision and Utilities Ordinances: Adopt ordinance amendments to require mandatory connection to the public water and wastewater systems for most types of development Use of the public water and wastewater systems will allow a flexibility of development that would not otherwise be possible. This flexibility could include residential development of a wider range of densities and configurations than would be possible without public water and sewer, as well as some control over the timing of development as new residential projects would have to wait for water and sewer extensions. Use of water and wastewater is currently negotiated through the zoning process. Amending the utilities and subdivision ordinances to require mandatory use of water and wastewater would eliminate the need for such negotiations. In addition, extensions of water and wastewater services would continue to be used as a tool to phase, direct, and/or pace development. land Use Goal 2: Promote economic development opporlunities. The Plan for Chesterfield encourages the designation of key locations for economic development. Once area major arterial roads are built or committed for construction, the areas suggested in the Upper Swift Creek Plan for Regional Mixed Use and Regional Employment Center uses will have access to markets. Vacant land in these areas, as well as improved properties with potential for redevelopment, should be reserved for employment generating uses. Commercial development serving these uses and larger markets would also be appropriate near the interchanges. New residential development, as well as piecemeal, strip commercial development should be discouraged in these areas. 12 OOOj..09 Recommendation A. Employment Generating Uses: Use the plan to discourage residential and retail commercial development from locations the plan recommends for employment generating uses. Retail and selVice uses that serve primarily surrounding employment center uses may be appropriate when part of a larger industrial and/or office development. The scale and mix of such retail and service uses should be proportionate to the needs of the primary employment center uses and should not be built until the employment center uses have developed to a density sufficient to support such retail and service uses, without such retail and selVice uses having to rely on larger markets for financial success. Employment generating uses produce tax revenues, which defray the costs of providing services to county residents. In addition, such uses provide residents with jobs both within the county and close to home, thereby reducing commuting distances, travel time, air and water pollution and travel expenses. This, in turn, enhances the quality of life for working citizens and their families. Generally, residential and retail commercial development in proximity to interchanges, together with potential pressure for additional non-employment development in other parts of the planning area may, if not properly evaluated, limit opportunities for development of employment generating uses. However, opportunities will arise over time for development of new employment generating uses in areas where adequate access and mitigating road improvements can be provided. Commercial nodes that support employment generating uses could be incorporated into the design of larger projects, further contributing convenience and to reducing travel distances. This strategy may require that pressure to develop in some locations, for uses other than employment generating uses, be discouraged until market conditions become conducive to employment development. However, such delay will benefit the community in the future by promoting, over time, a better-balanced development pattern. land Use Goal 3: Promote a greater variety of residential types. The Plan for Chesterfield encourages provision for a variety of residential areas, thereby allowing residents a choice of neighborhood and living environments. Recommendation A. Residential Amendments Project: As pari of the Planning Department's on-going Residential Development Amendments project, consider various clustering, con selVa tionlsub division, traditional neighborhood design, and rural residential subdivision options as possible new Zoning Ordinance residential categories. The Planning Department has embarked on a project to update the residential portion of the county's zoning ordinance. Considering additional development options as part of the Residential Development Amendments project will offer opportunities to develop neighborhoods of unique character and sensitivity to the environment, while allowing residential development to occur at densities suggested by the comprehensive plan. Some of these new residential types could include standards de~igned to better 13 0001.10 preserve some of the existing natural and forested character of many properties as future residential zoning and subsequent development occurs. Options to achieve this goal could include, but should not limited to, various clustering and conservation/subdivision configurations, increased setbacks and buffering along area roads to encourage preservation of forested views along roads, and connectivity between natural areas, between natural areas and neighborhoods, and between neighborhoods. The existing forested landscape, stream valleys and natural areas of much of the planning area have scenic and passive recreational value which many residents and visitors find attractive. Opportunities exist to preserve the existing visual appeal of forested areas within the planning area, and to provide connectivity between natural areas and neighborhoods, as new development occurs. In addition, opportunities exist to create a greater variety of housing types and lifestyle choices for county citizens. B. Residential compatibility: Continue to use the zoning process to encourage new residential subdivisions with sole access through an existing or planned subdivision to meet or exceed the average lot size of, and have a density equal to or less than, the existing subdivision. The Plan for Chesterfield encourages actions that stabilize and improve the health of existing neighborhoods in order to forestall decline and blight and contribute to the overall health of the larger community. Residential developments of varying densities and lot sizes encourage variety in residential areas and offer County citizens a choice of neighborhoods, living environments and lifestyles. New subdivisions developing within the study area increase the availability of housing in this part of the county. However, such residential development should be designed to protect existing neighborhoods and enhance the larger community. land Use Goal 4: Preserve, protect and promote identified historic, scenic and natural resources. The Plan For Chesterfield encourages the preservation of historic, scenic and natural resources. Recommendations A. Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures: Encourage the preservation of historic structures and sites by allowing adaptive reuse that is compatible with existing and anticipated area development. Specifically, historic structures may be appropriate for office or light commercial uses if the property owner retains the structure, is willing to have it designated as a Chesterfield County historic landmark, and mitigates impacts of commercial use on surrounding properties. However, such designations should be exclusive of properly required for future infrastructure improvements, such as road rights-of-way. Many sites within the planning area have historic significance. These include 19th and early 20th century homes and structures. The Plan For Chesterfield encourages the identification and preservation of lands, sites and structures that have historic 14 000111. significance. Protection of such structures and sites through adaptive reuse otters opportunities for preserving, presenting and interpreting the county's historic heritage. The 1991 Upper Swift Creek Plan identified 21 historic sites and structures for consideration for preservation. Since then, five of these resources have been lost, and others are degraded and could be impacted by development. However, a number of 19th and early 20th century structures (homes, churches, stores, etc~) remain, providing opportunities to preserve a sense of continuity for the community and contributing to the area's distinct sense of history and place. B. Forested Views: Adopt ordinance amendments to increase buffering along arterial roads in order to ensure that new residential developments along forested corridors preserve existing forested vistas adjacent to, but outside the ultimate rights of way of, area roads. The 1991 Upper Swift Creek Plan suggested that development throughout the area should preserve existing natural settings and vistas. It further suggested that the natural forested corridor along Genito Road, west of Swift Creek Reservoir, should be maintained with special design standards and with deep, densely wooded buffers. An ordinance amendment would better promote this recommendation as development occurs. As the county continues to grow and develop, the forested character of some areas in the county, including much of the planning area, will be impacted by anticipated changes in land use patterns. However, by continuing the work begun with the 1991 Plan, opportunities exist to ensure that the existing forested vistas, as viewed from area roads, are preserved. c. Conservation/recreation corridors: Use the plan to identify conservation! recreation corridors. The planning area has several stream valleys with significant, undeveloped RPAs, much of which is currently protected from intense development by the county ordinances, as well as by state and federal regulations. These regulations are designed to preserve environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, wildlife habitat and floodplains, as well as to preserve mature trees and native vegetation. In addition, such corridors provide visual and distance separation between residential and non-residential development, as well as provide area residents and the employees of area businesses with opportunities for exercise, recreation, relaxation and education. Some Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and other environmentally sensitive areas are already zoned and/or developed for residential and commercial uses. However, many others are relatively undeveloped and may provide opportunities for open space preservation and recreational activities through various cooperative public/private efforts. land Use Goal 5: Encourage land use transitions. The Plan for Chestetfield encourages land use transitions between less intense uses, such as residential neighborhoods, and more intense uses, such as commercial and higher intensity 15 0001~ 1~a.. regional and employment generating uses, as a means of promoting orderly development patterns that are designed to protect neighborhoods. Recommendation A. Land Use Transitions: Use the plan to suggest land use transitions, including higher density residential and office uses, between lower density residential development and commercial and higher intensity employment generating uses. A hierarchy of land uses, from more-to-Iess intense uses, provides the best protection to residential neighborhoods. Other protections (buffers, orientation of uses, and design standards which reduce nuisances such as noise, and light, etc.) are supplemental mitigation to the primary protection provided by physical separation between incompatible uses. Therefore, transitional uses contribute to the overall appearance and livability of the community. Portions of the existing land use pattern within the planning area, particularly along Route 360, are characterized by residential areas adjacent to older commercial strip zoning and land uses. In some instances, these residential areas do not have the benefit of buffers or other mitigating design features to lessen the impact of adjacent, commercial activity. However, in many places, encouraging greater depths of non- residential zoning can afford opportunities to provide land use transitions between more intense uses and residential neighborhoods. In other places, where such depth is not available, developers may be able to work with nearby residents to incorporate design features that mitigate potential adverse impacts on nearby neighborhoods. 16 000:1:13 Goals and Recommendations - Transportation The automobile is and, for the foreseeable future will remain, the predominant mode of transportation in the Upper Swift Creek Plan area and in the county as a whole. Most roads in the Upper Swift Creek Plan area are substandard, and will have to be improved to accommodate even minor increases in traffic resulting both from development within the county and in the surrounding regions. The county's Thoroughfare Plan identifies the future road network needed to accommodate future traffic volumes. It has been the county's policy for development to construct planned roads (other than freeways) to help mitigate their traffic impacts. State funding has been used to improve existing roads. Funding from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has been inadequate to address existing needs, and the prospects for additional state funding are uncertain at best. Alternate funding sources continue to be investigated to address the shortfall between needs and funding. Transportation Goal: Provide a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation system. The county's Thoroughfare Plan, which was originally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1989, identifies right-of-way classifications of existing roads, and right-of-way classifications and general alignments of future roads. As development occurs in the Upper Swift Creek Plan area, in other areas of the county, and in the region, road improvements will be needed in this area to accommodate increasing traffic volumes and reduce congestion. Recommendations A. Thoroughfare Plan Modifications: Approve modifications to the adopted Thoroughfare Plan as shown on the map in Supporting Document C: 1. Increasing the recommended right-of-way width on the proposed North/South Major Arterial ("Woolridge Road Extended") between Route 288 and the proposed East/West Major Arterial just south of Powhite Parkway Extended from 90 feet to 120 feet. A six-lane road will be needed to accommodate future traffic volumes on Woolridge Road. The additional right-of-way is needed to accommodate the six lane road; 2. Increasing the recommended right-of-way width on the proposed East/West Major Arterial north of Hull Street Road, connecting Otterdale Road and a large planned development (Magnolia Green), from 70 feet to 90 feet. This wider right-af-way will better accommodate traffic generated by the proposed land uses in this area; 3. Decreasing the recommended right-of-way width of Watermill Parkway from 90 feet to 70 feet. A grade-separation of this roadway is planned at the future Powhite Parkway Extension. With the construction of Woolridge Road Extended, the existing two-lane road will be adequate to accommodate the projected traffic volumes; 4. Deleting the proposed interchange on Route 288 south of the Genito Road overpass, and the East/West Major Arterial connecting the interchange to Old Hundred Road to the west, and to Warbro Road to the east. The interchange was originally planned to help promote economic development. However, the land uses being developed around the proposed 17 0001_1.4. interchange are lower in density than were anticipated, and the interchange is no longer needed; 5. Deleting Hensley Road between Spring Run Road and Springford Parkway. This section of Hensley Road has been constructed into a cul-de-sac at its western end as part of a recent development project; 6. Deleting the proposed East/West Collector connecting Otterdale Road with Fox Club Parkway. As a result of a recent zoning case, this proposed Collector will not connect with Fox Club Parkway; 7. Deleting the proposed East/West Major Arterial connecting Winterpock Road to Spring Run Road just south of Hull Street Road, and replacing it by adding McEnnally Road between Winterpock Road and Spring Run Road as a 90 foot Major Arterial. This change is the result of approved zoning cases; 8. Deleting the proposed North/South Major Arterial that extends west from Otterdale Road north of Genito Road, crosses Powhite Parkway Extended, and connects to the proposed East/West Major Arterial. This change is the result of approved zoning cases, and is recommended due to topography and existing development; 9. Realigning the western section of the proposed East/West Major Arterial that currently aligns with Lacy Farm Road to the north, closer to the Norfolk Southern railroad line. The realignment is being considered in conjunction with a proposed zoning, and at the request of the developer and residents along Lacy Farm Road; 10. Realigning Powhite Parkway Extended and the proposed interchange in the Genito Road area. The realignment was requested by residents in this area (see Supporting Document C - Map: Realignment of Powhite Parkway Extended and Genito Road Proposed Interchange); 11. Realigning the intersection of the eastern end of Mount Hermon Road with the proposed North/South Major Arterial. The existing intersection is adjacent to the Norfolk Southern railroad crossing. Greater separation will better accommodate increased traffic volumes as the area develops; 12. Realigning the East/West Major Arterial connecting Otterdale Road Extended with Winterpock Road further to the north, and deleting the southern section of the North/South Arterial connecting this road with Beach Road. This change is the result of a zoning case in this area; 13. Realigning Mount Hermon Road north of Genito Road, and Mount Hermon Road Extended south of Genito Road. This realignment is necessary due to the location of a Church on the south side of Genito Road, and is consistent with the development of Horner Park; 14. Changes in the road network based on Magnolia Green development that include: 1) adding a proposed 70-foot North/South Collector connecting Duval Road west of Otterdale Road with the proposed East/West Arterial to the north; 2) shifting the alignment of the proposed Powhite Parkway; 3) relocating the proposed interchange on Duval Road to the proposed east/west major arterial; and 4) realigning other planned roads within Magnolia Green. These roads are shown on the Magnolia Green Master Plan; 18 0001-1.~ 15. Adding Ledo Road as a 70 foot Collector~ This change is recommended due to the proposed land use in this area; and, 16. Providing cul-de-sacs on Otterdale Road at the Powhite Parkway Extension. This section of Otterdale Road has very poor alignment and no shoulders. The cost to reconstruct the road would be excessive. The proposed EasVWest Major Arterial and Woolridge Road Extended, which will be constructed in conjunction with new development, will better accommodate increasing traffic volumes. B. Development Conforming To Thoroughfare Plan: Continue zoning and development review practices to encourage development proposals to conform to the Thoroughfare Plan with respect to the construction of road improvements and the dedication of right-of-way. c. Mitigation of Traffic Impacts: Continue zoning and development review practices to encourage development proposals to include mitigation of their traffic impacts by providing road improvements and controlling the number of direct accesses to major arterial and collector roads~ D. Bikeway Plan: As improvements are provided on roads identified in the county's Bikeway Plan, continue to consider incorporating bicycle facilities. Staff has evaluated the ability of the current Thoroughfare Plan, when fully in place, to accommodate the traffic generated by total build-out of the county. From a road capacity standpoint, the Thoroughfare Plan network, when completed, will adequately accommodate build-out traffic volumes. While the Thoroughfare Plan, when fully developed, will be adequate to accommodate "build- out" of the county, most of the existing road network requires complete reconstruction today in order to accommodate even minor increases in traffic. Most of the existing roads in the Upper Swift Creek Plan area are currently unsafe. The roads have no shoulders, poor vertical and horizontal alignments, and must be improved to safely accommodate increases in traffic. According to the Growth Analysis Report, the Planning Department has estimated that build-out of the entire county could take at least 50 or more years. Staff has estimated that it could cost approximately $3 billion countywide to upgrade existing roads, excluding freeways, to accommodate the increased traffic resulting from build-out. Approximately $400 million of those road costs would be in the Upper Swift Creek Plan area. Improvements to some of these existing roads may be provided in conjunction with development projects. Other improvements will need to be funded through public sources. Based on current VDOT revenue forecasts, the county anticipates receiving an average of only about $27 million per year in the coming years, countywide, to improve both Primary and Secondary roads. The prospects for additional state funding are uncertain at best. Even if the county were to receive $27 million a year for the next 50 years, there would be an anticipated shortfall of approximately $1.6 billion. A shortfall in funding for road improvements is not unique to Chesterfield County. It is impacting other localities around the state, and around the country. Some of the road improvement funds available to the county are being used in the Upper Swift Creek Plan area. There are currently several road improvement projects, in and adjacent to the 19 000j,.16 plan area, that are in the Secondary and Primary Six Year Improvement Plans, or that are otherwise tunded: Hull Street Road - widen to 6 and 8 lanes from Swift Creek to Winterpock Road. The project is funded with state funds and county bond proceeds. Construction is anticipated to begin in the Spring of 2006. Hull Street Road - a project to add a fourth westbound lane on Hull Street Road from Route 288 to Old Hundred Road/Commonwealth Center Parkway. Construction is planned for Spring 2006. Bailev Bridae Road - three spot safety projects and one reconstruction project at various locations between Route 288 and Spring Run Road. One project has been completed. Anticipated construction start dates for the remaining projects range from Summer 2006 to Spring 2010. Sorino Run Road - improve curves between McEnnally Road and Bailey Bridge Road. Anticipated construction start date is Fall 2007. Woolridae Road south of Crown Point Road - improve curve. Construction is anticipated to start in 2008. Several potential options have been considered for supplementing the road improvement funds received from the state. These options are outlined in the Supporting Document C: Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment: Transportation Options This plan makes recommendations on modifications to the county's Thoroughfare Plan. Winterpock Road is currently identified as a 90 foot Major Arterial. Staff has identified the need for Winterpock Road to be six lanes wide (120 toot wide right-at-way) to accommodate traffic volumes at total build-out of the county. However, most of the property along Winterpock Road has already been "roadstripped". Changing the recommended right-of-way width on Winterpock Road from 90 feet to 120 feet to accommodate the future six lane widening could adversely impact current residents along the road. Staff will only seek the wider 120 feet of right-af-way in conjunction with new development proposals. Almost all roads in the county are the responsibility of and maintained by VDOT. However, Woolridge Road over Swift Creek Reservoir is a county road. The county has no road maintenance budget and no formal maintenance program. This section of Woolridge Road has three box culverts that are over 50 years old. The pavement section is substandard, primarily consisting of asphalt placed on top of soil. Any improvements to this section of Woolridge Road, estimated to cost between $8 and $9 million, would have to be funded by the county. The county's Thoroughfare Plan includes the extension of the Powhite Parkway from its current terminus, through the Plan area, to Hull Street Roada During the design and construction of the extension, the County should coordinate with the appropriate Federal and State agencies and private entities to ensure that the highest water quality standards and practices are employed so that the quality of the Swift Creek reservoir will be preserved. 20 000117 Rail Service One railroad line passes through the Upper Swift Creek Plan area. This Norfolk Southern line is currently in use for limited freight service. The Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) recently commissioned a report on the feasibility of providing Light Commuter Rail transit service in the Richmond region. A section of the Norfolk Southern line east of the Plan area was recommended for use. The last recommended station was in the Midlothian Village area. There have also been discussions concerning a more regional rail passenger service. One part of the service would utilize the Norfolk Southern line to accommodate the Richmond to Lynchburg route. Improvements to the rail line would be necessary before the service could be initiated. There have been discussions about providing commuter rail service that would utilize the improvements to the line to extend commuter service further west than the Village of Midlothian. One of several proposed stations in the county would be located along Mount Hermon Road near County Line Road. The line would provide commuter rail service between western Chesterfield County and the Richmond International Airport. The proposal has not progressed beyond the discussion stage. Public Transportation The Chesterfield County Coordinated Transportation Program, Access Chesterfield, provides transportation services for any Chesterfield County resident who is disabled, or over age 60, or who meets federal income guidelines regarding poverty levels. Transportation providers are contracted by the Chesterfield County Access Chesterfield program to provide transportation service within the Chesterfield County, Richmond, Petersburg, Hopewell and Colonial Heights metropolitan areas. The program offers advance reservations for ride sharing with other passengers. RideFinders provides numerous transit programs and services in the Richmond region, including organizing van pools in response to commuters' requests. RideFinders' van pools presently serve locations in the county such as Brandermill and Midlothian. RideFinders also provides a matching service to assist commuters in organizing carpools. Bikewav Plan The county's Bikeway Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1989. The purpose of the Bikeway Plan is Uto designate a coordinated system of bike facilities to connect county and state parks with other high bike traffic generators such as schools." The Bikeway Plan is not intended to designate roads that are appropriate for bicycle travel, but to identify routes where bikeway facilities should be provided in conjunction with future road improvement projects. In the Upper Swift Creek Plan area, Old Hundred Road, Genito Road, Spring Run Road, Bailey Bridge Road, and a section of Otterdale Road are designated in the Bikeway Plan as part of the "bikeway network". In accordance with the Bikeway Plan, staff will consider including bike facilities along these roads in conjunction with future road improvements. Park-and-Ride Lots The Transportation Department has, on occasion, requested that developers consider including facilities to accommodate "park-and-ride" lots or commuter drop-off lots. These are areas that 21 000141.8 could be used by commuters to provide convenient places for carpoolers and vanpoolers to meet and park their cars. Developers have been reluctant to designate these areas, due to the requirement that additional parking areas also be provided. The Transportation Department will continue to request these areas when large-scale development occurs along major commuter routes. However, there is no intention at this time to make these areas a requirement 22 00011.9 Goals and Recommendations - Environmental Quality The boundary of Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment encompasses a portion of the 64.0 square miles (approximately 42,000 acres) that makes-up the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed. The watershed is located in the northwest corner of the county. The headwaters of the watershed approximately 7000 acres are located in Powhatan County. The watershed drains to the Swift Creek Reservoir, one of the county's three drinking water sources. The Reservoir produces approximately eight million gallons of water per day (design 12Mgal/day), providing drinking water to 30 percent of the county's citizens. The rolling hills, hardwood forests, 1, 700-acre Swift Creek Reservoir and eight major tributaries draws citizens to live, work and recreate in the region. Approximately 7000 acres or 20 percent of the 35,000 acres contained within the countyJs portion of the watershed is developed. The remainder of the area has been recommended by county plans for significant change over the next 20 years. Because of this growth, continued vigilance and improved practices and standards should be encouraged to ensure that development within the watershed contributes to the maintenance of water quality of the reservoir and tributary streams. To address the problem of urban runoff, under the Clean Water Act, in 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued municipal storm water regulations. These regulations require large municipalities, including Chesterfield County, to obtain and comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge storm water. In 1996, Chesterfield County obtained a Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) permit (also known as a municipal separate storm sewer system, or MS4, permit), issued through the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (OCR). The permit requires the county to implement effective management practices and enact a local stormwater program to include education and outreach, public participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post-construction runoff control, and pollution prevention. Environmental Goal: Maintain state and federal water quality standards of Swift Creek ReseNoir and its tributaries. This goal reflects the importance of protecting the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed and its resources to preserve the reservoir as a viable source of drinking water. In addition, protecting the natural resources associated with the Reservoir (Le. wetlands, streams, ponds, and lakes) provides for abundant habitat for wildlife and outdoors activities including fishing, hunting, birdwatching, and boating. 23 ooo~zo Recommendations: A. Promote land uses and development standards that are consistent with the protection of critical natural systems within watershed and that will facilitate maintenance of state water quality standards for area streams and Swift Creek Reservoir. In 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Watershed Management Master Plan for the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed. The Watershed Management Master Plan includes an in-lake phosphorous limit and establishes measures such as a reduced phosphorous standard for new residential development and the construction of regional Best Management Practice (BMP) basins to filter pollutants to ensure that the 0.05 mg/L in-lake phosphorus limit is maintained under suggested land use conditions. The limit was a threshold intended to protect general water quality and to ensure the viable use of the reservoir 8S a drinking water source. Without adequate management strategies for the reduction of nutrients to Swift Creek Reservoir, a variety of detrimental water quality and treatment problems are possible. These include excessive algal blooms, taste and odor problems, and depleted oxygen levels, all of which lead to increased cost of water treatment. Additionally, the adverse effects of pollutants on fish and other aquatic organisms may limit the reservoir as a recreational water body. The regional Best Management Practice strategy has been met with resistance by state and federal agencies. Therefore, other means of protecting water quality need to be developed and employed as a means of protecting the watershed, its resources and the Reservoir. The following recommendations will be implemented as part of the modifications to the county's Watershed Master Plan. . land Use Plan: Adopt a land use plan that is projected to result in future development that will have less of a water quality impact than the current Upper Swift Creek Plan (adopted in 1991 and amended in 2000). Annual total phosphorus loads were calculated for four scenarios, testing different residential densities for the future Upper Swift Creek Plan. In-lake phosphorus concentrations were predicted for each scenario. The results of this modeling showed that the land use modifications of the preferred land use plan anticipated by the recommended Upper Swift Creek Plan would have less impact on area water quality than the current, adopted plan. Modeling of the proposed land use scenario indicates that the incorporation of the deferred growth area is critical for the maintenance of the phosphorous levels within the Reservoir (see Supporting Document D). B. Protect and preserve the critical natural systems and areas within the watershed, which currently provide maintenance for water quality. While there has been a significant focus on the protection of Swift Creek Reservoir for the past fifteen years, there has not been adequate attention to the protection of other important environmental resources such as wetlands, riparian corridors and stream systems located within the watershed (Supporting Document E). The functions of these features are significant to watershed health, and any loss of these features will contribute to water quality degradation. While state and federal agencies regulate impacts on those resources, they are often impacted by permitted activities, and the mitigation of the impacts is allowed to take place outside of the county. Identifying the location, health, and loss or gain of these features is important to management of water quality. 24 000121. . Maintain GIS layers identifying the location of critical systems. . Evaluate these systems and identify those that are more critical for water protection or would benefit from rehabilitation. . Mitigation for loss of resources should be required to take place within the watershed where the impact has occurred. . Measures are needed to ensure that new development reduces the impacts to wetlands and streams and that the day-to-day activities of both residential and commercial uses lessen their impact on the important resources. c. Improve, restore and prevent further degradation of those resources that are degraded. The report Assessment of the Biology, Habitat and Chemistry of Streams in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed, Chesterfield County, Virginia (Supporting Document F) presents the physical, chemical and biological water quality data collected by Chesterfield County's Water Quality Section from 2002 to 2005, focusing on the streams of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Monitoring information is necessary to assess the overall effectiveness of the water quality management strategies. Information generated from the county's water quality monitoring programs should be used to identify systems, which are in need of restoration or rehabilitation. This information should be used to prioritize those systems so that limited resources may be targeted to areas that would benefit the most. . Stream and Wetlands - Restoration is a collection of methods for improving degraded conditions or preventing the degradation of a stream or wetland. The county should continue to actively pursue compensatory mitigation projects as well as grant funding for stream and wetland restoration. . . Riparian Buffer - The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act requires riparian buffers along streams having perennial flow but does not necessarily address the condition of that buffer or its ability to maintain water quality. As part of a grant, to address the quality of riparian buffers, the county has recently completed an inventory of the riparian buffers within the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed (Supporting Document G). This inventory focused on the extent and quality of the stream buffer, to include vegetation types and tree canopy coverage. As .part of the grant, a new GIS layer has been developed that will facilitate the identification of buffers that would benefit from or require restoration. This knowledge will aid in directing funds and potential grant funding to buffer areas where water quality would benefit the most from buffer enhancement. Currently, restoration of these features requires cooperation of landowners. While many landowners recognize the benefits of these improvements, placing these environmental features within open space or easements of future development projects will ensure better protection and facilitate future projects. D. Maintain biological and habitat diversity and promote habitat connectivity by protecting undisturbed land corridors between watersheds and sub-watersheds within the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed. 25 000:122 As a result of the Resource Protection Area (RPA) regulations, each of the major tributaries within the watershed has a riparian corridor along their banks. However these RPAs do not provide enough land to promote habitat diversity and connectivity between neighboring watersheds. . Preservation of natural areas within and between residential developments will help maintain connectivity~ . Educational efforts and enhancement of stewardship conservational roles on the part of the homeowners will help the county promote natural diversity and maintain connectivity of habitats. E. Minimize stormwater runoff through construction site design and site control. The erosion of land as a result of stormwater flows is detrimental to water quality because of the displaced sediment that is deposited into streams. The deposition of sediment loads is of particular concern during construction activity. Areas under construction are characterized by high production of suspended solids caused by erosion of unprotected, exposed soil during rain events. Excessive pollutant loads can be produced from construction areas if proper erosion- control practices are not implemented. Even with proper implementation of erosion-control practices, as required by the county, Total Suspended Solid (TSS) loads from areas under construction are significantly higher than loads from stabilized areas. The impacts of this sediment on the receiving waters include: deterioration of aquatic habitat, deterioration of aesthetic value, loss of reservoir storage capacity, and accumulation of bottom deposits that inhibit normal biological life. In addition, sediment is a primary carrier of other pollutants, including phosphorus. In order to understand the impact of sediment runoff from construction sites in the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed, modeling of two sites was conducted. Using this information it was determined that in a typical year the watershed could see the delivery of 720 to 3,400 tons of sediment inputs from unprotected construction sites. Erosion and sediment controls are predicted to reduce the annual load to between 230 and 1,350 tons per year. If the county can maintain effective erosion and sediment controls, then, in accordance with the predicted association with TSS delivery, approximately 460 to 2,780 pounds per year of phosphorus would reach the reservoir. The Management Plan and updated modeling indicate the required maximum limit in the range between 25,000 and 26,000 pounds of phosphorus per year at projected build out of the watershed. In terms of the annual phosphorus-loading goal, the phosphorus associated with construction sediment is approximately 2 to 11 percent of the annual goal for the reservoir. Without erosion and sediment controls, the range is 1 ,500 to 6,970 pounds per year, or approximately 6 to 27 percent of the annual goal (see Supporting Document H). . Erosion and sediment control practices can reduce TSS exported from construction sites by an order of magnitude. It follows that, to protect the Swift Creek Reservoir and its tributaries, particular attention should be paid to the implementation and enforcement of erosion and sediment controls. . To ensure the protection of water quality, when a project is near or adjacent to sensitive resource features or waterbodies, additional measures that exceed the state minimum standards should be required of development, to include VDOT road projects. 26 000123 . Monitoring of the watershed tributaries during storm flows would be used to assess the need for additional measures. F. Promote and encourage development standards for new development and redevelopment that minimize the environmental impact of improvements. Opportunities exist to promote and encourage new development and redevelopment methodologies using pollution prevention practices, source control measures and reduction of impervious areas. Currently these measures may be considered during the zoning process. With future development, the county should consider the development of ordinances that will consistently apply water quality treatment measures. . Low Impact Development (LID): LID employs a collection of techniquesr which reduce pollutants and controls runoff by mimicking predevelopment site hydrology to store, infiltrate, evaporate and detain stormwater runoff. This control and reduction is achieved by minimizing impervious cover, conserving natural areas, and providing additional distributed stormwater management. The following are examples of LID: i. Biorentention practices are the development of shallow landscaped depressions that capture runoff and filter it through a prepared soil mix. ii. Stormwater infiltration practices capture and temporarily store runoff allowing it to infiltrate into the ground over a period of days. iii. Stormwater treatment practices are a series of structural and non-structural practices that compensate for hydrologic changes related to land development by reducing runoff volume and improving water quality. By controlling the quality, quantity and velocity of runoff, the health and supply of surface and ground water sources are better protected from the impacts of development caused pollution. . Development Site Design: Better site design minimizes land disturbance, preserves existing vegetation, and minimizes impervious cover through application of a series of development principles. Examples of these principles are outlined below: i. Minimization of clearing and grading reduces the area exposed to stormwater thereby reducing sediment discharge and the need for additional E&S measures. ii. Reducing pollutants generated by encouraging designs and containment structures that allow for pollution prevention and spill contingency plans. iii. Remediation or interception of pollutants by employing, after development, site- specific treatments of areas that have greater pollution potential iv. Tree Save/Preservation/Planting is often not fully recognized for its stormwater benefits. Trees intercept and slow the fall of rainwater, helping the soil to absorb more water for gradual release into water resources. Increasing throughfall area 27 000124 prevents flooding, filters the water, releases water into the atmosphere, and reduces stress on the stormwater system. Based on these benefits developers should be encouraged to preserve a percentage of each lot or development to remain in a natural state. Additionally, these areas should allow for the green space habitat and wildlife corridors between neighborhoods and sub-watersheds. G. Promote citizen's group participation and education to aid in the protection of the Swift Creek Watershed. This goal recognizes the importance of the involvement of citizens to aid in the protection of water quality. Because citizen involvement is important to water quality, the county should encourage citizen groups and individual citizens to engage in activities that improve watershed awareness and active stewardship (Le. litter clean-up campaigns and buffer management). . Develop and distribute educational information and sponsor local watershed clean-up initiatives that would result in an overall improvement of the quality of the natural resources with the Upper Swift Creek Region. H. Promote watershed awareness and stewardship of residents, community associations, businesses and visitors through education programs, recreational opportunities, and participatory watershed activities. Citizens and businesses privately own the majority of the watershed, including most of its natural resources. Effective private stewardship of the watershed is an integral part of its protection. It is intended to expand the current educational efforts, as required under the county's VSMP permit (Supporting Document I), within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed so as to encourage responsible environmental stewardship at the individual citizen level. As the watershed becomes more urbanized, water quality resources will come under new pressures. Currently, stormwater data from the Brandermill and Wood lake subdivisions indicate elevated levels of nutrient inputs during the Fall and Spring seasons that most likely a result of lawn care. As new residential developments are built, this trend is expected to continue. This data suggests citizens living in the watershed should be educated on nutrient pollution, to include education on the proper techniques for home and lawn care. In addition to educational efforts, the county also promotes active participation in watershed activities such as stream and lake monitoring, riparian buffer planting and stream clean-ups. Passive and active recreational activities, such as hiking and boating, are another way to raise watershed awareness through trails, nature centers and fishing tournaments. . Education and Outreach (on-going program): Publications and programs should be developed to specifically address the challenges and issues of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed, stressing the importance of protecting the Swift Creek Reservoir as a primary drinking water source. The citizens of this watershed should have a heightened awareness of the watershed in which they live and their personal effects on the water quality. This can be accomplished by working the various audiences. This could include: Working with the county schools to develop a special curriculum for schools in the use, develop a county-sponsored volunteer program specifically for watershed residents and to encourage homeowners associations to include water quality measures such as RPA-Buffer 28 000125 Management and yard maintenance language in their covenants especially for citizens on and around the lake. . Stormwater Management and Source Controls: For existing developments, identify areas where stormwater maintenance and retrofitting may be possible and necessary to maintain water quality. Develop a mechanism to make funding available to implement these retrofits. Successful retrofit projects will be limited by environmental factors, monetary concerns and public support. Some of the retrofit strategies are outlined below and should also be considered in new development projects: a. Rain barrels and dry wells for citizens' homes and businesses b. Bioretention facilities, where soils permit c. Outfall controls (end of pipe treatments or facilities that divert smaller storms, provide energy dissipation, and/or treatment of stormwater) d. Retrofit culverts and drainage systems e. Retrofit and/or construct stormwater facilities f. Wetland and Stream Channel protection g. Manufactured BMPs (non-residential areas only) Financial Strategies: Develop an affordable and effective watershed management plan by devising strategies that build upon existing regulations, programs, and policies, take advantage of established monetary resources, and better target the management budget for more expensive land acquisitions and structural stormwater practices. Increased coordination between agencies with jurisdiction in the watershed, such as VA Department of Transportation (VDOT), County of Powhatan, VA Department of Forestry, VA Department of Environmental Quality, the Army Corp, public utilities, and the county will be more effective in implementation of the watershed plan. 29 000:1~26 Upper Swift Creek Plan Land Use Categories (See accompanying Land Use Plan Map) General Note: Suggested densities of development include all property suggested for such densities regardless of any development limitations that may exist or may be anticipated (such as planned roads or other public facilities, environmental or topographic features, areas suggested on the plan for conservation/recreation, etc.) General Note: Density of development for residential and non-residential zoning requests that include areas suggested on the plan for conservation/recreation should be calculated on the gross acreage for all property included in the request, including areas suggested for conservation/recreation, based on the recommended densities of the plan. General Note: The boundaries of conservation/recreation areas depicted on the plan are generalized. Residential (2.0 or less dwelling units per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Note 1 on land Use Plan map: Projects that drain away from Swift Creek Reservoir would be appropriate for densities of up to 2.2 dwelling units per acre. Office/Residential Mixed Use: Professional and administrative offices and residential developments of varying densities. Supporting retail and service uses would be appropriate when part of a mixed use center of aggregated acreage under a unified plan of development. (Equivalent zoning classifications: R (various), 0-2) Note 4 on the Land Use Plan map: Regional mixed use may be appropriate in the northwest quadrant of the Route 288 /Hull Street Road interchange, based on existing, planned and/or proffered road improvements, as well as provision of adequate design standards to address land use transitions, design compatibility, visibility from area roads, etc. Deferred Growth: Primarily limited to agricultural and forestall uses, isolated single- family residences on large parcels, places of worship, and other similar semi-public facilities. Other types of development, including public facilities such as public schools and parks, as well as the extension public water and wastewater services, should be deferred until the plan is amended through a subsequent review. (Equivalent zoning classification: A) Community Mixed Use: Community scale commercial uses, including shopping centers, and service and office uses that serve community wide-trade areas. Residential uses of various types and densities may be appropriate if part of a larger mixed-use project and the design is integrated with other uses. (Equivalent zoning classification: C-3) Note 2 on the Land Use Plan map: Community Mixed Use Node: Community scale commercial uses including, but not limited to, shopping centers, service and 30 0001.27 office uses that serve community wide trade areas. Residential uses of various types and densities may be appropriate if part of a larger mixed use project and the design is integrated with other uses. The size and location of centers, and the mix of uses, should be determined in part by market area, availability of adequate access to the transportation system, and availability and suitability of land. In general, however, community-scale mixed use centers should be located at the intersections of major arterial roads. Intersections should be analyzed to determine which quadrant is best suited (through detailed analysis of land assembly, access or impact on residential uses) for a center, and the center should be located only on the superior site. Commercial uses should be located at one corner of the intersection and be surrounded by office and residential use transitions. (Equivalent zoning classification: C-3) General Business Mixed Use: General commercial uses including, but not limited to, automobile-oriented uses and light industrial uses. (Equivalent zoning classification: C-5) Note 6 on the land Use Plan map: Properties not currently zoned for General Business Mixed Use should, at the time of zoning, be aggregated to sufficient acreage to ensure that development is oriented away from area roads. Regional Mixed Use: Integrated office, regional commercial, higher density residential and light industrial park uses incorporated into a mixed use center of aggregated acreage under a unified plan of development. (Equivalent zoning classifications: C-4, 1-1) Note 3 on the land Use Plan map: Outside storage might be appropriate in this area if such outside storage is oriented internal to a project and away from roads. Employment Center: Integrated corporate office, research and development, and light industrial uses on acreage of sufficient size to allow a unified plan of development. Moderate industrial uses may be appropriate when designed, located and/or oriented to ensure compatibility with less intense uses, and where appropriate access and transitions are provided. Retail and service uses that serve primarily surrounding employment center uses may be appropriate when part of a larger industrial and/or office development. The scale and mix of such retail and service uses should be proportionate to the needs of the primary employment center uses and should not be built until the employment center uses have developed to a density sufficient to support such retail and service uses, without such retail and service uses having to rely on larger markets for financial success. (Equivalent zoning classifications: 1-11 1-2, 0-2) Convenience Commercial (not shown on Plan): Small scale uses, such as limited retail and personal services, when located within planned residential areas and designed to attract customers primarily from immediate neighborhoods only. Typically, such uses should: be planned in conjunction with residential projects in order to insure compatibility; be limited in size and acreage; be located at the intersections of collector streets, or between residential neighborhoods and higher intensity uses and/or arterials; and provide transitions through consideration of appropriate uses, building scale, architecture and site design. Such areas require detailed analysis to ensure compatibility; therefore, individual locations cannot be depicted on the Land Use Plan map. (C-l) Public: Significant publicly owned properties (county, state and federal), including schools, parks, cemeteries and other public facilities, as well as publicly owned vacant 31 OGtJ1.Z8 land. Should such land be redeveloped for other uses, the appropriate uses would be those that are compatible with surrounding existing or anticipated development, as reflected by existing land uses, zoning, and/or the recommended land uses on the adopted comprehensive plan. Conservation/Recreation: Lands adjacent to water bodies with perennial flow that have an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts which may cause significant degradation to the quality of state waters. Recommended land uses are those in conformance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, Upper Swift Creek Watershed, and other environmental provisions of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance. Where appropriate, some areas may be suitable for limited pedestrian and bicycle trails, or for other passive recreation activities. 32 OOO:1.a.9 .. . .. --- ...... . I z:.......:... ~ .~ I .. : ... ."'11: ... J ~ i'I iii ~ ~~ il .... -: -:.. - .. I.tI l I . IO.l ..._ fJ c-' I~. 2 '1.1~ ............. ... I... ~ .., ~~ ~ j :. t .. ~ I ; f ;N 1..-:: I ~ 1 I rI' .. ~. -r 'i ,!Z ~~~ ,- · [1ft J~ :ry :J ~ ....r: .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G g~ ~ ~~ ~J ~- 2~ !II ~ ~ ill Ii .~~~ i I .. ..=...:::JoIII 101:"". "'3IEI' ai ".: ~ l1!;. ~,. ~ ~~Jj ~ .~ J ~~f~~~.../~ ~. ~ ., -.. ~~ ~. ~~ :~;r ~ :-:.. ... · ~ III I r 1 I I rl'1 "W"I"I -:.. .. ~i11 J. t ;~ ~..~ ~ J: II! · 1 jII(1 ;... .. . ~ ~ r- :.. II ., I -I. ~ f ~ ~.....: :... Ii. ~ 1 ~ ~.. ~ ~ ., r; OJ ) , ;. ~ :::~~.:E ~ ~:I ..;:..-~:.~ ~ ! .. ~Jr;.i~~...:): ~~ -:..:~.~.~ ~~~ / · -.- ~: - ..~ ~ ~. . J~~i.~~~t ~~. _ -.i.. ..... :- :::.: '" ;:.-, rI' .I ..... -:- ~ ~ .. ,..... ~ ( ~.PJ.~~:' :.: }" ~~:::; ~.!:!.?~ ~:l1 ... 7 ir I r::':"" ~ -7" ~ ~.~... -.. "oJ ~ .:.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~;)::-:-:. :,. ~ ~ ':i~ ~r ~ ... ..~ -i. ~ _. _ I ~~ ."-::.1. " '~ "~ ): .i. ~..:- ~ e ...... ~~ "J ' : ~ ...:...~ ~ ~ J ~:~ ~ f ~..J- ~.I .(- ........ . ~ . ..-:. ~-".: ~.. .. ~ 7\. -r:: ~ -... It. ~. ....... ,~ ~~ · .... ~ ~~ t. .~ ...t.............. ......." ~ -:- ~ ~ 2,..' ~::.t! .. .." 'i! ~ ~. r.. - · .1.. ~ - .~..~..: . .1... L · "'::: t€..,.:. .... F:- -.t ~ "'1'4 ~~ .~;':I.!= I ~ ~Jk;'.;;. ....... .g' .r, .1 ~. r ..,~ :~~ ~~~ . ~ . ~I ~ t · I 1 .-=-.~ 1 ~.. . · ;..!= rI' ~'.:. :........ ~~~. _ 'liMI--~~. ~ ~ .ill 1.0~ ~ rI' 1 r~~.. · .~_? I ~.~ -=.-^_~~I ':-p ~ ....... -Jt~.. r Ii '... -rJ.):- · ~".J \i-:~~. 1 ~ - :i: ....:..t ., ';- -r:- ~..... ~..:. ? ~ - .. ~...... p ~ "!..'-:-' ~ ... . v........: ~ ~ ... ~; .:".:.'1'.. -:-" . · ~ . ~ + ,.;:-~' ....... . ~A..: ;: ~::- =: :. 1 . _ i I......... . _ .. ~ ~ . .. ........r: "'" u .. .. 1 ) ~.. ... . ~.. _ · ." · ~ rV.:- · ..~:.. y 1 .. ... ...: ~ · .. .. · 1 .. .L1Ir. ..... ::iI A ..-t.:;ip:;f ~ . ..... \! . .IJ SUPDortine: Document A (Revised & updated: 4/3/07) UDDer Swift Creek Plan ADlendlDent Existing Conditions and Issues A. Plan Boundaries The boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Area Plan are the Route 288 Corridor Plan to the north, the Southern and Western Area Plan and Central Area Plan to the south, Powhite/Route 288 Area Plan the to the east, and Powhatan County to the west. A small portion of the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan lies north ofMidlothian Turnpike and east of Route 288, and is physically separated from the bulk of the Upper Swift Creek Plan by the Route 288 Corridor Plan. B. Ma2isterial Districts The Upper Swift Creek Plan lies within the Matoaca Magisterial District (about 82 percent of the study area geography), within the Clover Hill Magisterial District (about 14 percent of the study area geography), and within the Midlothian Magisterial District (about 4 percent of the study area geography). C. Plan Status The study area of this plan amendment includes most of the geography of the current Upper Swift Creek Plan (adopted in 1991). That small portion of the 1991 plan physically separated from the study area by the Route 288 Corridor Plan is not included in the geography of this plan amendment, but will be included in the Robious Area Plan amendment currently under review. The study area includes the majority of the Upper Swift Creek watershed within the jurisdiction of Chesterfield County. The geography of the plan amendment is approximately 57 square miles in area, comprising approximately 13 percent of the land area of the county. D. Existine Zonin!! and Land Use Patterns Existing zoning and land use patterns within the study area reflect predominantly a mix of residential and agricultural zoning and uses. Most of the area's commercial zoning and uses are located along Rt. 360. Rt. 360 provides a major east/west vehicular access, linking the study area with the rest of the county to the east and with Amelia County to the west. Route 288 provides a major north/south vehicular access, linking the study area with the rest of the county to the north and south as well as access to Powhatan and Henrico Counties to the north. Powhite Parkway provides additional major vehicular access to the northeast portions of Chesterfield County and to the City of Richmond. Planned improvements to Powhite 1 000:131 Parkway will further enhance vehicular access between the study area and the surrounding regIon. As noted herein, the study area includes the majority of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed that lies within the jurisdiction of Chesterfield County. This watershed supplies Swift Creek Reservoir, currently a significant source of drinking water for the county and a major amenity for area residents. As of December 31, 2006, approximately 45 percent of the study area was zoned agriculturally, of which 60 percent had minimal improvements. Residential zoning accounted for approximately 47 percent of the land within the study area, of which 58 percent was minimally improved. Office, commercial and industrial zoning accounted for about 8 percent of the area, of which 65 percent had yet to be developed. Residential zoning within the study area, as a percentage of overall zoning, is higher than the countywide average (47 percent for the study area compared to 35 percent countywide). The overall density for residential development is about the same as that for residential development in the county as a whole. The study area includes existing and planned residential neighborhoods of varying ages and character, including: single family residences (including mobile homes) on acreage parcels; single family residences in subdivisions; townhouse subdivisions; and multi-family dwellings. An examination of land use data identified 16,186 dwelling units within the study area as of December 2006. The 2006 data also suggests that there was enough vacant land already zoned for residential use within the study area to permit the development of an additional 15,256 dwellings. Under the current adopted plan, 19,652 more dwellings could also potentially be built on agriculturally zoned vacant land recommended by the plan for residential development, for a potential adopted plan build-out total of about 51,094 dwellings (a 215 percent increase over the number of dwellings in 2006). Analysis of the proposed Upper Swift Creek Plan, projects a total of 43,434 dwellings by plan build-out, not including any subsequent development in the recommended deferred growth area. Significant public/semi public uses within the study area include: Homer Park; Clover Hill Library; Alberta Smith, Clover Hill, Spring Run, Swift Creek, and Woolridge Elementary Schools; Swift Creek Middle School; Clover Hill and Cosby High Schools; a temporary policing station; Clover Hill and Swift Creek Fire Stations; and Manchester Volunteer Station. Harpers Mill Elementary School is under construction. Semi-public uses include area churches, a private school (Millwood School), and golf courses. Swift Creek Reservoir provides a visual amenity to the public - however, access to the Reservoir for recreational purposes is restricted and generally not available to the public at large. 2 000:132 E. Demoe:raphic Information The following information comes from 2000 Census data and Chesterfield County's land use database for 2006 (through December 31, 2006), together with additional information on population and housing gathered from county assessment records and studies. 1. Population A review of Chesterfield County's Land Use database for 2006 suggests that the number of people living in the study area increased between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2006, from approximately 27,900 to approximately 42,375, or an increase of about 52 percent. Estimates of countywide population growth for the same time period indicate that county population grew by about 35 percent. Most of this population growth has occurred in new subdivisions developing west of Wood lake and south of the Rt. 360 commercial corridor, as new households continue to move into the area. The study area population estimate represents approximately 14 percent of the county's estimated total population for 2006. Given that the study area includes approximately 13 percent of the area of the county, the population density of the study area is comparable to that for the county as a whole. 2. Household Incotne The 2000 Census year estimated household income for census tracts that encompass the study area was approximately $71,682, or approximately 122 percent of the Chesterfield County average of$58,537 for the 2000 Census year. 3. Housing The study area has a mix of older and newer neighborhoods and a mix of housing types. The average assessment of single-family residences in 2006 was $264,295, compared to a county average of $227,347. The average age of residences was estimated to be about 16 years, compared to a county average of 24 years. 4. Residential Development Patterns Residential development within the study area is characterized primarily by single-family residences on acreage parcels, by single-family and townhouse residences in subdivisions, and by apartments and condominiums in multi-family complexes. The following generally summarizes residential development within the study area: . Single-family residences on acreage parcels front most of the arterial roads in the western and southern fringes of the study area. 3 000:133 . Single-family and townhouse residences in subdivisions include a mix of older and newer neighborhoods, with most new single-family subdivisions developing west of Woodlake and south of the Rt. 360 commercial corridor. . Several multi-family complexes are within the study area. These are primarily located along, or in proximity to Rt. 360, and within, and north of, Brandermill and W oodlake. F. COlDDlercial Development Pattern Commercial uses within the study area consist primarily of businesses on parcels fronting Rt. 360, with a significant node of commercial, office and industrial development in the vicinity of the Gentio Road/Old Hundred Road intersection. G. EDlPlovment and Jobs In the second quarter of 2003, approximately 19,448 employed persons resided in the study area. During the same period area businesses generated approximately 7,182 jobs. These estimates suggest the study area is a net exporter of workers, by a ratio of about 2.7 workers living in the area per job within the area. H. Tax Revenue It is difficult to obtain information about tax revenue generated for specific geographies of the county. However, a review of county assessment data for land and improvements (December 31, 2006) suggests that the study area is a net generator of real estate tax revenue. Specifically, county assessment records indicate that land and improvements within the study area account for approximately 16 percent of total assessed taxable value countywide. As noted herein, the population of the study area is approximately 13 percent of countywide population estimates. These estimates suggest that the study area generates slightly more per-capita real estate tax revenue than that generated countywide. A further analysis of real estate assessment records suggests that approximately 10 percent of the county's assessed value for all office, commercial and industrial improvements (exclusive of land value) are located in the study area. This might suggest that 10 percent of the office, commercial and industrial development of the county is located in the study area, which, as noted herein, includes 13 percent of the county's land area and 14 percent of the county's population. I. EnvironDlental Features As noted herein, the study area includes most of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed and Swift Creek Reservoir. The Swift Creek Reservoir is approximately 1700 acres in surface area and serves as a source of water for Chesterfield County citizens. The reservoir also supports fish and other aquatic life. In addition to the reservoir, there are tributary streams and adjacent wetlands in the study area. There are also non-tidal 4 000134 wetlands throughout the study area that are not associated with any of the streams or the reservoIr a The complex of streams and wetlands in the watershed provide wildlife habitat, support aquatic life, serve as a recreational resource and add to the aesthetics of the study area. The tributary streams also have floodplains and Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) adjacent to them (approximately 14 percent of the study area). The floodplains and RPAs protect the streams by filtering out pollutants in stormwater runoff. These areas are identified in the Water Quality Protection Plan as environmentally sensitive features, and land uses and activities within them are limited by county ordinance. Additional environmentally sensitive areas may exist in the study area; however, these areas have not yet been calculated. Further analysis of these features would occur with new development. The study area is generally characterized by flat to gently rolling topography typical of the Piedmont and Triassic physiographic regions. Soils in the area can be characterized as moderately to well drained. There are some areas, however, that have clayey or hydric soils, which do not drain welL Significant slopes and erodible soil conditions exist along some stream banks. J . Utilities Public Water and Wastewater Service The area encompassed by the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment is supported by public water and wastewater infrastructure that has been planned to accommodate future growth while maintaining quality service for existing residential, commercial and industrial areas. Water System The County's public water system is an interconnected system which draws treated water from three sources: the Swift Creek Reservoir, the City of Richmond, and the Appomattox River Water Authority (ARW A) at Lake Chesdin. While the amount of water taken from Swift Creek Reservoir is anticipated to remain at a constant rate, existing long-term contracts with the City of Richmond and the ARW A insure that sufficient water will be available to meet the domestic and fire protection demands of future as well as existing development in the Upper Swift Creek watershed. The existing water system consists of transmission and distribution lines, booster pump stations and elevated storage tanks. The County's Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan reflects that development in the upper portion of the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment area will be served by water line extensions from an existing 24" line along Rt. 60, and by the existing Huguenot Springs and Midlothian tanks. Water lines will need to be constructed along Old Hundred Road, Otterdale Road north of Genito Road, and Mt. Hermon Road. Development in the central 5 000:135 and lower portion of the Plan area will be served by extensions from existing 24" lines along Rt. 360 and Spring Run Road, by existing 16" lines along Winterpock Road, Genito Road and Woolridge Road, and by the existing Clover Hill and Physic Hill tanks. Water lines will need to be constructed along Rt. 360 west of Hampton Park Boulevard, DuVal Road, and Genito Road west of Otterdale Road. It is anticipated that those lines will be constructed by private developers. The County's Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan reflects a future water tank west of Otterdale Road, between DuVal Road and Genito Road, and on Rt. 360 in the vicinity of Grange Hall elementary school. The Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan also reflects future construction of the "Southwest Corridor Transmission Line", which will begin at the ARW A treatment plant at Lake Chesdin, follow River Road to Riverway Road, run along Riverway Road to Beach Road, run east along Beach Road to the future Otterdale Road Extended, run along Otterdale Road Extended through the Southern Land Sales tract, and connect to a future water line along Rt. 360, west of Winterpock Road. This transmission line, along with two new pump stations and a ground storage tank, will move water from the ARW A facility into the western Rt. 360 corridor, will feed the future "Grange Hall" tank, and will support existing development as well as future growth reflected by the Upper Swift Creek Plan. Wastewater System The "backbone" of the public wastewater system that serves the Upper Swift Creek Plan area is the Upper Swift Creek Transport System, which was completed in 1990. This facility includes a 60" diameter trunk along Genito Road at the upper end of Swift Creek Reservoir, the Upper Swift Creek Wastewater Pump Station located north of Genito Road at the mouth of Little Tomahawk Creek, and dual force mains which convey wastewater east to the Bailey's Bridge Road Wastewater Pump Station. At the present time a single force main conveys wastewater from that location east to the Proctors Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The County's Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan includes future expansion of the Upper Swift Creek pump station, replacement of the Bailey's Bridge Road pump station with a much larger facility, and construction of two additional force mains to convey wastewater to the treatment plant. Construction of the new Bailey's Bridge Road pump station and the additional force mains began in early 2004 and completion is projected for late 2005. These system upgrades will insure that adequate capacity will be available in the downstream facilities to support future growth reflected by the Upper Swift Creek Plan. The Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan reflects future large wastewater lines that will be necessary along Swift Creek, Tomahawk Creek, Otterdale Creek, Horsepen Creek, and Blackman Creek. Extensions of existing wastewater lines along West Branch Creek, Spring Run Creek, Dry Creek, and Fuqua Branch Creek will also be needed. It is anticipated that those lines will be constructed by private developers. The Upper Swift Creek Transport System was designed and constructed to support future development in the Upper Swift Creek watershed based on the higher land use densities 6 000:136 as reflected in the Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Plan, which predates the Upper Swift Creek Plan. With adoption of the Upper Swift Creek Plan in 1991, and the subsequent plan amendment in 2000, significantly lower residential development densities were recommended, which have been consistently followed for developments approved by the County over the past thirteen years. These lower densities have made available a limited amount of system capacity within the Upper Swift Creek Transport System, which is not anticipated to be utilized by development within the Upper Swift Creek watershed. Future extensions of wastewater lines needed for development of the Magnolia Green site will be oversized to include that additional capacity. Future lines constructed within Magnolia Green, along Blackman Creek and its tributaries, will also be oversized to include the additional capacity, and will provide access points for a very limited area along the south side of Rt. 360, at the southeast and southwest quadrants of the future Powhite Parkway interchange. This area is in the upper end of the Appomattox River watershed. Development in this limited area would require the construction of one or two strategically placed pump stations, with force mains extending across Rt. 360, in order to access the public wastewater system and utilize that additional system capacity. Creation of Water and Wastewater Assessment Districts The County does not have funds appropriated for the extension of public water and wastewater service into areas of existing development. Since 1989 the County's policy to address requests for service has been to pursue the creation of "assessment districts". If the majority of property owners in a specific area desire public water and/or wastewater service the Board of Supervisors may hold a public hearing, and consider the creation of an assessment district. If approved, the Board will appropriate the funds for that specific project and all owners, whose property abut the utility line, will be assessed a share of the total project costs as a means of reimbursing the County. The assessment will be recorded as a lien on the property, and the owners can pay the assessment in one lump sum payment, or choose bi-annual payments for up to a 20-year period. Property owners aged 65 years or older who occupy a dwelling on their property may request that their assessment payments be deferred until such time as the dwelling is no longer occupied by an owner aged 65 or older, or is sold or otherwise conveyed to another person. At that time the suspension of payments would cease, and the entire assessment, plus any accrued interest would be due. K. Police Service There is a temporary police precinct serving the area. It is anticipated that this facility will become permanent by 2007 - 2008. The need for additional police service facilities is addressed in the Public Facilities Plan, which was updated in 2004. L. Fire Service There are two fire stations and one volunteer station within the study area. The need for additional fire service facilities is addressed in the Public Facilities Plan, which was updated in 2004. 7 000:137 M. Schools The study area lies within the Alberta Smith, Clover Hill, Evergreen, Grange Hall, Spring Run, Swift Creek, Watkins and Woolridge Elementary School zones, the Bailey Bridge, Midlothian and Swift Creek Middle School Zones, and the Clover Hill, Manchester and Midlothian High School zones. Cosby High School opened in 2006 - 2007. Harpers Mill Elementary School is scheduled to open in 2007 - 2008. The need for additional school facilities is addressed in the Public Facilities Plan, which was updated in 2004. N. Libraries The study area is served by the Clover Hill and Midlothian Libraries. The need for additional library facilities is addressed in the Public Facilities Plan, which was updated in 2004. o. Parks and Recreation Homer Park and the Clover Hill Athletic Facility are located within the study area. The need for additional park facilities is addressed in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Public Facility Plan, which was updated in 2004. 8 000138 P $ TransQortation Route 360 provides the major east/west vehicular access route in the study area, linking the area with the rest of the county to the east and with Amelia Count"j to the west. Route 288 provides the major north/south vehicular access ro'ute in the study area, linking the study area with the rest of the county to the north and south, and also provides major vehicular access to Powhatan and Henrico Counties to the north. Powhite Parkway provides additional major vehicular access to the northeast areas of Chesterfield County and to the City of Richmond. Planned improvements to Powhite Park\vay will further enhance vehicular access between the study area and the surrounding region. Continued development in the western portions of the county is putting pressure on the existing road network to accommodate increased traffic from new residents and businesses moving into the area. Roads in the western part of the Upper Swift Creek Plan area mainly consist of substandard two-lane roads (ie. pavement width less than 24 feet, with shoulders of less than 2 feet in width). Most of these roads are currently carrying relatively low 'lolumes of traffic. Sections of Genito Road, Woolridge Road, Mount Hermon Road, Duval Road, Otterdale Road, Hallsboro Road, and County Line Road are narrow, with no shoulders, and poor vertical and horizontal alignments. Based on the most recently available traffic counts, most of these roads are carrying less than 2,000 vehicles per day. In theeastem part of the plan area, substandard two-lane roads are carrying significantly higher volumes of traffic~ Bailey Bridge Road in the vicinity of Manchester High School and Bailey Bridge Middle School currently carries approximately 8,700 vehicles per day. Genito ,Road east of Woolridge Road carries 13,605, Woolridge Road carries 10,800 over the Swift Creek reservoir, and Old Hundred Road north of Millridge Parkway carries 11,135. These volumes approach or exceed the capacity of these facilities. The following Tables list the most recent Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on Primary and major Secondary roads in the Plan area: PRIMARY ROUTES.. TRAFFIC VOLUME HISTORY Upper Swift Creek Plan Area Updated: May 2005 :::::::" ~:~:~:t~:~:{~~~. :~:~:~~~:~:~~:~:~:~} ~:t~:~::. 20,461 20,000 25,704 35,701 38,000 26,646 34.484 37,000 t6,000 16,000 35,898 14,000 18020 16000 20.000 22.353 44,110 ' 44.941 I 61 549 ! 68,S99 52,491 52,000 9 ()OOj~39 .. ..!e::!~~!:~ 1:~:4 21,~72 i 19~ : 21~0 ~ 228 : :::::]ii:i;:::i:::: H~~~~::&:;Mmmmj,an TG~ - - 670 i;iih;~s]iWm b~~~l~oo~;$R;i~t1Uar.mt - - - 240 iii:iiii~~iiiiiiii WaromamfCffifrter:~~Qrl~\mi~" - - 13,376 m:i:ii~~~iiiiiiji ~~~tCQt~tl~~;ltma~~~~~i:#.: 14,481 - - ii@iiilliiiiiiii 1~~d~nt~:~&:~Wwtr:itti~r' ;::~. 10,838 \ - 11,227 iiiiiiiiSjliiJijii] :W~~dflfi~f:t~fO~~~~{:}bii... : 3,759 - - m ~fflml~SffilMQlJntlil_~if~ 3,225: - - iiiiiE"':";:'~miiiii lm~(;}fH~f:tam.f~iii1:i .' '2,142 - - ;;: .==~i=, - : ~ ~ ;,,:.~::::;:~:::.\1~~i1rmj1i111@i1]1j11 :mimf ....::::::::::::::::;.:.::::::::::::r:.:.:::.:::::.:::::::::::11ili&~WiIWj1ijJ 2,949! - 3,200 :'.:::.:.:~:~:~::.%@1jmj1i1~@j1i1r@1 j%.t; ..~:.:::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::j1_jjijl~iiiiMiij1j1jjj1iWj1fj1j1iiiiijiii 4.779 - - ~ll::::~~ i~~ll :;==:::=f=l~ 3,718: _ _ .::::~:::::.'.jt1i1fffnmmtr m:~~ .:~~. ~'~1_i1WUj.ili1j~Mi1jijijiiiiijijii:iii[ 466 1 - 470 ;::$~~~~~~~::~:...'.i\ttttt* m~. ~..t* '~:.:::::::BZii:~:f::::::~:::::.'f~~:::::::::::::;::::~:::;(\;::;::::::::?~~~::::~~i%jjiijjjijiiiiiJ - - - ,~;:;:' /,,:1;::: ; ..@ ,!;=~i~=:!i!ll!::ll::ll 182 _ ~ 420 " ""iyltPi;;P ;= . 'W~~~~':= ::::~ :::~~ ~:~:; . .. "iffiilllP'llii!i/&#~" 15,6D5 ; ~~r"~:"?@ ..:::.......ij&lM~tf:Qj~J~ir 8391 11,135 - ";:':':'::"I:';':'::::::::::::":::~~:-~lr'~':7t{.~@@Wf "J .nr..:..:...::::::~:...::..::::.::~:.JiillK. .. ..:::::::::::::';ijijif!1!i!i: 13,859 - .- ~miijmi:: ..'.MlQtffiMtiha=jfi(fk6tMN~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ',356 - iiiiiiid1iiii tcfHijnd~JJfld:~:GenM 998- ?i!imj(i:iii enita: _ncfDuvsJ -- ii?:ii~i:i? U~~ anij:~Woot . ! 1,100 ?:liij~m;iii ~1t~::af.ltjJit!~k~ ~~. - . 1 ,885 jilii1~.ii.i~/i?U;ii/i}:i?ii t}iliiiiiii : ~n:.~tRmJf:f& Meenn~U - - .ii1~ii&;iii@}fii?iiiiUiU>?Iii ii?iiiiiiWii .. _MJ :aoosaUe\<efld~e: - . !!!!!~=I Q~::m~~=:~~H 4,2.93 ~'~ 10,792 ~5~;E:aR~~t :~~:: ;:~~: 1, 1~1 : ~:~~: 1~~1:}3 ~~:~~; Secondary Road Traffic Volumes Upper Swift Creek Plan ivea Updated: August 2005 13,603 5,372 2,390 4,483 1,679 290 2Q648 5.106 3.976 950 440 240 4937 ! 2,947 r ~ 207 1 100 1,155 858 906 2,853 7,083 There are several roads in the plan area that have no shoulders, and that currently carry 4,000 or more vehicles per day. To accommodate this existing volume of traffic, these roads should be improved to 24 feet of pavement, with an eight foot paved shoulder, with vertical and horizontal alignments improved as necessary. The following Table lists Levels of Service on roads in the Plan area, calculated using the most recent available data. Level of Service "E" represents roads that are currently at capacity. Level of Service "F" represents roads carrying traffic volumes that exceed the ideal capacity of the road (also see the attached map). 10 000140 Upper Swift Creek P1an Primary and Secondary Road Levels of Serv~ce Updated: September 2005 *'*i..kllWt'lt..at.... w ::::~:::~~1;t~$I\i~;1:~;jij:j:j;j~ J~ij~.jj~~~ ;;:\]i_ii!jimmi4{Iti:i..:j.ji.~~~~: T!gJ~ 2 8,688 i E .Ft~ i I :;:=:i:il:",:~~:: };t:~! :=1t~::~=~~~4I ~ 2~;~O' ~ :i:I::..::.-~ &lM:- HaJlittira Road I] Miijk#bl~rimmlke 2 635 B ;i~~~[~::_[:- ~I Ofiffiale Road It SliriimaMer: flHd 2 240 A =:= · :. :::=~.&:haa:r;:~:: : ~:::~: ; jIlt> .... · .. }~: :=::~~d a:~=~~m = w . ~ ~~6:: : _.::~:.~:_moomJiam:_-- -::-:_ _ _ --:_:-li1~ :: Gt#JtiWltineJitii6&4Itae~Rijiij 2 165 A --- -- ::.::. :.::::.: ...IIIRUdJ.i.~aij.~fttl~i~ei#riiw~: 2 2,105 C ;f.fi" ~ ~ m:'.j~:j~1;~~;::j{:jij;j]j;ii1 j;jjjij~;;~JI:Ij~: ~~.:'w.M{:~::;"':::~:;::;::::":;:::;::)~\"i..:.*ij~~~!t\urr1rttWa" tl:[~~~~~: 2 2,753 E ar ~ "~ 0f~{.:.::::::::<\::1:::~:;i::::(j:~::.\::::1:::j;~ ::~;;:jij:gil~;~:j: ;;:.::~~fui:$ijjij:ioo~::Wiijii1i~_~t'Kijiiji Jf[~~~:f 2 440 B _':"\ i. ...._lfuJitu~d~n4.mltlh~g\:l~~i EM 2 220 B WJiH"~ ,,' f"h' x x;::::>:::~\\iIjHI!;;!j!::j:~:j. )]~::j:tf.t~:j:ji1:::1: ;:..:J)~Q_..:.~id~:~:i6jljjsjj3tmimiti::a_ .' ~~~:[~I~~t 2 207 A fWEEW? ~$:~i:~ili~j!~~:;:j~j:~{jij~:: j{:::il~:j:~:j;j; ]:.' em]i11~~ij:ilaiamijijij~;:_imm,i:~' f~~~:[:[~t 2 5,831 E ..:.~...::...:.r...::...:.~...::*..:.~...::.~..::-:._.i.....:....:.:..:..:..:.?:..:.:::::.t......:...'.b".m.::.::.:.....:;:,:.i.MB_;~:;~)'<~ ; ,'~~~'" · ;:. ~:::: ;;~:mw. . '11111111 ~2 ~ 1170~~,6367:53 D: ::~:*::*~~:it~~ : ::t:~. . V~HIW ~ C6N~ IW:~W ffi:m [[[::1::[[:[:[[[[[: ; 11 000:141 .-1:... I ~-I ... , . ~~ ~~ ~~ ; : I I .1 I ~ ~ ~ 1 ...------ .T. II!I _"D .II-r .r.a..i. r- II! , D!I .. R. .~ c --: I.: ~. IYI-=. -.::~ ~~ 11, "'! ~ .. "':1, , t ~~ ( .;:. . ~... . ~ ..... 4i h .;....J:Jj ~:-~ ~ ~ :-i .- -:- I( · ... . ........,. J .... "~:.I? .. ~ t ~ .... . ~:-:-.- · ~ I L ~~ $~. .-:~~~ ~~.J Jl';" t. ~ ~~ ,~- I~~~~ :. ~ ~:.o ~ .~_ · ~ .~~ ";';:1:;-: .:rr-.: -.- ~ r. -::;--- ~t ~rI:!...:.II..'I....I:. ... ~ !i · ~. --.. ........,... -.J 'W.oII:. ~...:.. - ~ .. . - . :--.""... '1..-:>> .. ......-. :I' · (.i:::... ~~ I~ ... ~ ~... Z-' 2. '] ~ , ...-.:-..-. 1 . ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~..~~~ .~ - . .. ~... ~.... ; ~. · .,::wr~ ~ -~~.i ~ ~ ~ ""Ill ....-- . ... ~ I ~ I(.j .f-~" .~f;: I I ..... . ...~.. ~ J IJ . . ..........-a!'.... ...... ~I~ :..,~ - .:. ~ ~ "~Uir: ~ I ~~ ~ .~ .....J L :-. ~4 .. _I .. iI - ,,).. ~ ---.....-. ........ .-r =- IJ: - ~ ~ -. ~ ... ~ iii. .~~. T.:"IP:.............. ~ .... J1. .. ~ I- · .-:..-.m"~ I J ::..... II: .. II! ~ =J: - '::I...:cr... I'll ~ W..... t-rlt : ....:.: ,,:t &L ~ : =. : -: .=-:411-..~ -" .r..i I -1'1 ! ~ rn: ~ . .. .~, ~ ~ .I:I_~':: "T . ....-.0.. "YPIL .J#' .....1 ~ f.I: r '............,'... J... - .... ~ .E .... ./ .... roo- ... ..:.11 iI.JI'I IN.. .~ ~ .. r .. :-.:: 'T...... ........ · -n ~ -....J.. I " .---- II. "... . ~ J . ^ :-:~ ~'__ - .... -.... r _..-...., r · I:. 1 "1'1-. J,'" ... ~ ~ ~ 'I... . . ~...-.:;:;.I .. ~ ~....... .... ~~\.~ ~ ~. l"1li..... fllliUJr.- · ~ ..". ~.i"ft...:lI~:": ~ .1.r. 1..1." ~ ...:r ~r~ r i}il; ~ tr ~ J...... ~.i:--::---, ~ ~:!'Jt. ...;:t ~:.-;-~ Ih,'II"IlIl " · · ~ ~~ -:.V ~".f...,: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ :. ............ ~, ~ r .h :-: ""(""~.~ ...... j ~~ ~- n;a-. t ~ · ::::::;-_....~ , & ...-.~~ ..:i"[ - ~ ~- , ~ - .L -:0: · · ~:L ~I .. ':iii i..r.. '1t. , .. .~ ~ ~.:~~~;:~~ ~m ~~~').._. .,~;::~~.~ C~.{"~~~I~~ ~~~N~ - .. " ~~ ....... ~":-'.~ ~#1'" I-:-~~ iJ~"" ' -,ij;'~~V~ ." ~'t'~rthi~~ ..~_ i!5". I ..... ~ ~ -:. :: ..:... :..'. .:~ ~ if;.] ~~ ~.. · · ~ -;r ~ ~ r ~i I: ~.o:. ~~..:. ~. 'I i....... .~ ~:.~.... ~~.. L .t. · -..: -~:--:- ~."'.r ~.~-: ~::.~... -:..... ~:. Traffic Accident Statistics.. Reported Crashes 2002, 2003, and 2004 ( Accident statistics provided by the Chesterfieid County Police Depa.rtment ) 6 156 588 310 920 36.8% 205 531 21.2% 171 481 19.2% 56 148 5.9% 26 87 3.5% 8 38 1.5% 2 9 0.4% 36 128 5. 1 % 71 158 6.3% ::::::::::::::::::111111111111.11111111111111111111111111111d1111111111111111111111Iillit::::::::::::j:::::::::j::::::j::::~ll.:::::j The Upper Swift Creek Plan area includes one of the most highly congested road corridors in the County. Drivers on Hull Street Road (State Route 360) between Woodlake Village Parkway and Swift Creek experience extensive travel delays during several hours of the day, and especially during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Virginia's Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Truck Routing Map designates Hull Street Road, Route 288, and Po white Parkway as "Non-Interstate Qualifying Highways". This designation allows oversize vehicles and tandem trailers to use these roadways. Hull Street Road is a major regional east/west truck route. Recent traffic data provided by VDOT indicates that trucks make up approximately 8 percent of the daily traffic 'volume on Hull Street Road. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six-Year Improvement Program includes a project to widen Route 360 to six (6) and eight (8) lanes from Winterpock Road to Swift Creek. Widening of the westbound lanes was scheduled to begin in 2005; however, after two advertisements, bids received were too high. Staff hopes th,e project will be under construction next year. Additional funding for the second phase, widening of the eastbound lanes, is identified in the FY08 andFY 09 years of the current Program. This second phase is included in the recent county bond referendum. The county hopes to accelerate the project and have it under construction by Spring 2006. Additional projects in the Plan area include: 13 OOOj~&!l3 1. A project to reconstruct two substandard curves on Spring Run Road between McEnnally Road and Bailey Bridge Road. Construction is scheduled to begin in Fall 2007. 2. A project to improve two substandard curves on Bailey Bridge Road. The county is managing these projects. Construction is anticipated to begin in Summer 2006. 3. A project to reconstruct Bailey Bridge Road as a two-lane road from Claypoint Road to Manchester High School. The project is not anticipated to begin until Spring 2010. 4. A project to make spot safety improvements on Woolridge Road south of Crown Point. The county was successful in obtaining federal safety funds for this location. Construction is expected to begin in 2008. 5. A project to add a fourth westbound lane on Hull Street Road from Route 288 to Old Hundred Road/Commonwealth Center Parkway. Construction is planned for Spring 2006. The section of Woolridge Road that crosses the Swift Creek Reservoir is not currently in the State Highway System. This is one of a relatively few major Secondary roads in Chesterfield County that are not maintained by VDOT. Maintenance of this short section of roadway is the responsibility of Chesterfield County. VDOT assigns a "Sufficiency Rating" to major culvert and bridge structures based on several factors, including structural adequacy, functional obsolescence, and essentiality for public use. If the Sufficiency Rating for a culvert or bridge is less than 80, but more than 50, the structure is eligible for rehabilitation funding. A structure Tated less than 50 qualifies for rehabilitation or complete replacement. Based on information provided by VDOT, four structures in the plan area are rated between 50 and 80: 1~ Woodlake Village Parkway (70.0) - over West Branch Creek, north of Village Square Parkway 2. Old Hundred Road (65.0) - over Nuttree Branch, between Brandermill Parkway and Millridge Parkway 3. Otterdale Road (52~ 1) - over Otterdale Branch, just south of Genito Road 4. Mount Hermon Road (50.7) - over Swift Creek, just south of County Line Road Two are rated at less than 50: 1. Genito Road (41.6) - easternmost structure over Swift Creek Reservoir 2. Genito Road (29.3) - westernmost structure over Swift Creek Reservoir 14 000:1.44 In addition, there are several bridges within the plan area that have vehicle weight limits, which restricts their use by heavy truck traffic. There are two at-grade railroad crossings in the plan area. One crosses County Line Road north of Mount Hermon Road, and one crosses at the intersection of Mount Hermon Road and Hallsboro Road. Railroad crossing gates were recently installed at these crossIngs. The County's Bikeway Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1989. The purpose of the Bikeway Plan is "to designate a coordinated system of bike facilities to connect County and State parks with other high bike traffic generators such as schools." The Bikeway Plan is not intended to designate roads that are appropriate for bicycle travel, but to identify routes where bikeway facilities should be provided in conjunction with future road improvement projects. Several roads in the Upper Swift Creek Plan area are included on the Bikeway Plan. Bike facilities were included in the widening of Genito Road, from Route 360 to Fox Chase Lane, and in the intersection project at Genito Road and Woolridge Road. Through truck traffic is prohibited from using Old Hundred Road to travel between Midlothian Turnpike and Genito Road, and between Genito Road and Hull Street Road. In order to violate these prohibitions, trucks must travel the entire length of the restricted route without stopping for business purposes. Trucks that have business along these routes are authorized to use the roads. 15 000145 Blank page 16 000146 SUDPortine: DOCUDlent B (Revised & updated: 4/3/07) Upper Swift Creek Plan ADlendment Land Use Analysis - Residential, Office, CODllDercial and Industrial A. Purpose of Analvsis This analysis attempts to anticipate the need for residential, office, commercial and industrial land within the study area based on potential market demand and community- wide, land use planning practices. Specifically, real estate professionals often analyze potential uses for property based on the principle of "highest and best use", a term often defined as 'the legal use of a parcel of land which, when capitalized, will generate the greatest net present value of income'. Implied in the term is the notion that markets forces (supply, demand, competition, etc.) can best determine how land should be used. However, "highest and best use" is only one principle applicable to a land use analysis. Another, equally important principle is "most appropriate use" which, borrowing from the Code of Virginia, might be defined as 'a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of lands within a jurisdiction which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of that jurisdiction's citizens' . Consideration of both principles is appropriate in a land use plan analysis. This analysis makes no attempt to determine the current or short-term marketability of anyone parcel for anyone use. Rather, it attempts to anticipate future needs for broad categories of uses throughout the study area over time. In addition, this analysis does not attempt to suggest the specific relationships of these uses to one another within the study area, or within the wider community. These relationships are best determined by means of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Private market forces (availability and price of land, location, character and age of competing businesses, site specific characteristics such as topography and visibility from roads, etc.) would decide the desirability of a specific use on one parcel over another, as well as the timing for developing such use, based on the principle of 'highest and best use'. The zoning process would determine the appropriateness of such use on a case-by-case basis by applying the guidelines for desirable land use development patterns as outlined in the plan. Demand for additional, or differently located, land in any zoning classification or land use category is influenced by many factors, some of which are hard to quantify or predict. In addition, limitations on the types and quality of readily available data, together with differing opinions on the significance of this data and how best to analyze, interpret and use it, further complicate the task of predicting future land use needs. For these reasons, 17 0001.47 this analysis must be viewed as one of many tools used to craft a land use plan amendment for the Upper Swift Creek Plan study area. B. Study Area Boundaries and Existing Conditions The bOWldaries of the Upper Swift Creek Area Plan includes the Route 288 Corridor Plan to the north, the Southern and Western Area Plan and Central Area Plan to the south, Powhite/Route 288 Area Plan the to the east, and Powhatan County to the west. A small portion of the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan lies north of Mid lot hi an Turnpike and east of Route 288, and is physically separated from the bulk of the Upper Swift Creek Plan by the Route 288 Corridor Plan. The Plan geography is approximately 57 square miles in area, comprising approximately 13 percent of the land area of the county. The study area of this Plan amendment includes most of the geography of the currently adopted Upper Swift Creek (adopted in 1991). That small portion of the 1991 Plan physically separated from the study area by the Route 288 Corridor Plan is not included in the geography of this Plan amendment, but will be included in the Robious Area Plan amendment currently under review. The study area includes the majority of the Upper Swift Creek watershed within the jurisdiction of Chesterfield County. Existing zoning and land use patterns within the study area reflect a mix of residential and agricultural zoning and uses, with commercial zoning and uses along Rt. 360. Rt. 360 provides a major east/west vehicular access, linking the study area with the rest of the county to the east and with Amelia County to the west. Route 288 provides a major north/south vehicular access, linking the study area with the rest of the county to the north and south, and also provides major vehicular access to Powhatan and Henrico Counties to the north. Powhite Parkway provides additional major vehicular access to the northeast portions of Chesterfield County and to the City of Richmond. Planned improvements to Powhite Parkway will further enhance vehicular access between the study area and the surrounding region. c. Zoning Activity within the Study Area: Analysis of past zoning activity is one way to anticipate future demand for residential, office, commercial, and industrial zoning and land uses within the study area. Specifically, land is typically rezoned with an expectation, on the part of the owner/developer, that it can be developed in the future for uses within the new zoning category. The following table sunIDlarizes zoning activity within the study area between Januaryl, 1993 and April 1, 2007: Acrea e 3,970 acres 1 7 acres 157 acres 23 acres 18 000148 I Rezonin from.a 'cultural to industrial classifications 28 acres Rezonin s from industrial to conunercialloffice classifications 36 acres DatacompHed fromChestemeld County Planning Department zoning database from January 1993 tP...rough March 2007 Zoning activity within the study area since 1993 has significantly increased the inventory of residentially zoned land, followed by slight increases in commercial and office zoned land. The following table summarizes net ZOD.ing gains/losses within the study area between January 1, 1993, and Aprill, 2007: Industrial - 35 acres CommerciaVoffice + 216 acres Residential I + 3,964 acres A . cultural ! - 4,155 acres Data compiled from Chesterfield County Planning Department zoning database from January 1, 1993 through Aprill~ 2007 L1.e following _ table - summarizes the breakdown of zoning acreage and land usage within the study area as of December 31, 2006: Upper SlViftCreekPlan - Zoning and Development Note: the stud Zoning (as of 3/16/07) Office & Commercial %of county- wide by zonmg cate 0 16,400 45 11 17,233 47 2; 1 08 6 716 2 Dev'eloped (as ofl2/31/06) Minimal improvements * 0/0 Minimal improvements * Agricultural 6,458 9,605 60 Residential 6,848 9,337 58 661 1,026 61 Industrial 151 501 77 Data for zoning compiled from Chesterfield County GIS data for 3/16/07 Note: This data is a reflection of base zoning only and does not factor uses that may be permitted through CUPD (such as commercial uses on residentially zoned property, etc.) Data for development compiled from the Chesterfield County Planning Department land use database for 2006 (12/31/06) Acreages do not include land in rights of way. 19 000:149 *Recorded as vacant~ or rwater in DPD06 land use databa.se. Zoning - Countywide (3/16/07) County .. Zoning acres Zoning Zoning - Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment geography (3/16/07) use Plan amendment.. Zoning acres Zoning Zoning activity - - Conclusions: Based on zoning activity over time, the demand for residentially zoned land is strong, followed by the demand for commercially zoned land~ Current zoning activity, as judged by zoning cases within the Plan geography currently 20 000150 pending before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, suggests that the demand for residentially zoned land will continue to remain strong in coming years. E. Residential Development Activitv within the Study Area: Another way to anticipate future demand for residential, office, commercial, and industrial zoning and land uses is to examine development activity in recent years. The influx of new families into the area and the development of new housing units in subdivisions and apartment complexes suggest a demand for residential land uses. Site plan approvals for offices, businesses, and manufacturing facilities suggest a demand for office, commercial and industrial land uses. Projecting population growth in and around the study area can also suggest future demand for housing, jobs, services and retail trade. The following table estimates population growth rates between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2006 for the study area and the county as a whole: Chesterfield Coun Po ulation Growth, J anua 1, 1994 to December 31, 2006 Area 1994 2006 % Increase Stud Area 27,900 42,375 52 COUll wide 226,900 305,886 35 Data for population compiled from estimates in the Chesterfield County Planning Department land use database for 2006 (12/31/06). Residential development within the study area is characterized primarily by single-family residences on acreage parcels, by single family and townhouse residences in subdivisions, and by apartments and condominiums in multi-family complexes. 1. Sine:le Familv A review of Chesterfield GIS data from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2006 reveals an increase of 5,486 single-family residences (on acreage parcels and in single- family subdivisions) within the study area during this time period, from 8,192 residences to 13,678 residences, or an increase of about 67 percent. A similar review for the entire county during this time period for single-family residences reveals a countywide increase of about 37 percent According to the Residential Report, as of December 31, 2005, the study area had an inventory of about 4,749 undeveloped lots in recorded and tentatively approved subdivisions (approximately 27 percent of all lots within the study area). For the same year, the county as a whole had an inventory of 19,719 such lots (approximately 19 percent of all lots within the county). 2. Multi-familv.. Condominium.. and townhouse 21 000151 A review of Chesterfield GIS data from January 1994 through December 2006 reveals an increase of 1,033 multifamily, condominium, and townhouse residences within the study area during this time period, from 1,475 residences to 2,508 residences, or an increase of about 70 percent A similar review for the entire county during this time period for multifamily, condominium and townhouse residences reveals a countywide increase of 51 percent According to the Residential Report, as of December 31, 2005, the study area had 269 undeveloped units in multi-family, condominium and townhouse developments (about 11 percent of all such units within the study area). For the same year, the county as a whole had an inventory of 3,046 undeveloped units (approximately 14 percent of all possible multi-family, condominium and townhouse units within the county). F. Office.. CODllDercial and Industrial Development Activity within the Study Area: 1. Office Development In recent decades, major office zoning and development activity (office park use) has occurred in the northern portions of the county, along Midlothian Turnpike and the Powhite Parkway corridor. In addition, many properties zoned fOf such use a decade or more ago have yet to begin developing. However, with the recent completion of improvements to Rt. 288, it is anticipated that such development will occur within, and in proximity to, the northern portions of the study area, in the vicinity of the Powhite Parkway/Rt. 288 interchangea As Powhite Parkway is extended to Rt. 360, additional office-type development should occur in proximity to this intersection. 2. Commercial Development Commercial development patterns in the study area are primarily characterized by commercial zoning and uses along the Rt. 360 corridora Some of this existing commercial development consists of small businesses on parcels having depths of 200 to 300 feet. An exception to this pattern is the Genito Road/Old Hundred Road intersection, which has developed as a significant node of commercial and office uses. a. Commercial - - Shopping Centers The study area includes several convenience scale, neighborhood scale, and community scale shopping centers and one power center. In addition, there are several planned community scale shopping centers currently under review or anticipated for review in the neaf future. These shopping centers have overlapping market areas. 22 000152 An analysis of commercial development within and surrounding the study area suggests that most of the area's current need for retail services is provided by shopping centers and other types of commercial establishments located inside and outside the study area. Specifically, in addition to the shopping centers located within the study area, much of the study area lies within the market areas of several other shopping centers and major retail concentrations, including Chesterfield Crossing and Chesterfield Towne Center. While most retail development within the study area is healthy, some exhibit symptoms of declining retail viability . The demand for additional shopping center space in the future will be closely tied to market area growth. Specifically, convenience scale shopping centers typically draw most of their customers from an area of about 1.5 miles in radius (shopping center trade area). Neighborhood scale shopping centers typically have a trade area of about three miles in radius, and community scale shopping centers have a trade area of about 4.5 miles in radius. Power and regional centers have trade areas of about 7.5 miles in radius. Super regional centers typically have trade areas of about fifteen miles. While many of the services provided by various types of centers do not translate into competition between types, some services do. In addition, centers of a type that have overlapping trade areas often compete for the same markets. At present, the study area seems to be more than adequately served by existing and planned shopping centers. Increases in population within the market areas of potential shopping center sites generate most of the demand for additional shopping center space. Other factors affecting the demand for additional shopping center space include market competition, both within and outside the study area, and anticipated area industrial employment. Specifically, existing and future shopping center development outside the study area could lower future shopping center demand within the area through competition for the same markets. Conversely, increases in population and industrial employment from new industrial development within, and in proximity to, the study area would have a positive impact, as a significant amount of retail sales would be generated by new area residents as well as by employees who live outside the corridor's market area but who will shop within the area on their way to and from work. The location of any new shopping center(s) within the study area would also be influenced by: the availability of suitably zoned land; parcel size, configuration, access and visibility; environmental constraints such as floodplains and wetlands; and by guidelines for desirable land use patterns as embodied in the county's Comprehensive Plan. The current Upper Swift Creek Plan (adopted in 1991) suggests locations for new shopping center development in the western portion of the study area, to serve the needs of anticipated area residential development. b. Commercial - - Freestanding In addition to existing and planned shopping centers, commercial development within the study area is characterized by freestanding commercial uses along Rt. 360 and in proximity to the Genito Road/Old Hundred Road intersection. Included among these uses are: small retail and convenience stores; contractors offices, shops and storage yards; motor vehicle repair; motor vehicle service stations; personal services and professional offices; fast food 23 000153 restaurants; a hotel; mini-storage and office-warehouses; a commercial outdoor recreational establishment, among other uses. About half of these uses (by acreage) have developed since 1994. The demand for additional freestanding commercial space is determined in part by the type of use occupying the site. Some freestanding uses, such as department and discount stores, have market areas similar to community scale shopping centers. Other uses, such as home centers and motor vehicle sales, draw from larger areas, to include countywide and even regional markets. Still other uses, such as convenience stores, fast food restaurants and automobile service stations, depend in large part on traffic generated by other uses, such as nearby shopping centers and employment centers, and on commuter traffic passing through the study area. The location of any new freestanding commercial space would also be influenced by: the availability of suitably zoned land; parcel size, configuration, access and visibility; and environmental constraints such as floodplains and wetlands. 3. HoteI/Motel At present, there is one hotel/motel within the study area, located at the intersection of Rt. 360 and Old Hundred Road. A site for another is currently under review, located further west along Rt. 360 in the vicinity of Woodlake. Recent hotellmotel development activity within the study area and along Rt. 360 at or near the intersection ofRt. 360 and Courthouse Road (east of the study area), suggests there may be a potential demand for additional hotel/motels in this portion of the county. 4. Industrial Development Most industrial zoning and land uses within the study area are located around the PowhitelRt. 288 interchange and the intersection of Genito and Old Hundred Roads. 24 000:154 Land use - Countywide (12/31/06) County '" Land uses acres Land uses Land use - Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment geography (12/31/06) Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment.. land uses 15000 25000 20000 ftCOiZ SlhgtS family Multi-femlly Offlce/commema' Land uses lndustrial Publjclssm !-puhllc Vacant 25 000155 ~ortinq Document C (October 2005) Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment: Transportation Options Maintenance and construction of Chesterfield County's road system is the responsibility of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Funding from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has been inadequate to address existing needs, and the prospects for additional state funding are uncertain at best. Alternate funding sources continue to be investigated to address the shortfall between road needs and available funding. Several options have been considered for supplementing the state road funding. The following options are available to supplement state and local funding but would not be sufficient to address all of the county's needs. Options include, but are not limited to: . Transportation Service District in the Upper Swift Creek Plan Area: This would provide for an additional tax levy against real property in the service area. An assessment rate between $0.10 and $0.15 per $100 of assessed value would be required to finance $90 to $120 million in road improvements. It is estimated that this would equate to an additional $200 to $300 per year on the median tax bill of the single family property owner based on the January 2005 assessments, and greater impact for commercial and multi-family property owners. The amount of additional taxes is subject to many variables: changes in assessed values, amount financed, frequency of debt issues and overall debt repayment requirements. . Use of Cash Proffers for Road Debt Service: The 2004 General Assembly established local authority to use cash proffer revenues for the repayment of bonds. Discussions with rating agencies indicate unfavorable bond ratings on cash proffer backed debt due to the uncertain long-term reliance on this revenue stream. . General Obligation Bonds for Roads: Voters overwhelmingly approved the issuance of $40 million in general obligation bonds for roads in the 2004 referendum. One of the bond projects was in the plan area -- the widening of Hull Street Road between Swift Creek and Winterpock. Bonds are repaid from locally generated revenues. Additional referenda on general obligation bonds could be used in the future to fund road improvement projects. However, the county's available debt has been allocated through 2011 , and there is no capacity to issue additional debt until that time. . Reprioritization of Local Capital Improvement Funding Sources for Road Projects: The Board of Supervisors annually adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allocating funding sources to many competing 27 000156 ~n-=:~.lj-II t:.. ~~~ r.r=r ~ ~ ~- .., iir! . ~ ..:--~ Jr;:. ... III 1 '...... .1 .I' to. L '..I ~~. ~I~ ~ I ~ · O:::r:::l ... ; ~!: ;t I"': If II;:... .. '....r .-.. 1 .. t-: ~ ~ 01 J - !I :-. .. L.! _ -~ ~~. - .~.~~. ... .~~.I r ....- ~2'" ~ L ~~. I III r"_ ...:.I ~itt III r-=~ }=. ~~ ~ ~ ~...:. · ~ =K-;lfl ~ -::.iP ''':: :.::r'" r I ~ ~J-1II.i.3 b- ot · iJ:5." _U'~ ~__ .17- ..~.,. .... .I' .......-. 1'-" ~I-" --I 1 ~I ~~~ ~:~~~): I ~. t 11...1'-:._ .: ::r.-:': ~.: ~~~.;...,_.___~r ~iiS, .~~~....~ ~ ~~~:::i.~.;~ - {-ii:~ f... =?.... · i "'" -: :c...~.. Ii} .. "f+i't. Jt., -0. - ~I... ~~.~-4- ~ ... ~+~.. ~ I. .,,-.==: 1 ..:"",:." . !.-~-': -..;: .. f.. rf': .... Ir:. 1 J"oI.J · ~~ ~~:-~ ~~-II'". _,.." ~~ ::'.J~~~i:.. I~). .if~~ ~ ""h".J: ,..-~' ~ ~ .. . I. I. --:..: 'I · : ~ ~ :J Q..I-J --=..... . .. ~ ~ .. - ... =.l. ".;;... .~. 1 · 1 ~ ~ ~_~ P~'" ~ ....-;; .. ..... - - ~ .I :. . -..:.... '" ...... . ~ II if.J.J.I.:.".. · ::.........,... · ~. -: - .., :-r"~ r: II( -.:.... IJII:I: /f. Ii - r-.. . ~.: .:..~.. · J ~t- :i~. ~~ ~.. · 1.=-lt-.2:.... ~ ~ ~ 1 1 .., · · ... ... .. ... ~ "li .. ~...v 0 .:1-":', .. ...:.)L:,-... f:" ~~.~ ::r~.II~.~' ~...~~-~ ~..~::-:T ~ · .I' .../.:- rt.. . ,. 1--: ~ ~""'L i-I ~ ....: ; ::-- "-:.::" ~1iI: ~ -. ..::.. ~ ~ · \~ 1 1 · · 'I ..... "I. .. I.. · -I: · · 1 - _ .. I. .., _"'i. ..... .I' .... · ~ iJ:.:'.. ..... .. .. .1'" 1 ~. . .I.: -. .,... 1""-.... ~... 1:=:.5... :....)1 ..... · - .3: -; - .: t !rI'.Ji.. :..-..:-:....:-.,. .,. ~. (' -.. - ... ,. - I. MII-'Zi ' ~FI- .A:. ~ ~.::I ~ ~!ii~~~~~"'~~~1. · _ ~~;r~.III::J - .~~.. ~~ 1 ~~. ~ · -......-:-:: .::.: ...1' · .. ... I: I .roI:- 'I I.... .....J I 1\, r ';,t- · 'L iii : ~ 10":. .~ ~~ .~ i ~ lit t;~ p:- . ,,~. .~.~ ; ~ . ~:; 1i1~~ j I .... .VlI ~~ r -.r~."7"; ~........r~ 1 .. · ~ ~MJoIo- IIr" ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IJ . ,........ ~ t.~~~~ 11 ~~~, 1:1-: ............ ~~ 1 .J ~ ~. ;, . ~ ~ .. =- L. . r a.. -. u.I:. ~ Ii. . .....:.. ~~!!:: ~~ ~ ~.~1i) ~~~ ~~ - :~.: _{.III" .... :llfil .. ~"":-. ----:-- -1Ii;:r] .=-~: ~ r.....~ -.: .I' '..1'.-:~ --::: . .~~j . -..:.: -. -: '%- r~'\. ." i-~ .Jw- ~~ )... ..K~.J ~ ~ ~' " ...... J..rrl' I ioI [1.. rI" . ., l I .. ii 1 _ .-.- ... ~d ~ . ~ ~ J.. :- ~ . . ~ ~ ~:.i r-.: I. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~7"~f,~~ ~L_ ~ ... ~ -":..... ~'.:'.- _" .1'. · ~ : .... · .. "I~ ~I_ .. ~ .;:. b . ,I' . _... ?Ii .. . .i.....: '. .. .. Chesterfield County, Virginia Mem.orandurn DATE: JULY 3, 2007 TO: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEVE SIMONSON, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEP ARTMENT SUBJECT: UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AMENDMENT - ADDITIONAL MAP SHOWING THE REVISED ALIGNMENT OF THE POWHITE PARKWAY EXTENSION AT GENITO ROAD Please find attached a map showing both the current and proposed alignments of the Powhite Parkway Extension where it crosses Genito Road. The map also shows a very approximate "potential interchange area". The interchange area is not based on any specific design work, but simply shows an area that has been utilized for similar interchange construction in other areas of the County. It is our intention to add this map to "Supporting Document C" of the Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment. 31 000159 . ..~ ~ '. ..'......._. .r:I.~a..s. ...m....' ....pt... ...U.......Q......N.... 'M""""ENT""" '," "", ......... ... .. ..... .. , , ......... . ... . . -, . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . , ,., ~......... . ... .... . " ':i:::i.lli:::i:iii~_.:::RBllm:tNi:><,<< ~ .....................ff[Ot~jliijjlji,jglllmMENt'.......... ~ ~ UOOTH ~/ . ! '. ... ~NL'gt.:-.i'$:NM....:. Em' PUWMlTEEJ{'rEN$lOl'f / :~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ 32 0001.60 Supporting Document D TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL Upper Swift Creek Plan Total Phosphorus Loading Analysis for Planned Land Use Scenarios PREPARED FOR: DATE: Chesterfield County Tim Hare - CH2M HILL Jamie Lynn Conner - CH2M HILL Dan Medina - CH2M HILL August 15, 2005 PREPARED BY: COPIES: Contents Contents...................................................................................................................... .....33 Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 33 Introduction...................................................................................... I............................. .33 Land Use Scenario Formulation and Data Development .........................................34 Land Use Scenario Formulation.............................. u. I.' I...................................... .34 Methodology for Impervious Fraction Calculations.......................................... .35 Watershed Modeling................................................................,.................................... .35 P8 Modeling................................. I........................................................................... .35 Reckhow Modeling................................................................................................. .38 Conclusions............ I....................................................................................................... .39 References.................................................................................................................... ... .41 Appendix A ........................................................................................................ I........... .42 Executive Summary Annual total phosphorus (TP) loads were calculated for four scenarios, testing different housing densities for the future Upper_Swift Creek plan. In-lake phosphorus concentrations were predicted for each scenario. Load reductions to achieve the desired in-lake concentration of 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for total phosphorus were calculated for each scenario. The Planning Department's Preferred Alternative, Scenario B (2 dwelling units per acre) can be met using the 1999 management plan's best management practice (BMP) mix. Introduction In 1999, CH2M HILL and Timmons Group working with the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, developed the Watershed Management Master Plan and Maintenance Program for the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed (Management Plan). The Management Plan was developed in response to citizen and County staff concerns that future development in the Swift Creek Reservoir watershed would lead to eutrophication and degraded water quality in the reservoir. The Swift Creek Reservoir serves both as a drinking water supply and a recreational destination. Part of the Management Plan entailed using the P8 Urban Catchment Model 33 000:2.61 (Walker, 1990; Walker, 2000) to determine the annual TP loads and flows from the reservoir's 10 tributary watersheds and from the areas that contributed direct runoff. The results of the P8 modeling effort were in turn used as input for a predictive model developed by K. H. Reckhow (Reckhow, 1989). The Reckhow Model was used to predict the mean TP concentration in the reservoir during the summer. In 2004, CH2M HILL was contracted to update the P8 tributary models and the Reckhow Model based on current land use. In 2005, CH2M HILL and Timmons Group were tasked with evaluating four different land use scenarios in support of a revised Upper Swift Creek Plan. This technical memorandum (TM) discusses the steps to collect the required data, and evaluate the scenarios using the P8 and Reckhow models. The TM compares the results with those developed in 1999. Land Use Scenario Formulation and Data Development Land Use Scenario Formulation The existing land use from 2004 was adopted as the base land use. Since the 2004 land use was based on tax records and current lise, it provides an accurate portrait of the watershed. The County desired to model the impacts of four different scenarios on water quality. As was the case in 1999, each scenario's projected planned land use was based on the conversion of vacant land to another land lise, typically residential. It was assumed that the planned land use for Powhatan County in the upper portion of the watershed would be the same as 1999. Each scenario would look at the following different residential densities: . Scenario A - 2.2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). . Scenario B-2 dulac. . Scenario C - 1.5 dulac. . Scenario D - 1.0 du/ac. Scenario A uses the housing density from the 1999 study instead of the 2.0 du/ac adopted in 2000 in order to maintain continuity with the 1999 results. All four scenarios have identical non-residential land use. Conversion of vacant parcels was guided by the geographic information system version of the County's development potential database. Two fields in this database were used to determine whether an individual parcel was to be converted. The first was the field LND _ USE _ 03, which indicates the actual land use for a given parcel in 2003. All parcels with VACANT in the LND USE 03 field were identified as candidates for conversion. - - The second key field was ZONE_03, the existing zoning for the parcel. Vacant parcels zoned "A" indicate parcels that are subject to future development, but no such development had been officially identified for the parcel. The next step for the vacant Zone A parcels was to check the development potential database to determine whether the parcel was projected for residential or commercial development. If it was projected for commercial development, then the parcel was identified as commercial/light industrial (eLl). If the parcel was projected for residential development, then it was assigned the appropriate land use code based on the scenario's residential densities. Vacant parcels that are zoned for any nonresidential category were projected to the corresponding land use. Residential land use was assigned to vacant parcels zoned for residential based on parcel size and the approved number of units. 34 000162 Certain parcels in the database were designated by the Planning Department as Deferred Growth Area parcels. The Deferred Growth Area parcels all have a maximum housing density of 0.2 du/ac and are all greater than 4.5 acres. These parcels are located in 6 of the 11 contributing watersheds including: . Blackman Creek . Horsepen Creek! Deep Creek . Otterdale Creek . Swift Creek . Turkey Creek . The direct runoff component, which corresponds to runoff directly reaching the reservolr Methodology for Impervious Fraction Calculations One ofP8's input parameters is the impervious fraction for each subwatershed. Impervious fractions were assigned to most land use categories based on the 1999 and 2004 modeling efforts. Impervious fractions for the converted residential areas were assigned based on the values in Table 1. TABLE 1 Impervious Fraction Revisions Upper Swift Creek Plan Modeling Support Scenario Residential Impervious Fraction Density (du lac) A 2.2-4.0 0.35 B 2.0 0.34 C 1.5 0.31 D 1.0 0.15 B, C, D Deferred Growth 0.2 0.05 Areas Additionally, the new land use (CLI) was assigned an impervious fraction of 0.90. Using the revised impervious fraction information, the impervious fractions were calculated for each subwatershed. Watershed Modeline P8 Modeling The 11 P8 models (10 tributary and 1 direct runoff to the lake) developed for the 2004 existing land use were modified to reflect changes in land use according to each scenario. The only change to each model was an adjustment of the impervious fraction for each subwatershed to account for land use changes. The remaining data, including precipitation and temperature, were identical to those used in the previous modeling efforts in 1999 and 2004. Table 2 compares the land use scenarios among the three modeling efforts (1999, 2004, and current). Included in the table is a description of each scenario's development. TABLE 2 Scenario Summary Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan 35 000163 Modeling Scenario Description 1999 Existing Land Use 2004 Existing Land Use 1999 Projected Planned Land Use 2005 Scenario A Projected Planned Land Use 2005 Scenario B Projected Planned Land Use 2005 Scenario C Projected Planned Land Use 2005 Scenario D Projected Planned Land Use Existing land use at the time of the original study. Land use updated to 2004 including existing BMPs. Planned land use projected by the original study. Based on converting vacant land to 2.2 dulac Planned land use projected by converting vacant land from 2004 Existing Land Use to 2.2 du/ac. Maintains continuity with 1999 study. Planned land use projected by converting vacant land from 2004 Existing Land Use to 2 dulac, additional conversion of 4,079 acres to RR (Deferred Growth Areas). Planned land use projected by converting vacant land from 2004 Existing Land Use to 1.5 dulac, additional conversion of 4,079 acres to RR.(Deferred Growth Areas) Planned land use projected by converting vacant land from 2004 Existing Land Use to 1 dulac, additional conversion of 4,079 acres to RR.(Deferred Growth Areas) Notes: RR = rural residential Table 3 summarizes the previous modeling efforts, breaking down by tributary watershed the TP annual loads calculated for the 1999 Existing Land Use, 2004 Existing Land Use, and the 1999 Projected Planned Land Use scenarios. TABLE 3 Summary of Previously Modeled Total Phosphorus Annual Loads Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan Watershed 1999 Existing Land Use 2004 Existing Land Use 1999 Projected Planned Land Use TP An n ual Load (I b/yr) 12,189 14,547 43,508 The results of the tributary model runs for Scenarios A through D are summarized in Table 4. The total TP annual load for Scenario A is significantly greater than any of the other scenarios. The overall TP annual loads from Scenarios B and C are similar to each other and to the 1999 projected planned land use. Scenario D is 11 percent lower than the 1999 results. The annual loads by tributary watershed are shown in Figure 1. It is clear that several watersheds are projected to experience denser development than what was anticipated in 1999. This effect can be seen where the annual load for Scenario A exceeds the annual load for the 1999 projected planned land use by 10 percent. This is the case with Turkey Creek, Otterdale Creek, Horsepen Creek! Deep Creek, and the direct runoff component. The total annual flows generated by each scenario are similar. 36 000:164 All four scenarios and the 1999 planned land use total flows fall within 3 percent of each other. TABLE 4 Summary of Total Phosphorus Annual Loads and Flows by Scenario with Deferred Growth Areas Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D 1999 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Land Use land Use land Use land Use land Use Total TP Annual Load (Ib/yr) 47,674 42,784 42, 181 38,926 43,508 Total Annual Flows (ac-ft) 100,923 99,376 99, 186 98,214 100,392 37 000:1.65 ": - II · ~ i !:..-:.. ~ {: "'I ~ ~ . -..;- .. ~ It ~ I: i - . - ~I~ ~~ ..EI:W ~ :J :!..IZ-_~ ....... - .. .~.;.: . ~ ~ ~ t J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~d ~ ~ ~ :.!... . ..e... S~ ~ i ~ 1 ~ . .J J~ ~~ r. ~ ~~~;~ ~ -.:p::'" rI' I ~ J ~ t:r~ ~- ~ - ~ ~l'r' "? I ~ · O.l ~ ~~~ ~ IS ~~ ... rig: W · Ii ,. : IIiIi ~ ,. - "t "T" II-I · ..~ .,.. ~~ ~h~ I ~':'- ~~I::':;:'~~:~~~ E .. ~ _.;. =.. ~ i..1:- =-.:i: ~ 'l ~ ; 5 ~ ~ .. =-=~. -=..~I ..,...~...-... :.-1 -- r'l,!' -:.... I ..... ~......-.... :.:::.:1""-:::-'" -- .... . .... -.&.1,;:'" '- "'-= . '. ;I ..... Ii.. -"!'::...... ... ( - ~ . F, ..... ".I~ ~f:*:" ~ ~ 1\~ J. ~~ · ~md...-;'I ..:~!iI! I -" ~.~ ~~~. ... ...... ~... ~ ....~. ~.__.. ~t . ~ .: ;r ...::i ~ I ~W'I. .. .: I I"I.......--.r .;11.-, llliiii1"'"}..... ~ -.. · .-.:.:.n · I: j'l. .-=1.... ... ~ ~ : ""iIo. J ".-.v ... .... 0"11 .. "I =:r ~..._ ~ ....: . r"'Io ~.. ... _ , · ~ ~~.. C::t:: ~ Ii .J ~ , - - . .. . '-- -..a.I -- .. .. .......:.. -.: I - .1 · '1.:1-- ~ · "I";' :.... _ ......:1,.. I =7tIn:. f(g~~r.~..1#o :"-:':"0:-31'1 :..... ~.:I~~1l ~.,.~~ ..FiE! tf1lLoI:"" ~ - ..... ::ii ~ IIIi ~ "'-J ~ ~ ..~ ~. . :r ." t"I ..- .-: I . I::i'ti r. ,!~ i. ~ ~i. ~ ~ ~~ - . "-"" . . r w ;0. ~~ ~Ir: :..~ ;. · .. .... I . I)L ~ Ir. ~ :-! PI =.=.. ~ ;-. ..... u:.1!iI ~.~ . '" r.~,.::; ~ ~ t.~?..Ci "~"~ ~ ~ I r .. ..~~ II ~ ;.~ .. . ~ ........ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r.=}!$1 ; d .. "J J ~. · ti · ~ ... . · f:. ~ ~ ..... ~ ..~( .. tit~!- I., .~~ . t !:-.I~ ~ t::: t .;. ~.-::I. ~ .. ., ~rI'. :-r-="F · ~~. ...~... ~ -e + . .: ...-:-:.. . 'I · ..Ii= rl".rI' ~ :.!' .. :1 ~ rI'... !rI'.~...:... . · .;; II..i" .-.... · . ~-~ , ~ .. ~ L ~w . i: ~ . ..~ . . ~E · .it:- lp &...; ~ ~.~~ .. r~~.. i I · 1~ ~~ .. ~ . . - .1" ". ~ t . - --, w' J:,: ~ LrI :.-..,; ~ ~ .:r: -=r~ - · E ~IrJ II~: I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ (:i --: ~ ~ C::. ..., ~ ~ K" . i=:. ~ . ."1 ..~ ~ - - - I ... ~ .. ~. ,.....,. I ... .!i :wII. .. 1 ),: . E ~~L'JI ~ ~I b:-.. -- ... .. ..: ... ....l: I.: $ ~ ~J .~~~J~ ~ ~.. ~ ~~y\~.~.~ - - ........-:111 ~.! ~ r ~ ~ I: ~-: ~ '"': ~ ~:.>.,. ~ -.:1_ ~1Il ~ '~~ ~~.. ~r;-: a ~ ~ ::I 1-1 · ..... -.:: ..... .. ... : I ~ IE I r~J:':,:. ':LI . ~ ~.. - ~ ~t ~i::"i ~ ~~t. rl "r.tI ~ : ....<~~:.t ~~ ~ ~'u f,j..... r - ~ ')iI ~ ~ ~ ...:~.. .. ~ I ~.. .l.~~~ · ..) ~~~ 2 !"' I I' :'IIr ~ + ... ~ i ~.I..J'-:' 1 ~.- 111 .....J · , Z' ..51- I ...-r- =-I :., ~ 2, · .... ...;. ~ to. r.. r.-:- ~ ~:i ~::(I ,j :!. r: .. 1 -=-- + I . :t Y _ .~ . . I',r r.--" .... i .:. ~ 01 . t ...;" ~ · r-- '"I · .. · · .:.&...II . I .. .. w · .. ~ . WI ~ .~. ~ .. - ....-.:::II - .- ..- ,!'W,I .;... ~ ~.... L:. =... :--: .. ~ . ~ - ~. ., II ... -trt. I~ .- ~ :..::. -.:.n · ~ .J I ::-':I!I.U ) J ~.. 1...-:: i-- ~"".... t __ ~# ~~ !!i :( ~ .... .;0, !;:: ~. 50: :;JI;:'.;:p'I 1"1 i I!JI ~. ~ ~:" ! "=I: ~ ~ i1~~. '. - r"'l "ill ..J l; ~~ 4 141 ~ · ;a. :..11Y: .... J. ~ -::: - D ~..... !iI:; . ~ .: T.":,...,. 11..-:'. I. ~ --=. ~ : · ... -'-1 .... ... ;-r.._~ ~~ ..... ~:I~ ~ ~ lit %.! ~..n-J .' u -~, f.'lll.-:~ ~ ~rt: ~~ .. ....-. ~ !Ii _ · ~. 'i5I_ i"~. ~ ~..~ ' ... ... :15 ~~:.' . 1I ~~....'" -.... ~ ...... ~ ::'i!f p 'M. ~ i." · a. ~......-:,:. ,. 'J .... ~ ~ -....: .hi! ~, · ~:'&r ~_v~:$ ~.. ',U 1 .~. ~~-rr;-- y::l :J -="f:.III ~ I: .~ .:: ~ - .. ...:::;:=-. r r .... ...I:t ...... ---- --... I:"'-.~ · ~ ~.. ,j .-.:...- ~ .... ..~~ -=~.. :.t. · ~... .. .. iItE~ --.! L....... ... ~:. ~. - ----. L :""I~_I --::..~ ~ .-: ~ ~.............-:. '. .....".-;. ....} "'if .... .. ::ri -.- I~ · J ~ ..:~ ~~~..... B:J:." · .;'''-4 ~-=~ · ~ _-I" · · .. I!..-. ~:w.. ",j. t-T~. .. ...~, ~ ~ ~ - - ~ r'I .............. t- ~ II.i" :. tI~;.j a.~ · ~ ~~f~,j ~ · ~ ~..): ~ :.-:. ~ t:...~ : ~..:.,.~.:.., .~ ~',j ~..... ~ "::-~. ..~. -:.li.. ~ ~.:.:. ..;.:; ~~ :-.I:~" .-::-". ~. , :-.... · i ~ ? ...t=x 1:.: . i . ~-:-; - .I::~ ... ..;~. If -=ii!l i- .. ~ -=.:..:}. ..:. . ,,::-" ~ i.C --:r-- .... ~ -= .: .. ..:.- ~... r-::1 ~ IFf. ~~ ~ .~ ~III I -- .. ~.. ~:~ - .... -~. .. . ~~ ~ ~ ..-. ~ a: r::l ..: TABLE 5 Load and Reductions Required to Meet Reservoir Total Phosphorous Limit (0.05 mg/L) Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan Annual TP Load Reduction Required to Required to Ann'ual TP Achieve 0.05 mg/l Annual load Modeling Scenario Load (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) 1999 Existing Land Use 12,189 N/A N/A 2004 Existing Land Use 14,547 N/A N/A 1999 Planned Land Use 43,508 25,402 18,106 2005 Scenario A Projected Planned Land Use 47,674 26,104 21,570 2005 Scenario B Projected Planned Land Use 42,784 25,767 17,017 2005 Scenario C Projected Planned Land Use 42,181 25,725 16,456 2005 Scenario D Projected Planned Land Use 38,926 25,513 13,413 The increase in impervious TP associated with the new land use eLl results in an increase in more than 4000 pounds of TP per year. As an extra precaution, the County may want to consider additional onsite BMPs for these areas. The onsite BMPs could remove the TP load from imperviousness greater than 55 percent at all future eLl sites. 40 000:168 Appendix A TABLE A-1 Summary of Previously Modeled Total Phosphorous Annual Loads, by Watershed Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan 1999 Existing Land 2004 Existing 1999 Projected Use land Use Planned Land Use Watershed (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) Little Tomahawk Creek 754 1 ,270 2,810 Tomahawk Creek 934 1,573 6,138 Swift Creek 3,542 3,163 10,376 Turkey Creek 751 750 2,665 OUerdale Creek 709 1,630 2,933 Horsepen Creek / Deep Creek 1,662 1,566 6,256 Blackman Creek 1,006 1,019 6,021 West Branch 580 742 1,371 Dry Creek 504 904 2,004 Fuqua Creek 415 248 1,010 Direct Runoff Component 1,333 1,682 1,924 Total 12,189 14,547 43,508 TABLE A-2 Summary of Previously Modeled Annual Flows, by Watershed Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan Watershed 1999 Existing Land 2004 Existing land 1999 Projected Use Use Planned Land Use (ac-ft I yr) (ac-ft I yr) (ac-ft I yr) Little Tomahawk Creek 5,415 5,621 6,442 Tomahawk Creek 8,047 8,196 9,873 Swift Creek 24,670 24,546 27,095 Turkey Creek 6,121 6,060 6,732 Otterdale Creek 5,362 5,560 5,963 Horsepen Creek I Deep Creek 7,996 8,021 9,849 Blackman Creek 8,246 8,166 9,522 West Branch 4,290 4,351 4,752 Dry Creek 4,372 4,548 4,975 42 000170 TABLE A-2 Summary of Previously Modeled Annual Flows, by Watershed Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan Watershed 1999 Existing land 2004 Existing land 1999 Projected Use Use Planned land Use (ac~ft I yr) (ac-ft I yr) (ac-ft I yr) 3,571 3,567 3,840 10,805 11,576 11,347 88,894 90,212 100,392 Fuqua Creek Direct Runoff Component Total TABLE A-3 Summary of Total Phosphorous Annual Loads by Watershed Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan Watershed Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D 1999 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Planned land Planned land Planned land Planned Land Planned land Use Use Use Use Use (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (I b/yr) Little Tomahawk 3,030 3,033 3,033 3,026 2,810 Creek Tomahawk Creek 6,348 6,316 6,223 5,722 6,138 Swift Creek 10,632 8,840 8,760 8,334 10,376 Turkey Creek 2,855 1,003 996 938 2,665 Otterdale Creek 4,035 3,281 3,179 2,589 2,933 Horsepen Creek I 6,256 Deep Creek 8,795 8,628 8,401 7,241 Blackman Creek 5,888 5,630 5,601 5,448 6,021 West Branch 1,959 1 ,958 1,947 1,873 1,371 Dry Creek 1,401 1,392 1,365 1,225 2,004 Fuqua Creek 491 489 475 400 1,010 Direct Runoff 1,924 Component 2,240 2,213 2,201 2,131 Total 47,674 42,784 42,181 38,926 43,508 43 OOO~71 TABLE A-4 Reckhow Model Results Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Management Plan Modeling Scenario 1999 Existing Land Use 2004 Existing Land Use 1999 Planned Land Use Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Predicted In Lake TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.031 0.035 0.074 0.078 0.073 0.073 0.069 44 0001.72 Supporting Document E Existing Conditions Environmental Inventory The Upper Swift Creek Plan is one three plans for the watershed area draining to the Swift Creek Reservoir. The Upper Swift Creek Watershed is rich with natural resources that if managed properly should provide for the water quality benefits needed for the preservation of the Swift Creek Reservoir. An environmental resource inventory (ERI) was performed as part of the Watershed Management Master Plan (2000). Many of the ERI features are continuality updated, to reflect additional data and changing field conditions. The ERI is a planning tool that includes information about and location of the physical and natural features that are determined important within the boundaries of the watershed. By using this tool to identify natural resources that help maintain water quality, the county can protect the tributaries and the Reservoir in an efficient, cost effective manner. Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Boundary: The watershed covers 61.5 square miles or approximately 42,000 acres with portions of three magisterial districts overlaying its boundaries. Generally located west of Route 288 between Route 360 and Genito Road, 85% (35,000 acres) is contained within Chesterfield County with the remaining 15% in Powhatan County. The delineation of the watershed drainage boundaries is important because that boundary defines the portion of the County to be considered when establishing protection measures for source water (drinking water). The watershed can be divided into eight sub-watershed areas. By segmenting the delineation, management efforts may be targeted to those areas that are most vulnerable to water quality degradation and therefore are the highest priority to protect or restore. Moving downstream the, those stream segments that are closest to the Reservoir will have the greatest impact on its water quality, while those stream segments at the top of the watershed may have less of an impact on water quality (see Figure 1). Hydrology (Tributary Streams): The Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed is made of a network of eleven streams over 248 miles long that combine to form eight sub-watersheds, which flow directly into the Reservoir: · Little Tomahawk Creek · Tomahawk Creek · Swift Creek/Turkey Creek · Otterdale Creek · Horsepen Creek/Blackman Creek/Deep Creek · West Branch · Dry Creek 45 000173 · Fuqua Creek The Swift Creek/Turkey Creek system drains the largest area (35 percent or approximately 14,700 acres) and the Fuque Creek drains the smallest area (4 percent or approximately 5880 acres) of the watershed. The networks of streams carry drainage from groundwater and storm flows. The physical and chemical degradation of these systems will result in increases pollutant loads, significantly affecting the water quality downstream. These effects of degradation can be further exacerbated if the stream systems become unstable and disconnected from floodplains and wetlands (see Figure 2). Geologic Features: The Upper Swift Creek Watershed is located in the Richmond coalfield, situated on a structural basin filled with Triassic-age sediments. This basin extends to parts of Goochland, Hennco, Amelia, and Powhatan Counties. The watershed contains the part of the Clover Hill Mining District as identified in the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Publication 85 "Mining History of The Richmond Coalfield of Virginia." Mining operations in the watershed consisted of Coate's Pits and Hill Shaft, which were the northernmost workings in the District. Both operations were shut down by the mid 1800s. Another geologic feature of note is the existence of petrified wood formations found primarily in the Otterdale and Tomahawk Creek watersheds. The watershed also contains a large number of established spring fed ponds typically found in the upper reaches of sub-watersheds. Many streams in the watershed have been found to have their origin at or near groundwater springheads. While not unique to this watershed, these ponds and springs illustrate the importance that groundwater resources have played in the history of the area (See Figure 3). Wetlands: Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils conditions. These wetland resources are especially valuable for the protection and preservation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats and wildlife. In their natural conditions they provide flood control, water quality and maintain stream flow. Often these wetlands can be damaged by alterations to their associated streams. For example, down cutting, caused by increased storm flow volumes to a stream can lead to a draining or a drying of the wetland, reducing its quality and the overall water quality of the stream. Providing additional forested buffer for wetland resources will work to keep these systems intact, protecting the water quality of the Reservoir~ Wetlands account for approximately 5289 acres or 12 percent of the total acreage of the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed. The greatest wetland acreage is concentrated at the lower stream reaches, near the head of the reservoir. Acreage decreases progressively upstream and is minimal at the headwaters. The greatest wetland acreage and diversity are associated with Swift Creek (approximately 853 acres or 16 percent) while the least 46 0001.74 acreage and diversity is associated with Little Tomahawk Creek (approximately 146 acres or 3 percent). The Horsepen Creek/Blackman Creek/Deep Creek system accounts for approximately the second largest wetland acreage (approximately 519 acres or 1 0 percent) within the watershed (see Figure 4). The dominant wetland type found is palustrine forested or bottomland hardwood forest. Bottomland hardwood forests are flat lowlands along streams or rivers usually on alluvial floodplains that are periodically flooded. They generally have a linear form as a consequence of their proximity to streams. Many of the stream systems in the watershed are associated with high quality wetlands. Swift Creek, Horsepen Creek and Blackman Creek contain a combination of large forest wetlands, high quality scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands. Reservoir.. Lakes & Ponds: The Swift Creek Reservoir was constructed in 1966 and includes aI, 70Q-acre impoundment with 5.0 billion gallon capacity. Its mean depth when full is nine feet. The plant has a production capacity of 12 Mgal/Day. An additional 221 acres of impoundments (ponds and lakes) can be found throughout the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed. These ponds were created as recreational or farm ponds facilities. As development occurs these facilities will have stormwater treatment potential. Topography and Soils: Soils have inherent characteristics that control their ability to retain or transmit water, and their stability. The Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed lies west of the Fall Line within the Central Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography of the planning area consists principally of flatlands and gently rolling hills typical of this region. The Soil Sun;ey of Chesterfield County, Virginia (U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service [USDA-SCS], 1978) indicates the dominant soil association found within this area is Creedmor-Mayodan. This association is formed from material weathered from Triassic sandstone and shale compressed together (see Figure 5). The soils can be characterized as well drained clayey to gravelly clayey. They are low in organic-matter content, low in natural fertility, and can be strongly acidic. The soil survey also identifies eight hydric soil series within the watershed that are associated with floodplains, drainageways, and depressions and their runoff potential (see Figure 6). Knowledge of soil sciences is an important factor in determining the amount of erosion and stormwater runoff that could occur during development. This knowledge is also important for the application of available land management techniques and alternative stormwater treatments. 47 0001.75 Flood Plains: Flooding is a natural process that protects stream channels and beds form erosive forces during elevated storm flows. When inundated, the floodplain acts as a natural flood and erosion control, decreasing the magnitude of floods downstream. Decreasing the magnitude of flooding is beneficial for landowners in riparian areas and aquatic wildlife. In addition, the floodplain protects water quality by filtering runoff and promoting groundwater recharge. Finally, floodplain wetlands act as nutrient and sediment sinks, which also improves water quality in streams. This land area serves many functions and provides important habitats for wildlife (see Figure 7). Stream Corridor Buffer: In response to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act of 1988, Chesterfield County enacted the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance in 1990 (Ordinance). The ordinance protects environmentally sensitive features from improper development that would contribute to the significant degradation of the water quality of the County's waters, which drain into the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas include Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs), which are subject to the criteria set forth in the Ordinance. RP As are environmentally sensitive lands at or near the shoreline that have an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts that may cause significant degradation to the quality of County waters. In their natural condition, these lands provide for the removal, reduction, or assimilation of sediments, nutrients, and pollution runoff entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. RMAs are land types that, if improperly used or developed, have a potential for causing significant water quality degradation or for diminishing the functional value of the RPA. The RPA boundaries include 100-foot-wide buffers adjacent to and landward of the nontidal wetlands. The County has generally mapped RP A boundaries within the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed according to hydric soil maps from the Soil Survey of Chesterfield County, Virginia. The RP A boundary extends 100- feet outward from the hydric soil boundary. In 2004, amendments to the Ordinance required site-specific determinations of perennial flow which thereby requiring buffers to be located along these stream segments. The County Resource Protection and Boundaries map identifies this buffer (see Figure 8). The area ofRPA within the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed, as of July 2006, was approximately 8.52 square miles or 5,454 acres. This includes 149,934 feet or 28.4 miles of perennial stream. Rare'! Threaten and Endangered Species: 48 0001.76 Identification and protection of areas that contain rare, threaten and endangered species require special concerns. As described in the assessment conducted in 2000, Swift Creek Watershed has no federally endangered species known to exist within its bounds. Several species of plants are considered state-rare with one amphibian (Barking Tree Frog) considered state-threatened. The Bald Eagle was the only species considered both state and federal threatened. Wildlife: A vast array of wildlife to include deer, beavers, fox, hawks, eagles, ospreys, waterfowl, and heron rookeries are found along the Reservoir, wetlands, and forests throughout the watershed. A state birdwatching route cuts through the center of the watershed along Genito Road. The Reservoir has an abundant population of finfish, which includes the highest number of state citations for Chain Pickerel in 2005 Protecting contiguous forest and riparian corridors from development and encroachment is fundamental to maintaining a healthy wildlife population throughout the watershed. Cultural Resources: Background research to locate and identify documented cultural resources in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed was conducted by CH2M HILL in 2000. This information was used to develop historic contexts for evaluating the archaeological and architectural resources located in the watershed. Information on documented cultural resources was obtained from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) in Richmond, Virginia. Figure 9 shows the location of historic structures and documented archaeological sites in the watershed. Due to the rich natural resources of the area many of the historic structures located in this area can be found associated with these resources in the form of spring houses, mill runs, and earthen dams. 49 000177 r... ....... .: - -- ~-~.I_ __ _.."!!L LL .L.. -- ~ ~ .. ---......... .... ... --=-:- ] .. ... .. ~ . ... 1 ~ ~ ::I ... . ..,.,. - .. ~ 'ti ~); 1:1 ...:;:." ~~..~ ..~..... ~.~ ... ~ '"' h., ~'.. ::! j ~ ~::.--=. ~ L~... ~ '1 t ~~.. 1..-. ~, .. I · ....... ... .. _ :J.... -. 1:11... ~.. I.!: 'IP . ~ ~:. rr ~ till-i ~ ;t;./~ 5 ~.n. f~ 1 ~r=i:: · ~ ~ '~~~ f. ~.'t.' ;~~~ ~J-~~I. ~ ~ ..: ~.~ f%J .Ir.~. .~ ~ I '-;r~:J f:.~~ _ ...... "I" .... ::I .. ~ ~ ... "31"..... _ 6 .... . po- _ -.......-,. r~: ~ ~ ~ :1 ,. ~ 1 ~~__~. ~ ~ I _"L ~ ~ · R..... "= ... · Ii ~ 1..-..... .~; 1 ~~ 1 - - "P.... , ~ ~ ~ !l~ ~ ~ ..:.:..~ L · · ~ L.'I Jt...... ~ c: . 1Ii..r:--.... . ~~ ~.~I~;i ~i~ ~'J;I" ~if ~~ .. Ail.\," :.~).~ .1'-- " ~ ... : JF · l: ~... ~ .:. 1 ... · r '1..:1 - t!-. ~ r)~\tB ~~ ~ .r.. D. .:g;~~ ' I ~ 5: \ 't:.I~~ " 'Jt '~I:-I ~f 1~~; t -. ~ "~I~ ~ .~. ~ ~~~ ~,.~i~~ ~~ - ..Ii': :L . ~ ~ ./ · ;!, \:i,~ i!;;; ;!I ~ . ~.~ ";"I'" .. - ~ ; ;:.--~~f ~ !I ~~ 1 I:ii~ . , ~ .~!.~..... _ ~ I~ LI. - · .. . ~ ~ ......-.:. · .... I ~... . iI! ~.. ~ · :-.:. - ~ :"'. ~ ~"'l:. 111: ?.D' ~ · -: ~ -= · __.. .:::::: .. ~ 1....-.- . !I __ 0 - "I.} ~.1";;..n. .:..J - :II - ~~ t :11::'" 'Ii: :-... .~ . ~ :.. ~~"'!II ~ ~;.?- r, . 1..:.. .~ .J ...1 ~..: ..... ~ ~~. , . .11. · :. ~ ~~ ~ ' .:II~~'~~ ..... ...r':'p;..~~ -' I~.'i:t - ..... ~II ~~~~~..-+ ~I::-~~ ..~..... · .,;:: ~.1 ~, III~' --;; _...~.,::-r.: 1: pi ...:. 1 .. i:-r:I~~ ~ ..-:-~~ J · ~ 1"._" . r..aJI.. r~~. ~:U'~ ;;:;.: '~... ~..~ ~ \I :L;:I iA.' ~ '1]1.- ..., !"II ...._ -=::!! .... . L. . · ~ ~ ',.1 II:L:.: ~.. ., · " &::i.:.: ~ . . · ,. _ · /..~ ~ f r ~ 1. ... -. -:: ----pj ~ r :. ..: ~;:-c --I. '.,I ~ ~~: · ~~. ..;t ~ CE ~ f'L''':' ..-L::;'..~ · :T..... .J E - .... -s: .- W; _ :!. :i ~ · ~ ~ l"j :':'~!:I "~ - -:=-IY.B!i ~ ...:.!! It1 ~ n b ~ - I.... I.:.y.j II ~. ~ I - .?"~~.. ':..- ~ ~. ~.~ ......; · ~ 4\. ~ ~ ~ ri J .:: ~ ~ ..:~ ~~"I ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ I"fi. ~.~~ A.i: ~:;"'.r:!; .....~ ~!;. ...:,,~.\: ~p .; ~ ~P. ..(~. ~~ ~ ( .~ ~ ~ 'I;: :.::.:.~ .::;.;;.~ ~-:, · ~ ~.... .., .. .. ......:;."t!' ~- 1 ~ .lil ......;].1a' ::0 ~ ^J..i'".... · :'1'=..... · i.' ~ ;: · .~~' - ~ ~..... I~ ..,.~ ~ I: rill I ~ ~ ~;.-: ..~ -. · ,. ~ ~M ~~ Q.:: ~~ ~ ~ .~ I ~ .!!i:t:.Y~-~ ~ [~~-~~. .... ::-=).~"=::~..:(J_I.t:~~:-~ ~~~~~ ~~..I ~':J r-~., ':....:,..~....-:~..':-It~.-Y.~~;~~~~ i ., I. to--. ~ ~ !":~ it,. l~~:. -;Ifi. ::.-;: ...~ .... -. - -:- · :L: ~".r ~~..... .... ~'';' ~.ji ...... .~: .. . · ;"0. ..... ~.... ~;:.=B~~_r:~.~~~:I\~}...i~~; ~~~~~~~~.-..I~~~ ~~mJ.~~~~~G:~:'~. .- },;.~-~&?.~tl~_.~ ~~_~.~y. ~L "~~~j:Y..l: -:. ..... .-. I"'~.'I:-~ ~ ~ rt,.;- ... ....... -..1 ,IJ -... ~ i ~ ._-....: -: .:.:-r: :Ij. iT-"- -. .. 'Ii" '-.L ~ \IA ~~~. ~_~l'~:{'.~~"po ....- r: ; ~~t.:. ;1~ .~~5;;i~ y~!.'f.7i/!:;~:/J~.,it~~... ~.~).- . ":':"'&;~~ ~~.:.{jf';.J · · ~ ~ < ff7 ~ 5?= ~..r. ~ ... .-. ':'1;' ... I oL) ... ~:I ......... ~.. -::; ~ "';'. · .-!i: ~. .. · ~ - .. ~ l~'" r ......~- -.~. ~ t · -- ~. · ~ · ; .... . · f _ ~ ~. ... ~ i("...: --= .:;- -! .. . -. .....~ I. .. .. .. I.:.! ~.. .. --; .... ::. -:- ~ ~ :.:.r :<<:....: ~ ~Jt ~ ... .:L.. ~ : ':. .. r \.} _. .:- .fi. ~ .) ::: .: r I: .... ~ ~:. ~:. ~.. .:. 1 ..:.L ~~ ... .. :...: ~~ I~ l. ..... ... .. r. --:- iIl:ri- iP:":. - I.:: -., · "ti · .. - - I i ~ I~ :. ~ =- ~ J a <J ~ · - _7":-"'1.. ---- .... --:-::: ~ ~:;: ~ --~ i! ...~~~:L~ ..~: ~ r.L.~~; I~; ..... r~ ~ ~ ~ ~. d .._ .i:.~: ...~ ~ ....:. ~ if:. ~~7' ~ ~ :- ...: · r.: =--~rA -r- _ rw- - .. ~ .. ....... ~I ~J.~.J ~.~ lor." _.... .. ... · "'J - ..~~ · J.....~... . · ~ - .. J ~ ~ ~ -. ~ ~ .. - -.;0, ~.. ::.. ~... ~. ~ ~~ ;-. ;M... · -Ii 11:1 :'1!1 ~ :~~;:- it- I 2:.1 ~j,~ ~ _ -;'!N9J H~ 'Sl~ I '-'...... - It" ~ ~. ,~ ~ ~f.t ~..."'" ~~~.~-; ~~I )t~ ItI~~ ~ ]~ ~~:- I~ ~"~. t :a-- ..--;:: ~ - . i ~, ~~ - _.~~ I~ ~ ~ :r~ r.B:k-~ ~ d ~ 'lftrJ-. II.. .... - ... ~~ a... ""IIIEI · ~ -;- _:ViE. 11:1 J:I&.: '1 ~~ ,~ f " h '~ !lj I ~. ~~..:- ~~ : Io'~:"~ ~ ~~-I.).I~~~ ._ - ~!II _.~(] · ~ J"'~ ... :-- I _..- -..... .. ~ ;- ~ I" ~ !: - :.D:aII I ~ ~ f! .-1 · ~ ~ ~ U h ....11 II' Ji ri..:' ~ ~ '.~Ir. ~ -.' r I..i. ".-:;':.1 ~ ~r ~~;!}.Ii. ~ .-: .....~I 1~ -'!Ii ~ II ~ ~~.. ~ ..;:. ~.~ *-::-::.: ..~ -.: ....} - III [_ . -"" .J.r.p {. ........ ..... L.;.....-::".... ~ :Ii......' ~ II I' ~ 1.1......... -. ~ " of':,& Eih '!J. M'J "&;. r.. !p" .-:-,} ~ - -J .-: --:; ~.:-: ~ IJIrD ,,=I ~: "-'I ~ 1III'.iL.. -.:. :J _..--.....&.II ..., ~ ..:.. ... '..,I, ~ - ~ -.... ""=I... i .1 ~. ~_.= ~Mf~ iIa. .~~ ~_-,~r;:>E ;;-&,~.~~ ~~ ~~..I ,- r ~ IC" I" ~ .. ~ 1I..r::. ...- -....... :: : r/ ~ :..... - Iii . , -. I'W" L ~ II...... ....., ...... ...., iii I -: - · L ~ ":PI I ., Ilr ..-..... .=- l.i:: ~'I.... - - ~.. r Il!'. ~ -...-:. _I i.... !III ri'''J ::I 11;"" 1N"1i. ill: lltill _ -l r-..- - ........ ~ ~:I :b-~ -= ~... ~ ;.;- ~ .. ,::,,'~I - ~ \. :~oCiI ~ J~~~ !iii. ~ +- I' t i 11rI. ~ ~ . (Ii if. . r'a.' 'I .. -=..III :"tI~ ~ ':,,~ ..-:.J....... L ~. ... -IIi..: ~ ~ ........., ---.".11 _ !II rr. "1"1,," - P. ,'" .. "i. .~ ..~. r ': ~" ..-..; . ... c. ~ ~ i":P'.'3: ~~~ Eo ~ ... :!:t... iiIr'~ J ii:.:--.1IIt - ~ :.... .......:... I. · :.. - LI' ~;~ I. -........ I=-'::'=- ~ Y- .EJIiI:I"': I ~~. #~ =- ~ ~.J'y...;l .~ :.', ~~ ~,.~ . : ' ~r.;' I :( -:! ~ ;: ..,:,~ ~ !: ~W ~ ~ [iIII · ... "",-III ... .. .. T ~-:.--~.,~ '~)li ~ ... ..~ ~~. ~ ~ ~I - ':i.la.. -=:-;.-1 r... .. -- -... r - ( .. .::1:-' ............-.. n ~ ...~ :~--.-:.IiI--:~)'&~~ :-=- -~.,.- (#~ ~ ~J ..~ ~. ~ ~--~I~. ~S---.::..~ ~ .if I'" ~. f:.. I J=~ I r : :,"i ~-;; o.r ':= =:or -~ 'i' - ..~.t.. ~ ~~~~.- ~~ ~ .;..~. 1 i.:;' 'L- '~.... ~. ~.::.~ ~ .=.:;~~ ./fl~.t ~~ · t S~~~ ~ ~..~ l~~ t-..':.~ B~ ,-. X-L"ttt, .'-~-: Zllt-;~ ~iI~El:::. i1~""~I"~.'J' ~.~~< i~ ~.'.. ~-~Z!..~ I .. .... ... _ 7 - _. ~ .... .., ... . ... ~ _.. - r.-;r;' -. _... (_ L..... r ... .. ...... :.All""" ~ I.: J: -':JO. ~-~ .~~~:m- 1 1141 ~.t=..I...:Is:~ ..-_~. ~w.I~'i~, r,r:..';~"f::~. ..:.. i~~ E~. ~. ~~.~~ II ~r}N .::~~ ~ :~'1~. ~ ~~ " /C~~~~ ~~~~ ;~M"'~' !!I: ~~=) "g" ~f~ .~:~~ ." '-Jj~ .~E~' .T~~:~ . ~ ~. j~ ~jlJ ~,~ .I.~ ~~ ~~~~. ~~~~.:~~ ~' ~. ~~ J~~~;~ :~~~:v~;~t~t ::{-: :i... ~~. 5 ~~~.. :~., .J ...~~ n~ ~!'lm, ..~~ ~~.;' :j"~~~~"'~'~r .: · ~..~.~ :"!f:~7.~. ~1'>~t~~. \.. .! '. ~X'~~ ~"': :'. ~~ ~ IIr '.. " ~. Af ~ ,~~ 1'-'....;:-... ~ ~ ~ ... . . '. ~ ~ ~..r~ "'I-.i.,. ,I ~.,:. ~ .:, ~.:-. ;. J:: .;:.. .'~" ~.~.. '. .... ~--:''''.:o.: '., ~~ ~"~..Ii ~ ~ /ki ;~r ~~~ ~ -:. .. ~ ..l ~ I I:i , :.. - -- JI ...... 'f ~I .. .: I.!t!I ..- -~ ... ...... ... ~ .. . .... ~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~ .. ~ .-.. f~ ~ - 51~ -: .-4~..~ ... I 1"1 _-M l~ J , I ~ ~ ~'-r.:::~ ~ .~j~ I ;.~ ft ~~ If]. ~ I~ ~ , If.=- ~ - a~ ~~ - - I ... .. rl .. I I... ~ . 01 ~ II I . ~ .... ~ rt I~ , ,...-:: ! ~ ~ 01 ~ ~ i :. ..... .... ... .. '.no. I:EI :A - ..c ~ ~d , IL I ~ .. : -=--== ~ IJ~~ ... ~.. I; iI ~ .' ~ r._ .:::; ~ I~ ~~i"' ~ iI ~ I rI' -.J.LI::-'~ -:"~ \....: L~-' ; ~iI -~J' LI.~ I I~~ ~ ~ fII... ~~ ~... I ~ 1:-iC, ..I · i'I .. .......... : ~ ~ "'" ........ I ~ ...... "!Io tI :: ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ rM r :. " n t ;~ .. ~I~~: ~~ ~ ~tJ.~ I ~:... ~ ~.. ~ L) ~ ~~ .j I~ It.31):.-1~~ i ..Il ~~ i ; ........ ~ iiI ~ iii '..r:-::! "-:1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ...~'l. w :-::..1..:- ~. r r '!i:. ! ~ ~' .. ~ I" ~ n I~ :. --: , t .. . ....: '!II -....... II .-. n --- ... I: ~ w.... · I: '. I I · I ..... .Y oI! ~ .. .or r. 11"... -.c:-: ~~, I Ii':" ... a rtoI "~ . iIII.=~ _ · .. rI' . .. ..:." . _ -. ... ~ I I ~ J t: - J .::;q [. J ~~. ~-=~ ...~rJ- ~ "'~t E ::' .r.. ...~... ~.9........ d 'lIE..! :!. ~ f 'J b ..... ~....- &111\'" · ~ .... E'V .. -: ..... ~ ~. :ll ~ .?~t:. i '. I ~ :-". 1-~ { -:~ =-:, i!i ~. . i.I · .. ~. ~ :J .. ~ ...1l! I ~;~ i:'.~:-;~ ~ ~ .i.."'-3~ .f ~ II: ~ .~~ ~;"..~ ..II ;JL.,i,:.I!~ I . ~ I ~ ~.~~.~ =-., ~~1I I 11"..-: ~, a}...I-'. ~ ~ ... ~./I..~~~ ... A':7~~.:--: ...-;JS[I j;--...:: ~ I~ 1: ":-~---.:....=;:....~ Jot' - "~~J .~.::1.~ ...~ ~... ~::; ~~f~j~r:~t:. i~l. i~'9~"~' ~ '!"'~~~~ ~ "'="'''........ ........ ~. ;'!: ... ~ ~~. ..... .... ~~~ ~"- ~. "-... .r ~ -I ~ r · 1M...... 's--. -} ...: ~ t~~.. -. ..:- .II! ...... .. · - .. 0 I. 'QI.::I ; ~ i.. 1-...... I .. · .... . ~ -,." t .:: ~ -.rI'.. r iI ..: ~.... ....... -- ... I I ~ . ~ ~ . · "'\.... ~ '=-":r ~ ...p- -:Ii :.,-" II. ~ ~ :"; ~ .~ "r..... . _I - ~ ~..I - . - .. - · ~. .:."..:: 'L -. . - rI' - ~:. ~ T ~ 'L... -..:.... ilr" ~"?:-f"' .:? =-...... r..r ~ .:II . I . ... ..~ I -.~. "I "...:. ... r".. - .. flrl'1 .. -. . I. -ih" - . - - . - · i i- · .. · · · Iii 'F...... I .:r.- -:- --.-- · i JJ ..- ~ : 1.1 · ~- "- rI' · ... .. i -. 01 .:"!I - - - ... - Ii --- ... --- 01 '^ rI' ...... ...-..&.1........... ~'''''''J &1.1. I" i I ~~~I ~~ ." · .'itt...... ...J ...!"7I......a. ' .. · ~ - -=1 Ii:~ .... ~ --- .. ..... · II }. · ~ : ~ :. ~, ~:' . ~. ~~~~'I;" · ~ I......:. E ~ --: ~ · -: .-!.' .r ~ I ~. ~..~. ". j1~. · IF ~ J. · ~.. · ....~ . .r. ~ ~ ii ~~'., '~ i r I; ~ 11:-:''' . ... I"Idl ~... ~ - - """...1.I:iI:I . _ I: ..:. :.,1(1 ...I~ w...: ... ... "~;i ~~.:: I ;"T (~It ....- I I -....... F L . L. r.t]~ !~~ f.i.~; II .~.~ I.... 15&.... - ~ <<~p. : EI~, I ~ ~~ ~ . 1 .. L . .;~ . ~..." ;-. r I . I.. J" ~~ t ,.. ~ ~ ~ ! [i , I iii: !f... ~~ ~ ~ r~ I::~ ~_.- ~~. .L: ...... .~I~.!; ....r6~ - .:I r: I-. .--.. .~ '~.l ~~ ~~; .. 'T 'LI.: ..._ . 1'" ~..ell: ~...... ~ II.~ ~.. : Ir'" ; iI ..: ~ . .. - I"II.~ ~ ~ ( 1 ,;;;;r .L ... · ~ L~ ~ ~ . ~-....; ~.: ..+ rI' 01 ~. ~~~:~, . ~ . .- "I ~ !~ ~ ~I ----... _ ...... -;;'1 :a iI: ~ ~ ~ ~ r/ .,..... ..-...= ... - -. IIEI'" ! 1.1 l~ ~ ~..- ~~ I'" .. ... I · ~ ~ ~1i ~.....~~ · · I t:. ~ ~ ': ..... J-'-'-':" - ^' iii 'J;': ... -.,. ~ ! ~: :.. ....:. ~:.:-.:. :J ~ ~ . ~ . :-==:: .p.: ~ :r I i ~ I v~ l: ~~.~ ~~~~r ~~~ 1 ._. -= ";i~ . !S. - .... -- .. :... ---- =:. J jlll . ~"' , t" ~ pi D.I · ,. ~ - ,.....W...l:..: 1..:1.... _~ I~ - ... ..... - -- t. ~I .... --. · R=:;" t ... ~ ~ - ~ v '-I~ ,I.' A:' ... . . · . ~ I ::I -i ::.t. ~-:- :. ~_~ :01 .... ..... 1.1... t _ :fI ~ ~ f: ~ ~ - r"I" 1"1 . ~I L-_ ..: K ~ I j.-:~~ i=.. · .....~ ^- ..~. _ ,II.... ~ ;} ~. ~ .:! :: - ~ t"I '-F":I .. ~ =:~ ~ ... 1 ~ ~ .~......";" ~c-" ~:. . ':.i I'" ,- ~ ........ .:- ~~ ~ .I.....~ ~ ~~ ~ .t: ~~ '."1 ~. ":';{1 ~ ~ ~ 1": · I" "':' -;':;i ~. r IIT"I:I t.z: i!:: l,I~.. · )~:':' ... -::: ~ -; !. ~ ...-.~ ... ..... ";:.. :: ~. . t -: ..-: ii'i' ~ ... * ~ i:..... ~ '., ~/~ ~ ~!1i. ~,~~iI!;..... ... - -.-. .~!II ~tJr,r-~ .i':~(.~LI. /l!r;~--rI' iI,J 7-.iI ~ :. 1Ii....~~~~? ...~:-:.,. -. ii;._"'::::-- Ir."-~ ~~~.. .r i~ -. ~ ~~. "I'~-';':.~II:~~'~~"'~.~~' . I.. UI~"'I ~~I .~it ..: ::~~K..:.. "IlL iI:.~..~~e'''';~dJ~I.-- "'~.:(~.I. II ~ · -..... ..I~ :it-" 1 · ~. i pi =.- .!! .. · .. .. ~ .~ /"'riJ ~ I ,... ~ ";:.r-.." :R.... I:::::! · -..... H'I. ..-..r. It ~ !~ ~ -::. '~~li.',,: ,: ~.. I ..... ~ ::. ':- ~~ ~ -.. · ~~., 1 A · J Ln jl' '--'~ ...::::-.... 'i' '!'!: I ~ ::..:iiII'J ~ · ~~-.: ~ W~ ' ..::' ':~{l..~. · .... ~ ~~~ j~i.~~l~ ..;.~~ ~ ~__.......~~ -:~-.;..~....iitiJ:"--i~~ r:.:.-;. ~.~~~J .:.J:~-:-Y~J~I-' }.;. ... i i~~~~~ .i:~~~ ~ J~~I(~'.,(" :"~.~i1 ~. . :Jr......-:~ l:J .~...; '~f I~ ~~~~"[-;, t(~~~"t),.:, +:' ~~>.'!:.' .I~' · ~ .~~?: ~ :~~: ~:.;t.:.=-.::. ~ ... 't. ~~~.~/ :r--_ ~' I ......:::Jr-:;h~:-~~ X ~A:~..:~ I l~if~~~~It' .. ~J ~~ ~ :G.~:a...T~:(-i-.~ .]1 ~.~ I~ ~ !;. .::'=:~'-:::rI'f:.. · I..~ - %J~.. ~-f I~ · :~1= J~ ) .~....~. '.~: ...... ~~. ~ ~ -.. ......~'r\E.....?I. ~ ....m I {M · · - rI' .....-=- ....~ ~ · -J' . · ..... ,. ... · .. .' · r ~ ..... ." ~ J . I . I.' ..... . - ~, : -: - rL ;;S vs.:;; ? ~.,,"I ,. · --I""'T. _~ I .J... ~. I.. . t - :- .i,t .. · -:. .. ~ ~ ~ ..: ,. 1.( . =- .. I . ~ ~ .jI ~ ~ - :..-.! ............. - . i\.- _. .. · :-....... -.I- I_~ . - . ... rw · : rI' r"':.II.. .:. :.":-:-" I.:...:.r r:~ ~ .~ ~ ... ~. \in ( _ ~.. -i;i!v...... · ~ ;.}i:! · ...... .""'f:".~ :..: ""i" ~ --I. .. 1) I" .wI:,. ~ .' .: : r..... ~ .: ..:.x-- ~ }. ~. ..... ~ .. .... .~':. rI' ~ -r -A. · Executive Summary: ....................... ......................... ........................ ..........................2 Introduction: .......................... ......... .......................... ........................ ............... ..............3 Re sui ts: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 7 Discussion: .......................... ............... ....................................................... ................. ... ...... .18 References: ............................. .............. ................................. ......................... ....................... ...... .22 List ofMaps~ Tables and Figures: Map 1. Upper Swift Creek Bioassessment Sites, 2002 - 2005 ................................ 7 Map 2. Most Recent Water Quality Assessments....................................................22 Table 1. Site Locations and Physiographic Data.................................................... 6 Table 2. Summary of Bioassessment Scores, 2002 - 2005.....................................18 Table 3. Summary of Habitat Assessment Scores, 2002 - 2005............................19 Table 4. Streams in Upper Swift Creek Watershed with low pH............................ 19 Table 5. Sites at which fecal coliform densities were ~400 MPN/IOOm................20 Table 6. Streams with elevated nutrient concentrations, 2005...............................20 Table 7. Index of water quality categorical scores, 2002 - 2005. ..........................21 60 0001.88 Executive Summarv This report presents the physical, chemical and biological water quality data collected by Chesterfield County's Office of Water Quality over the period of 2002 to 2005 focusing on the streams of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Over the past four years, 10 sites have been monitored and assessed in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Most recent biological assessments indicate that the majority of the streams investigated in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed are "Slightly Impaired." Declines in biological condition have been observed at Turkey Creek (B-002 and B-012), Tomahawk Creek (B-030) and Little Tomahawk Creek (B-OI0 and B-036). Bioassessment scores have improved at the Tributary to Swift Creek (B-Oll) over the past three years. Habitat assessments since 2002 have demonstrated that the majority of the streams investigated in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed possess either "Partially Supporting" or "Non-Supporting" habitat. The most heavily impacted stream is Little Tomahawk Creek. Improved habitat assessment scores have been observed at four sites since 2002 (B-O 11, B-028, B-034 and B-035). A comprehensive suite of chemical parameters has been collected since 2002 to provide a general water quality "snapshot" at the time the biological and habitat assessments are obtained. 0 For the past four years, instream measurements of dissolved oxygen, conductivity, total dissolved solids and temperature have been normal. Observations of pH have shown several streams to have values less than 6.0 units. Fecal coliform densities observed in the tributaries of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed have largely been below the Virginia State one-time sampling standard of 400 MPN/I00ml. Most recent data (2005) indicates elevated phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations at six sites in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed (table 6). An index of water quality using the biological data, habitat assessment and select chemical parameters was used to provide for an overall evaluation of stream health in the County. In 2005, poor water quality was present at both the upper (B-OIO) and lower (B-036) portions of Little Tomahawk Creek. The best water quality has been consistently observed at the Otterdale Branch site for the past three years. In 2005, improvements were noted at the Tributary to Swift Creek (B-OIO) site. 61 0001.89 Introduction: This report presents the physical, chemical and biological water quality data collected by Chesterfield County's Office of Water Quality over the period of2002 to 2005 focusing on the streams of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. As a component of Chesterfield County's VPDES Permit V A0088609, Watershed Assessment and Stream Protection (WASP) Program, investigations are conducted each spring throughout the County to assess the condition of its waters. Since this watershed-based approach to sampling began in 2002, sixty-three stream segments have been assessed. During this period, ten sites have been monitored and assessed in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Five of these sites have data for all four years while the others are represented by periods of one to three years. With the exception of sites B-035 and B- 036, all streams in the Upper Swift Creek Watersheds have been used, in conjunction with streams in the Middle and Lower Swift Creek Watersheds, to compile a reference condition to which streams throughout the county can be compared. These sites, as well as others in the program, were selected by a careful review of maps produced from the County's Geographic Information System. At each site, biological and habitat assessments followed the guidelines outlined in the Environmental Protection Agency's Revised Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (EPA, 1999). Physical and chemical water quality was determined by in stream measurements and laboratory analyses of collected samples. The aforementioned assessments and data have been used to produce an overall index of water quality for the streams of the watershed. Table 1. Locations and years for which data is available for sites in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Site Num ber Stream Station Location Years Monitored bv OWO B-002 Turkey Creek Upstream of Mount Hermon Road 2002 - 2004 B-O 10 Little Tomahawk Creek Across from JTCC @Charter Colony Parkway 2002 - 2005 B-O 11 Tributary to Swift Creek Downstream of Mount Hermon Road 2002 - 2005 B-O 12 Turkey Creek Downstream of Mosley Road 2002 - 2003 B-O 13 Blackman Creek End of Ledo Road 2002 B-028 Otterdale Branch At Clover Hill Athletic Complex 2002 - 2005 B-030 Tomahawk Creek Downstream of RR Crossing off Dry Bridge Road 2002 - 2005 B-034 Swift Creek Downstream of Otterdale Road 2003 - 2005 B-035 Horsepen Creek Upstream of Otlerdale Road 2004 - 2005 B-036 Little Tomahawk Creek At Old Hundred Road 2004 - 2005 62 000190 - ~ - ....... -.... :...e.. ~~ ---- .I ..... --- - ;, ... ~ 1- ~ . J ~ ~ ~ ; .. !' "I: ,.. ~ ~ ! to: ~ I ~~ . i .. .J : . ~. :i~ " . L .Ii ~~ . ,.. ..., ...) ~I ~...n.:.. j .~.:: V" !~ I!: ..... ~ ., ~ ...~:...~.. . [r: ... ~ rf:~r. 'f: IiII ,~~(I.. -," !ri ~ ~ "'~';"'~ .:.' ~.:.. ~ k!~ :I!I ....) - ~ If..:..: · ~ '-- .+ i! ~ ..N( ~ . ..;p... · ..... l' · ..~.:J .&..:;.1. :).: ;.i ~ ..::Ii .I(p, ~ :-:- -. r"f.:J' -. · i '1':. "~!I I. ~ , ~-.... - ~ .. - Po -::...... ~ · ,..,. f'-" Oil! ...... ~ 1...1!- ~ A:-:. ~ti:-.... .-..: ..... .. ~ "::I ~. .,.. .. - ~ _-.f. ~ ? n' ... =- -.:' -..::" · .-.;..... -. . . ==- ~ :..:I - P.I -r.r..-. ' ... · t ~ ... -. ~ ("I.. i5!--..... -;" - . ..~~. ..~~.....~.:. ~~~ ~~~--:~ ~~I':'~ ..::..-~' ..... _... -:.: I ~ .::.~.,::. t-: J'311 ~ ~ iii ~..- :i....-r.~~ .~..~~ I r-x -:-...:.:F~~' ""~1: ..~~ )~I~~ ;;~~~ ~1f~..T~l..~.=,! ry,-' ...~~1J; ~ .-~.~~ ~;.. .I.:.:.:L"..-~,,~$~ .-": 'r~ ~~..:' r.r.;;:'!jt;.~~'~~~ ..!'~':;':';Jo~l- ~ ~. .,... .... .' · .. ~ ....... "iIiI-. .. · -=i:.r!:~"""';" ..p' "'VJ ~ .'",= I. iII...:- r. . ~._")if. ~.Iii. ~M~~;" '~:i;~41. :~....~~ ~.~:;".;n.:. ~~'"-; ~-~.(~!-":I.: W~~~. .r~=:.n:':.':"":~~~ ..... --t~. ~~: ~ -.- -- =--- .~'- F "-.~ ~ ~~y ~4:~i ~ I ;~:z ~ Ih-~ -., !~.i ;~I. . .... .... .. ...i-: ~ .. · ..1.1 Jr:... I: r. i ~ ~ i ~ ~ . ~ . ----I · ..1 .": ...... , ~ r ~~ ~I ~ l~."!I~ '1'1 ~ ~-).. ,~~~ ~ . ~ ~l ~ ~ q :=.: .~ I~~ .... :1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~. ~ ~ ...... ~. t ~ III I r.. ~ ~ . "I.. i~ ~J I~~ ~ .. .-=: i Ij.I ~b !i ..! ~ .,.. i.1 ... ~. -- - · I ~ ...."':" ..:...."IIIK:: ... :..., ... -.... ~ ~ I ~.. :...... ...... ~~~~..._W:r. I - r ..r_- ........_. . :. ~ ';'L--I . !- .:.:~,. . ~. "'! ~-~ . ., ; ij.~~~. ..- ~ r Iii 1:. .JUI r~~ r"~J :-;-::..":1 ~.~. j ~ ... ..:: i-=-:-Ii. . ~1 ~ "11>>1 ~ .....U ~~.~ rI'f" ~ ..-~. ~...... ... ~ _ .."' ~. . IE __ ... ...iIJI...;. ~.aJ" ~ .~.. r.J -.... -. T.,........ I . . r.. .,... . ,lIl;.... .. · I, ).. 7,. -'I ri"'~ i.1 ..,Jl. . -' .. ":I:' ": ... : ~~~~. . i !~ ~! j,JI . J .. IIU iii. 1 -: I I~ ..;.. ~ !:!-~:.~a,- _ ...... ~ II;.l. J::" ~ .::-- ~.. ~ ~"-.lt-I~.M ~~ '... ... -#'^' .... . ... ;::1 .~ ~,}. .., , .... rr.. ~ .(. .(:"\:l. .::""i r... ~~. ~..~ ... :I ~~fXt~~~:. . :; ~m~ · Q~ . ~~!j-'~" · .3,. · · .. .. · . .0lil: ....., .......... .. · .';: I.... .. .. . 'tJ'i -:r . (02 · :: 'I' . (") - ~.-....:r. ~. "I' ~ -. ! . ~ ~. -- l,,:' .. : I II;:. -:: I ~ ~ ~... :.: ,..... I:! -.-.- ~ r ..- .. J 1111 ~ ~ ~ . _-= . ... rw-.& ~ ,. ~ ~ .I =- .. ~ ...r:-'" "":' .. ~ ~ ~. _.1.. ;i!!i.:. "1r -..... .. ~ J "i}D.r'I ':i ~ - .1I1."i . .,._ ....J: ~..... ... . ...... ~ · - .. --.-.. , "11. :tI::. ..... ~ .. .. .11::1. - ~~ p-. .. · · · · ":I .. It:....; il~ . -: ....~ ":".:.... ~ "!': ~ Q~,if · _. ~,. · ~~~ ~ I~~~:~'~~ - ~ ;th~,r · ..,:.~. ..1 ~~~~. ~ tj ~ ~... :.?:~~. ..1 ~ ~~.r;: ~ ~ aI"::!- ~f..~ .~~. ,..:~ ~ '... .15 "1'_... II!!_ ~L- ~ ~ ~ · ~. · A- J,:, ..~'":=:'iP ~ "-?U.~,.:.~ Ii ~. :::' R :t..~.;.. ... '"..tW ~ ~ or......., ~...~ ~.\i .. . ~.~r.~J ~~:.~.~. ..':~."':'~. 111!!.:-#~~.~~$;.=--_1~~~" ::. ... '1".--.. ~. ~ t .==.Po ] =-.. ~ r ~ ~ ~ t t' · .. *.. .1 ~ J d- · ~.a~ ~ ": i ~ ~ ~~~ ...~~ .... )11 ~ -'1 . tl1 ' III ~ ~ 1= it ~, _ ..... I 'I' II. iii 7. r-..II n~& ~I . ~~ ~ !~. iiii' III. 'U... :J~ .:,.. ~ ~= _ t ;.~ ... ~ to - tI"'1 lIoi... · -~ ii1r =:w ~ ~~ ~ ~~:~1!i ~ ~~~..... ~ ~.c 1.1 -:;:. t~.. .-J ...... :'" if'--:. .- .~.: T_":'. J,('! 1.t ~ -(: ~~. .-;-. .....1 .... . . . +- . .:-~ '}A~-. · I ~.. :. . ..... =:t"::. p- ~ ~ I! · ~ ~ ~ ~ I · ~~ ~. ~I':JI ra. ~ -:.. ~ . - ......... .-..:..- 1:"-1 · · ~... .. ': .. - I:~ f: :I.... ".::E rEAlll, - ~ .... ~ .. ...... . ..;.01 ~. .. .'l.... ~ =I-" .:.:z ~ ...--..- I.JQII, ..>> 'Ii ..-y.~ -:.:J "J .... 1t. ~ ~ · ~..... ..... Yo -.... ~ t .1..-... ....:.::;: !II I 'EI.T ~ _ .r r. -.. .... .. Loll ,. II"". II[ ~I.;:::"::J ..r ~ =:::;. -...:. _. - . · ,... - ~~.:i... ... . ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ""'I :-11:.. ,.II .. :[). .1 ... , I · .. .. .. :.I.: :.: ~ .. J i:I I - .. -.,1 .:....., ~1I ;;:- ~ · ~ I I~. ;~~~~~ "~ ~ iI : ~ ;,,- ..:J ..~~ ~~ i ~ ~\.~ ~ I I~ I iI) ~. - -.J -. c....r"II... r.. ~...,:.. ~ '!JF" · .. rV" = .. ;.-... :t.i ...:.. - ...: ~ · -.IP ~ p ........ · :E,oI. -.. v. . ..... ~ ~:- · ~I."""""'"J..Z:-. "'lfI - .~ 1..fII:" ~ -.. ') -=-:r~. ~ I: ~ · ~ =I :... ~..: r....:.....--. ~..... 'AY '~- i ~ . I ... ~ ; .... .... . 111.:-' .:III"" ---. -., ~ r. . III . ., .31 ~ ~ ...... J -........ =-... ..............-........ :-JII:I.. ..., .. ~W~.~ L~i ~~T~~~~~~~~ ~~?~~~~~~ ~_- -~ .~~~ ~i~ -. .71 ..":..~ ~. · ~~~~~..-,:.. .. -.;. : l' :... :t.. X..; ~;. ':=Ii ~~~. · (" K~ ~"'!-.:r ~ ~:R.--tc. f:.: ~..... I -.:,:- ~;...r .") ..... .. .. -v_ r .. · "..t.'" .1-= ~ ~.: ,I~ ~ ~ ::I ~~ " .J'" J . ~-. f1~ ," : ~ . IJ:: I: . ~ ~ :.: .. ~ I -,;1 .-=! --"" ., :i. I .. . . ". ~ n:-:: ... Zi..;..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ !~I~~ -- ...... .,.,... . ~.=:I; 4BI .......... . ... ..-~... r. .... .:lE i . ~P.i~J ~r ~ ....~ ~Z1. ~a ::. ( ~~~~ ~.:. F. .-\_~~ .....,. '1.-. .I"~~~ ~v ;'-I. ... ~ .... . .. . ~ -=..~ ".r: /:. .&&I.. _ ... · r~ ~v ~ ~ i :v : ~;M [~ L' · .-..:L ' J -r/. ~ 1.1": ~ t.. ":=:". L J ~ ~~I , K~ I.: :11:1.: ~...... ..... - __ III "-:-...h J 1"]1. ..... iii ..... ~ ~ J =-.. .._ .. ~ L.&II .,.. ~ ~ i-.:..: .a- '1l Ii ... 11.... ~ .. - .:-.: (I; .. ~ ~ ...... >,'yo .:.. r; I~"'" ' ".:." .~~~:. "'~ ~ r -.. .... ~...:_ i-; .:... :::Ir .. J.~ " I, ,L. " .... .. riP. --. .: --.- .... - : I.. -:: - .. .. ~!:"-. ~ ~ . :J ~. r , ~ 1.-1 .-....,... ~ .... or,. :: - iI~~ .... "......... · _ .- ~ :. ~ r:...: ~. '!I ~ rAJ~". -: ~ :.t ... .. 311 .1 ~ -.:: ............ 4 ... .. .... - .... I" ... )i, J.:. I::. ::I J -.L iL:: ~ .'. r.. ;~ if' -...... LJrI":IIIE - T' ":;:.... -.-iN .,~.. · oM, ii?- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -I !-: ~ ~ ..~ -Ii .: ~ -. ~ ...-. ..-:-) a. t ill ..~_ .. :iii ~ - -~. Iii :-: ~ ~iI" ., ~ t:-:: :i-i:.1i ..... :: ~ I.. ~ I ~ l.i;~.:I ~ i::II:: v-' .... t ... · · ~ ~ .. · . =-11:." L - t .-:611P1 :-i' . ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ r =- ~ i ~ · ~ 1I::.r: ~ ~ -.:: ~ ~ .... J ~ ~~... I ~~ ~] fix f:IJ _..-.A ~ :.r..". -. '" t1...= ...... a..:::..: lI:!I"I.. ~ r ~ ~. "II .:IiI - . i:I:"'" .... .. ~-. ~ ~ ...... ,=- ,. a -::.r... · ~ ... ~ ;~. --:t", ~II" ~ ~ Ii. ~ L-=-.. "I ~ iI- I~ -. .. . . 'II :.w" ~ t~~~:t' :- ~ · I L ~- ~"I~ }p ~~ ...j ..giJ t - I - ~ .. i::._ ~ ~ '~i~ ~ .... ~~ ~ ._~... .... -;. , l -- I"L" - I ~ 'ftY~;I-=='" ~ =-~. ... '. .1' ..... .. I · ~:.-. -:to:..~ · )I ..... . 'QI' ...... .......:..-:.:: ~ n C)II - .. ~ ~ ~<<.... ' '~ ....z... I :I- ~ I . ~i1[~.:I~ ~~ ~r ~.J :J.;..r~I_" rr"'~' ~ ~_~__..Jr_- -+ I.~~ -.... . r/~ ;.... .~I~~~~. j; ~ ~:p.: · -...' ~~~. ::.i& ' · U. ~I . ~ - - ~ ~ ~ · ~ 1:."7. ~ · ~ ~.....~.... ~ ::; ... ~~~ ,.:.t ~ ':'~ .. ~ ,.>~.:- ~. ,;,': \tw; ~ i~.... .~.' ~ . ~ Ii ~,;,.... ~ ~ 'i: ":-" ..:.~. :Jl: ' . · ~ Id!!! u..... I ~ d:.......- ::y: ~ I '~ tI>>' -:M'L .UO......=.-II..... ... _ ~ _ ~.p 1~~I~~'~Mi ~~~ .tJ~~ij~~" - .-- - ~ I~; ~.."~iC' ~':.~~ ~'~I ..... · ',L t ~ -:.... ... 'EI J: ~ . ':E ifIi:.- "II I U':.i ~ I;" , ~ ~ . ~ '!I: ~S(r ~ ..... ~ -; '^"'I i ~ I .. ~:.:.. '.!II.:. ~.I-=.' ... - r/ ...1, ~ .'t.? ... I -=. I . .:: ~~.... ~. ~ ~ ~ lit ~ ~~ ~~: i~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ fA w ~ J.. rfi "r- ~J ...- ~ .- I::::a.' .. .. t"- -:. .. .... r I" . II. l. -~ h ~ I~~ - f?j ':'1 - ~I:~ ~~ ~ _-.....: I.' , 1"1 n Lf. ~ ~ 1iJ! ~(~ ~ -...:: .:...: ~~ ~i.ll ,.~ ' { ~ ":'; .; .~ ..-~ .ICII .JII :.. ':I .} ~ ~ ~'1 ". .~ ~: .: ~ II ~ ...... · J~ r~"t I .~~ II · !L~ ,~~) _~ I ~ J ~ :II - I - ~ · ~: ~ .....~...!i ~ . ( ~ - ~ ~.'"~ ~ ~ - ..tar_ I ~~..... IL .. ~ :::"". .n J ' ..... ill ~ ~ ~ r/ ...::' I ~ - ~ ~ ~:-I~ - ... ri w.r; ill ::or, ~ I ~ "t'r&~ ~~.~-:~.: ~~: ~~ ":" if;7~ ..".- ~ ...~: f.-~'" "~~.... ~~ ~r" ~ ~"t..,.. - -- 1 ~ _ I.)" ~_.... ._~ .-. 1\. tq(1 I iIi .... I'" r"'I'" I~ ..:II"'I.f13 ... I E!I" I'ol'..-..r. '~ ~.:"J ... ~ --:; .. -=:1 ~ ~ F I tI..:r::~,..: ~ .~. ....-.: :"11 -~.~ · ~., r.................... ~ ~ ..... · ~W~ ~ "&!. i\=I..... ..J.~ . ~ ~ [:,,_..-J , .!.... Ii:t--':..~ ~.~ ;.. . !::I~' :.i '$. ..-~ -. r ~ ~ ~'!1. r.:= 0-' g..... O( :. ...J.a:. ::-rE ~ _ill ~.. r;tr..) "S~~ i~"'" I... · J .,\' ~ . : . -: r" ...-.-=-... ...~ I -:::I ..:...I ~."iI ... ..I;'" ~ ...." - -. '"'0.; ij ',1' ";... . ~ t "';:, -:.r ~ ,"_~ "~j"'" "':i '. - -... ....~ 1 y _ ~...... _ _ - -.... III" ..... ... ....r.II..I '"" . -.:. E" .':'1 ...-..a. ..r -- ~....... ..... · ..j? --=.,.... - ~ .. ~ ......... · ....... r::l"= 111.:.1 .:.a~ r._. ~ r~. ~ r 110 ... . ... =---- ,_ . ., ........ ;. . ;-;. f.....~ ~ I~~: · ~" 3" ~ "J!t:; 13\ ::. ~ ~ ~ r:. ~::...... ~~:...-"~ "~..... ~ ...% I~';' r 1 ~. ";" " ". "~~ ". ~"'! I ~ ~")+ ..~ ~~... ~ ~t tit i;:~~\.;..Jj~W!~"~" :.:..m"" , ~-:::r.:i:~"":,"~~~ . t11.."~~i"'.-~":':. "- -~. ~: ..:: ~ -'..-II~~ J::~ - r/....,,;i · ";.lI:.=t : I~ ~:r .. -=- 1 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ :,;,,~,I..~ ..... - f:--..i..~ :. ~ ..:t. :S.,:. :/... ~ ... · I :-. · · 1. ...... .... · I!;:r~ "";. .....:~ ..~~.t:-:.-:. ... ~41j1"'." rr=~-):.. 'I..JI",,-~.,,'I' · .. I -;;;;..: ~ .~-i"'" : ~:r.:- I .R.' ..)-=i" -F. ~r~~. I. I ~. :.:::: :- .1-..:t~,C.; : .~t.'l.I: -,,:-.~---4;..~ ~ ... . .:....=--::-.=.c. * ~ ~ ~.:.: i-. ...:. · ~ · ~ ~ .!. ~:: i. .1:, :......:..;-... ... . .....: · {~. I... .;:... -. .. ::.- r" ~-=. · -= (~.. 1 .~~~' ,? .... .... - .. .. ..--- ~ .-( ~:-L:...QII... ~I - ~~ l I ~. it~~~~i;1 ~) ~ ft.~l ~y[ ~~ ~ ~...~.!.t I ~ ~~ "'" ......... ~ I jIII Jj 1 I -. ... Pi; _ :~ ~..=I ~ ~I.-i t-' rI ;.;IliiIr,~;I _" . ~:.. ... ~ .&.I . . .: liMiT. '1. ~ ~~~ ~ . LL' ~:"~J , I ~ . ~ ,~ ~~ ...~ ~~ II; E iii ~.. ~~ ~,: ~Ji ... . I"E I~ 1 ~ 8 - ) ; ~ ~"I ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ I ... ...w . - ~II- ~.~ :j[ ii ~ .. --.L ~ . L "1' i -:: · :'!i ~ ..!I ~ .=tI j .... ... , .-1 ~ j ..... ~ Il:ol _ --- . ... .. . : ~ - ~ ~~ .. · ~ ~~i. r -: ~ 2:J.. ~a, ~ F i&J l ..--.-. ~ I ~L -: ,= ~ ~.. ..,iI1.1 11r. ~ ::::pr ~ ~ .:.: ":..Jo"..r -.I 101 II. 4 ~ ... .--=!:.-, -.. -- '':--:' ..~....:.&..~. t ~ .~~'1~ '. ~- I:: - '- .....- ... I. ~ · z~ ~ ~I . ~11~""~~'-~~~:(~-~lI -.... .... · .. · --...t I -..... .. ~ ~ ~ ~.. ;.: ~ · - r ~ ..;J ~-''''':F:! _~ ~., i · :t ~. ;' "~~~T _ f"'!i t .tt!( {{!w; :=... til ~ ~!1Il: """" ....,,, ~ T~ ~.:.:! ~ ~~ (~~ L ~ ~ :!!-~::'=i aP.- ~~ ~~~ i . iD.P-I ci:;~..J~ "1I(..:i:iv.'I9:'"~W"V ~~~... !Ii ~ __.n ~ · --- 'T~ ~- -:: _... .1 ~ j..1_-' ~1. ... i1:'JJ~.J" .....1':. -- 1-'-;: ~ ..... .~ '... r : -!. - ."J!! ~..u I "',~ loJ ... I ~_-t~:-:...i:: ~:! ... ~ :rx:wr-J "," ~. -.!.. :: · ~=- ~Wj ~.. '.- ~~~ ii-::"--~3"~~~ I ~ ~ .;-i,f{~~ ~ 1I!'I.i~( 1 :-.:. I ij--- .... ....., .. ~~Ei" .. ~...J1 ~iIr ~. ~ ~.. i- :..ci ~,~.:--r "':"I' :t.~ " ~ ..... ,- I.=. -.r.:-! ~. ~~ ,;;~ I - ~ ~ ~'~ ~~: · .:- .;r-:-:.~I r;t!=- ~l;r , ,-~;.." - ":~.~.Cl~:.;,:~~-:.. ?:,.- . ~.~:...' .~I .:- ~ ..~;.t · ,.J 1_ i.JiI ~. ~ ~~ ., ~ ~ "II _ "'~ .7'" r.-~ -;;j.'~ ..'~ . .. I ~..... ;:;T · - - - .11 ............ ~ ~ ;;- .. ~. R.:=.: .. ~ ..,...... ... · · ~'~ .. · I~..I- ::.. ~.....>> ~ .. .; -=-: · ~ "I~ II ,-: i:hl: · · I · ~;;I ..iII~... ... " .:r . - i J lilii.:'i.i"_ - · ,:.. - ...-: i.-A ~..:r:--r-nI" ...'(' ~ I ...~. 1.1- I -::. ... ;- r ... .,"", >> · - :III II! ... ----:-r= ii ...-".- ....... - -: ..:" I . ....... . I .Ii. .. ~ "ill "Ii. .. J. · ... · .. ...,. - .....;: rI .. -r _. ~ r I ~ ~-I ~ : I...... ..;. -=-....... ..:-.. ...-.:t -. ~ ~ ~": ~~ . · ..". ..... A .. .... - .. .. .. · ,...i-. ..... · - .,...... ":(P ... .:: .. · - ._ ~~ :'I ... ~ ?~ . ~~ ~ ..~... , III /l~~l J ~. ~ "'U"'.I' .~ ~'" J ! L~I ~ - J. I ~~ ~ ~ ,-r=.~ : ~' I: .......... .... . .:.~-.:~ .-ilI - -lp(.,,-= '1'- ~. ~~i . IiII . ~:- ~i h ~ ..... ~ ~ i .. J ~ . . .. ~ ~IF ~ i: '. I ..~ ^ aA-I -.3' .10M' !IIi "r. . .. i r. tI ~ 1- . IIJI ~JI~ :J I!'I'J:! ~ ~.... . ~ ....-..::: -:: ;:.. :Ii'- ~ .... --- ... _ ~ .~.""'r.;J:f.1 ,... ........... ;w~j. ... -r__. ~~~ )~ . ~_,:'...:; ...-....' 11:1.' .-.g- ClI:; , ~ ~~.... ~..-= -.:- ~ ~ · Ia::i x ...,.... .. I .. If. Ir'" .:1' ~ r.. I ~:.: Ii ~ :J r"'1 ~ '(, -. v.J -- -.:I.... ~ ~ a ~, /I:" . :- I ~ .... :- .I"\..~ n . i"I- II "'~'1~'IrrP ~ ~I .1IJ.....:.r'Ii~ J. \.:I~ ~ I ~ ..:H - - a -:I __ n~ ~:t~ L:=:':Ii ~r ~ , r.r ~ 1I.:i. . ~ :... .......... ........ ....:J...... ......r F:. ~ I T.'I ~ =PI _ .oIE..I': ,: ~~:.r -. I. .:: -:.-. - -..... .. 0--' _. .. -.: ~~ -. _ ~ . .1.. =-: ~.... _. ~~:.:. .) 11 r ..I t": ...-; ~ -T..... II;: 1:... "$. . IP ' ~ . '~ .... ~:I ...-...:: ..( ---==--... ~.. L Ji:'.... i: .......... l1li:-': II!!~ .; 'I::r .., ....... .. -:.~.. ...L' __ ~ - --, · i"'.... · ""Wif""'II' .. ~oioI" - _ - '1,,0 ~ ~ ...~, I ... .. -:,. ~o'" I ... -... .- , n.. ~ - fI .... ,. . -r-.-.-. .. . "I ~ . 1::1' H.- -So ~:.: - ~ .... JIi ~.po.. ;-.... ~ .. ~ n.J I"" . "t ....... . .IIi .... Jill. :I, ;c. I~ 1 ~ ..-I - II · ~ ._" ~ 1 :J"-:- ~ ~ ~~~ . ~~ ..~ ..... ...... .. -=I~ ...: sites and no EPT organisms were observed. Only 63 individual macro invertebrates were recovered in the sample. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores remained high indicating a henthic community dominated by pollution tolerant taxa. An increase in collector/gather organisms and a decrease in predators were noted. Scraper taxa, notably gastropods, were wen represented. Habitat Assessment: The instream assessment score remained HNon-Supporting" in 2005, with conditions generally the same as those observed in. 2004. Typical of creeks in the area, the stream't s substrate is comprised largely of sand resulting in a general lack of instream habitat and cover for macroinvertebrates. The streams banks are not wen vegetated and are prone to erosion during periods of high flow~ Adequate flow was observed during the monitoring event. A large stonnwater retention pond is located adjacent to the monitoring site. Water Quality: AU water quality parameters in 2005 did not indicate any significant water quality issues. This is interesting given the fact that benthic macro invertebrates were scarce at the time of sampling. Discussion: Table 2 presents a summary of the bioassessment categories observed for the past four years. Most recent assessments (2005) indicate that the majority of the streams investigated in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed are "Slightly Impaired". "Non-Impaired~' conditions have not been obs^erved in the Upper S"rift Creek Watershed since 2003. Declin,es in biological condition have been observed at Turkey Creek (B-002 and B-012), Tomahawk Creek (B-030) and Little Tomahaw,k Creek (B-OIO and B-036). Common observations at these sites include a loss of taxa richness (the number of different animals recovered), decreases in sensitive species and increases in pollution tolerant organisms~ An improvement iD_ the biological condition has been observed at the Tributary to Swift Creek (B...Oll) over the past three years. Otterdale Branch (B-028), Swift Creek (B-024) and Horsepen Creek (B-035) have exhibited similar scores for the past fe""' years. Table 2~ A summary of Bioassessment Categorical Scores observed in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed, 2002 - 2005 B~002 B-OIO B-Oll B-012 B-013 B~028 B-030 B...034 2005 2002/2003 2003 2002 2004/2005 2002/2003/2004 2003/2004/2005 2002 2003 2005 74 00020 B-035 I Horse en Creek B-036 I Little Tomahawk Creek 2004/2005 2005 2004 Table 3 presents a sumn18ry of the habitat assessment categories observed for the past four )rears. Assessments since 2002 have demonstrated that the majority of the streams investigated in the Upper Svvift Creek Watershed possess either "Partially Supporting" or ''Non-Supporting''.habitat. The most heavily impacted stream is Little Tomahawk Creek that b,as '~on-Supporting" habitat at both the upper and lower reach. sites. Assessments on the upper reaches of the stream (Site B-OIO) have demonstrated continual loss of the habitat's supportive capabilities since 2003. Similar observations have also been, made at the upper Tomahawk Creek site (B-030). Traits>common among these sites included a loss or lack of available instream.habitat, increased sedimentation, bank erosion and reduced riparian areas. Improved habitat assessment scores have been observed at four sites since 2002 fE-OIl, B-028, B-034 and B-035). In1provements in flow and quality of.instream characteristics suc,h as more frequent pools an.d increases in available. habitat were factors in the observed changes. Table 3. A summary of Habitat Categorical Scores observed in the Upper Swtft Creek. Watershed, 2002 - 2005 B-002 B-O 1 0 B-O 11 B-012 B-013 B-028 B-030 B-034 B-035 B-036 2003 2002 2003 2004 2004/2005 2002 2002/2003 2004/2005 2005 2003n004 2004/2005 2005 A comprehensive suite of chemical parameters has been collected since 2002. These measurements are collected to provide a general water quality "snapshot" at the time the biological and habitat assessments are obtained. A more detailed long-term description of water quality in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed is available from the Department of Utilities' Source Water Monitoring Program (Swift Creek Reservoir) reports. For the past four years, instream measurements of dissolved oxygen, conductivity, total dissolved solids and temperature have yielded values that were within Virginia state water quality standards and 75 000203 normally expected ranges. Observations of pH over the years has shown that several streams in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed are, or have been., acidic to the point of being less than the 6~O unit standard set by the State of Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality~ Table 4. Streams in tlIe Upper Swift Creek Watershed with pH values below Virginia DEQ standard of6~O units, 2002 - 2005 2002 B-O 13 2003 2004 , 2005 B-Oll, B-035 -- B-OIO, B-012 B-O 11 B-030 B-002 B-028 ..8-010, B-Oll,B-012 B-035 ! B-002 Fe'calcolifotm densities observed in the tributaries of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed have largely be:en. below the Virginia State one-time sampling standard of 400 MPN/IOOmL Of the sites at which the values have been above this threshold, only the Tributary to Swift Creek (B- 011) has.exhibited multi-year violations (Table 5). Table 5~ Sites at lllhichfecal coliform densities were ?:.400 1"14PN/100m, 2002 -- 2005~ Asterisks denote no violations ! B-OIO Little Tomahawk Creek * * 500 * B-Oll Trib to Swift Creek * 1600 2: 1600 * B-030 Tomahawk Creek * * 2:1600 * Nutrient concentrations as measured by total/dissolved phosphorus and ammonia/nitrate nitrogen have varied among sites over the past four years. Most recent data (2005) indicate elevated phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations at six sites in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed (table 6). Table 6. Elevated nutrient concentrations observed in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed, Spring 2005 76 000204 B-O 11 Trib to Swift Creek 0.081 0.057 B-028 Otterdale Branch 0.055 0.037 0.05 B-030 Tomahawk Creek 0.035 0.04 0.25 B-034 Swift Creek 0.054 0.046 B-035 Horsepen Creek 0.058 0.03 0.03 Typically, total suspended solids measurements at the time of sampling within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed have been less than 20 mg/L. The greatest total suspended solids concentrations observed have occurred at the upper Little Tomahawk Creek site (19.0 mg/L, 2005), Tomahawk Creek (25 mg/L, 2004) and the Tributary to Swift Creek (26 mg/L, 2004). Since 2002, the majority of Biological Oxygen Demand determinations have been less than 3.0 mg/L, The greatest BOD value recorded in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed has been 13.8 mg/l and occurred at the upper Little Tomahawk Creek site (B-010) in 2005, Hardness measurements during the past four years have indicated soft water (<85 mglL as CaC03) throughout the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. An index of water quality using the biological data, habitat assessment and select chemical parameters was developed to provide for an overall evaluation of stream health in the County. The chemical parameters used were those that possessed a Virginia State Water Quality Standard (PH, Dissolved Oxygen and Fecal Coliform). The index generated a numerical score that corresponded to a level of quality for the stream segment. The results of the analysis are outlined in table 7 and are reflective of all monitored streams in the watershed for the period of 2002 to 2005. A map depicting the most recent assessments is presented on the following page (Map 2). In 2005, poor water quality was present at both the upper (B-OIO) and lower (B- 036) portions of Little Tomahawk Creek. While chemical water quality was relatively good at these sites, "Severely Impaired" biological communities combined with "Non-Supporting" habitats were the reasons for the assessment. The upper (B-012) and lower (B-002) reaches of Turkey Creek also were evaluated as having poor water quality in 2004 and 2003 respectively, Once again, biology and habitat were the deciding factors. The best water quality has consistently been observed at the Otterdale Branch site for the past three years. In 2005, improvements were noted at the Tributary to Swift Creek (B-OIO) site. 77 000205 Table 7ft CateJ!oricalscores crlh*! index of water auall", analvsis:,7f)02- ~O(}5 * * * * * V'e,,- Good Fair Good Fair Poor * 78 Poor Good Poor Good Ver Good Fair Good Fair Poor 000206 Map 2. Most recent water quality assessments afWASP monitoring sites in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed 79 000207 ~ } , l ( r ) (/ "- ~ \ \ \ .,.'/f" .J \ Stream Classification N Chesterfield County Stream Assessment 2005 Swift Creek c:J v.ry Good IZ'221 GoOd EJIJ Fair _ Poor A L:' '.".'<Itol-!"'.I\e-:l Ei OLin,jar i 80 000208 References: Barbour, M.L., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C. CH2M Hill, 2000. Chesterfield County VPDES Permit Implementation; 1999 Annual Bioassessment Report. Annual Report to Chesterfield County, Virginia. Chesterfield County Office of Water Quality, 2005a 2004 Assessment of the Biology, Habitat and Chemistry of Select Streams and Watersheds of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Chesterfield County, Virginia. Chesterfield County Office of Water Quality, 2004. 2002-2003 Assessment of the Biology, Habitat and Chemistry of Select Streams and Watersheds of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Chesterfield County, Virginia. Chesterfield County Office of Water Quality, 2002. Chesterfield County Water Quality Section Field and Laboratory Instrument Standard Operating Procedures a Chesterfield County, Virginia. V ADEQ, 2004, Water Quality Standards 9 VAC 25-260-5 Virginia Water Quality Standards. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia, 81 000209 Blank page 82 000210 - =- . :.:. .. - - - _ .. _ ....L...-:I P ~~,:" J.. t '=: -: ;;I ~ ..~ iIi~ II oJ 1 . ~ ! . ..' ...z.: ' . ~ .. r-: J~ ~ [.111 ~ . .. ':'rI'" . . ~ . :-. .. - .. .Q-" 1:1. I .. ....IL.:I ~ ~ 1- ='=" N ~ "'L.:L ~ - -. -- ---...... ~ II .."?I ..~ I~ t oil ~p~~ ~ :ii ~ ~ ., r/ ~ ~~"+1 1 · .. 71 ~ -- ~ I. ~; ~ .. ~ ~~~ ~ :--. I ~ :; 1 ;.: ,-r I I .L r:.: =i ~"i;" ~ \! . ~ . ~ . I ~ - --- I - i~'~:~ ~,~~~ .....':- ~ -" =iV:II I ~. ~_ ~ : : ~ ~ r-_ .1 i! ~ _ !!i' ~ =I.J.)I _ ~~ ~ ---=-1iI-:: ~ ., I:- . I...J :!;,~ I. ~ ""J:". · · ~ I .J.r;,.... I . 'I.:I( _ -:: ~ r:- t!.... --a:.... .: I ~ :t ~ r~~ ~:., ...;;,_.~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~'t;~~ t.:1 ~~~~",~I S 1="~. ... --...- ------... t ~ ~ ~ ~ J1) ....1 P ~ 1 ..: t .....~~ f: .~I f:}.(. ~.. r .J.I ~ ~ ... g ~iI; .:--I ..- --=-r:!.: ~ F"'I.. -.... ~~ ~ 11........1.... ... -.. - PI ... ...-.:: :r ~ ..... r..l · ~ ':'liI. ."B. · ~. !: iI.:: ~l..' iIi 1~ ~ ~!'I . 1Jll1_.r. ~ :.eM ~ .~~ !~ - II 1iI).-.:"'I ;:--= 1 .I~r:=--I ... .... ~.. 1111 ~o~,. ~ ~ .. ~ ;: p.i\ -:-a ~ I ~ r;~ ~ ~.. iII~,. ~I I I ~. . 0.1.. .. II .It.~ · 'V: :.-::.... .. :~ II II-' . . ....... r .- IE -.: 11:'" . i iii. :-I IIjj -.;; .-=-::i:.. .. -.; . ~ ~ ..: .. II ~ ... .......... ... n , l. .....~ t" - .. . ~ ~ r- · ~ f:. ~ !II ::J · .. . JIII:": ... r ..P.... :.. L _..." I I I I-. · "~'..... N 1'1' d.......... -. ,..,.. . V --:.i:1I .. ~ :I. .It .... ... ... -. \II! · ~ ~ .. :r'~~.,-t ~ ~ ~ ~ -.. '"Ii t -:~ .:-3I-:.J --=II"~ :. -. · Q1 1--; l:.!":' · ~ ( ......:...... Pi.:H' I ... ,.1.&,. .,. L.........._ · _ .. _ ,"T"II 'r I:. -:t:-....:R. -=..:..;.:.' ":""I!!:I iIIiiiIi::....... ..... - .- - ~. , · . ...~ -: I .... 1.:1. P : . -.... ~ ::t-- rll'I...... -.;...... . !!I ~~ · ~ 0.. _ -=., ~ ~- ............:.. ..... · I ::- : .. I -.y I(:: "- u: ...-..;. .... ..... - ... ~.~ ~ ~ IlIi .... ILJ:.: --" -:r,.. ~.. I r/.-.:i . -...: 11:0 r ~ I .. I ~.:"V ~..,..-; PII... ~.... 'S r:E. · I~ ~)~"p.:~.' :e1~.~ ~ ..~:-~.if'J:W~,':': -.- I:I-...~ :::;~~;.L ':Ij~~ ~~ ~ .~0i~~- · ":t~.;:.~ ~~ ;~~-~ ,"i.~~~l:t~~~~.-- :. ~~~~._~~~~~~.~_.~~:I'~~i;~:~:I~~ ~~~-~ ~1 ~1.~ ..,..: .": I~: .: ~.1M" I 1I$.i"":''"r.J: i . iJ'I~ II.. ~,,~ :!ir ~ I P-- ~ ~'I - ..... ...~ ~ .. .. I'.I;~~~. ~ :II!~.. ~ i:J..-rJ.:.- ~ c;.~.;. _ ~ .~~ __ tt~. .... · I · · ~I- I. "'1. I ::t · ~... "'i.Nf.I. .-=--t~-..: .: .........p; ~ . · , ~.....~ · -=-. - .. - · .;. "": '11 .. ... '.......'. i ...... .~ ..~. =-~ ~ ~ ~. :.-. ~ '(. ... I..... I . -r! -. · ...;. .Ii ~ · ..:....it I....... I- ':.- .'!II":' I .. .. _ .11.,," ~.. I. __ . . . _' .. _ _ .... ... ...;-1.. ..-.r;. ~;;:, '... .,.;. . . ... I .:.; I..:; : I....., . · · ,.. "':. ... .. .. · I .. : I ...,. f{ ~ I II __. ~ .... . . ~ .. .~ "-"-II L..I'LII I- ....11~ r .... ~-.- -:-.1: '.. ill" :.- ..... 11 .... ~ p~~ .. ... ..... (. -. ~I. ~ ~ :- :- ...:- .... .. i" ~i ~~ .. I ~ 'C 3 ~ ~ ..2 ~ . '.~ -- -. ~ 1..:&: ~ II .::: ~ ~ .-I .......1 ~ ' ~ '.~i .. ~ ~ ~. -..... .... .... ~8 :ti~ ~ ...: H , ;.y. ~ .. ; .i ~rl .~ --- If - ~ I I ~.~ , ~ ~!L- a ~\ II~., ~~~.. ..]~ ~. "~~~~L ~ ,~j 3:~" .. I. P" ~ I~~~ i I ~~~~\..: ~.~~ ~ '~I: · ~. :r,t ...-:.... · 1II .... .. ,~... ~-:. ~ "II .. :~ ~~~ i~ ..-.....-: ~J -_ i ~~ ~tl:.7"'::-..J; · ~ .,.... :'~ ~:.. . ~ , } ~~~!~. ~!~~~~~ . .~~ · ~ r.ll~ :::..~ ~~~ t:~ .-......:i -:. ~ r:-- W t:~~ I I ~ I. ~ ". ?:.I.~ , .. IJ. -- III '. ~ ~ .... ~ ~ -:J~'" II -:n-. :-.-. -.J ,...~ '2~! :.:.~ ~ .. ~ '-P".... ~. - ~.26~ '_ . ~~ :~~~q. . ~ ~:~ ~ ~ I Ed> P"rI~ .. ......... i IPI _-0. - ~;!J ~~..~~ .....-:;; .....w......;" ".J I ;. ~ ~1";;;]7.-.ri ~... i"~) .': · Jl Ii'~ ~1 ~ . . t II-=- I ............. - .-S f. i(; 1 · ~__ ...... :.:m . ~.. =-.-......: .... .. F · ~ I 'INII.... _ _. ... . .. r- ,:11'_"'" -: ~ ~ ... · - ~ . =-:.:+...II :.- .... . ''''-'''''- ........ IL." .-::::JIll. . - - - --...:..- ,;..~!... !!LL ......-- ~ ~:i; · -.:.... _::.~. ~ I ~ .<::: r,St - L .. ':'-I'f: ~ r I :.; I ~~ i i k~~r1 -' 1 ~ "- ~ ~~ ~ ~~C'II:I E m .. --- ~ -I r t ~ ... ... ... t-:II( !P II ~~ "~ ~~~ ~.. "Ii U , \., ~.~.;;, ~ -~ ..~~ '1 "JIII!lII ~ ~ ~2=r " .. l!o ~ ~ ;. . ~ 1 .... .J ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ - ~h ~ iit"3 ~ ;1 ~ ~ .. ~ , ... r. .:. , :Yo :::: J ~ ~~;~~~ ~~ ;~~ , : ~..,,~.. . I ~.:r ~ ~; ~ ~Ii~r-.} ".IrWII-. jI~~~-6iiI ~. -:-." ~ 1:1 - .... 1:"11_ -:.-:1'" ~ I':' .~~ ~ J I ~ . .~~ft ":'1' -J <;""". ~:-i'" I ~ .. ~ 1';;11 t'.~~ ,..... . . ~ ...) . . ~ ~ ..- -:t: ..W:: . II! - ~, :-. '!'. ~~~ ~ ..........-.T =5 .. ~ I. Ir:!:-:tL!=..1 I I 'Ir--: ~P.. ,...,., ..-- ....... fI: .. .... ~. ~ II ..... ~ .. ~ ~I M :I ~ -'.II1II ~ I' ~.. ~"F. .l .....,... .. . lr ~ ~ 1:1'" ... ~~~ ... ..... ~ "..:.I!Nt!I... I ~.... ..:ii. ~ ~~ -:" .I ~ 1 'iII:!'.:o:-:. .~ ~ J ~ .... -=-" .. . -..: ;.... .~......' --:-- W.~ . - ,11.... '... "':"1 ~... ....... ........r '-I-:tt-.......... L~ ~ · · . ~ . p~ J ~ ~ : ~. -!-' ~~ ~. .. -..:0 ' .:. _ ::ii -..I ' t.~ 7 t.&. ~".. .~:---- '-;: ~:. ..~ ) -.,:.. ~ .. :-;II~ :_:-:-~.. ~ -:: ':'11:.......-: . ~......... '.. ~oII"II -: ~~ I I::' ., rw , rT"EJ.............. 11)..... L · ~ N 'UII .. l.I."II ...,., ~~ j ~~. ... .:'I ~j .... /!f..' ... ~j .:.:; .... ...... .--... L ., ri,l..i i. ~ ~ ~~'.; ~ 'Ill dl' W:..) .. ;::-O....:cot ....,.... ~ - · ~.- ~ ..:..... :: r ,~ ,,:. · "..:..... ...." f'::^F:. "':.' 'n..lo:I ~ 7:( I.~ -. ~~:.'!'1 ~ r ~ If.a !:"~ ~::H ~ _"::f1 ~:.:-~ ... -~:.;.:: -;- ~.::.: ~ . J:... ~_ -~..) j ~ ,.> ...:"" ~ - r~~. ~..;~. ,'J.= _.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ".:;;'.;;" ~~. ~ ~ ~ ..I. .~ ~..;._~~ ~ ' ~ .. ~ oJ ~ ~ ! ~. .-.. ' .i :. ~ ~I!;~:--. .. - -s-:. · ~~~~. ;.. ~9 ~-~.. .~i~"'. , ~ ~;: ~ ~~~"~.I".:P'. L I ~~..~ Ii ....~al-ll Sol ~ ....... ~ ~ ' :-..I..IT ,~ ~... - .. ~ ~ -;. lip.. r- ~ I.. .. .Jf:l~ ~ :-.:.... · ......: ... .. ~ · ~I~. ....... .II ~~ .. ~ · ~ ~ ~ -:;:;.. .:: ~ "1 ~.f & ~W~ ~ .~.,. -;.~ :'$~. : ~~ p ::"'..1 ~"i,. ji ":: .~: :."if ": ~ - . · . · .-... t. i'", .. ~ ~ ~ ~ '\~~ ~.~.L~ . ../'~ ~ . ~. . ..... -='. . ~. I." r _..., .. -__. '-.:....,... '.. .-iI!--.. I ... ~ ..r:.. .. .. Ii-".. ... a.:- ".&: i.: r' · Ii. ~I"""" .....r:-'I ,. .. ~. .. " -~ -... .. ..:'".: - I It is important to keep in mind that the report above only analyzes 321 acres of riparian buffers which accounts for only six percent of land cover in the Swift Creek sub-watershed of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Even with the small amount of coverage this report shows the potential savings, both economically and ecologically, are enormous. Land Cover Change Analysis: CITY green also allows users to analyze potential future changes in land cover. The user can specify land coverage percentages and the program will report changes in water and air quality as well as economic values. For example, the county may be considering new developments or agriculture expansion in the Upper Swift Creek area that affect land cover. The program then allows us to determine the impacts of the development by changing the percentage of land cover, Therefore, based upon the prior percentages in figure 4, we shifted the land cover percentages to make crop lands account for 26%, decreased the tree cover to 33%, and increased open space or grass cover to 30% to create a hypothetical situation if development occurred. In turn, the land cover changes allow us to see the impact on water and air quality. The results were impressive, With the decrease in tree cover from 820/0 to 33%, the stormwater savings decreased from $4.5 million infigure 2 to $2 million (see figure 7). Figure 7. - Stormwater Example - The report shows the significant loss of water quality due to a decrease in tree cover. Stormwater Air Pollution Removal lVearest Air Quality Refe,'ence City: '\Vashington DC Lbs. Renlovedivr Dollar Value Cmbon lvlonoxide: O~one: ..:Virrogen Dioxide: Parn"culate l.\lIatter: Sulfur Dioxide: 472 5201 $11.304 $5J97 $6.386 $L133 3.679 1.887 3.113 1.509 Totals: 10,661 $24,821 Carbon Stors!!e and Seauestration Total T ODS Stored: Total Tons Sequestered (Annually): 4,554.28 35.46 Figure 8. - Analysis shows a significant loss of air pollution removal. Although these numbers are remarkable they do not tell the whole story. The CITY green program that creates these reports is formatted for general land covers, not riparian areas. Therefore, it likely that riparian land covers have a more drastic impact on water quality than the CITY green software indicates. Besides pollution removal riparian forests also serve to maintain 86 000214 stream temperatures through shading, stabilize the stream banks, and provide erosion control. In addition, CITY green does not calculate the economic impact of cleaner water on recreation, the fishing industry or drinking water filtration. Simply put, the numbers generated by CITY green are likely on the low end in terms of ecological services and the dollar value of the services. 87 00021.5 Page break 88 000216 Supporting Document H TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL Construction Site Sediment and Total Phosphorus Loading PREPARED BY: Chesterfield County Tim Hare - CH2M HILL Cheri Salas - CH2M HILL PREPARED FOR: COPIES: Laurens van der Tak - CH2M HILL DATE: August 15, 2005 Contents Co n tents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . , . . , . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .. 89 Introduction................................................,...,. ,.....,.........,................................................ 89 Soil Loss......................,........,................................................................,.......................... . 90 Pilot Sites ....................,.."...,.........,.................................................................,...............,.., 90 Soil Loss Computations....................,......,......,.................................................................. 90 Erosion and Sediment Control...............................,..,...................................................... 92 Sediment and Total Phosphorus Delivery.....................,....,......,.....,.......................... 93 Sediment Delivery......,.......................,.".................................................,..".....,............,.. 93 Phosphorus Delivery........................................................".............................................. 96 Conclusion............,...........,.....,................ ..............................,........"..,...................... ,..... 97 References ..................................,..,............,.."................................................................ 99 Appendix A.............................................,.."..,.,...,."........................................................ 100 Introduction Chesterfield County staff and residents are concerned that the extensive planning involved with managing the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir watershed will be rendered ineffective by large amounts of construction-related sediment and associated total phosphorus (TP). During a previous study of the watershed, the Watershed Management Master Plan and Maintenance Program for the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed (CH2M HILL, 2000), a simple modeling exercise was used to estimate the annual construction sediment and phosphorus load to the reservoir. The results indicated up to 8,000 tons per year of sediment and 798,000 pounds per year of TP could be released by construction activities. CH2M HILL has been contracted to conduct a more refined assessment of construction-related loads within the reservoir, The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to describe the approach to and the results of estimating sediment load and TP load generated by construction activity within the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir watershed in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The assessment was conducted in three main steps. 89 000217 1. Compute soil loss for two pilot sites, with and without erosion and sediment control, and determine average annual soil loss per acre based on the results from the two pilot sites 2. Apply the average annual soil loss to the Swift Creek Reservoir watershed based on land anticipated to be developed within each tributary watershed 3. Determine sediment load delivered to Swift Creek Reservoir based on standard sediment delivery ratios and extrapolate the associated TP load The result of this analysis was an estimation of the annual amount of sediment and TP reaching the reservoir from construction-related activities. The remainder of this TM describes the three steps in the analysis, the results, and provides conclusions about how these results impact the previous watershed management plans. Soil Loss Pilot Sites Two pilot sites were selected by the County to represent the range of development potential within the reservoir watershed. Figure 1 shows the locations of the two pilot sites. The Cosby Road High School site is a 63-acre site dedicated to a high school and associated support facilities. It was selected to represent typical commercial and institutional sites, where significant site grading would be required to create level land needed for the facility. The site was modified to reduce the existing 5 to 10 percent slopes to nearly flat slopes for use in constructing the school and associated parking lots and sport fields. The Millcrest at the Brandermill site is an 8-acre section of an existing subdivision. It was selected as a representative plan for residential development. Site grading is limited to creating roads and infrastructure, with limited modification to the residential lots. Soil Loss Computations Soil loss during construction was computed using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, Version 2 (RUSLE2), a computer program developed by the u.s. Department of Agriculture -- Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to estimate soil erosion due to rainfall and runoff. The program was developed to examine erosion due to agricultural activities; however, it is also applicable to construction activity due to the significant land disturbance involved. RUSLE2 is frequently used to estimate erosion for preparing erosion and sediment control plans for construction sites. 90 000218 RUSLE2 is based on the USLE equation, and automates the computation of coefficients reflecting regional climate, land slope, slope length, soil type, and land management, as follows: Qi = 1jkJiSCiPi where, allan the ith day: ai = average annual soil loss ri = erosivity factor lei = soil erodibility factor Ii = soil length factor S = slope steepness factor Ci = cover-management factor Pi = supporting practices factor Land slope and slope lengths were computed for each drainage area defined in the erosion and sediment control plan, Both existing and proposed slopes were evaluated to determine the range of soil loss rates. The drainage areas, slope lengths, and slope steepness for each subbasin for the two pilot sites are summarized in Appendix A, According to the construction plans, the soils at the Millcrest site are dominated by Mayodan gravelly sandy loam at a 12 to 20 percent slope (soil type 151D). Based on the site location and County soil maps, the soils at the Cosby Road High School site are dominated by Mayodan gravelly sandy loam at a 2 to 6 percent slope (soil type 151B). County-specific climate and soils data were available from the NRCS online database (NRCS, 2005) and are directly accessed by the RUSLE2 computer program. Land management parameters are associated with conservation tillage and crop rotation activities. These are not applicable to construction activities, as land is assumed to be bare during construction. The default construction management inputs were selected, which equate to no vegetation or conservation activities (ci=l, Pi=l). Erosion and sediment controls were considered in a separate analysis. The results from RUSLE2 for the two pilot sites indicate that the average annual soil loss rate will range from 7 to 33 tons per acre per year. The results for individual drainage areas for both proposed and existing site grading are provided in Appendix A. The results of this first step assume that the entire site is disturbed throughout the year and that no erosion and sediment control practices were used. Erosion and Sediment Control The sediment control devices proposed on the two pilot construction sites included sediment basins and sediment traps. Literature values from the Center for Watershed Protection were used to determine the percent removal of sediment from the runoff. These values are summarized in Table 1 for the two practices used on the pilot sites, and several additional practices for reference. The reported average percent reduction was applied to the soil loss from the drainage area served by each device and summed to determine the total sediment load discharged from each site with sediment controls. The reduced soil loss rate ranges from 2 to 13 tons per acre per year, when sediment control devices are included. The results of individual drainage areas for both proposed and existing site grading are provided in Appendix A. 92 000219 Other potential sediment control devices that could be considered include silt fence and hay bales. These were not proposed on the pilot sites and are not included in this analysis, These devices are typically used on small areas of disturbance, but tend to be less effective than sediment basins and traps, Although these devices can have significant localized impacts, it was assumed that from a watershed basis, the variation resulting from these devices was within the range of uncertainty of the results. Erosion controls include temporary seeding of dormant areas, tarps over staging piles, and sod or seeding of completed grading. It was determined that the most effective means of approximating the impacts of erosion control measures was in the amount of time over which land was assumed to be bare, which was taken into account in the extrapolation of soil loss rates to the watersheds. TABLE 1 Percent Reduction in Sediment Load Due to Erosion and Sediment Controls Device Low High Average Sediment Basin 55 100 70 Sediment Trap -7 100 60 Filter Fabric Fence 0 100 70 Vegetative Filter Strip 20 80 70 Seeding (after vegetative establishment) 50 100 90 Sod 98 99 99 Source: EPA, 1993 Sediment and Total PhosDhorus Deliverv Sediment Delivery Once the annual soil loss rate was calculated for 1 acre of land disturbed for an entire year, the results could be applied to construction throughout the watershed. Developable area was calculated for each tributary watershed based on the existing 2004 land use and the build-out land use plans developed to assess the future Upper Swift Creek Land Use Plan. Annual average area disturbed was calculated by dividing developable area by the period of development, 25 years, Average sediment load was then calculated by multiplying the annual area disturbed by the soil loss rates calculated in Section 2 and by the fraction of the year a typical area remains disturbed. A factor of 0.75 was used in this analysis, meaning the typical area is disturbed for 9 months. Table 2 summarizes the annual area disturbed and resulting soil loads for each tributary watershed. 93 000220 TABLE 2 Total Sediment Load from Proposed Development by Tributary Watershed Upper Swift Creek Plan Modeling Supporl Total Area Annual Average Annual Sediment Annual Sediment Disturbed Area Disturbed Load no ESe Load with ESe Tributary Watershed (ac/yr) (ac/yr) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) Little Tomahawk Creek 1,229 49.2 260 - 1,220 80 - 490 Tomahawk Creek 2,017 80.7 420 - 2,000 140 - 800 Swift Creek I Turkey Creek 4,640 185.6 970 - 4,600 31 0 - 1,840 System Otterdale Creek 1,543 61.7 320 - 1,530 1 00 - 61 0 Blackman Creek I Horsepen 5,446 217.8 1,140 - 5,400 370 - 2,160 Creek I Deep Creek System Dry Creek 1,044 41.8 220 - 1,040 70 - 410 West Branch 674 26.9 140 - 670 50 - 270 Fuqua Creek 769 30.7 160 -760 50 - 300 Direct Runoff Component 947 37.9 200 - 940 60 - 380 Total 18,310 732.4 3,830 - 18,160 1,230 - 7,260 Notes: Total area disturbed is for Chesterfield County only. Land disturbance upstream in Powhatan County is not included in this study. ESe = erosion and sediment controls The average sediment load is the sediment leaving disturbed areas in construction sites. It is not the amount of sediment reaching the reservoir. A large percentage of the sediment load that is dislodged from the land is removed from the tributary flow prior to reaching the reservoir, primarily due to settling during overland and in-channel flows, One method of determining the fraction of sediment load that reaches the reservoir is the application of a sediment delivery ratio (SDR). The SDR used for this study is based on the NRCS National Engineering Handbook (SCS, 1983). Section 3, Chapter 6 of the National Engineering Handbook presents the SDR as a curve in Figure 6-2. A recent study by u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 (Greenfield, 2001) converts the curve to the following formula: SDR = 0.417762A-o.134958 - 0.127097 where A is the watershed area in square miles. Most of the reservoir's tributaries drain directly to the reservoir and are independent of each other, The best approach to determine the portion of sediment load that reaches the reservoir is to calculate separate SDRs for each tributary. Turkey Creek is included in the Swift Creek system. 94 000221. Blackman Creek is included in the Horsepen Creek! Deep Creek system, Table 3 includes the tributary watershed areas and their corresponding SDRs. Note that the Swift Creek system only includes that part of the watershed within Chesterfield County, Applying the tributary SDRs to the average sediment dislodged from the surface results in the sediment loads that are predicted to be delivered to the reservoir each year. These loads are included in Table 4. TABLE 3 Tributary Watershed Sediment Delivery Ratios Upper Swift Creek Plan Modeling Support Tributary Watershed Little Tomahawk Creek Tomahawk Creek Swift Creek I Turkey Creek System Otterdale Creek Blackman Creek I Horsepen Creek I Deep Creek System Dry Creek West Branch Fuqua Creek Direct Runoff Component Drainage Area (sq. miles) 3.70 5.67 21 .76 3.86 11.58 3.06 2.90 2.38 7.03 SDR 0.223 0.203 0.149 0.221 0.173 0.232 0.235 0.245 0.194 As an example, this paragraph carries a single watershed through the analysis. Dry Creek is predicted to have 1,044 acres of developed land, which equates to an average of 41.8 acres of land developed per year over the 25-year development horizon. Of this, 41.8 acres times 33,06 ton/ac/yr without erosion and sediment control (ESe) times 0.75 (the portion of year land disturbed) results in 1,036 tons of sediment dislodged from the surface. Using the SDR for Dry Creek, 1,036 tons per year times 0.232 results in 240 tons of sediment delivered to Swift Creek Reservoir per year. 95 000222 TABLE 4 Sediment Delivery to Upper Swift Creek Reservoir Upper Swift Creek Plan Modeling Supporl Tributary Watershed Little Tomahawk Creek Tomahawk Creek Swift Creek I Turkey Creek System Otterdale Creek Blackman Creek I Horsepen Creek I Deep Creek System Dry Creek West Branch Fuqua Creek Direct Runoff Component T atal Sediment Delivery no ESe (ton/yr) 60 - 270 90 - 41 0 140 - 680 70 - 340 200 - 930 50 - 240 30 - 160 40 - 190 40 - 180 720 - 3,400 Sediment Delivery with ESe (ton/yr) 20 - 1 00 30 - 160 50 - 270 20 - 140 60 - 370 20 - 1 00 1 0 - 60 1 0 - 70 1 0 - 70 230 - 1,350 Phosphorus Delivery Sediment in runoff is a known source of TP. If one can determine the relationship between sediment and TP, then the construction sediment loads delivered to the reservoir can be used to predict the accompanying TP load. The Chesterfield Department of Utilities has established in- stream monitoring stations for each of the main tributaries. These monitoring stations are typically located in the lower part of each tributary watershed, in a reach that has little or no influence from reservoir tailwater. CH2M HILL used the monitoring data collected from 1974 to 1997 to calculate the ratio between total suspended solids (TSS) and TP. The average TSS/TP ratio was calculated from wet weather flow data from the nine monitoring stations. Base flow data was not included in the calculations. The average TSS/TP ratio was 1,009. The resulting TP loads delivered to the reservoir is summarized in Table 5. 96 000223 TABLE 5 Total Phosphorus Delivery by Tributary Watershed Upper Swift Creek Plan Modeling Support Tributary Watershed Little Tomahawk Creek Tomahawk Creek Swift Creek I Turkey Creek System Otterdale Creek Blackman Creek I Horsepen Creek I Deep Creek System Dry Creek West Branch Fuqua Creek Direct Runoff Component Total TP Delivery no ESe (I b/yr) 120 - 540 180 - 810 280 -1350 140 - 670 400 -1840 1 00 - 480 60 - 320 80 - 380 80 - 360 1,440 - 6,750 TP Delivery with ESe (Ib/yr) 40 - 220 60 - 320 100 - 540 40 - 280 120 - 730 40 - 200 20 - 120 20 - 140 20 - 140 460 - 2,690 Conclusion A typical year in the watershed could see the delivery of 720 to 3,400 tons per year of sediment from unprotected construction sites. Erosion and sediment controls are predicted to reduce the annual load to between 230 and 1,350 tons per year. The actual load reaching the reservoir is probably somewhere between the two ranges. This is due to a number of factors, including portions ofprojects that are not protected by erosion and sediment controls, the challenge of properly maintaining the control facilities, and the occurrence of larger storms that exceed the design capacity of the controls. The amount of sediment predicted to reach the reservoir is significantly less than the 8,000 tons per year, as estimated in 1999. The differences between the two estimates can be explained by different techniques, development periods, and TSS/TP ratios. If the County can maintain good erosion and sediment controls, then the predicted TP delivery to the reservoir is 460 to 2,780 pounds per year. The Management Plan and updated modeling both point to the required goal in the range between 25,000 and 26,000 pounds ofTP per year at projected build out of the watershed. In terms of annual TP loading goal, the TP associated with construction sediment is approximately 2 to 11 percent of the annual goal for the reservoir. Without erosion and sediment controls, the range is 1,500 to 6,970 pounds per year, or approximately 6 to 27 percent of the annual goal. Based solely on annual loading rates, the current assimilative capacity of the reservoir should be able to accommodate the additional TP from construction sites if erosion and sediment controls are properly installed and maintained (Figure 2). In time, this could become an issue if erosion and sediment controls are not properly installed. However, the timely establishment of the BMPs identified in the Management Plan will further reduce the construction site TP load reaching the reservotr. 97 000224 References CH2M HILL. 2000. Watershed Management Master Plan and Maintenance Program for the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed, Chesterfield County, Virginia. May. Greenfield, James M. 2001. Sediment Tool, A Simple Method for Erosion and Sediment Delivery Estimation, Water Environment Federation TMDL Science Issues Conference. May. NRCS.2005. http://fargo.nser1.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/RUSLE2_Index.htm?action=Go+to+the+officia I+NRCS+RUSLE2+website. April 4. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1983. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Engineering Handbook, Section 3 Sedimentation, Chapter 6 Sediment Sources, Yields, and Delivery Ratios. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, Office of Water, EPA 840- B-92-002. January. 99 000226 ADDendix A TABLE A..1 Milcrest RUSLE2 Input Data and Results Upper Swift Creek Plan Modeling Support Existing Condition Area, ac Slope Slope, ftIft Soil Loss Soil Loss, E&Se TSS Soil Loss Length, ft Rate, Tons/yr Removal, 0/0 wIESe Tons/AclYr (Avg) (Mid) ST-1 2.3 180 O. 1 00 35 81 60 32 ST-2 2.8 250 0.088 32 90 60 36 ST-3 1.3 190 0.094 32 42 60 17 ST-4 1.5 150 0.100 33 50 60 20 Total 7.9 33 261 ton/yr 104 ton/ac/yr 13 Proposed Condition Area, ac Slope Slope, ftIft Soil Loss Soil Loss, E&SC TSS Soil Loss Length, ft Rate, Tons/yr Removal, 0/0 wIESe Tons/AclYr (Avg) (Mid) Area A 1.08 130 10.4 33 36 60 14 Area B 0.66 150 8.7 26 17 60 7 Area e 1.4 158 8.9 27 38 60 15 Area D 0.85 170 7.4 23 20 60 8 Area E 0.52 160 6.3 18 9 60 4 Area F 1.34 120 9 25 34 60 13 Area G 0.3 50 10 22 7 60 3 Area H 0.3 60 10 23 7 60 3 Area I 0.27 20 10 16 4 60 2 Area J 0.35 30 10 18 6 60 3 Total 7.07 25 177 ton/yr 71 ton/ac/yr 10 Range across site conditions w/o ESe 25 to 33 T I Ac/y Range across site conditions wi ESe o to 35 T/Ac/y Average across site conditions w/o ESe 29.1 T/Ac/y Average across site conditions wi ESe 12 T/Ac/y 100 000227 TABLE A..2 Cosby High School RUSLE2 Input Data and Results Upper Swift Creek Plan Modeling Support Existing Conditions Slope E&Se TSS Soil Loss Area, Length, Slope, Soil Loss Rate, Soil Loss, Removal, 0/0 wIESe ac ft ftlft Tons/AclYr Tons/yr (Avg) (Mid) SB1 8.05 490 26 209 70 63 SB2 5.69 670 0.051 21 119 70 36 SB3 9.55 535 0.080 36 344 70 103 SB4a 8.33 480 0.054 21 175 70 52 SB4b 4.16 230 0.087 30 125 70 37 SB5 9.85 450 0.100 26 256 70 77 ST1 1.50 290 0.079 29 44 60 17 ST2 2,00 340 0.077 30 60 60 24 ST3 1.80 170 0.073 22 40 60 16 ST4 1.30 190 0.071 22 29 60 11 ST5 1.50 340 0.035 12 18 60 7 ST6 1.80 280 0.060 20 36 60 14 ST7 1.49 290 0.088 34 51 60 20 ST8 0.80 200 0.075 26 21 60 8 T ota I 57.82 26 1526 ton/yr 487 ton/ac/yr 8 Proposed Conditions Slope E&Se TSS Soil Loss Area, Length, Slope, Soil Loss Rate, Soil Loss, Removal, % wIESe ac ft ftlft Tons/AclYr Tons/yr (Avg) (Mid) SB1 5.90 400 0.038 13 77 70 23 SB2 3.46 180 0.019 5 17 70 5 SB3 11.24 380 0.017 4.9 55 70 17 SB4a 10.60 390 0.034 12 127 70 38 SB4b 5.30 260 0.023 6.7 36 70 11 SB5 7.48 160 0.013 3.3 25 70 7 ST1 2.90 230 0.015 4 12 60 5 ST2 2.90 230 0.015 4 12 60 5 101 00022~ TABLE A..2 Cosby High School RUSLE21nput Data and Results Upper Swift Creek Plan Modeling Support ST3 2.90 490 0.020 6.2 18 60 7 ST4 2.00 170 0.020 5.3 11 60 4 Proposed Conditions Slope E&Se TSS Soil Loss Area, Length, Slope, Soil Loss Rate, Soil Loss, Removal, DID wi ESe ac ft Wft Tons/AclYr Tons/yr (Avg) (Mid) ST5 2.00 260 0.014 3.7 7 60 3 ST6 1.39 300 0.028 8.7 12 60 5 ST7 1.50 80 0.029 7 11 60 4 ST8 1.50 30 0.033 6.5 10 60 4 ST9 2.00 420 0.020 6.1 12 60 5 T ota I 63.07 7.0 440 ton/yr 142 ton/ac/yr 2 Range across site conditions w/o ESe 7 to 26 T I Ac/y Range across site conditions wI ESe o to 15 T/Ac/yr Average across site conditions wlo ESe 17 T I Ac/y Average across site conditions wI ESe 5 T I Ac/yr 102 000229 Supporting Document I Education & Outreach Program Introduction: The Education and Outreach Program plays an important role in the Office of Water Quality. An informed citizenry is one of most important tools in maintaining and improving water quality. As more citizens move into Chesterfield County, our environmental resources are impacted by the increase in impervious surfaces; storm flows and lawn care practices. The Education and Outreach Program can be categorized in the following areas: general, targeted and volunteer activities. General education and outreach occurs on a daily basis as staff interacts with the public. All staff members utilize the OWQ publications and website as tools. The OWQ receives over 1000 citizen requests per year. Other general outreach occurs by participating in events such as Earth Day Celebrations, attending homeowner's association meetings and water quality monitoring day. Targeted outreach focuses on a specific audience or a specific issue. Local educators are an example of a targeted audience that the Office of Water Quality often serves. Other targeted outreach topics have included neighborhoods that exhibit high levels of nutrients, specific watersheds with issues and perennial flow determination with the private environmental community. Finally, volunteer activities are available for citizens who show an interest in the environment and water quality and want to actively participate in a program. These programs include citizen monitoring, storm drain marking and cleanup efforts. General Education & Outreach: Publications: The Office of Water Quality developed the Water Quality Watch Fact Sheet series in 1997 for general outreach and education that describe a variety of surface water quality issues in Chesterfield County. The purpose of the fact sheets is to promote awareness of Chesterfield's water bodies, water quality problems, and measures the county is taking to address these problems. The fact sheets target both the general population as well as the business community. In addition to the original series, the Resource Protection Area Restoration Guide was created in 2004. This guide includes step-by-step instructions on the proper restoration of a riparian zone that has been disturbed. This guide contains information about Resource Protection Areas (RPAs), planting guidelines as well as an approved plant list. The manual and plant list was developed with input from representatives of the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, The Virginia Department of Forestry, and Chesterfield County. The manual was developed as a part of a Small Watershed Grant from the Fish & Wildlife Foundation. A series of "Fast Enviro- Facts" fact sheets was also created in 2004 to answer questions commonly asked by citizens. These fact sheets addressed issues such as iron bacteria blooms, foam in creeks and why tree tubes are important in RPA plantings. The Office of Water Quality partners with several other organizations for publications. For proper lawn care techniques relating to water quality, the Chesterfield County Cooperative Extension Service provides numerous brochures and fact sheets. The Friends of Chesterfield's Riverfront publishes a brochure with public access points to water and the Friends of the Lower Appomattox River recently developed a similar publication for the Appomattox River. The Office of Water Quality has found much success in partnering with other organizations for the development & publication of print and internet 103 00023Q resources. Several other publications are available from the Office of Water Quality, but are discussed in the "Targeted Education & Outreach Section". A list of all water quality publications can be found in the table on the following page. 104 000231 ial Type Lead Group Target Group Chesterfield County Office of Water Quality website: Website Office of General http://www .chesterfield.gov / communitydevelopmentlwaterquality / Water Quality public Chesterfield County Resource Protection Area Restoration Guide Booklet Office of General Water Quality public Chesterfield County Resource Protection Area Restoration Guide F act Sheet Office of General Chesterfield County Stormwater Management Program Water Quality public Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas The Streams of Chesterfield County Homeowners Guide to Flood Plain Management Business & Industry Gu ide to Chesterfield County's Illicit Discharge Ordinance Household Guide to Chesterfield County's Illicit Discharge Ordinance Chesterfield County's Stormwater Draina~e System What is this Orange Slime in my Creek? Fast Enviro Office of General What is this Foam in my Creek? Facts Sheet Water Quality public What are those Tubes in the Field? Pocochsock Creek Community Partnership Brochure Office of Watershed Water Quality Citizens Don't Feed the Lake Brochure Office of Citizens Water Quality who live near lakes Storm Drain Markers Plastic Office of General marker Water Quality public adhered to storm drains Ec 0 Mas ters Interactive Office of 6th grade CD Water Quality lead SCIence teachers Watersheds & Water Quality in Chesterfield County Power Point Friends of 6th grade Presentation Chesterfield's students Riverfronts Chesterfield Extension Website: Website Chesterfield General htflJ: //www. chesterfield.J!ov/HumanServices/ExtensionServices/exthome. asp Extension Public Six Steps to Cleaner Water (lawn & home) Brochure Ches terti eld General Extension Public Home Landscape Practices to Protect Water Quality Brochure Chesterfield General Extension Public Chesterfield County - Did vou Know? (Fact sheet on lawn care) Fact Sheet Chesterfield General Extension Public Lawn Care Clinics (5 clinics in addition to beinf! online) Power Point Chesterfield Interested Presentation Extension Public 105 000232 Website: The Chesterfield County Office of Water Quality website, which can be found at http://www.chesterfield.gov/communitydevelopment/waterquality, also serves as a valuable tool for general education & outreach. The above-mentioned publications are available online in a PDF format, as well as general water quality information, technical reports and staff contacts. Many citizens utilize the website to gather information related to various ordinances or to view water quality data. Activities: The Office of Water Quality staff participates in many activities that serve as general outreach and education, These activities range from appearing on local cable television shows to participating in regional educational events such as earth day and Virginia Water Quality Monitoring Day. Written press is another general educational outlet use at both the local and regional level. Staff also responds to citizen inquiries, both via the telephone and by making field visits. The staff also will attend various civic meetings as requested such as homeowner association meetings. Targeted Education & Outreach: Targeted education & outreach occurs for several reasons. There may be a specific audience, such as local educators, that are seeking specific information. Another type of targeted education & outreach occurs as a result of a situation or event. The Perennial Determination Workshop would be an example of this type of targeted education. Whatever be the case, targeted education & outreach is very valuable and results are often immediate and measurable after the education event occurs. Educator Training: The Office of Water Quality, in partnership with Friends of Chesterfield's Riverfront plays an active role with the Chesterfield Public School System. Both organizations work with the Science Lead Instructors in developing curriculum, the grants administrator in securing funding and one on one with teachers. Each year, the OWQ and Friends trains teachers in water related SOLs at teacher in-service workshops. These organizations also assist teachers in developing Chesterfield related lessons regarding water quality and give advise on local field trips. Thousands of dollars have been secured in grant funding to assist the CCPS with water quality education. One example of a recent grant was the 3-year BayScaping initiative funded by NOAA-B-WET. This grant funded the installation of a native BayScape at all elementary & middle schools in the county as well as curriculum development on how to utilize the areas as a meaningful watershed experience (MWE). In addition to technical expertise and grant funding, the OWQ also loans equipment to teachers to enhance their curriculum. The Enviroscape, which depicts non-point pollution and water quality monitoring equipment are among the most popular 106 000233 items on loan. By working with the local educators, the OWQ is able to reach perhaps the largest and most important audience in Chesterfield County, the youth. Targeted Watersheds: Pocoshock Creek: The Office of Water Quality performs physical, chemical and biological stream sampling in its comprehensive monitoring program, the Watershed Assessment and Stream Protection Program. From this collection of data, stream segments are then categorized into general health parameters ranging from "bad" to "excellent". After identifying the health of the stream and its watershed, management strategies are applied. Pocoshock Creek was identified as having "poor" health and a Detailed Watershed Investigation was conducted in 2004 to identify the areas of concern. To complement the scientific monitoring and investigation, an educational & outreach component was developed. The "Pocoshock Creek Community Partnership" was formed as a mechanism to communicate with the community members of the watershed, including homeowners and businesses. A brochure was developed and published with funds from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for this target audience that identifies the limits of the watershed and steps they can take to improve water quality. Don't Feed the Lake: Every water source in Chesterfield County is valuable, but our drinking water sources are especially valuable. A publication titled "Don't Feed the Lake" was developed in the late 1980' s to inform citizens on how their lawn care practices could affect the water quality of the reservoir. This publication was updated and revised with funds from the Virginia Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance. The development of this brochure was a partnership of the OWQ, the Cooperative Extension Office and the Friends of Chesterfield's Riverfront. This brochure also has a link to a "Clean Lakes" website hosted by the extension office that provides additional information to interested citizens. Perennial Steam Determination Workshop: This workshop was a result of the 2001 revisions to the Chesterfield County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations that required field determinations of perennial streams. After the adoption of these revised regulations, the Office of Water Quality identified an area of concern: the inconsistent application of the protocols developed for use in conducting field determinations of water bodies with perennial flow. While workshops and training sessions had been conducted to train staff from localities on the use of these protocols, there had yet to be a training opportunity in Virginia for the consultants who, in most cases, actually perform the determinations. To address this "gap" in training, Chesterfield County's Office of Water Quality conducted a Perennial Stream Determination Workshop in August 2005. Funding was provided by the Virginia Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance. Dr. James Gregory from the North Carolina State University and the author of the North Carolina Stream Identification Protocol provided detailed training on the use of this field indicator method both 107 000234 the classroom and in the field. Larry Eaton of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality will also assisted by providing training on benthic macro invertebrates. This four-day workshop had 41 attendees from both the private sector as well as localities. Results were immediately noticed by the staff. Volunteer Activities: V o lunteering in an Office of Water Quality program is an excellent way for a citizen to be able to "do something" for the environment. V olunteering can take several forms - either in the form of a long term commitment through water quality monitoring or during one time events such as cleanups and plantings. Both types of volunteering foster a sense of pride in our citizenship and encourage those citizens to take a personal role in their environment. Volunteer Monitoring: The volunteer monitoring data are currently being used to complement the data being collected as a part of the annual bioassesments, field monitoring and storm drain screenings. Objectives of the volunteer monitoring programs are to: . Enhance public education activities and promote stewardship . Involve a cross-section of County citizens . Complement the monitoring requirements of the County's VPDES permit . Provide a team of citizen "stream watchers" who can identify water quality improvements or degradation in their community 108 000235 ~ - , ~ ~ -- - - - - - - -. ...... ...... =-t.. iJlJ... ~~.... r .:."........r. ... - 'I . ---=;. ..... C'.- ~ I - .~I~; __L ~ ~ I I" . ~ iE~ ~ ~ I ~ - .... ~ ~ .-:!&II I = ~ i~~ ~~ t .tJ ~ .. .... L.:... ... ... :!! ~~... .IJ ~ ... )j .1 I ..... "r"I~ ~~ .. ~ .. . · iii: 1- ... 1:-' ~, . I III~~ ~~ " .~ ~ ~ ~ t:P. fD f , h~ , .IT'::: ..... 11-1 .~~~- ~..~ ~ .iA ..:.-':1 ~... ~-. .--. . -?ii' 4:-' a-: .. I. ... J'!I: it:;~~'" :. If~~~~~:i · ..... 1':' .... ... 8.-. .: ~ . ...... + i ~~~ ~ . ... ___.:.LI~. _, ~~.~ ~. -r=- .. ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ - :'fI~ft .~~:~ ~%.?~~~~~ .. I....~,. ..: .....=. ~ ~ .1":. .l~ ~ >:;.: .1 ~ -:.~...d .. ).. ~.. :Ii . . .~ -I ~ ,~ ~~-.. · 9: ~ ~~ ~~ -:-;..~> t~-" ~ 2 "::I I.!. .-., I I-P ~ ~..,.~ ~ ... -i,:. iIII. :x" I ~ ~ -:- ..~ ~ I ...... .:.r~~ :JI:III'I:. .. ~ .,.. ,...... lI:pl .. -. - , ... . I I t:..:. -:. ~_. .r. ~;,.' II:IM.: ~' - 0;,.' ~ II ~I ~... ~:Ioio 11;'1 , . .'t!II :'I~' "-,,.1' .. ~ . r :~. fI:~~ ~ ~ ~ ~:... \- I ..: ~if F ~~'. '............... .. F.. ... Lr' :...L ~ ~ ... -I J l:" . .....;: ,:-:'::u: . -=- 51 ~.... . .I~ · · -- . ....:... -:I ....; - ~.. ... P":'i" .-..:-.~.. ..;!... I ~...I . ~ :.... -=:1..... "" .... .. ~ - ~:......... ". ~:.. .. .. "":t.L -.:::. ..... · .. ... ... --= .;:T .. =' I I · ~~:.--':'!..J. ~.=::. ~~; ~ ~ ~:? .II .. 0::11 ... ~ -~: ~:i3 ": ?::- ;- d · - ~ .............. - ~ I ~ ) t'Y: i'ZI: f.t. ~ ~ ~. ~. ; / ."l~~ ; : {.-.:.. ...: i'" ~ ~!:-li-.:.I ~ .JI:. ..... .-:='I ~ ~ ~ :.. ~ ~ 1. ..:~:., f!}..ft I:.- :--. -=- :...=- ~.- .. SK ~ -.:. ~ .... ... · I': or:....J ..~ ..~:J: ~....~ ......j;!, ... r~..: · "':;.J.:~:L'-::;'~( "'r- "!::! ~ .::. ~~~rry';:. ,1; "3.k.~. ~~~:!:.N~~., ~ ~ ~ I i... ~ (6) sites are being chemically tested every week by a team of 14 volunteers. These sites were selected with input from OWQ. One of the volunteers enters data for the group and acts as the QAlQA. Data is housed in the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay database and all data is accepted by the DEQ. Volunteer Cleanup Efforts: The OWQ actively participates in the James River Regional Cleanup, hosted by the James River Advisory Council. This event takes place the second weekend of June and attracts over 300 citizens in Chesterfield County. The county offers 3 -4 sites in various locations along the James River and its tributaries for citizens. Over 300 bags of trash were removed by the volunteers at this one day event. The OWQ also hosts targeted stream cleanups as the need arises. For example, a community cleanup was held along Pocoshock Creek after staff identified an illegal dumping area, Local businesses of the watershed donated lunches and citizens from the watershed attended the event. Volunteer Riparian Buffer Plantings: Riparian buffers are among one of the most valuable resources in protecting water quality. Unfortunately, many riparian buffers have been altered and are not functioning to their full potential. Several riparian buffers in Chesterfield County have been restored with the aid of volunteers. These projects were funded by a Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant and volunteers performed the actual planting with the aid of Maters Gardeners for planting quality. In addition to these sites performing an ecological function, they also have educational signage and are located at parks for maximum educational visibility. Volunteer Riparian Buffer Monitoring: The Volunteer Riparian Buffer Monitoring program is the newest volunteer program and was implemented in May 2006. This program tracks the progress of restored riparian buffers in the county. Funds have been secured for this program from a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant. Organizations will adopt a riparian buffer and make yearly surveys, gather plant survival data and take photographs. Storm Drain Marking: The Storm Drain Marking Program was piloted by purchasing two thousand markers with funding from the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. These markers include the name of the river, stream or reservoir to which the area drains as well as the anti-pollution message of "No Dumping!" and the County's illicit discharge hotline number, After a successful pilot period, Chesterfield County received a second grant to purchase an additional 10,500 markers and expand the program countywide. Various groups have participated in this program including local schools, shopping centers and scout groups. When utilized as a scout project, an "educational component" is encouraged. The scout 110 000237 is encouraged to research nonpoint source pollution and develop educational materials for the community, These activities will not only educate the citizens and build communication skills for the youth, but also ensure success in markers being left on the storm drains. To date, approximately 3000 markers have been applied in over 400 neighborhoods. This covers six of the ten major watersheds in Chesterfield County. Upper Swift Creek: All of the above mentioned categories of education and outreach would be valuable to implement in the Upper Swift Creek, but a targeted education & outreach approach with a strong volunteer base would have the greatest impact. Publications and programs should be developed to specifically address the challenges and issues of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed, stressing the importance of protecting the Swift Creek Reservoir as a primary drinking water source. The citizens of this watershed should have a heightened awareness of the watershed in which they live and their personal effects on the water quality. This can be accomplished by working the various audiences. Several ideas include: working with the CCPS to develop a special curriculum for schools in the use, develop a county-sponsored volunteer program specifically for watershed residents and to encourage homeowners associations to include water quality measures such as RP A language in their covenants. The citizens of the Upper Swift Creek Watershed need to feel that they are supported and encouraged by Chesterfield County in their efforts to maintain and improve the environmental resources. 111 000238 Subdivision & Utility Ordinance Amendments - Mandatory Water. & Wastewater AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 17-72,17-84,18-63 AND 18-64 RELATING TO MANDA TORY SEWER AND WATER CONNECTIONS IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AREA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 17-72, 17-84, 18-63 and 18-64 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield. 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: 000 Sec. 17-72. Improvements--Required. 000 (k) Connection to the county water supply system shall be required in any of the following circumstances except as may be waived by the planning commission per County Code section 18-63: 000 ill When a lot is located within the area of the Upper Swift Creek Plan and suggested for any use other than Deferred Growth" unless residential zoning was obtained for such subdivision prior to (date of adoption). 000 (n) Connection to the county wastewater supply system shall be required in any of the following circumstances except as may be waived by the planning commission per County Code section 18-64: 000 ill When a lot is located within the area of the Upper Swift Creek Plan and suggested for any use other than Deferred Growth~ unless residential zoning was obtained for such subdivision prior to (date of adoption). 000 113 000239 Sec. 17-84. Standards for lots and parcels served by onsite sewage disposal systems. 000 (g} No subdivision orland within the Upper Swift Creek Plan for which residential zoning is obtained after (date of adoption) may utilize ousite wastewater disposal systems unless all lots in such subdivision are at least one acre in size. 000 Sec. 18-63. Mandatory water connections in certain areas. 000 ill All structures which are located on property that is included in the Upper Swift Creek Plan and suggested for any use other than Deferred Growth and which received zoning approval after (date of adoption) shall connect to the water system. However'l the following structures shall not be required to connect unless connection to the water system is otherwise required bv law: ill Temporary manufactured or mobile homes; ill Structures that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were renewed after (date of adoption); ill Structures that are authorized bv conditional uses or special exceptions that were granted after (date of adoption) if the use that is permitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was previously allowed with a private well: ill Governmental structures and institutional buildings: and ill Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. W ill For purposes of this section "structure" and "institutional building" shall have the same meaning as in the zoning ordinance tB (g} The planning commission may grant exceptions to subsections (b) and (c) during schematic plan, site plan or tentative subdivision review. The planning commission may also grant exceptions to subsections (b), (c), aOO-( d) and (e) to an applicant who files an application with the planning department on a form prescribed by the director of planning and who pays a fee of$260.00 to the planning department, if the applicant is not subject to the schematic, site plan or subdivision review process. The planning commission shall find that: (1) The use of a private well will not adversely affect the ability to extend public water to other property; 114 000240 (2) The use of a private well will not encourage future development that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) The use of a private well is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. The planning commission may impose conditions to mitigate the impact of any exception that it grants. Sec. 18-64. Mandatory wastewater connection in certain areas. 000 @ All structures which are located on property that is included in the Upper Swift Creek Plan and suggested for any use other than Deferred Growth and which received zoning approval after (date of adoption) shall connect to the wastewater system. However~ the following structures shall not be required to connect unless connection to the wastewater system is otherwise required by law: ill Temporary manufactured or mobile homes; ill Structures that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were renewed after (date of adoption); ill Structures that are authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions that were granted after (date of adoption) if the use that is permitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was previously allowed with a septic system~ ill Governmental structures and institutional buildings; and ill Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. f81m For purposes of this section, "structure," "single-family dwelling" and "institutional building" shall have the same meaning as in the zoning ordinance. WiD The planning commission may grant exceptions to subsections (a), (b),. and (c) and (d) during schematic plan, site plan or tentative subdivision review. The planning commission may also grant exceptions to subsections (a), (b),. and (c) and (d) to an applicant who files an application with the planning department on a form prescribed by the director of planning and who pays a fee of $260,00 to the planning department, if the applicant is not subject to the schematic, site plan or subdivision review process. The planning commission shall find that: (1) The use of an on-site disposal system will not adversely affect the ability to extend public wastewater sewer to other property; (2) The use of an on-site disposal system will not encourage future development that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; and 115 000241 (3) The use of an on-site disposal septic system is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. The planning commission may impose conditions to mitigate the impacts of any exception that it grants. (2) That these ordinances shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 116 000242 Subdivision & Utility Ordinance Amendment - Prohibition of Water & Wastewater in the Deferred Growth Area AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY ENACTING SECTIONS 17-72.1, 18-64.1 and 18-64.2 OF THE SUBDIVISION AND UTILITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO UTILITIES IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 17-72.1, 18-64.1 and 18-64,2 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield~ 1997J as amended, are enacted to read as follows: 000 Sec. 17-72.1 ImDrovements--Prohibited. (a) All structures which are located on property that is included in the Upper Swift Creek Plan and suggested for the Deferred Growth area shall be prohibited from connecting to the county water system" to any non-governmental public water system'! or to any private water supply system designed to serve more than one lot. (b) All structures which are located on property that is included in the Upper Swift Creek Plan suggested for the Deferred Growth area shall be prohibited from connecting to the county wastewater system"! to any non-governmental public wastewater system'! or to any private wastewater supply system designed to serve more than one lot. 000 Sec. 18-64.1. Prohibited water connections in certain areas. All structures which are located on property that is included in the Upper Swift Creek Plan and suggested for the Deferred Growth area shall be prohibited from connecting to the county water system'! to any non-{!ovemmental public water system'! or to any private water supply system designed to serve more than one lot. Sec. 18-64.2. Prohibited wastewater connection in certain areas. All structures which are located on property that is included in the Upper Swift Creek Plan suggested for the Deferred Growth area shall be prohibited from connecting to the county wastewater system'! to any non-governmental public wastewater system" or to any private wastewater supply system designed to serve more than one lot. 117 000243 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 118 000244 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Buffers AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-520, 19-522 and 19-523 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUFFERS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-520~ 19-522 and 19-523 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997~ as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sees. 19-520. Purpose and intent. (a) Buffers shall be designed to provide a horizontal distance and open space between certain uses; preserve vegetation; provide transition and separation; reduce noise and glare; aOOfef maintain privacy" and/or preserve existing forested vistas adiacent to arterial roads. Buffers shall provide intermittent visual separation between uses. 000 Sees. 19-522. Buffer and screening requirements. (a) Buffers: Buffers shall be provided as shown on the buffer width matrixes in section 19-523. Landscaping shall be accomplished within required buffers as follows: 000 (5) A 200-foot buffer shall consist of an unbroken strip of open space and shall be planted at three times the density of perimeter landscaping C. 000 Sees. 19-523. Buffer width matrix. (a) Buffers between adiacent properties: The required width of buffers shall be determined from the following matrix. The left column of the matrix represents the zoning of the lot on which the buffer must be provided and the top column of the matrix represents the zoning district of property contiguous to the zoning lot. The interior numbers in the matrix represent the width in feet of the required buffer on the zoning lot. However, whenever the primary use on a parcel zoned 0, 119 000245 C or I is a single family residential subdivision, adjacent parcels shall be required to apply the buffer matrix below as though the property is residentially zoned. 120 000246 BUFFER WIDTH MATRlX A* R-7/88 R- TH/R-MF MH Districts A* + + R-7/88 + + + 50** R-TH/R-MF + 50** 1VlH I)istricts + 40 0-1 + 50 0-2 + 40 C-1 + 50 C-2 + 75 C-3 + 75 C-4 + 100 C-5 100 100 I-I 100 100 1-2 100 100 1-3 *Note: In all zoning districts expect industrial zoned districts, buffers are only required adjacent to property zoned "A" when the property is vacant and its designation on the comprehensive plan is for residential uses. Property zoned 1-1 through 1-3 require a buffer when adjacent to property zoned "A" that is occupied by a residential use or the property is designated on the comprehensive plan for residential use. **Note: Where property zoned R-7 through R-88 is adjacent to property zoned R- TH, R-MF, or MH, a buffer shall be required on the R-TH, R-MF, or MH property. No buffers are necessary between any single-family residential districts unless required by the board of supervisors, planning commission (modification to development standards and requirements only) or board of zoning appeals. b, Buffers adiacent to streets: The required width of buffers shall be determined from the following matrix. Arterial Streets Upper Swift Creek Plan area R-7 /88/R- TH 200 121 000247 Other areas 50 R-7/88/R-TH Collector Streets R-7/88/R-TH 35 Residential Collector Streets R-7/88/R-TH 30 Local streets to negate double frontage condition R-7/88/R-TH 20 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 122 000248 Subdivision Ordinance Amendment - Buffers AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 17-62, 17-70 AND 17-83 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUFFER CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 17-62, 17-70 and 17-83 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield. 1997, as amended, are amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 17-62. Standard conditions. 000 (h) Any required buffers are subject to the requirements of section 17-70 (3) and (b). 000 Sec. 17-70. Buffers and Special Setbacks. ill Buffers and special setbacks outside the Upper Swift Creek Plan geo~aphy'l or within the Upper Swift Creek geography for lots which have a tentative plat approved prior to (date of adoption). .L W For lots which have a tentative plat approved after February 27, 2001, buffers shall be exclusive of easements which are generally parallel to the buffer, required setbacks and street cut and fill slopes, and shall be preserved in an undisturbed condition unless otherwise approved by the director of planning. Easements crossing buffers shall generally be at right angles or shall cross the buffer so as to have the least impact to the buffer. 2. f&) Post construction vegetation within the buffer shall meet a standard of not less than one and one half times the perimeter yard landscaping "C" quantity requirements as defined in County Code section 19-518 prorated for every 25 feet of depth, If insufficient vegetation exists within the buffer as determined by the director of planning, the subdivider shall submit a landscape plan to the director of planning for review and approval prior to release of the final check plat review comments, The subdivider shall install the required plant material prior to recordation, If conditions do not exist for good plant survival as determined by the 123 000249 director of planning, surety shall be provided to the county in the amount sufficient to guarantee the installation approved by the director of planning and in a form as indicated in section 17-73(a). The planning department shall hold any required surety, Any such installation shall be completed prior to state acceptance of the subdivision's streets. .1. W Buffers of the following minimum width shall be provided adjacent to existing and proposed streets with the following classifications: a. fB Arterial streets--50 feet. b. ~ Collector streets--35 feet. c. ~ Residential collector streets--30 feet. d. t4j Local streets to negate double frontage condition--20 feet. 4. W Adjacent to limited access streets, a setback distance of 200 feet, exclusive of required yards, shall be provided from the limited access street right-of- way, unless a noise study demonstrates that a lesser distance is acceptable as approved by the director of transportation. Natural vegetation shall be retained within the setback area unless removal is required to install noise attenuation measures or is approved by the planning commission. ~ W Setbacks from temporary turnarounds easements shall conform to permanent cul-de-sac right-of-way standards. 6.00 A minimum setback for all structures of 20 feet shall be provided from any petroleum product transmission pipeline easement or 35 feet from the pipeline whichever is greater. 000 !h1 Buffers and special setbacks within the Upper Swift Creek Plan geography for lots which have a tentative plat approved after (date of adoption). ill For lots which have a tentative plat approved after (date of adoption)"I buffers shall be exclusive of easements which are generally parallel to the buffer (except for buffers along arterial streets which shall allow within the buffer a maximum of 100 feet of total easement width generally parallel to the buffer" so long as easements are located a minimum of 25 feet from subdivision lot lines) "I required setbacks and street cut and fill slopes.. and shall be preserved in an undisturbed condition unless otherwise approved by the director of planning. Easements crossing: buffers shall generally be at right angles or shall cross the buffer so as to have the least impact to the buffer, 124 000250 ill Post construction ve~etation within the buffer shall meet a standard of not less than one and one half times the perimeter yard landscaping "C" quantity requirements as defined in County Code section 19-518 prorated for every 25 feet of depth. If insufficient vegetation exists within the buffer as determined by the director of plannin~~ the subdivider shall submit a landscape plan to the director of planning for review and approval prior to release of the final check plat review comments. The subdivider shall install the required plant material prior to recordation. If conditions do not exist for good plant survival as determined by the director of planning~ surety shall be provided to the county in the amount sufficient to guarantee the installation approved bv the director of planning and in a form as indicated in section 17- 73( a). The planning department shall hold any required surety, Any such installation shall be completed prior to state acceptance of the subdivision's streets. (3) Buffers of the following minimum width shall be provided adjacent to existing and proposed streets with the following classifications: ill} Arterial streets--200 feet. ili2 Collector streets--35 feet. (0 Residential collector streets--30 feet. @ Local streets to negate double frontage condition--20 feet. (4) Adiacent to limited access streets~ a setback distance of 200 feet~ exclusive of required yards~ shall be provided from the limited access street right-of-way~ unless a noise study demonstrates that a lesser distance is acceptable as approved by the director of transportation. Natural vegetation shall be retained within the setback area unless removal is required to install noise attenuation measures or is approved by the planning commission. (5) Setbacks from temporary turnarounds easements shall conform to permanent cul-de-sac right-of-way standards. (6) A minimum setback for all structures of 20 feet shall be provided from any petroleum product transmission pipeline easement or 35 feet from the pipeline whichever is greater, 000 Sec. 17-83. Minimum requirements. 000 125 000251. ( c ) If a subdivision borders on or contains an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the director of transportation may require the subdivider to limit access to said street(s) requiring a local street design utilizing a series of cul-de- sacs and/or loop streets. The lots shall only be entered from such a local street, and a buffer as required in section 17- 70 (a) or section 17- 70 (b) shall be provided along the lot lines adjacent to the arterial or collector street. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption, 126 000252 Chesterfield County, Virginia Memorandum DATE: mL Y 3, 2007 TO: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD MCELFISH, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCOTT FLANIGAN, WATER QUALITY MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCES RELATING TO WATER QUALITY IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED The Planning Commission scheduled a public hearing for July 19, 2006 to discuss the attached proposed amendment relating to water quality in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed, The watershed consists of land in the county located upstream of the Swift Creek Reservoir Dam. The proposed amendment will promote development standards that are consistent with the protection of critical natural systems within the watershed and facilitate the county's water quality goals for area streams and the Swift Creek Reservoir, The proposed amendment would require that the post-development total phosphorus load for all land uses within the watershed, except agricultural practices, shall not exceed 0.16 pounds per acre per year. Vested developments would not be affected. This new standard recognizes the importance of protecting the watershed by ensuring that development within the watershed contributes to the maintenance of water quality. Staff will be available at the July 17, 2007 work session to further discuss the proposed amendment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed change to the Board of Supervisors. c: Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator M.D. "Pete" Stith, Deputy County Administrator for Community Development Kirkland A. Turner, Director of Planning 127 000253 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-238 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-238 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-238. Development regulations. 000 (d) (1) Stormwater runoff shall be controlled to achieve the following: a. 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: 1. The post-development total phosphorus load for all land uses except a~ricultural practices residential uses located in areas identified in the 1fidlathian .L\rca Communitjr Plan for lo"yy density residential (1,01 to 2.0 units per acre), in the Route 288 Corridor Plan for Residential (1 ta 2.0 d\vellings per acre), and in the Upper S"l/ift Creek Plan far single family residential: (2.0 units/acre or less), shall not exceed ~ 0.16 pounds per acre per year. ;b. The post development total phosphorus load for all other uses shall not exceed O.~5 pounds per acre per yettf . 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 128 000254 Your Community Newspaper Since 1995 P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 . Phone: (804) 545-7500 . Fax: (804) 744-3269 . Email: news@cbestcrlieldobserver,com . Internet: www.chestcrfieldobserver.wm ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Upper Swift Creek Y2 page + 3" $685.00 PUBLIC NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, VIrginia, at a regular scheduled meeting on October 10, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Rt. 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, VIrginia, will hold a public hearing where persons affected may appear and present their views to consider: COlI1Prehensive Plan Amendments: The Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment, an amendment to The Upper Swift Creek Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan, parts of The Plan For Chesterfield. After a public hearing, the Board ma.y make changes to the proposed Plan. The Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment area is generally bounded to the north by properties along Midlothian Thrnpike, County Line Road, Mount Hermon Road, Old Hundred Road, Otterdale Road, Charter Colony Parkway, Route 288 and Lucks Lane; to the south by properties along Hull Street Road, Baldwin Creek Road, Beach Road, West Hensley Road, Spring Run Road and Bailey Bridge Road; to the east by properties along Route 288; and to the.:west by Eroperties along MoMley Road, Gedll ROaaand the Chesteri<<l1.tCountyl PoWltWan County boundary. ~ Re~'l .\(1ll.,.r ,,~ ~ (~ ~ The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 09/26/2007 & 10/03/2007 Sworn to and subscribed before me this Y+h day of Qc-tot:e....... ,2007. ~ J:2J/;:;b . Legal Affiant ~~ Jo . Lupo, otary Public My commission expires: November 30, 2010 Commission I.D. 7040138 (SEAL) . \\\1\1111111/',,, \\\ L I" ",,\\ \.. ~ .. f f,,~ """, ~\ ....:.ti.:...';- (;>.0'" I ~...:~Cl."'fYe.4...~1 AtfI,,~. ~ 0 : Iftt"to; "<'~ ..W" ...~ ~.":~i S. ~ : : 0 fl\e ':: _. ~- . to ~ ~ : i ~.. ...." bJ,.._.tJ.'~.f':,.. I:: _ A. '0 .... 0,;,-.:' ~, '-'.0,,.. .~,...,.. ~"V ..' -"'" '4 Ffy V-\\ ..,.,,~ ."I.f...... ",..\\ THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU, Chesterfield County, Virginia Memorandum DATE: OCTOBER 8,2007 TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: KIRKLAND A. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SUBJECT: UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS In anticipation of your October 10,2007, public hearing, please find attached information on the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment and associated ordinance amendments. Specifically, attached are the following: . A document entitled Draft Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment & companion Ordinance amendments, which outlines the recommendations and potential actions for the draft Plan and ordinance amendments. . A document entitled Draft Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment - Citizen issues and answers, which outlines questions provided by citizens regarding land use, school, transportation and water quality issues within the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment geography, with answers from staff. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jimmy Bowling by phone at 748-1086, or by email at bowlingi@chesterfield.gov. Draft Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment & companion Ordinance amendments Land Use Plan . Adopt Land Use Plan as recommended by staff . Adopt Land Use Plan as recommended by staff, with modifications: . Planning Commission modification - additional commercial on south line of Route 360, between Swift Creek and Winterpock Road . Deferred Growth Area - replace with Residential 2.0 units per acre or less or . Expand Deferred Growth Area east to Otterdale Road and south to Duval Road . Planning Commission recommendation - do not adopt the Land Use Plan Schools . Planning Commission recommendation - establish Levels of Service for schools within the Plan geography . Staff recommendation - do not establish Levels of Service for schools within the Plan geography Transportation . Planning Commission recommendation - establish Levels of Service for roads within the Plan geography . Staff recommendation - do not establish Levels of Service for roads within the Plan geography Water Qualitv Ordinance amendment - phosphorous loadiB!! . Adopt the ordinance amendment establishing a 0.16 standard for phosphorous (no net increase) for all development . Planning Commission recommendation - do not adopt the ordinance . Staff recommendation -adopt the ordinance with modifications: . Establish a 0.16 standard for phosphorous for residential, to include townhouses, multi-family and condominiums, but excluding residences within a mixed-use building containing commercial uses . Maintain a 0.45 standard for commercial and industrial ! Peer review - water Quality modelin2: . Require peer review of water quality modeling . Staff recommendation - peer review is not necessary; however, should the Board determine that peer review should be initiated, such review can be initiated after the Board acts on the draft Plan amendment and companion ordinance amendments Other Ordinance amendments Mandatory water and wasterwater connection: . Adopt ordinance amendments requiring mandatory water and wastewater connections for areas of the Plan geography suggested for uses other than deferred growth . Planning Commission recommendation - adopt the ordinance amendments . Staff recommendation - adopt the ordinance amendments Water and wastewater connection prohibition: . Adopt ordinance amendments prohibiting water and wastewater connections within the deferred growth area . Planning Commission recommendation - do not adopt the ordinance amendments . Staff recommendation - adopt the ordinance amendments Buffer ordinance: . Adopt ordinance amendments increasing buffers along arterial roads for residentially zoned properties within the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment geography, from fifty (50) feet to 200 feet . Planning Commission recommendation - do not adopt the ordinance amendments . Staff recommendation - adopt the ordinance amendments with modifications: . Increase buffers from fifty (50) to 100 feet Draft UR,Per Swift Creek Plan amendment Citizen issues and answers land Use, Schools and Transportation and Water Quality Following are a list of questions provided by citizens regarding land use, school, and transportation issues within the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment geography, with answers from staff. The first section lists land use issues and answers. The second section lists school issues and answers. The third section lists transportation issues and answers. The fourth section lists water quality issues and answers. allS\\/crs land Use Plan Issue The Land Use Plan should suggest lower density development in environmentally sensitive areas. Answer The draft Plan amendment recommends about 8,500 acres (23 % of the Plan geography) for low intensity development and for conservation/recreation. . About 4,900 acres (13% of the Plan geography) for deferred growth. . About 3,600 acres (10% of the Plan geography) for conservation/recreation (adjacent to area streams and Swift Creek Reservoir). The Draft Plan amendment also recommends consideration of various clustering, conservation/subdivision, and rural residential subdivision options as possible new Zoning Ordinance residential categories. To this end, staff has pending before the Planning Commission the following recommended zoning ordinance amendment: · The R-5 zoning category - designed to allow subdivisions with smaller lots in exchange for public space proportionate to the amount lots are reduced. Public space may be used to preserve existing vegetation (mature trees, etc.), enhance buffering adjacent to non-perennial streams, and include water quality devices such as rain gardens and other LID features. Issue The Land Use Plan should accommodate mixed-use developments (like Roseland). It should encourage mixed-use development with internal focus with most of the traffic kept within the development, to minimize traffic on arterial roads. Answer The draft Plan amendment recommends: . Higher density, mixed use development along Rt. 360. · Community-scale mixed-use nodes, along the future right of way of Powhite Parkway, to include shopping, services, offices, and residences of various types and densities. · Regional mixed uses at or near existing and anticipated arterial road intersections, to include integrated office, regional commercial, higher density residential and light industrial park uses. · Convenience commercial uses integrated into residential developments, to include small-scale retail and personal services when located within planned residential areas and designed to attract customers primarily from immediate neighborhoods. The draft Plan amendment also recommends consideration of traditional neighborhood design as possible a new Zoning Ordinance category. Staff has and pending before the Planning Commission the following recommended zoning ordinance amendment: . The TND-MU zoning category - designed to allow developments that embrace the principles of neo-traditional or new urbanism development. Issue The Land Use Plan does not solve water quality issues. Low Impact Development requires a unified plan encompassing water quality, land use (planning), transportation, and Environmental Engineering. It cannot be driven by water quality alone. Answer The Land Use Plan is but one portion of the draft Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment, and is used primarily to shape the pace and pattern of development within the plan geography over time. It reflects zoning and development patterns that evolved under the current, adopted Plan, and it anticipates and guides future development for areas yet to be rezoned. The draft Upper Swift Creek Land Use Plan amendment was modeled for water quality and transportation impacts, and the modeling results were used, in part, to develop land use, transportation and water quality recommendations. Other tools are needed to address present, near-term, and long-term growth issues such as transportation, public facilities, and water quality. To this end, the draft Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment incorporates goals and recommendations to address transportation and water quality issues within the Plan amendment geography. Other components of the county's Comprehensive Plan also address these and other issues. These include, but are not limited to, the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan, and the Water Quality Protection Plan. Issue The recommended Deferred Growth Area infringes upon the right of property owners to develop their properties. Answer The foundation of the Plan is orderly development as an overall approach to managing the county's future growth. Orderly development means that future growth should be directed into appropriate locations within existing, developed areas with fringe development being an orderly extension beyond current developed areas. The Plan strives to manage growth by fostering an orderly and generally predictable pattern of development and promoting a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve existing and future development. The recommended Deferred Growth Area suggests that zoning and development patterns should remain agricultural in this part of the Plan geography for the present and into the near future, with decisions about rezoning to more intense uses deferred to a subsequent plan amendment. The Deferred Growth Area is not a conservation and answers district. Properties could be developed for uses that are allowed under Agricultural (A) zoning. Further, it anticipates that more intensive zoning and land uses may be appropriate in the future. Issue The Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment geography accounts for most of the development occurring within the county. Answer The Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment geography accounts for about 13 percent of the land area of the county. For the years 2004 to 2006, this geography accounted for under 20 percent of the building permits issued countywide for single family and multi-family dwellings. Issue The county should impose a moratorium on zoning and development until facilities and water quality issues are resolved Answer The county does not have the legal authority to impose moratoriums on zoning or development. Zoning cases must be decided on a case-by-case basis and within the time limits established by applicable state law. Further, if site plan and subdivision applications comply with legal requirements they must be approved within the time frames established by applicable state law. and answers 4 Schools Issue Level of Service standards for schools should be designated for the Upper Swift Creek Plan geography, due to rapid rate of growth in the area and the inability of schools to adequately serve the influx of new students. Answer Level of Service standards for schools should be explored, but on a countywide basis to ensure that all county neighborhoods are adequately served. Issue Formulas used by Schools and Planning, to estimate numbers of potential students, yield different numbers. This difference should be resolved. Answer School and Planning staff will review this issue and determine if formulas should be adjusted. , Transportation Issue How will the county address the $1.5 Billion shortfall (2005) to bring existing roads up to safe standards? New developments must be part of the solution. Answer The county is seeking additional funding from the State for road improvements. New development contributes to the improvement of area roads through cash proffers and proffered road improvements. Issue Level of Service standards for roads should be designated for the Upper Swift Creek Plan geography, due to rapid rate of growth in the area and the inability of road improvements to adequately serve increased traffic. Answer Level of Service standards can be a tool to help make zoning recommendations, but this cannot be the only reason to deny a rezoning. Level of Service standards should be examined as one of many tools for balancing growth and roads. However, such standards should be explored on a countywide basis. Issue Public transportation and light rail service should be provided for in the Plan. Answer The county continues to explore opportunities to develop public transportation options and anticipate and plan for light rail. However, public transportation and light rail service would require much higher densities of development than currently exist in the area. Meanwhile, the automobile will remain the primary means of personal transportation for the foreseeable future. Issue~: an';wers Citizen Questions Regarding Water Quality Matters for the Sift Creek Reservoir Master Plan and the Draft Upper Sift Creek Plan Amendment Following are a list of questions provided by citiens regarding water quality issues within the Upper Swift Creek watershed,with answers from staff. The first section lists ten questions regarding assumptions and data in the Upper Swift Creek Study by CH2MHill. The second section is a slideshow that illustrates the answers to questions four and ten. The third section lists two questions regarding the Swift Creek Reservoir Mater Plan and Upper Swift Creek Land-use Plan. The fourth section is a table providing part of the answer to question two. Questions Regarding Assumptions and Data in the Upper Swift Creek Study by CH2MHill GBS Holding, LTD. and Roseland Development Corp. September 17, 2007 There are many assumptions that call into question the accuracy and readiness of the CH2MHill report to cause major changes in the Ordinances of Chesterfield County. There are also many questions that have arisen from the contradictory conclusions made by the CH2MHill report and the 2004, 2005 and 2006 water quality reports prepared by the Addison-Evans Water Production and Laboratory Facility, the Chesterfield County Department of Utilities and Department of Environmental Engineering, and KCI Technologies, Inc. Our company believes that, at a minimum, the county leadership should have clear and substantiated background data in the answers to these questions prior to advancing any changes to the Upper Swift Creek ordinances. In order to fully analyze the assumptions proposed in the CH2MHill report, as well as properly evaluate actual data provided in the 2006 water quality report, a peer review by a firm specializing in environmental and water quality engineering is necessary to assure that all interested parties and stakeholders are satisfied that policy and ordinance changes are made based on the best available data and accurate, reasonable conclusions. The following questions are meant to highlight areas of concern. It is expected their answers will in turn create more questions, again necessitating the need for a detailed peer review. If the CH2MHill model or any model is expected to be a tool to direct future environmental and water quality policies, then its accuracy and qualitative value must be stringently reviewed and qualified. Thank you for your comments. Many of your concerns have been addressed during the 10 years the Watershed Committee was convened and throughout the past 7 years, after the Board of Supervisors adopted the Watershed Master Plan. For these reasons, the reader will be referred to the detailed documents addressing these concerns. It is essential; to review the initial documentation addressing your concerns to ensure your understanding of the responses you will be provided. Q 1 - The 2006 water quality report shows an in-lake phosphorus level at 0.009 mg/I, down by nearly 60% from one year earlier (2005 showed in-lake at 0.021 mg/I). Most interesting is that an unusually low measurement occurred during a year of unusually high rainfall. Heretofore, low in-lake phosphorus concentrations measured during 2005 and 2004 were attributed to below-normal rainfall accumulations. It appears data collected from 2006 inexplicably refutes this conculsion. At a minimum, this data suggests that we have time to further explore the many questions generated by the current study. As with all environmental studies, I would caution reviewers in using anyone year's data to explain or support a long term decision. Trends analyses have a greater ability to predict long term values. Q2 - What is the relationship between actual phosphorus measured in the tributaries and the average in-lake phosphorus? In 2006, the measured tributary phosphorus levels (loading) were at their highest levels since 1991, yet the in-lake phosphorus level of 0.009 was the lowest on record. This data seemingly contradicts previous explanations of phosphorus loading and in-lake phosphorus concentrations. Phosphorus concentration as related to increased impervious cover is well documented in the primary literature and is the basis of the Chesapeake Bay Act stormwater treatment requirements. Q3 - Wetfall / dryfall calculations in 2004 show that the atmosphere is contributing nearly 0.51 Ib/ac/year of phosphorus onto the water, which is a 100% impervious surface. In 2005 the number dropped to 0.16 Ib/ac/year and in 2006 this number again rose to 0.21 Ib fact year. The average of this data is 0.29 Ib/ac/year. Is this type of variation to be expected, and what type of analysis was done to evaluate that atmospheric addition to the reservoir? At several hundred pounds per year in an area of 1,700 acres, it is important to understand how this amount was analyzed. It is also important to understand how this natural environmental phenomenon affects the 38,000 acres in the entire Swift Creek watershed. How can we consider 0.16 as a new standard when 0.29 (avg.) of phosphorus appears to be falling from the sky? The county maintains an aerial sampling station located at the water treatment plant. Data from this station is used to calculate deposition on the reservoir. Contaminated samples are not used. Variation between years is expected and this data is not used to predict deposition over the watershed. Aerial deposition is a combination of local, regional and national inputs. The data indicates that direct aerial deposition onto the lake surface is a small percentage of the overall potential watershed contribution of 43,000 Ibs. 2 Q4 -If the area draining to the Swift Creek Reservoir is a total of 39,642 acres, and we know that there is a state requirement of 0.45 Ib/ac/year of post-development phosphorus loading, then should not the anticipated total poundage of phosphorus reaching the reservoir be a maximum of 17,838Ib/year post-development? (39,642 x 0.45 = 17,838). The report suggests that at ultimate build out, phosphorus loading will far exceed that amount despite state runoff standards. The report also uses a present modeled load of 15,000 lb., even though long-term median phosphorus loading, as represented in the 2006 water quality report, is 6,755Ib. What data or assumptions led to this contradictory conclusion? For more information concerning this topic, review the county's Watershed Master Plan 2000 and Technical Memorandum Swift Creek Reservoir P8 Modeling Update (April 5, 2007) and its referenced documents. A PowerPoint presentation has been provided to illustrate the response. Q5 - Statistical analysis requires that data at the high and low ends of the scope of the analysis be dismissed. The CH2MHill model uses 2003 data as a typical year, although annual rainfall during this period was by far the highest recorded in over 20 years. Considering historical data, as well as unusual weather circumstances occurring in during this year, why was 2003 considered a reasonable baseline from which to predict future year pollutant loading? (Note: In September 2003 central Virginia was struck by Hurricane Isabel. In Chesterfield County, and the USC drainage basin, tens of thousands of mature trees were uprooted, causing significant erosion and sedimentation and subsequent phosphorus loading in the reservoir. Hurricane Isabel has been called "the worst natural disaster ever to hit Chesterfield County) The 50 year record was analyzed for average annual rainfall, number of storms, and time between storms. The 1993 rainfall record most closely matched the analysis and was selected as the typical year for the model not the 2003 rainfall. Q6 - Studies show that there are pollutant removing benefits when a reservoir pumps out water for public use, similar to the benefits of aeration. The reduction in pollutants, in contrast to farm ponds and lakes where there is no active removal of water in the lake, is well documented. When a question was asked of county staff about how the county model looked at this pollutant removal benefit, the answer was "this model is too simple to look at this characteristic". That answer generates two questions. First, if the model is too simple to evaluate such a simple element, should the model be used at all? Second, if the model is overly simple in this regard, with such an important beneficial element left out of the analysis, should we be looking to make such broad ordinance changes without knowledge of how much removal of pollutants is occurring through the utility water drawdown? (Note: Water treatment (withdrawl) capacity at Chesterfield's Addison-Evans Water Treatment Facility is 72mm GPO, +/- 4 billion gallons 3 per year, while total water storage capacity of Swift Creek Reservoir is +/- 5 billion gallons) Any water removal from the reservoir to include spillway overflow will result in pollutants removal. The following calculation addresses the potential pollutant removal ability of the water treatment plant withdrawals: Annual W /D = 400mft3 = 2,992,208,000 gallons - 2.99 billion 2.99 x 107 gallons x 3.7854 I/gal = 1.13 x 1010 L Site 8 median TP /yr = 0.010 mg/L 1.13 x 1010 Lx 0.01 mg/I + 113,000,000 mg/P /yr x 2.679 x 10 -6 Ibs/mg = 302.7 Ibs/yr = 303 Ibs/yr As indicted in its title (Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles and Ponds) the P-8 model is well suited and recommended for predicting the generation and transport of stormwater runoff pollutants in urban watersheds. For additional information on model selection, please see county's Watershed Master Plan 2000. Q7 -It appears the model of CH2MHill represents a "build-out" expectation that far exceeds the actual build out that may reasonable occur. It is very unclear what assumptions were made regarding the components of this build-out, including density, average house size, impervious areas, landscape patterns, clearing limits, etc. How does the model consider those acres that are in floodplain, RP As, buffer zones and other sensitive areas that will not see development in the future? How big a difference does leaving those acres out of the analysis make in showing a problem with pollutants? What are the effects of changing assumptions made in this model such as those aforementioned? For more information concerning this topic, review the county's Watershed Master Plan 2000 table 3-9 and Technical Memorandum Swift Creek Reservoir P8 Modeling Update (April 5, 2007). The model does account for those areas as described above. 4 Q8 - Regarding the question of vesting and the fact that the model assumes that some "vested" properties call for "straight piping" without the expectation of pollutant removal to achieve current state standard requirements (currently 0.45 lb/ac/yr.) , why does the model not consider state standards to be applied to all residential projects in the USC watershed? state standards may only be applied to properties constructed in the county after adoption of the CBPO requirements. Prior development would not need to meet this pollutant reduction value. Developments approved or constructed under the Watershed Master Plan program may be determined to be vested and may not be required to meet the state's reduction requirements. Q9 - If future development is suggested to have a direct relationship to in-lake phosphorous loading and concentration, then does a trend exist that suggests that development occurring in the watershed over the past ten years has shown an incremental increase in phosphorus loading and concentrations? Data collected as recently as 2006 suggests such a trend does not exist, and that an inverse relationship may exist. How are the conclusions inferred by the CH2MHill model explained? Since 1992, a weak upward trend in phosphorus loadings as measured by pounds/year to Swift Creek Reservoir has been observed. Since 1998, significant positive trends have been observed in the basins with development such as Blackman Creek, Otterdale Branch, Swift Creek, Tomahawk Creek and Little Tomahawk Creek basins. The assimilative capacity of the reservoir does not appear to have been reached. Q10 - These questions pertain to the response (or lack thereof) when those in the public incorrectly reference the data from the study A. References are commonly made that the USC watershed is 400 lb. over the self-prescribed 25,600Ib. load maximum TODAY, as though we have a problem with the in-lake numbers in 2007. Long term median phosphorus load as reported in the 2006 water quality report is 6,755Ib. The following logical conclusion may be drawn using actual data: County limit, lb.: Long-term median TP loading, Ib (pg 2-6, 2006 water quality report): Base flow, lb. (0.16 lb/ ac x 19 ,600ac.): Load to be applied to undeveloped property, lb.: 25,600 6,755 3,136 15,709 Acres undeveloped (zoned and un-zoned): A verage load (Ib) per acre to stay below limit: 19,600 0.80 5 Using actual and historical data, it seems unreasonable to make an assumption that development will cause the reservoir to exceed our phosphorus loading limit, even when held to a performance standard significantly below state water quality standards. Please see answer to Q4. B. It is important when discussing the results of the data that erroneous expectations by those misreading the report are corrected. To date, we have not seen any correction given by the county staff to those that misquote the overage and when that overage will occur, yet there have been numerous opportunities to correct not only the general public, but planning commissioners as well. We would like to understand why this isn't being done more proactively. staff has met with and will continue to provide information to county officials on the issues pertaining to the reservoir. County officials and staff are aware of potential inaccurate statements and will, if necessary, address the comments. e. All tributaries in the use watershed report median baseflow total phosphorus concentration of less than 0.04mg/l. It is commonly represented that Brandermill and Woodlake subdivisions meet or exceed 0.22 Ibs./acre or 0.16 lbs./acre phosphorus runoff standards. Water quality reports consistently indicate that monitoring station 13 (Brandermill) and station 14 (Woodlake) report elevated storm concentrations of total phosphorus and nitrogen. Why has it not been properly explained that neither Brandermill nor Woodlake meet a 0.22 Ibs./acre runoff standard? If either of these projects were deemed to comply with new standards, then is it not reasonable that replicating their designs would be a satisfactory development standard for the entire use watershed? The Chimney House (Brandermill) Station appears to comply with CBPO standards and may meet current county standards. Additional studies will be conducted to review and confirm these findings. 6 Q11 - Local and state erosion and sediment control standards and civil penalties have improved significantly over the past ten years. Have these improved standards been applied to the CH2MHill model? Is it possible these standards have led to lower in-lake phosphorus levels in the reservoir? The model is a predictive tool representing post construction flows and pollutant concentrations. Review the Supporting Document H - Technical Memorandum Construction Site Sediment and Total Phosphorus Loading August 15. 2005 of the proposed Upper Swift Creek Plan for additional discussion concerning the impacts of construction activities within the watershed. Q 12 - How are Low Impact Design (LID) standards calculated or considered in the model? If these standards were integrated into a new environmental engineering standard how would they affect the outcome of the model? Specific LID standards are not considered within the model. These designs standards and practices would be considered on a site by site basis. Q 13 - What is orphan phosphorus? The orphan load refers to any phosphorus load from development not controlled on- site. 7 CJ) c CJ) 0 -t-I -- C -t-I Q) (.) Q) ::::J C -c -c 0 0 Q) c.. ~ n:: E C'> -t-I -c 0 c c 0 CJ) '-- -- Q) ..c ::::J ~ () t:: - -t-I '-- I Q) E Q) 0 (.) -c 0 -c ..c ~ ..c cu cu 0 c.. -- 0 . ...... -c (.) ..c ....... ~ 0 -t-I Q) CJ) - .-.J 0 ..c cu - 0 L() () c.. CJ) CJ) -c -t-I ..c ~ c =:3 c Q) E 0... ::::J - '-- 0 cu ~ c -- 0 0 -0 cu en -- CJ) Q) '+- ..c CJ) Q) ..c > 0 ::::J - - c.. e Q) - '-- CJ) - c.. ::J -t-I ..c CJ) (.) -c E > cu -t-I 0 C 0 - ....... ex:> ex:> Q) ~ ..c 0 ~ -- ~ t:: en 0... 0... n:: 0... () ........ ..J ..J - J: 5 iN ::E r:J ...-... en c 0 -- ......., ro - ::J (,) - ro () c ~ -0 Q) ~ ro ro ......., ~ a:l 0 en ---l Q) Q) I - ::l ......., tI= - ~ c ro - ro ro 0 "'I- ro Q) ......., c > ::l en en -- a.. ......., ro c b rn c ;: en !- 0 0 Q) 0 en 0... ro 0 Q) ......., Q) ......., ro ::l - L- C') ..c LL 0 L- ..r:: Q) ro ......., () ......., 0 Q) (,) L- C ...... ""-' en 0... ......., ro Q) Q) Q) -0 I ro > (,) c Q) L- a ro c ~ 0 0 ......., Q) ~ - 0 ..c: Q) ::J C c..o co (,) ......., 0 Q) ::l Q) -0 en Q) ~ 0 Q) CY: (9 0 c 0... ......., I- ~ ......., c ......... ro ......., ......., ~ -0 ro Q. Q) L- C 0 Q) Q) - <...) Q) c a.. en ......., en - E -- c C') E ......., Q) c E Q) ro Q) 0 ro en c -- ......., -- (9 () -- ::J .. ....... en en 0 ---l en CI) -I -I - 1: I ~ :z CJ /', .. 1', , :P ~ ~ 0 0 C) .L: .L: C .+oJ .+oJ (]) (]) S-- ~ E CO c.. (]) (]) E - c c.. 0 E 0 () .- E '+- b Cf) 0 0 0 0 S-- >. .+oJ '+- CO -t: .+oJ .+oJ $ c S-- (]) ..... (]) .+oJ Q) - > (/) CO C (]) :e > 0 ..c .- () ::J (]) C- O S-- Q) (]) .+oJ CO ......... .+oJ CO (/) 0 - Q. ::J C c E 0 (/) E .- (]) S-- +-' -0 S-- 0 () 0 111- CO '+- ::J .L: CJ) S-- 0 S-- ~ .+oJ >. c (]) (]) (]) I .L: S-- E ~ u S-- (/) .+oJ (]) CO >. 0 > 0 -- ..c I (]) (]) .- Z () S-- .+oJ - .L: CO eo CO CO (]) .+oJ - -- .L: (]) (]) 0.. 0.. ..c I- 0 0::: .L: .+oJ .+oJ ...J -l - :r :! ~ :E ~ " Iloi C> -::!2. CI) C> 0 C> CD s:: .... CD m 0 N II III ........ -- ....---.. .q- .... C> !-- 0 C> ~ CD !-- I . :::s ~ C> t.) C> -- .... CO !-- -- -0 ..c !-- C> ~ ....---.. - ~ -- N ~ ..c I Q) C> -- t.) N -+- ..c - I CO . c n: C> - .q- C> (]) -- C> C> C> CD ..c I - .... C> C> . - CO CI) en C> > N C> C> N .q- -- :::s .... .... II N CD ::J "- II C> en . . 0- N ........ C> C> ~ (/) (]) 0 -a "-"" 0 "-"" CO 0 >< 0.. 0 >< (]) -t: 0 -+- ...-J -+- !-- Q. -a -::!2. - -a -::!2. CO (]) 0 CO (]) 0 CO C> .- C> en (I) t.) -+- t.) C ::J <:) C :J 0 s:::: 0 0 -a ~ <L> -a ~ 0 .- -- -a -+- ..c: -+- <L> II (]) II .- t.) -a !-- en !-- tl -a <L> C <L> (]) C ::J co ..c 0 !-- ..c 0 -a (l) .- ....---.. .- (]) -+- Q) Cl. ........, Q) 0 c..:> 0 t.) !-- ~ !a.... E !-- ........, ::J Q) ........, ::J 0 III ........ ::J en -a -::!2. 3: en -a ~ ........ -+- ::J -a (]) 0 -::!2. -a <L> ra '+- <L> ~ CD 0 <L> ~ (]) ......... 00 <L> CD co L.() (]) ..c Q) a... z -::!2. II '+- N Z -::!2. l- n: 0 "-"" 0 ....I ....I - :r :i ~ :I: c.> . 'I " j ~ '~~.".,...., (J) (I) t: ns 111-- .. 0) ns ..c Q) ~ (f) ... 0 s- e -c a.. ~ s- ns ~ ~ 0 0 I CI) s- O ...J a.. ns cv ......... c: C) .c s- t: - .0 -c ~ .- N ns -..1-1 -..1-1 0 :s (f) N ;: .- . ...J U. -c >< 0 (.) - W CV CV ::3 s- .- ~ t -0 -..1-1 CV :s -..1-1 CJ.) U- ti) a:: - CV ns ..c -..1-1 () 0 (f) t: I- -..1-1 .- ~ \l- e s- O -..1-1 CV ~ 0:: ..J ...J - 1: I iN ::a: CJ '" Questions Regarding the Swift Creek Reservoir Master Plan and Upper Swift Creek Land- use Pion Citizen Concerns Received as of October 3, 2007 Thomas A. Pakurar, Ph.D. Co-chair Hands Across the Lake P.O. BOX 1752 Midlothian, VA 23113-1752 Q 1. What was the median #acre developed in the watershed in 2006 that corresponds to the 14,000 Ib of phosphorus running off into the reservoir? The 14,000 Ibs relates to the previously modeled total phosphorus annual load from 2005 land-use data. The 2005 land-use data and typical annual rainfall for this area was used as input into the model to determine the annual total phosphorus load for that year. The typical annual rainfall represents the 50-year record for average annual rainfall, number of storms, and time between storms. The 1993 rainfall record most closely matched the analysis and was selected as the typical year for the model. The method to determine the typical annual rainfall is discussed in Section 3 of the county's Watershed Master Plan 2000 and can be reviewed at: http://www.chesterfield.gov /CommunityDevelopment/Engineering/watershed.asp The land-use type and corresponding number of acres used as input into the model for the year 2005 are listed below: 2005 Landuse Code Land Use Definition Existing Area (ac) AGC Cropland 822 AGP Pastureland 540 CLI Commercial { Lioht Industrial 0 CMU Community Mixed Use 1 ,452 CPR Conservation and Passive Recreation 0 FOR Open Space - Forest 21,553 GRS Open Space - Grass 306 IND Industrial 199 RM Single Family Residential-Urban (lots 0.125 to 0.249 acres) 693 RMF Multi Family Residential (lots less than 0.125 acres) 201 RMU Regional Mixed Use 15 ROW Major Thoroughfares 1,512 RR Single Family Residential - Rural (lots 2 acres or more) 8,750 SRL Single Family Residential-Suburban Low (lots 0.45 to 0.99 acres) 1,184 SRL B Revised Single Family Residential-Suburban Low (lots 0.50 to 0.99 acres) 0 SRM Single Family Residential-Suburban Medium (lots 0.25 to 0.44 acres) 1,177 SRR Single Family Residential-Semi-Rural (lots 1 to 1.99 acres) 1,076 WAT Water 162 TOTAL 39,643 Q2. What is the current list of sites chd acreage in the watershed that have been issued Land Disturbance permits? Ditto for 2006 (corresponding to the 14,000 TP runoff into the reservoir.) Lists of land disturbance activities within the Swift Creek Reservoir watershed for years 2003 through 2007 have been provided. Projects are listed by the date in which the permit was issued. Those projects that are still active as of 10.04.2007 are noted as (Project Complete N). Those projects which have been completed and are no longer active are noted as (Project Complete V). The database is currently being updated and modified to meet county needs. Future reports should reflect this change. Please see the report document entitled: 1. Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed - Active & Non-active Land Disturbance Permits issued by Year 03 - 07 as of 10.4.2007.pdf LDPs issued/or 2003,2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 ISSUE by Year 2003 Project Complete Y Permit Number 201860 201876 201888 201903 201966 201975 201976 202004 202005 202015 202023 Project Name Primary Water Shed ISSUE Cloverhill Market Place Phase I 3/13/2003 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR --'--_.__.,~~----~---~_._--- -~~'-'_._-------_._._-~.._-_.._--,.__._--_.._.__._-_._. Foster Mini Storage Phase IV Clearing Only 4/7/2003 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR Edgewater At The Reservoir Section 8 4/28/2003 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR Rutherford Village at Charter Colony 5/20/2003 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR Woodlake Commercial Park 8/26/2003 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR Mallory Village At Charter Colony 9/12/2003 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 9/12/2003 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR Sedwick Village At Charter Colony Clayborne Village At Charter Colony Band C Armistead Village At Charter Colony 10/24/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 10/24/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR Manders Drive At Charter Colony 10/31/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR Watermill Phase II and Phase III(Ph III Combined Wit 11/14/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR Total Disturbed acreage Disturbed Acreage 66.82 0.00 6.0 3.00 11.00 7.00 6.50 11.40 9.00 4.90 8.90 134.52 ISSUE by Year 2004 Project Complete N Permit Number Project Name ISSUE Primary Water Shed Disturbed Acreage 202154 Foxfield 7/13/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 8.82 202181 Mount Hermon Road Extended 9/7/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7.45 Total Disturbed acreage 16.27 Project Complete Y Permit Number Project Name ISSUE Primary Water Shed Disturbed Acreage 202047 WaWa- Route 360 Infrastructure Only 1/15/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5.50 202050 Red Fern Station 1/22/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 1.00 202040 Cosby Road High School Full Site Approval 2/10/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 60.00 202099 Beckenham Section A Sewer Extension Otterdale Rd 4/15/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR .15 202152 Armistead Village Section Band C At Charter Colony 7/6/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.50 202331 Watermill Section 3 8/24/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 8.90 202186 Clayborne Village At Charter Colony Sections Band 9/16/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 6.50 202191 Fox Club Parkway Extended 10/1/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 22.00 202196 Bank Of Richmond - Hull Street 1O/12/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 1.89 202207 Mexico Restaurant 11/2/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 1.17 202193 Charter Colony Senior Apartments 11 /1 0/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.20 202214 Bank Of Richmond Phase II 11/17/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.0 202227 Gentle Touch Carwash 12/6/2004 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.50 202229 Educare At Edgewater 12/15/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 1.1 202235 Summer Lake Section 04 12/22/2 OO~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 12.50 Total Disturbed acreage 135.91 ISSUE by Year 2005 Project Complete N Permit Number Project Name ISSUE Primary Water Shed Disturbed Acreage 202296 Katherman- Harbour Point" 4/21/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5.14 202309 Foxcreek Regional BMP (Wbc-10)Re-ApprovaI4-20-0 5/10/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5.00 202346 Foxcreek Crossing Phase I 7/8/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 6.75 202349 Summer Lake Section 05 7/12/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 6.50 202356 Townhomes At Harbour Pointe 7/20/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7.00 202358 Swift Creek Trunk Sewer To Hallsley Subdivision Pha 7/22/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 21.00 202360 Abbey Village at Charter Colony 7/22/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 17.80 202373 Little Tomahawk Station 8/5/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 15.00 202389 Tomahawk Creek Trunk Sewer Phase" 8/29/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.59 202392 Foxcreek - Walkers Chase Section 1 8/31/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 3.53 202397 Charter Park Drive at Charter Colony 9/9/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 11.00 202400 Glenmore Village at Charter Colony 9/14/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 10.30 202401 Madison Village At Charler Colony 9/14/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 19.10 202416 Foxcreek - Primrose Section 1 10/3/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 3.72 202425 Watermill Section 4 I 0/11 /200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7.00 202436 Foxcreek Crossing Phase 2 I 0/24/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 8.16 202445 The Sanctuary at Watermill Section A 11/16/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5.82 202446 Stewart Village at Charter Colony 11 /16/200~ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 20.00 Total Disturbed acreage 175.41 Project Complete y Permit Number Project Name ISSUE Primary Water Shed Disturbed Acreage 202248 Saint Francis Cancer Center 1/27/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5.40 202249 Summer Lake Recreation Center 1/27/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.50 202275 Hawthorne Village At Charter Colony 3/24/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.60 202298 Edgewater Marketplace Phase II 4/22/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.03 202312 Blackwood Southshore Shops - Rt 360 5/16/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.49 202316 Hood Hull Street Retail 5/19/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 1.38 202332 Foxcreek Sales Center 6/16/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.00 ISSUE by Year ~OOS 202387 Healey Office Building 8/29/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 0.89 202410 Woodlake Place Phase I and" 9/27/2005 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 1.55 202430 Grace Bible Church 1O/17/200! SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.90 202448 Village Bank Robious Rd 11/21/200! SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 6.5 Total Disturbed acreage 36.24 ISSUE by Year 2006 Project Complete N Permit Number Project Name ISSUE Primary Water Shed Disturbed Acreage 202468 Foxcreek-Heart Quake Section 1 1/24/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.29 202474 Haywood Village at Charter Colony 1/27/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 8.50 202477 Hallsley Section 1 2/1/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 50.20 202481 Villas at Dogwood Section A 2/9/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 9.73 202501 Foxcreek Crossing Phase III 3/7/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 3.35 202510 Silver Lake at Watermill formerly Villas at Watermill S 3/20/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.80 202517 Hallsley Offsite Waterline Improvements 4/6/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7.00 202519 Rountrey Section 1 4/7/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 21.50 202525 Foxcreek Trunk Sewer Phase II 4/13/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 1.19 202533 Berkley Village At Charter Colony 4/27/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 18.40 202545 Center Pointe Parkway Extended IV 5/23/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7.80 202552 Sanctuary at Watermill Section B 6/9/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 3.90 202569 Westwood Village at Charter Colony 7/14/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 20.02 202570 Westerleigh Phase I Otterdale Rd and Westerleigh P 7/20/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.0 202574 Honda House 7/30/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 3.68 202584 Harpers Mill Elementary School 8/9/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 16.9 202598 Center Pointe Middle School 8/28/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 32.46 202620 Foxcreek - Hancocks Quarter 9/26/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.5 202624 Westerleigh Section 01 10/4/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.0 202676 Westerleigh Parkway Phase 2 10/13/200€ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.0 202681 Woolridge Rd Extension to Magnolia Green 1O/17/200€ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 9.3 202695 Otterdale Rd Phase 2/Harpers Mill Pwy Ph I 11/21/200€ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 13.6 202696 Harpers Mill Sec 1 Subdivision - NW 11/27/200€ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7.4 202698 Wood lake Offices 11/29/200€ SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.26 202704 Magnolia Green Subdivision Section A 12/6/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7.3 202705 Magnolia Green Subdivision Section B 12/6/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5 202702 Harpers Mill Subdivision Otterdale Road Plan Phase I 12/7/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4.46 ISSUE by Year 2006 202707 Magnolia Green Sewer Extension 12/18/200E SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 10 202706 Magnolia Green Offsite Waterline 12/18/200E SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 4 Total Disturbed acreage 291.54 Project Complete y Permit Number Project Name ISSUE Primary Water Shed Disturbed Acreage 202466 Bowe Property 1/20/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.00 202476 WaWa- Store 657 - Rt 360 Hull Street 1/31/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5.50 202487 Edgewater at The Reservoir Section 3 2/20/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 6.90 202495 New Hope Lutheran Church Phase I Only 2/24/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7.21 202540 Saint Francis Medical Center Childcare Center and F 5/10/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 3.35 202564 Club @ Abbey Village Charter Colony 7/12/2006 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 0.81 Total Disturbed acreage 25.77 Friday, October 05,2007 Paf!e 6 of 7 ISSUE by Year 2007 Project Complete N Permit Number Project Name ISSUE Primary Water Shed Disturbed Acreage 202717 Woodlake United Methodist Church Phase I 1/8/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 6.0 202719 Hampton Farms 1/10/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5.34 202733 The Restaurant Company 2/8/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 5.0 202742 Westerleigh Regional BMP HSP-65 3/2/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 7 202745 Wexley Section 1at Foxcreek 3/8/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 9.5 202772 Heron Point Subdivision 4/23/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 37.7 202790 Foxcreek - Primrose Section 2 5/30/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.6 202797 Village Bank Corporate Office 6/12/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 6.53 202808 Foxcreek Heartquake Section 2 7/2/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 3.3 202809 Foxcreek Walkers Chase Section 2 7/2/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.2 202810 Foxcreek Recreational Center 7/2/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 6.7 202811 American Child Care 7/3/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.15 202817 Cambria Cove Section 1 7/11/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 18.6 Total Disturbed acreage 112.62 Project Complete y Permit Number Project Name ISSUE Primary Water Shed Disturbed Acreage 202725 Kingsway Commuity Church Parking Lot Expansion 1/19/2007 SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 2.0 Total Disturbed acreage 2 Friday, October 05,2007 Page 70f7 ,oH 4'8/9 SOJiV ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ c . 0: fl' ~ " . ,,' ~ ! ~ .1 I ~ ~ OC " ~ " ~ f ~ ~ ~ ! o Q " I 1 Lu 1 ~!:! " ;i~i !jfj c:o f 5 &ii .~dhi ~ 'H!. i~ji! E~ ji!!!l!..21 COO ~H'~ H I~~r~ !l ii~ ~f U \-... HW H ..... . i!'iil ~~ ....;,.. illh~ ~8 .,ii~~i ~! -.. : ~~ili ~) ~ ...-........!~!iji e~ /#,.:.. .: ~Er6i ~f diU ~ ~~~~ :]~~~~ ~~]]]~~ j D<'-"I : I : I . " : ::> ~ I ~ ~ -16/S (.9 'So ~ g 1 ~ II'" I !Ill ! ..,:PI!1: ~H~~ i~i! ~ WU e-;,g~~ ~~ji~ HiU ~ i i;~ g~i~fl :g>m~ am ~~~s! - s::: Q) E ~ s::: Q) E <C s::: IV Ii: .ll: ,... Q) Q - = ~ ~ ." ii l!! () 'It ~ e e C = .... ii ~ -g 'i 0 e 8- ." ii 1/1 ." ." ~ e ~ ~ .~ e e ." ." en IV '" e "- w ." ~ ~ w '" 8- l w ~ e ." '" ~ .. '" c S- o e ." ~ e '" c e " "- e -'l Q) .. w "- ~ ~ .~ [ l ~ N ." C. "E .x 8- f :; w " 0 .~ .~ c. ~ g ~ " .~ [ "- 0 E ::l ~ " " .x e .!!! i w N e e " "- " " ~ '" w rn ~ ~ rn " ~ " '" 0 ~ w Il N 0 .C .~ t::. e ~ Q) 0 w ~ " i '" ." <( :e t: t: t: :; :; w E ~ ." i 1/1 ." <( <( 1 <( j '" ." E 0 .i!! " M :g g <.) z ~ 0 0 0 ~ '" m c. .E E ~ ~ :1 ~ ." ." ." .~ ~ .~ ~ 'll IE E :::; :::; ::; ::; ::; <.) <.) <.) Iii '" Iii ." 0 a.. . ............. . . ..... . .... . . ..",. /II .! ~ Cl .e OJ 0 CIl /II C ::l 0 'tJ :;:I", ~ C OJ ~... ." C ..J o . w " 0 3l a.< w .~ " We " E ~ w ~ <I> Co ." '" " c OJ- ~ '" w ~ ~ <D "'l;j " ." E c 0 1-'tJ .~ ~ c ~ .2 oe Ql C '" .0 .E ~ e I "'" Ql CIl .~ I ~ "- .:. UlE E f .tiE E .6> ~ 8 8 e 8 S 0 " u IIIIII OCll za:: :10 .\ ~ J'. ~. -' 1'1/ ~ l!~!~ ..-. . ...- \~~ >/11 ) // en en 0 I: C C - CD 0 0 1- 0 0 0 (W) .. I- I- .. .- .c . .a ea .. u .. 1- .. &I en :I .. .c 1- " 0 . e E u e a= .. a. 1- en l- ea - cg - " .a CD ~ .. CD E ea :I I: . . I: e a. 0 .. I- E .. ea " - .. en .. ea . ~ ea 0 .. .e I: u ea 0 .e en . ~ . U I: ea - cu E .. ! en II oe . ! . en ! en ! :I " I: ea C :I I: 1- .. ~ e e ea ea - . ! . .c 0 " " ea E 0 .. aI i 0 I: l- ea .I: I- e ~ en II II .. ~ .. a. en ea .. . ~ . e en .. en E I: ~ .. 0 .- en ea ea " E . :I en .c . E - 0 ~ u a. .a I: " a. E u .. .- 0 ea 0 ! 1- ~ . .. .. .. 0 ~ u a. " 1- a. a. .c .. .. U . . - .. 0 I: U 0 ! 0 en ea ... " ea . " " en lI- I: 0 ea E I: ea . ea II- 0 0 r: 0 C 0 - .. .. .. l- ea 0 .. 0 0 0 .- - .. a. I: e - . I- I- I: U I: I: . > " I: 0 I- e > . " . 0 " 0 0 II CD ... C a a C a a - ... D- . . . . . . . ~~ ..1th ~, ~.- ~J = .~)~:: = ~ ~ ~.jf() .,",/" ~ l! l! cg cg CD " C " c e en en en en en en en en en en :s :s :s :s :s u u u u u en en en en en I- I- I- I- " " 1- 1:1 " " en en en cg 0 0 cg 0 0 eg 0 U .. .. U .. .. U .. e en en e en en e en ftI en ftI e en e ftI e e e e eg I>> I>> e I>> I>> eg e eg I- N U N I- N U N I- N ! e ! I- e 1- ! I- I- .. .. 1- .. ftI .. 1- ftI 1- .. 0 I- I- 0 U U 0 1- U e U e u >. >. >. 1- .I: 1- .I: .I: .. .I: ! .I: .. .. ! .. .. 1- .. .. I- I- I- I- .. - 1- 0 1- - - 0 ~ - 1- ftI ~ ~ ftI ftI ~ :s " :s " :s en CD &:I .,. &:I e CD .,. e .,. en e c .. C ftI e .. ftI .. e I- I- e I>> I- I- eg .. .. eg 1- .. e .. cg e eg .- .. .. eg I>> .. .. .. I>> ftI eg ftI I>> ftI cg ftI eg ftI CI) eg - - ~ :E - :E ~ :E a. :E a. CI) :E I I :E I I I p... p... C p... p... .... 0 0 0 0 0 ........ ........ CD ........ ........ N m ........ N p... N 0 0 0 .- f') .. ~ ........ ........ ........ 0 0 .. ........ m m .- CD .. .. ,." .;jI' ... , i:" / ~'it.. ,:,.." -.. ~..~/... . . ., ~ "'~I"~ Ill, .~ e ca - a. . en ::::) " e ca ... . e o .- ... u ca ! ca o III - as .- ... e . ... o a. I: ca ... II>> :-. .a " . " e . E E o u ~ en ca e ca - a. . en ::::) " e as ... ... a. o " C . .c ... .i It ca ... en :-. .a " . " e . E E o u ~ en ca e ca - a. . en ::::) " .. e en as e ...0 .- ...... a. as o .!:! "... C:a o . E e" o II _0 caaa= .- u...: .. u . 0 Ea. E t 0'" u .5 -;1 e" o e ;;ca .- ,,~ ". ca ! IU e 0= .- .- ...~ ~U) ;:e .- . " . o ~ E... e · o.a .- ~ eno .!! CD EC") E! o :I UO m~ e'" ._ 0 e . e e as ._ -- a...c ... :I o en .. . a. en ., .- e :I o . N - II .- ... e . " .- en . II: .c ... .i . u ca - a. ~ I as ~ C .c ... ~ e " " ! en .. en . . .... - . .. a 0 ! u as .&: ... :I o en " e ca " as o g: . - ca ! . ... .. o o ... ... II>> ca . as ~ cC .c ... ~ e C) " ~ .. .! .. ." o a as ,,0 cD: as- a. as >C > 1.1& o ... " e ca ... . .c ... ... a. o " II ... o e o " I e o .- ... ca " e . E E o u ~ e o .- II>> II>> .- E E o U CD e .- e e c ca ca a..- - a.. _ en . ::>> ~~\\ .'......,,, -,,,,".1 _' "1.( ,!la. .: '"' " ~ ( ~, :~i;; '{1~JI,:j /11" ~ . - o o .c u tn . I: o .- ... U ca ! ca o ID - ca .- ... I: CD ... o D. ... o en - ~ CD ...I .c . .- - .D ca .. .~ CD.c Ia. g L! .- m "'0 II I>> "m I: CD I: E.! ED. o CD u.c CD'" a- I: I: .- oi .- .- :: ~ .- en E- E 0 o 0 u-fi men c a- .- 0 c.... c CD ca u ii: .e CD . a- .e CD u .E CD tn ... o en - CD > I>> ...I .c . .- - .D II .. . CD ...~ o.c ca. o L! "m I 0 C CD om .- I: "'ca ca_ "D. I: CD CD.c E... E c o .- u5 CD .- a- ~ 1:. ca- ...0 U)O .c u c o 1- ... ca t: o . c L! I- . c o 1- ... U ca ! ea o m - ea .- ... c CD ... o . ... o . - .. > CD ...I .c en .- - .D ea ., . . 1>- C.c 12 a. ...ea II .. "m c 0 CD CD Em E C O.! uD. ! CD .c C'" o C 1- 1_ fn.c en... .E Ii E fn 0" uea me C a- .- 0 c.... c CD .!u D. .- ~ CD a- .e CD u It CD U) ... o en - ~ I>> ...I .c . .- - .D " .. . CD ... o I:~ o.c "a. I L! I: m o 0 .- CD "'m ca ,,1: I: ca CD- ED. EJ 0'" u c CD .- ...c ... I: l- ea ~ .... U)" ca o ~ l _',; . .- :::;,. ~ (" a kj .. e ~;',~ , = a ca '11) ._/ .1i: ~.= o 1- ca .c!:=.. .a e " ~I- . ca..c tn.a.. tn" e tn .-0.. m U~tne e .0... 1- e.cUE - . ..tnca" " o~"e 0 e.... E tn 1- ca E 1- > 0 ~ ~!lDca .. I- ..... - .. ca .- . .c U I- e >...e - ~ ca 1- g- !a...ca ~ - . .. .. ! 15 CI " .. . .ca..! .. 0 .. ..cftlo . E ftI a." .. ~ " ftI I . . e I ... e.. 0 0 el- ftI I- I ~ o E 1- e 1- .. .. ftI e .. . IC a. . 0 1- -= .. 1- E 1- .. > e..o .. U . ! .".a U .. ftI ftI .. E!e" ! ~ . E ftI ftI e . ea I a. o 0 U ftI 0 ~ ulD~.. m I! . . . e . .. .c 1- . - I- I- ea > ~ t:">E I- I! g- ea"l!" .. . e ":i.ce . .. D:: moue .. . .c~E 0 . IL IL . . tn tn ea ~,.:;n '.'. ". "b...I., ~'., .~....~...~I~ J , il. I.. ~:.,i,,~ //1 i / ~ -CD I!! e ~u 1::~ cal- m~.. c (I) . o .. '" -..;: ca a.o rn a.o ~:)N :t.o :s.c.. .a.... c . ml_ . c.c.... 1- .. . 1- ......... ca~o e.~ u.~ c 1- .. 1- 1:: !: ..... ~ g. E · .. e E a.... "" 1ft c.~ . c .ca. Eo N l! ca~m . = 0 u ca . C 1- m .. ca~.. · c... c U 1- W . C!:2E = 0:" 1- ..II. C ! a.... O.g.2E .. c. ca I! " c .. ca ca -- o- m ... II. . . u c ca C 1- ! o . c o 1- .. U ca ! ca o m - ca 1- .. C . .. o II. . .c .. .. a. o " ca .. o c o " I C o 1- .. ca " c . E E o u e c o 1- . ... . C 1- . E E E" o c u. mE c ca 1- . C U C c .!!ca II. C 1- ! . 0 .c .. Ii . .. c . E " c . E ca . u c ca C 1- ! o . .c .. .. a. o " ca I c 12 E i .g " C f ; ~ E.. j o . u c . !12 = I: i ! ca u u ..;: C '" I- v_" _ o . E .. . .! o o ... o .. ......... o It) ...... ~ ~ 1- ... m c. c. :::J " m '" o c. e !l. / ~. ,z -1'. :o;"~. ~.. / \, . t i: . I... '\ ; 'f! ~ ~~~ " /}; ") / \0.1:::/ hHA'I9/9 SoSy c w j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o rj :a I ~I ~ ~I ~ j ~, .~ Ul 8.0.. tI) 0.::> =>..1 ~ ! "$ ~ ~ ::l ::l ill .~ ::> c.. ~ _ .~ '0 0 D.. :> :> ~,g~",~ II-ill Iii U i ~ i . , IE .~ H ~, fJ ., ii i~ t;! "I r~ .. H dill 'CIO~:~:~.~.~ } D~'I n ~ . i i u ; ! ! ~ ~ [ ~ -a .. C , : I IiI! j~:! ;ij~1: ~H~i i~~li ~-g~.!.r ]i~~j ~~~ f~ ~!~i~ ~Hli fL2 ~ <=j i.!:~J 'iO~~i:~ ~ K~ [:5 ,nl~~ WH 8 ~j~ 5 ~:5~si ~'.;,;\\ t.... u,.,' 5";! '.:./ ;..;~' ,~ - .' I' ". . ."-- ~\. . :~'.~.... .~ \;'~..' .II!: .' ~ en c o .- .... ca " c - E E o u - ~ en >- - .... o .- o - .e ca u :I fn CJ .. - C .... o ca ;; ~ ca .. " - C = - ca E N E N o _ u m - ca ~ a. " c c 0 ca 1:: .!! eg ca en o c c:;) ::, I - > - .- - - . ".e Bi en e .! m .... = - .- eg U c J! _B ...." ca c :I 0 IF a. -I en ca ! - 0 "..... .- " > C C e ca .2 a. mi .:.:c" ca.- c o " CD c:;)~e c;ee o t! 0 .e_u u > eg fl)oa= ~ u" E o _ ca!.. .. oen eg -caE" .... .... 0 -0 >-.. .. a. .., .., .e .. ca 0 .- .- eg - " 0 .. :I .... U . .. en v .e _... ... .- '" . u 0 fI) U a. w w .... .. e'" a ... ega. enoegeg.acc enc a.o! "".a=egca_iCD ."caia.caocaEeg.e-E eg a. :I ._ _ eg .. .e = .e .. .. a. egc IF.e.e > en en e'" coo .. . eg".. ca.. en c=-o en-= ca en " c c .e c - --# .. W _c >-egO-""._> ~:;:;.. ~~;!.eo~ 5! =~ o .- 0 W C C .. '" v, .- = .... ;; _ m .. U ! .a ca m" iu...." ..enfn..-.ac. U ca en.- E"- .:1 g..= ~ =1I..Ea.B=mu.ecGi.!! a. -.... a .2 0 .5 _ u eg ~ . a. g - t' . m._ c .e en E " -a ca.e.e ca > c~ o".e a. .. mu..... ..e" =~u 0-; 0 Cfl)enC"o""~caGi;;" 'c a>>; a>> a>> = II" fa>> > C GI o .. a. E ~ .. ! . .- ... -I -I :t: Nca-...-caencO .-E eg :I = -= :I ca.... 0 .E- ......." en .- "IF~W"'._Wa. p..- - . ... U . ~ 0 0 .. .- en .. .. ca" m=.e _ E... u 0'" 0 ;;C.5.a.." E a.lla.o.... c.. c:l ..; 0." ca e. f -1.2 0 a.~ _ u:s.. u a. a..! ._ N = ... .. U 0... >- .... en" - ca w .. ca >-.... W ... 0 CI) en.. en 0 .a... .e .e " .. .. . - !: ".... 0 .: .. .. C A. .. ftI - .... " .a ~ II- = CD;; tn::l" >-CD.-N 0 ca CD cC .e c CD 0 . .. .. tn.a .. C ;; ~ tn.- ca c - ... . .- .. G)._ ... 0 CJ .. 0 0 CJ .a " en"=..a.caeg...oftle::l tn .- CJ a. c ....c a. - cica:ca.!ecaeg:CJe::lg a. .. .... ... a. CJ CD .. tn ._ C ._ ,.,.:.;.\\ ..... _'. ;; i" ':..' . ~,~I..? :..~... '.; ';;'" ... Y/,~ ' Ilf i ' ... 0" -. In _~!g~~Nci " ~en".c..c"oa. 'S..'; GI c:." c c e g e.g,!! GIS i~~,2 -- .~ ,n .. .. - WI.. en .D w m.- ca 0 :I C ... .- .c :I .c c " .. 0 ........- en > u .. .- ".. ~ c "" .- .- en... c ca cr.c ~ 0 ", " ;.OOC~~UN~.D __ .c II' N _ " ca ~ ca :I .. w. ........ 11. .. en en Ell. .~~ca"~ (5 S;:" = ~ i u.2.!l ~ o . .- .... ... ~ ca .c"c ~ en~..~ 0" i. C U .c 0 = en ", ~. .- en."D.U~"~enenE uE"oca"~oo.= .- 11. ca ~ II. ~ END..c . - 0 :-''''-.c -p 0.... .D-...o..- II. 11. :I . .:: .c 0 en (5 " 11..5 1ft, D.> ""'...c ".:-. en .!!-3 t.:: i~ ~i;~ .D - ,~ en .... >c ... - 11. ca ca "'" ~ . .. "'" . ..._ U;....:I..0. Oca~ .- c 0 crca c~= ...-.. - ~:1 ",.- 11....- · t-3~'" cr=,e-~ GI ~:.= ca .- 0 m · _ U m.c " i.- ca InNc" ;C".-ca- . · -p .- C m c .- ......... UJ C 11. .c .. .... c .. c ca c ... ..- c .. . "'" 0 0 .- 0 .... II. E 0 ... .. . N .... OC . NO" ._ .- O:l.gJ"N.cgJ...-:"t: :-."U-UJ ..-C>~"'" C'=>c"~l!"'''eoa.2 ca ~ CU ~"".; ~ E &,,1; :!: 5 ~:D' ~ ! .! :D' a. E .>0 c .. :I .. v, .. :I 0 .- ~lenen&.=enGiceu t:o.enou.>:ID." ..".c ca.. ca.c.= D.C .D UJ D... 11. 11. II. .. " ca ca ca ,~i 'fl. fa II b- ~.~ f3 a>> .D "'0 · ~W . i'-j .. en /II'.~" 0" a>> .. " .- a>> ..a>>0-;!:: u --..........,,- ._ en a>> ~" .- .- ~gbGlGl'E~ a>> ._ a>> g :; a>> I&. en;!::D. ..,,- ".1:--.-0 a>> .. It, ._ a>> en 0 .cIllW.c.ca>> ..Oen..U....c I: U.-.- en a>> U .- a>> - ~ en .c U) - .c 0 >-.- .. a>> 0.. 0.. In M" o .. .c .u .. ; CI .c a>> U CI 0 a>> :I ~ I .: Go.!! ::I f U :I U CI ~ a-" ._ .. U It, a>> ~ _~......w......... .Do en 0 D.m.. :lOa>> :11:0 D. N .. ?ft U) .- .... >- 'P a>> 0.... I: .. 1:".cNOS: Cla>>~'P"a>>" ....a>>"I:~...a>> ogI:Clo".c >-~CI.c""U.. .. w .. .... a>> 'u 0 ar IA GI :a" :: CI" > en.c:l CI D." 0 a>> .. en D. Cla>>.a_"a>>- u.5 ClS.!.c= GlE'D'D....~ .c..a>>a>>a>>"m "cu:!>..a>>c I: ... .. 0 CI " .- a>> a>> u .. " .e;; g .c " : ED. a>> I: N ;: .!! " .- :S 8 ! . u - - . tn t: o .- ...... CO - ~ C) (1) [t: U)_"Cm Q)wcJ: U)~mU)~ ~ (.) I.. tJ) · _><~Q)o .~ CD (.) ~ -c ..........car.JCD 5; o"U).... Q).... "Cc.c~(,)~ .- _ _ ... >< (,) U)(ijcooQ)m CD,..~ ............... 0::- .= 0 U) tJ)ocac::.c - . ...... .c: CO (1) ~E d,e. ~.2 .(1) (.) > cu cu (J)C rA>.~ ~ t<~r_] 1/1.) ~ - - U)_"Cm Q)wcJ: U)Q)mU)1() ::sB....U)~ _ >< ~CDO ca .......... tJ) ._ CD (.) ~ -C ......car.JCD c::o"U)I..CDI.. -8t:.Q~(,)~ .- _ _ ... >< (,) U)(ijNoQ)m (1) ,."",. · ..... .......... 0:: J: '~ = 0 U) tnocac:.Q - . ~ --.... ~} ,j' ~"~~~1'~:(I~ l. 0-0 ......ll-I<.:>, Ii ". J~!., r~, "',- ..VS";;.;'~Sf"'" ~ 1 I r~:"+',;;;, "'~ ~~jl1;''j.t-.:::' ~ ~ · ~~, ";Z ~ ~...- (,,;:., '"", ~y "*"''''''"~'\-:...u r;, ii':l..o ~ ;( '- , ,',j '-~o ,'\I c.<t ~ - ~ "" -J-." \ r : ~A~ '\)1~'J: r, '~M~~ ~ _!ij' ; ~f <~~'" f;n7..-:. ii.... ~'.--\ · 'I~~~ $ , ~ ~i ~ \ n; ; or", Vi' ..~ ;-~. ~ ~ 'if ~ \. I" .., ~ :x:::,. '" ~ L.,,~ ,~~y ~ b-~r~ ' ~,........-: ,> ,,<- ~, ;,. ~ ,1:6 i:\~("':; " " $- ~ 1- ~~ "-~,~ '2 ror... '" "~i>: '~ -#f,~ ,.. iTr./'\; [},~ .;_ ~ ....~~. i, 'r j "i....,. "L I ..' C'l ,n 'I ,~' i--.d-J .... "fit If.. ~~ ""_I~I ~:,-5/"j~t1 :..- ~~ ~J ;J~~~ ..].... ~ - "'lI ,,. ,.~ ~€ ro, _ ~_~ II~I~~ .4 ~ t~\CD \ ~ -- if<< . :~I= I - ~'~ N l J ' 101' 'I. ;I '\... .J .... ""J,"-' I ~ ~'''''''''''''''~ \'r" L::-\.. - f!.; _ ,. ~I~.~ ~ "",.'. '\_ I I l. i .......a4 Z j. ~.,. ~ "H . ii~ S?l.~'~:~k _ · !~~ z t-~~fI~ o !:l ~ Vi,. .... u 0 0 I r , ... :! ~ :E . I ,...... Y % \ ... _J /Jf.,~ IC-~ I co C 10.. co C 0.. I ~ cs= I ~ ~ U 0 I. . L_ ______ c ~ ca O~ - C. C)..Q fA ..=.::: ~ CU v~ v~ fA (1) '9" ~ :) ~ ~~ "C 0 t: 0 .~~ /~ ~ ca = .1?~ ~~ ..J "C .~ ~~ <0 CU en ~ .~ C9Ql ~ s.. ~..Q ! CU ~~ t: C. /~ ~ :J .~ C9~ /~ <0 ~ I ! 9-~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.() 0 I.() 0 I.() ('i) N N T""" T""" fA ~ ~ ....... o c: t-- 0 ..... 0 I c: .0 I/) co .!!! C 0> <( D- O> u <( I/) c: c: .:.::.... I/) 0> 0> "C ctl -oQ)c: c::: "C 0> L: "0 'w c: - Q)fQ) ctl .::,(. 0 ..... II) 0 E I/) e 0> ~ N 0> 0=-0 ~ ..c "C I/) oe:s - g. 'i c: ctl ~ U 0> - 0 ... Q) e Q) I/) "C c: "0 D-cnE c: 4::: <( :J ctl 0> ...<c 'm 0> .~ a.. (3 u c: Q) 'C 0::: (9 en c::: >< ~ 0 c.. s::: 0> N c.. ~ t I ~.I ::J Cl ~ ...J T"'" o (J) (J) (]) (]) (J) (J) (J) (J) :J ~ ~ :J '0 '0 c: ..... ..... ..... (]) 0 l: '0 0 0 (]) (]) X ~ X (J) 'E :,::; 2: (.) (.) 'E :J (]) ..... CO D.. (]) <( CO CO '0 (J) (]) ~ -- -- (J) ..... ~.... en '0 :J :J .J:: ,!!! (]) (J) :J c: U "CI)l: (J) (]) (]) ...... ,~ (]) '0 (]) ~ a::: 0 N ~ C u CI) e CI) '0 c: E c: (]) -- CO ~ 0 N N 0 (]) '00 x ..... c: U)oE e (]) N (J) ..... '0 >. :J 'E c: 0 0=" (J) (]) (]) rn rn O'l '00 ...... ..c (]) :,::; '0 oes '0 :,::; :,::; '0 'c E co c..~ l: ..... ~ rn 2: o CI) CO () ...... 0 c: c: (]) :J ~ >. ... en E e c: c: (]) (]) ..... -- E c: 0 ,~ (]) iI= CO '0 '0 ..... (]) (]) 0 0.. en D.....<( 'co '~ U :J '00 '00 ~ u E c: '6> ::0 E :E E c: (l) ~ ~ ~ (]) 0 (]) ~ :J 0 a.. (f) u '0 0 U O'l (]) a. u a.. 10 IIIIII :J ?fl. u>t ?fl. ?fl. ?fl. ?fl. ?fl. ?fl. U).e c co :)a. 'P 'P 'P 'P 'P N ca " v v V 'P - a>> ca v v a. . .. v .e>t .em it: ~.e ..0 I! .a. c · " ..I! ._ m cam .." . ~ 0 o a>> .e ... a>> Z.e .. 0 m ~ c 0 ~ a>> 0 .. " ca . ~ .. en . ?fl. ?fl. ?fl. ~ ?fl. ?fl. ?fl. ?fl. m " 0 G) co CD N co t- 'P 0 m .>t CD 0 :s St: v ... .. en C >t N . CD t: cea. E a>> ...e a. Oa. " e ~ c 0 CD a. E " II . en 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c . CD co 0 'P 0 N CW) 0 c 0 .. CW) CW) CW) 'P .., CW) G) N U ... ... II ca CW) .., - . . A. ce . ~ . I " CD en ~ a>> . ! >< . . . en .- e.) 0 u u :s . .. E ns m ca ca " en . = . . ....... ....... - :s .. en .. .. :s :s ca . c en .- u ca .- >< " . . ~ u 0 N .. .- a>> u ce .. . . c E c fn .. CD N N CD >< .. .- e 0 " >t .- e en en - - E :s .. ca'" ca ca .- CD .. CD CD - .. :) .- .- en .- E .a D.e .. .. e en e - " e e :s ca - CD CD :s >t l! e CD en . en Gi " E e 0 :) en E ca " en " en 0 CD - U CD - ns :)" ..I .- CD .- CD E .- a. en en .- >< m e CD .. = "c - - E CD CD .. CD .. I: .- 0 CD en 0 ! c CD ~ 0 ~ 0 o E u ~ w C) :s l- ns E a ..Ins c C'll ii: .:.:: CI) f 0- ~; =~E C'llCl)'t:SClI!S ... ... c CCI)CI) c-E ~< 't:S CI) en o C- o ... a. j . " 0 I ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ jl ~ 0 i ~ "- ~ 00 0 '" ~ J!J 00 ~ . ri:. .. :J 0 " ! 0 0 0 ! ~ ~ N 0: ~ N 0 E . N '" . " ~ ~ . ~ 0 0 0 "C t '" i3 '" ~ i 0 " 0 E E ] . ~- i ". J I I 0:: E ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ I . 0 ~ E E I .0 0 " .., "- . ~ . "~ ~ ~ 'C & ~ ~ ~ .'" ~ ~ C :J ~ ::;: 00 . . '" .3 '" '" '" .. I t I [] IIIIII '" j . ,. ~ o ~ " '" ~ W J!J E ~ " 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ '" J!J " ~ :0 ~ i J!J to. ~ . 0 j . :J ~ ~ ~ 0 . '" ~ " ". ~ ~ N '" ~ ". 0 i 0 " ~ 0 ~ " ~ ~ ~ '" ~ .. '" '" j' 2 I :0 i ~ '" ". ~ " ~ " ~ . ;, I . 0 . " . I " . " . :J ~ . ~ " . :J . :!1 1: ~ ... ~ " 0 " I . '" "- 0 ~ ~ 0 . 0 " i J .. . :g ~ E I J . ~ . c. i 17; '\- 0 E ~ J E . ~ ~ ~ U W '" . . 0 QO " " ~ '" . ~ j . .~ ~ " " '" . ~ . I 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ > . il :g . 5 a ~ ~ jj ~ 2 '" :J OJ OJ '" '" '" "- " '" "- "- II 111<.1.... .. I:: CIl E " I:: CIl E <C I:: ca ii: .lIl:.... CIle _CIll") - ..- ~O .... C!!;;o ~ rn U) ca .. CIl c.. c.. ::::l " CIl rn o c.. o .. ll. .. CIl 1:; 0 Ol " ~ . 0 () " CIl . .. c 0 ::l 0 " " ." "'lD " . c . 0 " . . .. ~..... 0 " ~ 0 . ..J 0> . 0 " . 0 &,<i c . 0> . 0 m 0 . "I = .. c ~ ~ c 0 ~ .~ 0 = ~ " . . I/) c 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 0 . u; l'!= t ~ i . ...... 0 . i .. ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ '" N 011 ." .0 Ie. '" . c CIl C ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ! ~ ... G)GJ ~ " ~ " I/)E 0 0 0 0 . " i3 ~ 0 0 l;- I .;.. . ~ ~ .~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ . ~ 0 '" c Z ~ t onE 0 '0 '0 " .. .~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .. .. 0 . ~ . " Iii Iii ~ ! ::; ::; ::; ::; Ll Ll Ll Ll '" tf) . _u I . I 0 0 ~~ I Z . I . I s::: .!!In D.,S .:II:: .- Q)UJ eo () 0 iI::.s::: ._ CJ il::3:UJ cu UJ s::: ~ ~ Q) cQ)Q) c.~ c.C) :) .! ,,- Q) 0 In s::: 00) c.CU 0:E ~ D. " " '" '" e " e " Cl OJ '" '" " e :E 0 " '" " " '" c. '" e '" .~ 0 e " OJ Ci " '" e '" Cl OJ " '" " '" OJ OJ Cl 0 '" '" e " '" OJ '" '" OJ Cl c. :S 0 e '" e " '" '" c oS e 0 0 c. " e 0 '" '" ::l ::l '" u; 0 0 '" e Cl OJ " C ~ ~ " c .<= .~ c. N N Ox oS '" Cl OJ 0 0 " OJ 0 ~ OJ C. 0 '" OJ OJ OJ X c: 0 0 u; c. c 0 00 '" x '" oE :g OJ 0 0 .~ e ~ c. c: ::l 0 0 oE ::l OJ Q) E 0 0 0 0 e " .!l! .!l! " '" .l!l ~ ~ 0 N N N C. Ox en OJ '" N e- e- o OJ c. -0 '" OJ ::l ::l .<= ~ OJ '" ::l C 0 '" '" OJ X X OJ ~ '" '" '" Cll oE 0 N ~ oE OJ " 0 OJ '" OJ <ii <ii <ii <ii 0 0 0 0 0:: N N c c ~ c 0 1l 0 oc oc oc oc C C !S- !S- o ~ OJ Ow E 02 ~ 0 OJ OJ ~ ~ 0::: OJ ~ ~ <ii Cl " ~ ::l oE OJ 0 <( t:: t:: 0 ~ ~ '" OJ Oc Ow Oc ..0 E a; <( <( <( <( <( .9 .9 0 " ... c'3 '" E ~ " ~ <ii c: " " " " '" '" 0 E ::l ~ ::l ~ ,., .l!l .l!l .2 0 0 0 0 Q) ~ E OJ OJ E c 0 o~ OJ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Oco ~ '" " " OJ OJ 0 0. '" oE oE oE o(ij' o(ij' O(ij' o(ij' 0 0 0 0 ~ oa; 03: ~ E Ow Ow J!! 0 E c 00, E :0 c 'C U5 :::iE U5 0 ~ ~ OJ i8 8 OJ ~ ::l 0 C :::; :::; :::; :2 :2 :2 :2 () () () () 0:: en 0 " Cl OJ C. 0 Q) I I I i I 0 IIIIII C) . CI) ('-0 . . ...J . ~iilEt~~ ~ ~I .~ ~@~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 15.E. Subiect: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate an Eight-Foot Easement Across Lot 164, Eagle Cove, Section 3 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Qj Board Action Requested: (/ Adopt an ordinance to vacate an 8 I easement across Lot 164, Eagle Cove, Section 31 as shown on the attached plat. Summary of Information: Joseph B. Elko and Betty S. Elko have submitted an application requesting the vacation of an 8 I easement across Lot 164, Eagle Cove, Section 3. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Riaht of Way Manaaer Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000255 . -." ..... .. ...... I. = ~. .. ..!. I ~.j. · - ... . I.~..~ I i :!~~.. .. ~ F~_1 . v. ~ .... T ...~ · U. Ir,. :.I J:. ~_~ -:::1 I' ~.. i J~ I!~t I, I ;~ ~~ ~=-,;: rN - ~.- --- ~,~!III ~ ~ t:~ Ii.:: :J~ ,~~ ~ .11 . ~ d ~~~~ ~ ____ __ ..: f4.. - I:~I ,.. :.l1li I( I . ~ i ~~. Y P!'I I. -:- ... )II "'I ~~I ~I i, I'" ., ~ ~ 1;.- II II. i.. 1 ~ IfI!:l I I i . f.. I I ~ .. l.:I .---. -: ~ ~ !Iof ~II III -.:~~ I :Ii ..... - ~ l!. ~ -.... ~ I ...... -. I I: ! ~.111 ~ ..,1 'I ~=... L. II 1.-. s:!,.. . I I -- ~ :~i ~ ~ ~ =. I .~ ~r · :.. ~ . ~ ~I r · ~ -= · .'..;? ~ ~ -; .. ~Jt ... I: } ~ 8 ~ ! ~~.j[ - ~~ t: ~~.I ~~ ~"_I~ I ~ ' 1'1" ...... - ..... .... ... ~.Z. . r"'H . . or::.: ~ II -liJ _V" Eot ~~ ,~ I"- wi · ~dp ~ ,t.. ~ ~ : ~ ~. . ~ - ~ ~ ~ · · ~~ i ~ - . ~ ~ = ::,"~ ;. II I · -: .'. ...,. ,A.J -:.i "I I,... L.=. ___ .. .. ..xr-;:..-l, ~", .q: ~ ~ I=-.J il". ~ ' :.rI[.... ..~~ ~~ -';;'-1 - ~ L .. ,~ ... ;..- ~/a. . .~, . , ~~~~ ~ ~ ~-:I rI. ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~~ .1 ~ ~ ~~ !~~?~:~~~:. ~ ~ u..~ ^ :~ .. I=' ~ ." ~ .... "7! .__ ~~'t':":..~ ~.'.~ ~ ... · ... ~ ~ ;:: . . II :':'.:11. .., ~ ~ fl.. ..- ~ .J U~ .oF ~;:; ~..-~" - 1~~~~~.-.:~t1 ~.:.t~ I-' "'o'Co - ~ ., · . ., %-.:....~. .....:: .: ;::~~.. rot -.....--- - ~~ :.-...:. II IIII!f..:III .-3 - .. .. .. ~.... -- . -.: ~ ~~ :' ~W.. · I .Jlii. . ... ... ~,-:- : .~I ~ .:....:.~~ ~ ! !: · ~ R.: , " · .. .! !i ":"I II. ..... II IIII'W!"" . ~ -L ~ _ ~_..... =-:.;..:,. j ~. · .... ~ _ .. I i. ~~..~ r-..- -: .......... · .: ~ ~....... ... ~ ... E'" -=--.,. I -... -.. .;.;: ~I.-":: Ii f? lIP ~ :-.~ ~ _--.II~~. r I ' ~~--&.-.L 1 ..H'f- ~~. ~ r'.:.:a~ ~ . U~ ....11:- - -..--...-. P"II l1:li: ~ ~ ~ ..;:J ~ ~.. ,; ~..,...........:: P;11..... 8.5:- I - ~.,' :.. !I..i ~. I ..-.-;a. .ir...J.III L... ~ . ~.... ....... ~ . ... ~...... tI:.-'" ~~ ... ~ · ~::- "= ~~-:,~~ I ~~ ~ ~:g-,. ~. ."i,;:,':.' ,...... r ~.~~iI~ ..~;;; :-..~ Yi I ."~..n"'-: .i:iliJ ::.!--.b= :.::.I~rt -.. ~....;,I :1.. -==-.1r,I _ - -.. LI ~ _~--.; ".r. ~...&t. t:. ~ 1._ .II r:,;; .. .. .. ............. ..... ... ..... , 1-Al1. pi ...... _ _.... . ~ ~.:r-.--:~. _ ....~. -:: . - . ... · ~. ~. ~.. ..1. .. ~; ~_ ~ ~.. J.!.:. u I U: · · -: :&iU'L.:- :-.. -!3.BiJ · ~ _.. Jf': l · --= ~ -... ~... ":1:- =i~ I! ~:.. .... · "].. ~.=.-. :,,-:i Ii ~ 1.1 ~:'::;:".:'" -..p,' ~ 7" ~ ....... "!:.:i5.:.... - W i.-[{ .;:: ~ .1 ~ ~ · ~ - ii{. ,. ~~::;.".~ ~!ri. .~~~~: '":! · -.. .. .:}.. · .,: ~~S:. .. ~. ~ II. ......-.:r~.. .....::-.:..~... . IJ I: ~ I :...=-t-.. ~ --.r 1 p.~1 ...,...~ --..:. -i. - .. ~i .-. --=....i. -:.:. ...: .. II · ... -:.-1.:. .:. L ., I:.r ~;,,}--- --:- · -.: .. - ....1 -n:- .:.' .-.....~. I .. r-~"':' r. I · ~: ~ · · · I. · ~ ... · :.' ....1 ~ I:" . .... .}. I .... I ~ · -::a:: ' · r S ~i.:;!t... · , .'4\- ~. '....... :-~ 0:=-:-~." .. .. · · ~ + ~...; ~ · · ..... ~ .. . . ~ ---'1 l. ... · .. . _ ... :r'" I". ~ ~ I.. 1-: J: .. .t- ,.:" ~ ~_~.-:-r 1:i . . -: .. .- ~ · . -... ,.... · I .. .. I ~ .. I I.IIi I .. ... I "~I I - ....--i ...~-:'''::I:.r:.-'':..:..r.:. -1;".--:-':. .::. -:. · ..':. .~. .-._. _"-:;r.~I." _ /.i.1 ;... ;1,.........,:;:....... ~ p....... .~~.Ii.. .... t.. :... .~ :-.. I ~~ _ ~~. I.:=" I.: .....:. P I J iii ~. ~. i~ I ;Iil ' ~Q ~~-~I ~~ ~i151 ~i ~a~i ill S~I~I Pol! ~!;II II i!l! g Q.I ..0 e, . = ., g U = ~~N, ;;;j~N, .c II) \0 = ~. ...,. ::!i.s=~~ ~_O~\C =~.~~ r;tj~\Cr-- i. ~..... '" . . Q.I ;:.~ = z ~~~=E: ~~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ f!?'~..~~ ~ ~ I.. ...... ~ W L&J ~~ (.) ~ I. ~ il!if~~ ~~~a~ it~~o I ~~Q ~~~~~ ~~ .i~ il-.lu~~ ~3~~ti ~ u ~ CJ .. ~, _.01(1 ~~~ ~O::tlll'l 1-10 J. · LNIOcl ~ I. ,1I.lllIiBldt Ibservel . .. ._. -0 ..,'.. ~.' _ -, .... .'._.... c'''''', ': ".. .."", ",",,'.. :-.:"-:." ".. .. .. ".---.. ~ )'t)!l1' CommunlI)' .'\'('11'.\/)01'('1' Sil1('t' 1995 P.o. !lox 1616. Midlothi"n. Virginia 231 U. Phone: (8041545-7500' Fax: (804) 744-3169' Emajl: ncw,(mchc,tcrlicJdob,clwr.com' II1lCl1ld: "I';IV.l'hc'tcrficldobscrvcr.l'oll1 ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County Right Of Way Eagle Cove 1 eol x 2.5" S 1 00.00 The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 09/26/2007 TAKE NOTICE That on October 10.2007, at6:30 p.m. or as ,oon Ihereafter as may be heard, the lloard of Supe..."isors (If Ch".torfiold County alll, regular me.llng 1'1"," in the Public Meeting Room of Che$terneld County. Virginia. -"<\';11 ((IHsidt."r fhe following ordinauct' for ;;doptlill1' ,'\ ~<(}RDINANCE to feh,"att an g' t::3liemenl ,itt[.S;: Lot 164, Eagk Cove. Sc,tion 3. a::> '.hi,wn on a plat by Charle, C. 'l(lWlleS and \"..date.. rc. dated September 2. 1987, .'",,,,<led neeember :\ I, 1987, in the Clerk', O!ht:t~ Cjr<;uit ConTI. (:hestcrfidd County. \!;rginia. :11 Plat lSook 55, at Pag(~ JOO. Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~+h day of Oc.toerr- ,2007. iLf J 1Jki Legal Affiant Jo na . Lupo, Notary Public .. My commission expires: November 30,2010 Commission J.D. 7040138 l (SEAL) ." \""\lIfllirl',,, . )\'\~ra. l. }""" '~''',~ ."'.......... '\..~ ".1: . ! ~..<;,.oMW~.... ,0 \ ~ o....v (>,',0,: _.; ~f2- %\ \ ; :...... 0;: '; '. -;~ ... .:;: '. " t- \ 'f;r.- < '-....1~;...._.......~'v ....' ..... .I1RY?U ""., .,.'....h~...U"'Il\' THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. illicl}1Uonb m:imcs-tJispatcb Advertising Affidavit CHESTERFIELD CO 9840 GOVERNMENT Ci'HTER PARKWAY CHESTERFIELD, VA 23832 Account Number 3013886 P.O Box 85333 Richmond. Virginia 23293-0001 (804) 649-6208 Date October 03. 2007 10/03/2007 Meetngs-Events TAKE NOTICE Thai on October 10. 2007. at 2x 19 L 0.00 Date Category Description Ad Size Total Cost ATTACH HERE RECEIVED NOV 9 laD'1 CHESTERFIELD COliN1'Y RIGHT OF WAY OFI-lCE Media General Operations, Inc. Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch This is to certify that the attached TAKE NOTICE That on Octob was published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Inc. In the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, on the following dates: 10/03/2007 The First insertion being given... 1010312007 Newspaper reference: 0000501211 Sworn to and subscribed before me this I ()('~IoY~ ~ ~~\; / n\~~ WO~ ~/~~ . Nota Public p.c.... Supervisor State of Virginia City of Richmond My Commission expires 1-', "'" ~"'lT<c~"""n"",a"..c~J' , l<IM'j(fnv IiU,~15 , Notary PtloiiC ! Commonwealth of Virginia 356753 My Commlsslr;n Expires Jan 31. 2009 ~.~,,~ . THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU I~ii~ -~^' I. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 10, 2007 Item Number: 15.F. Subiect: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of Lot 16, Map of Lots Staked out on Property of Harvey Horner County Administrator's Comments: Board Action Reauested: JJ County Administrator: Adopt an ordinance to vacate a portion of Lot 16, Map of Lots staked out on property of Harvey Horner, as shown on the attached plat. Summary of Information: Lewis W. Combs, Jr. has requested the vacation of a portion of Lot 16, Map of Lots staked out on property of Harvey Horner. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Riaht of Way Manaaer Attachments: . Yes DNO # 000258 1V\. · :-::-::' ~~: · ': ~ .., ~ i.' II. .-:.. .. .1:.,.... ". ...:..: is . ~ ~::.. ~ .. :::.. ,;:. · . ~. :r i..:.:. rud ~~ .~ J~~~ ~..~ ~ ~:i · ~::4' .'!iJ I"'i".' ~ ~~.~:..t; ~~;~~I~ ir/.:i~ ~ ;~ o;:-~\ .~}~~~^" *~~~ ~ I e._"........:. ~ t'~ ~ ; :.:~.~~ ~ ,. .. ~ ~ c: I..... : t ~i:~ l~ ~ -. ~ ~ L :]{:-: /}~ tY.~~ ~~ ~ II~ *"?:;'M i -.::~~ i ~ j.; ~~~; I -,. :t!~~~ ~ I~ ....I"!-- ~. ~ ::: ~..........~ ,~. --- . 1-1 ~~..i! --:1.'";: j.~ lo ~ ~ - it~:.... _ ~~ ~~':;;.:: .~., · ~ · :/1:\ ~ y r. - .. - - .. ~ :! I ~ ~ !.hn. -:.: ';P: .r ,..II."A~ I;. · .........-.r .... · --- .. · ~ -i I. II -...:... .: I.N ._~ 1..,.1 ~ · I II' \ 0 :i.....-.;:-: I : ~ ill.. I'" I.... ~.:.. .~ ~ :r~i.;: · ..~: .. .1 I.......... TI~:~...iI. _ · iJ . ~. 10" I. iii' _ . - ..... .... . L f"1 i"rA · : · ... - ~. ~ · .. .... ~11:fI:- .- ..... ~ I!.:!. ~ ~... -.. ....... · - ~ .:w trt.... -:.:.... i:! ..... ...... -=! -,. ~ - ~ · .: ~ 11 ... :J.. ..... L'" .r. "II:!::. "i.i ,... - +I! ~ .. ,:-:. ~ ).1:" -:.. · ~ .~ ~ ~....,. ~ i ~:x..~ ~....t~,~. fW.tf: : ~~ ~ :!-~ ;.;:...~~.~. .~- ;- *~~~ -...-. I I~ ~d. · =- F!-." "'X'-" ~. y ~. ~ '!'J"""I - ~ - ~ .. .At. :j: .~(~'b~~~:~J~~if..~.:.~ ~''';m.~.? · 1;..... .. I Io"PI i::: 1"'- I · -.- ~ ~ :...::. ... i~.:;i . 2. ~~.IIIY." .. .. .b -= .~ f ~ ~ I~~Y ~ ~~~~~~ ~ -: ~........ - -:r- .. I .. · , ~ I · -. ..= ~ r. .. .... " - .;.r:r .;.: ~ ~ .:z~ m~;~ r; ~ ~._":.I. " ~ - · r 1-: II. :.tIlL -:.. -- ~ i~ ...... A ..JIIIII: .. .~ ~ ~ -::..: ... r ~ ~~(. ~ ~ ~. ~ ! . I'"'::~. T"-.!l~~ · .~-~~, ~~~ ), ~:,.:'ii: ~ ~ ,~..,: ~ :::..- · ~-I:~'~"" :Ul:": :.~ j :;~~:. '~~ .~ ... ~~\Jd~ --..Hl.' .no.. ...(11... · t b . ~ir~ ~I ~; _ ~ ~ I ::-- ~ : :.p.. ~ ~J1- -/-:.1"51 ...4! ill ___ ~ ~ ~ ..1::1 .. .:'.t-::- ..... . . (' ~ ''p:. ~~ I I:~ · I I ~ ~ ... - y ..""" . .... --- ....... ::...... . ... lip . ~. -~P.:~" ~ ,... *~ .~.. .. ~ a ':I .:~;- * : ~~:;. .'J -'~.:a. .. ~.%., t~~~~1 ..~ .. .. ~ .:: ~ ~ ~~ :::.~ ~~~~ - - ~ ' ' ~. .~~J~ ~ ~. .":"- ~ =-- .r ~ ~ ~ _....~ ~ti~ ~~:j~~ ~ .--s.-=- . .. .~.. · ~_:":.~ ..i =r I -' !ii .. I.. I I ~ ~ ....... I tI ~ ~I.~" 12 ~I~~ .. ~~~ ~ :--.t.. i~~1 ~I =-- ~... · ~~. v. .. ~~-= ~. .~ . . - -: !:- - I . 'fi t': -.. ~ j.. M.; /;: · . .... ':: .. · ~ ~ 1 r( :":~ ~__~. & · ..i.( ::-..:'~ I .:..:r. ~.:. ......... riIi .. =-: ,~I ~.: f-l:i" I..: -...-.~. . ~.. .: I~. i : ,...... q ";-. ;.. ~ r. __ --=-.... : ... _ .. · .1: ......1 -- ..... - -;W-' -.- ......: "i.. .A.: ~ ~.... .;. ...,.... -:. :- .'..... - ... .... "1 - · -=-.; ~ 3 -. ....:Jl ~ .. "h ... _ ~ ... · L..... ;;. T, .:, · ~ k: ~ .~:...I ;; ;~. ~.rit ..... r_~~ ~ ~ "'~.".o.: " .. ... . ~... .110...... ~((o./~!. · · · ~U ~ (: . ~ .)/)-~..... h .: P "if I II!! ~;..- .. - -. ~kOO:. ! ... .: ~ ...~. · ~ ...... .. .~ ........-:--.t.. ... .. · ~ · · · I .- -. I ~:1j. · .. :..: I ~ -7.... :.:._ ~ :-.L _....... :-....... $, - : :-1>.. - ~ :.~ -!::.~ '_ ~ I · .... L:Y ::-::.. ...': -..t.... ~ .. ~ II~:W:: .-: 11-. r: ~,. ,. .......-~ ~ ..~ .. .~ri'. ".:I. · ~ -:'~..i..'-:"'..~~- · ~. ='~:-r.~!I!~.-' :..;-=:~.\ ~~..n" · \'... J: _~. > .. _ ~ ::-:V.i-..::~ zJ ~...~ :~~~ :~';b~::"".i'" ~?.~ ~ i':' .-"i~.TI~~--!=ii;i-~~. .....---= ~:H~ · ..~!~~ f.::....~ .::..~=--:.. ~ · · I ....: =- ~ -. r ^=\ · --I";-.#'': ... -::: · ~::. · _. ,;-. .. ~ .. --... -:..:-:.:: ~ ~ (;LI JII ...r, ~' ........ II:. I~ ~~ ""~.. · ~ ~P~ I" ~ ..:.. .. ~ .laY .1:- ,...--iI H ~_ :-r!J-~ ~ _.. ~..... ...~ '- ... -.... ........ ~ -.r -:...........Ii;;. 2. 1Ijj ~ ~ ..... ~. ::... · I "f:i( ": - -:-. --- :,. .. W.;: .-r_ -.. ~ ~ ...-1.... ~I~ &- ~ .~:- ~ - - ..:~.. ./. ..~.. -'.M..j .. p.. ... ... ~.- -: ~ -- -. "f · -r- -: .. -:- ! -:... .. --=- · . · ~.....; · r ;...... ...~. I. "'lit. ~ r.;; J.r...... I ....:\ · ~ . . · ... t!. ~\.. J -. : :. I P ... :.'( ..- .. . .. ..1 i...'.I. r( · T.. r ~ II .: :. · .. I .. -:L. ...., ~ :1:. · - I............ .. · ... (Ii ~. :~,. · I~. ~ .. · P ......~... · ~.... ~..:: ;'ill. ...-=. · -.. I -! - I.~'" -: -. -:. · · .... .~. :- ...) . I ~,... .. .. ~ - .. ~..... . -:. ..:..-..... :-.:... ~ ..II -- . .. . ...... .:r~ · I.. !.. ... ~ ~ I .: -t · .. I · ~ ~ :.. ~ · :~ · ... -t..-:II: ..1 t......~ ...---=- ~ ,,!~if... ...:..h"!-.....~~..s.:- ....J.....:- ... .... -=-~~.:.-...-\:~:.~~ i"~-:'~ .......:. ~....._. .. 'Ir., . .... .... - ~ .. _.....:~. -~. :...~. ..: · ..:; - ... ~ J.. .:.::..~~. :., -.. ~. -=::.. :~:--!.,J!'. ~..~.... ...,. 6.. It!. ..11:.: ~;...: ~ .-. ~'I I-!' ~ i I/: · .......... :"1.. .~:..-;. ~ ~~....... 'J.:... ...."........ .. · .,.. .... : I .... :~ ' · ~ .. I -::. ..... I. ~ "..1..-:-. · .. .-:.~ ~":- =-=-. ~ ....~. - 1':- .. -t :;w' ~ Ai. : 1_ ;... -: ~ ..;.. ..~ -~...... ~ ~ II ~ ....:.:.:.. ..; : ~ -=r ....... ~ ~.. c;.. .. I: -. I.........) : '. . : .. ... ~. .. .:Ii: .. II .. · . .=---. _ I. .-....._ . ,".L. · -~ '.. ... ~ · .... I:" .. _.. -=- :. -. .. K:1iL ~ -:'. C : ~"i : I. ......... · 1.:-. -=-. ... r .. .1, .-. ~... I.,: ~ "-.::iIi. · 5 . ... · .1.. :.... ~, Jj ~ i ! ~ I',,'::' '::-VJj' ; / ~~~ !~;!;o~ 's;< 3 ,<;}f~ ~ ~.., / ( i~ z~d"l; e I' ~ ~_z~~,; I tI) ::I8&--~ ~ 2; -:::.. --- r 4~ / ~ __ -:: ::- __ I -- -:----- -- I.I.l -- -- --- --J Xl ~ ,~ :::~ 21510 :;.o~~' ~ ~ _ .... ~~ ","co a . f ~ .=~ '0 ~ ~t.S ~'~~cr ~ ~ {:s...J zai!-e,...~; E ; :i~ ~~~z~~ ~ 8 lP E _[(--ED W (Ij VI ~~~~ ci ~. ~~~v--.J/~ - 'i' -' I ~ w ~ H ~8~ ~ ~ i I gin ~~ID~dI ij I' ~..~ ~> 2~~Q. i 'a:C~ z~ 5~rL;t 3 /1 19 ,g~ZfD~ ~ I .:I;: w....PS-.:n \D ~: - ~- ~;/~Y !-j~1 'l:l g ~~~~ ~Z; ~8~ ~~...... ,oN! ~~lQ~ ~f5 c ~ "0 g ~J-~~ UlCO ""': ::11,0 or 01 a.. ~~?ri ~ f' ""',...' (Ji;;~~ g~ d ~ ii II II II I It II ~~ 5i ~ II I' 15 ~ I I t E I/) II ~.B 1 I - 1 ;::, I j & I I :S I io i I to lPu E II I ~ ~~ 3 I " e w II I ;1 0 :> I -.n CD 11 I ~ I ~ 10 "C z as I c ,g~~ I ':0 u- ~ a:; I' I .~ ~ I.! i I ~ht ::sale II J ~~, 00: 0 ~ 41 . gt<"J € .; ~ ~3"8{ 2 5V)~ 2:&1 Ij~ u -H 0 -r 0 ~ ~!I I r (r; r- - - -:- _~_:JJ f !:~ ~r ~o U 1 cCu) - g .... ..0::1 I)) ~~_~~ 1l"'~iO l:;c;.socn m 0. >cC ii_%: Q. 31 Q.. cogo:>..:S~ d .!~~~~~ ~':":~~ I-o-~~~~ .-~~~ _0.. 0 g ~ ci ~ . Il.. ~ 10 0.. o~i ~Ei . ~~~~~ i~ !!I ~~~i -~~i*'i ~~ ~~~ ~~0~ ~~~ ~m ~~ ~~~ i~~l i~~1 ~ a~ . . hl. ...;d~10. .1. ii.~I.!.. .!Eg ~ B Y'C~ ~ ill! ~ .' ::50 .. ! lil;!II~~lill!illlli.. m~I~!!ilill~!!iiill~~1 I ~ ~ Oc: c: 0 o . - ..... f- <C 1:: ::::J i- CJ - 00 Q)-3: c... "C E ~,~ . caQ)oa5~ """" ~ .... . . o as ...... .....I C ~ .... or.( ...J w c: en ~,,~~- o (J) ~ w~:;: ':.i:i ..... ~ ~ [l: ~:: moctl~W~~ 0, ...J :r: C) t; d Cii ~ '5 '5:fi ~i~ C) 0.. >,::it.) u.. ~ c: as ...... - .... .- :E '- :J: 0 ~ ~ = ~~ ~ ~ (/JJ:: cO a..2 0 ~ ~ ..JO ..,...... u (,) as 0 a:..J b <.D c(~'~~ ~~~ ~ri~ C~'j~~ z~ 1[ '. ... ~Hl __it~. "'~ln .......': ~i. '..... --'. g . ~iJ 000260 .~)h.~~.~I~~d' ~'I:": . : -Ni .1.. ...I( " .--.... --_: .~ ..'" ..'h . -.': ./:",:' .'~"",~ YourCommunilyNt'1l'.\f)(J/1''rSinreJ995 . --".... . ...~_.. .....,...~,..... '>,", ....,.."., .'.. . ..~.' ....'". " -- ...., .... P.O_ Box 1616. Midlolhian. Virginia 23113. Phon.: (XI)41 54S-75()(). Fax: (X04) 744--'269. Email: ncws@chc'stcrtiddobscrvcr.com 'Inlcmc!: www.l'hcstcrncldobscrvcr.l'olll Clicnt Chesterfield County Right Of Way TAKE NOTICE That on Ottoller 10. 2007, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard, tilt Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County at its regular meeting plac:e In tilt Publit Meeting Room of Chesterfield County, V'uglnia. will consider the following ordinance for adoption: AN ORDINANCE to Yllcate a portion of L0116. Map of Lots staked out on property of Harvey Horner. as shown on a plat by W. W. LaPrade and Bros., dated June I, 1939. recorded Augttsl 14. 1940, In the Qerk's Office, Circuit Court, Chesterfield County. Virginia, in Deed Book 259, at Page 1.34. 'l11C compleletextof Iheproposed ordinance 15 on file In the office Of tl;, Right of Way Ivlanager in Chesterfield C vunty, Virginia. and may be examined or all inlerested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and ;;00 p.rr,.. Monday Ihrough Friday. ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Harvey Homer I col x 2.5" $100.00 The Obscrvcr, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 9/26/2007 & 1010312007 Sworn to and subscribed before me this L.j i-h day of Octo!oer"" ,2007. t1LJJ!J'--;t; Legal~t JO~eIiC <II My commission expires: November 30, 2010 Commission l.D. 7040138 THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. "~'" a;...........~'" f '!:";" -4RY ~~ \...... , II.J..,uuu"t". ~ ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: September 26, 2007 Item Number: 17. Subiect: Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting of the Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: (jj IJ Board Action Reauested: Summary of Information: Motion of adjournment and notice of the Board of Supervisors meeting to be held on October 24, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room. Preparer: Janice Blaklev Title: Clerk to the Board Attachments: DYes .NO # 000261