The URL can be used to link to this page

10-24-2007 Packet eli --. ' . . -- , CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: 2. Subiect: County Administrator's Comments County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n;...."''' 1 Board Action Reauested: Summary of Information: Dr. Nelson will be present to brief the Board regarding the recent staph infection incidents in James River High School and Bedford County and to discuss precautions being taken by county schools. Preparer: Dr. William Nelson Title: Director, Health Department Attachments: DYes II No # 000001. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: 6. Subiect: Work Session on Road Impact Fees County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;nl.t",,,,,, ~ Board Action Reauested: Work Session on Road Impact Fees Summary of Information: At the 2007 General Assembly session, the General Assembly adopted legislation giving localities the ability to impose road impact fees. Since June, staff has been working with the Planning Commission and the Impact Fee Ordinance Advisory Committee and will explain their recommendations. Preparer: Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 0800:76835.1 Attachments: DYes II No # 000002 en CI) CI) LL +-' t) co c. E -c co o ct: T""" ..c: m C E - - ....0..... ~ o 0 .- u ro (/) m ro .... N -c .- (/) Ol ....>Q)a.o .....; ~ ~ mE.... U a..lI::-Q. 0 CC:::l....CQ) oo~o(f N m..... E _....g OlCm o 0 a.~ c.Q Q) Q) "E .~ E Ol.C ~ CO ~ $ ro .... - e C .- Q) 0 :!:: o ~ ~ 0. ~ E ~ .~ E CC:::lQ)Q)Q.E-c-cE ooQ)Q)ooc<{o ....u.......t)ro t) ro m C :::l Ol Ol.Q (/) -cC Cm.... "5 :;::; E .c .~ .8 ._ <I.) :;:: c E E "'0<1.) ~S::<I.) CD ~ .....; U o LO ~ Q) $Ol .....(/):!:: C roE:;::; ...JE~ 0::2: t) CJ.) C .- CJ.) E .- l- E co '- I'- 00 '-a Q.N CJ.) CJ.) LL +-' U co E ~ N CD 0> :::l <( LO N :::l """') Q.) c: 06 C C Ol.Q Ol.Q C ..... .~ m 'C {g co C .~ ro C .- cE~Q)ffi ~E E-c Q.ogE- t).DOo ::l U a.Q) .... c Ol.Q Ol .~ ~ C C .- .- cEO) ~EQ) 0.0::2: t) C Ol.Q Ol .~ ~ C c.- :;::; C E Q) ~EQ) 0.0::2: t) -c c co C") <D I.-IJd ....., co ....., en en c 8Q.Id L- <D 0 ....., . - c....., _ co_ SQ)d ~(.)rn .....,.25 c-:= ::J<(~ (:QAd o ~ Ef)- o L- '-' co -c E 661d - <D.C 'Eo. <D 9&Id ....., en 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <D .c N 0 co <.0 ~ N 0 T'" T'" C' co "'C C o (.) en <D c cno ~~- ....., \ U en C (.) c ::J 0 .Q 0-- O<(~ Ef)- -c"'C'-' -co .~ 0 't::~ <D ....., en Q) ..c () , II J ~~ I , J , I r , I , , \ '" '" " \ ... , ~ = - QQlCO......CClnoo::l'MN""'Q ""' O~OZ to !2 lOOZ !e ;:: ~ CIl <> ..5! tOOZ <C "tl .!l <> '" '0 ~OOZ 0:. . to ~ .- 866~ ;:: 0 "" CIl <> ..5! <C S66~ "tl .!l <> '" '0 0:. Z66~ fl!J ;:: 0 "" CIl <> ..5! 686~ <C 0; 2 <> <C D 986~ t86~ I"- It) a ""' a 0) ct)'" C'\I tR-i >- u.. LO a a C'\I L- >- ~ u.. ('t) 0 a L- a a. N >- .c u.. en ~ CO a 0 a \of- C'\I 0 >- ....., u.. c <D (j) c (j) 0 >- c.. u.. E 0 I"- 0 (j) c >- 0 u.. +:i CO LO 1::: (j) 0 >- c.. u.. en c CO ('t) L- I- (j) >- u.. T""" (j) >- u.. a 0 0 a 0 a 0 a a a a 0 a a 0 0 0 a 0 Y7 0 a 0 a a a 0 a 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" (j) co I"- co LO ~ ('t) C'\I ~ Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 -c CI) .... (.) CI) = tn o L.. CJ)(.)J!! >............. -- -c 0 .... ~, . ,!!!(i)Q: :::::s -- EE-'= :::::s 2 ~ OQ.O (/l Q) ~ ~ Q.. ~ (0 o -0 ~ t) Q) ::::; o o ~ ~ 0.... <>' ~~ V,o ~ ~~ q... <>' CCCCCCCCCCCCC ccccoooooooo~ o~qqqqqqqqc~qq coococcocccc CCCCCCCCCCCC c~qqc~qqqqqqqq CIl)CIl)CIl)CIl)CIl)CIl) C.....Il)NC.....Il)NC.....Il)N MNNNN____~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ <a r;~ ~a r;~ c!'a r;~ "a r;~ 6'~ ~" <~ ~" ~~ ~" c!'~ ~" ,,~ ~" 6'ce is',, co ~""'""" CD I · s.... CO ~ E \.I- -- 0 I · s.... en a.. w ..c CD en CD co ~ ""'""" . u.. uc.o en I · 0 > u -co co CON c.. 0>- E O::u.. "-- ~ "'--~ C\I 0 ~ C\I 0) 00 ~ ~ 00 L() Y7 Y7 <D <D(I)CO ('") CO('")C\! +-' LO CO<DO> Lri ~. ...: I'- U 0 II II 0 II II N COf'.. 1/1 .... ~ :!:! C III C- o.. C III 0.. ::l 111111 0 l\l => o"&l Gc~ c E 0 l\l \1J"O 1/1 -, "OZtl "- a. "0 '0 0 III _ III o....c CIlI~ (/l -- 1/1 S ~"O' Ol- ..c: <( 0 III N-.... \1JCOl +-' 1/1 co. :E~J: \1J -Ill - U 1/1"0 " -- LO Gi "- 1/1 .... U 1/1.... ~ ~ ....1lI~ ...~ 0 Cll~ 0 .c ~ .... a.~.... o u a. ..... a. C-..c: ---, Q.) ..c: (tl "-' C - - 1/1 Cll"'iii 1/1 :2:2 Cll U \1J en u ~~u a.. ~ I +-' D - 0 CO - +-' CD 0 I- ~ 0 ..c 0 en 0 CO <0 U +-' N - (/l -- - - ~ :J CJ) ~ <0 ..c +-' 0 C :J s.... .1 - ~ ~ ,.-~;- J ('I") CO .-- +-' 0 LO 0 ~ s.... l- e.. en.!::. Q)+-' -o~ ::JO - ~ ut9 >< w- ro ~ ~-c u+-' ~ __ en ....... (5 ::J CI) a.. -g :s ~:::::::: (/) ~ co (/) '+--- _ 0 U ~~ a..Q) .cE enE roo 00 + Q) aQ) aLL a'" ~ u aeo a c.. a~ E ~- fF7 co 0) co 0 0 C\I ~ >- LL ~ en ('f) 0 +-' 0 0 en C\I >- ....J 0) 0 LL ~ 0) 0 N Q)LL 0 0 :1 +-' 0 0 =It: - C\I 0 U 0 >- ~ ro LL CI) a.. c.. 0 0 :s E .!::. - f'.. (/) en- 0: 0> >- (/) ro-o 0 LL - Orn ~ 0)0 ffl -o~ """ 0> >- ::J LL - U c: - ~ 0> >- LL 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0"10 0 0 0 0 ER- 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 ~ - - - 0> CO f'.. co 1.01.0 """ C") C\I T""" ER- ER- ER- ER- ffi- ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- o T""" E 0 0 0 0 ~ '+- - 0 en 0 +-'en 0Q) 0 ..JQ) - 0 N L..LL LO ~... =It: Y7 OU CI) ~ro (La. :s .r:.E co (/) 0 0 - N en-o >- (/) LL roro - (") 00 0 0 N >- Q)O::: LL -0 0 0 ::J 0 ~ - LL U >< I'- Q) W >- LL V Q) >- LL ..- Q) >- I .,- LL 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 0 0 0 0 69- 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 ai a::i 1'-- <ri"ll'i L6 ~ (")- N- ..- 69- 69- ~ 69- ffl 69- 69- 69- 69- en . ~4--; H-I Q) . ~ ' . ~ ~ : :: _\ ~ ~ ::J : - ~ ~:;;:: : : '<: "i . "" en . ;N~" : . 0:: lJ..J \3 ~^II~ 4.. " ~ ~ en I ~G,~ , ' . . f... '-oj ~ ~ - ,. . , "'~.. . St: '"' "- i: ; 0:: Qj ~ ~ i. . ~ . 0> ..: ~: \.) ~ .... ~ c -- ~ co co Q) -0 I ~ M u E s.... -- CD =It: - ..c 0) C1l CI) ::J c - a.. -- 0) ~ en :s - c t ~ CD (/) Q) 0 en 0 e.. ..c (/) +-' -- e 0 en +-' - -- - en '+- e.. 0 - +-' - -- E 0 s.... co -0 0.. - E - I E Q) 0 c en ..c 0 0 0 0 ~ -q- Z - ... -q- - -q- -- E Y7 - 0> C") C co LL - -- N C C . co ~ - a.. . . L.. 0.CL> CL> co _2: "I -0 T""" -- E en en c c -0 CL> 0 c.c u CO CL> 0 L- C 0. ......., 0) CO E Q) - C 0.0 U C -- .......,t) C L- a co c co CL> CL> 0 C -- .c E~ -- en -0 u Q) C L- -- 0 U -- > CL> - -C 0 E CI) Q) :J L- 0 0. 0.-0 -0 Q) E c c LL ......., Q) CL> -- co ......., en -0 E u ~ co 0 co co C 0. 0 co ......., en E ~ - L- eo c.. Q) - .c ......., Q) ~ ~ .c ~ C\I S CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.A. Subiect: Nomination/Appointment to the Youth Services Citizen Board County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n~"'''''' jJ Board Action Reauested: Nominate/appoint member 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. Bermuda District Supervisor King recommends that the Board nominate and appoint Tim Brock, an adult, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010. Mr. Brock meets all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and has indicated his willingness to serve. Preparer: Jana D. Carter Title: Director. Juvenile Services Attachments: DYes II No 000003 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 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. 000004 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.B. Subiect: Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Reauested: This item requests Board approval of new streetlight installations in the Bermuda District. Summary of Information: Streetlight requests from individual citizens or civic groups are received in the Department of Environmental Engineering. Staff requests cost quotations from Dominion Virginia Power for each request received. When the quotations are received, staff re-examines each request and presents them at the next available regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Staff provides the Board with an evaluation of each request based on the following criteria: 1. Streetlights should be located at intersections; CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Preparer: Richard M. McElfish Title: Director. Environmental Enoineerino Attachments: . Yes ONO 1#000005 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continuedl 2. There should be a minimum average of 600 vehicles per day (VPD) passing the requested location if it is an intersection, or 400 VPD if the requested location is not an intersection; 3. petitions are required and should include 75% of residents within 200 feet of the requested location and if at an intersection, a majority of those residents immediately adjacent to the intersection. Cost quotations from Dominion Virginia Power are valid for a period of 60 days. The Board, upon presentation of the cost quotation may approve, defer, or deny the expenditure of funds from available District Improvement Funds for the streetlight installation. If the expenditure is approved, staff authorizes Dominion Virginia Power to install the streetlight. A denial of a project will result in its cancellation and the District Improvement Fund will be charged the design cost shown; staff will notify the requestor of the denial. Projects cannot be deferred for more than 30 days due to quotation expiration. Quotation expiration has the same effect as a denial. BERMUDA DISTRICT: . In the Bellwood Addition subdivision, on Gettings Lane, in the vicinity of 2512 Cost to install streetlight: $117.83 (Design Cost: $110.92) Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day . In the Timsberry Gardens subdivision on Edgewood Drive, in the vicinity of 16008. Cost to install streetlight: $117.83 (Design Cost: $110.92) Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. 000006 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District Request Received: May 11, 2007 Estimate Requested: May 11, 2007 Estimate Received: October 9. 2007 Days Estimate Outstanding: 151 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Mr. Herman Gettings ADDRESS: 2512 Gettings Lane Richmond, VA 23237 REQUESTED LOCATION: Gettings Lane, in the vicinity of 2512, on the existing pole Cost to install streetlight: $117.a3 POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles Per Day: Petition: Not Qualified, location is not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 600 VPD Qualified Requestor Comments: None 000007 Streetlight Request Map October 24, 2007 5'-" -0\~G G"- This map is a copyrighted product of the Chesterfield County GIS Office. N Streetlight Legend . existing light . requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existi ng streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. . 190 95 o 190 Feet o 000008 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District Request Received: May 21, 2007 Estimate Requested: May 21,2007 Estimate Received: October 9, 2007 Days Estimate Outstanding: 141 NAME OF REQUESTOR: ADDRESS: Ms. Rosemary R Constantine 16008 Edgewood Drive Chester, VA 23832 REQUESTED LOCATION: Edgewood Drive, vicinity of 1600a, on the exiting pole Cost to install streetlight: $117.a3 POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles Per Day: Petition: Not Qualified, location is not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified Requestor Comments: "I am asking for a streetlight at the 16008 Edgewood Drive pole to make surrounding homes more secure and safe during the night hours from theft, vandalism, and breaking and entering. It would be a great deterrent of crime." 000009 Streetlight Request Map October 24, 2007 ,'5' "",,0"''' ,,"- . This map is a copyrighted product of the Chesterfield County GIS Office. Streetlight Legend . existing light . requested light 8 490 245 \ s' 900'" N . This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department o 490 Feet o 000010 ~\I - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.1, Subiect: State Road Acceptance County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: C~ Board Action Reauested?J Summary of Information: Bermuda: Cypress Woods, Section 2 Southcreek, Section 9 Dale: Bendahl Valley, Section A Cascade Creek Kings Grove, Section 1 Midlothian: Kings Farm at Riverdowns, Section 5 Queens Grant at River Downs, Section 4 Preparer: Richard M. McElfish Title: Director, Environmental Enoineerino Attachments: . Yes ONe # 00001.1. TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - CYPRESS WOODS, SEC 2 DISTRICT: BERMUDA MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: CYPRESS VINE DR GREEN SPIRE DR SILVER DUST CT SILVER DUST LN SILVERDUST PL Yicinity Map: CYPRESS WOODS, SEC 2 0" 0<<- -\ 0'0'" 0'" '7 'V 0 0l,A ~\v'f. Ot.. ~ ~",'?' "'oO'b '" o<z Ot.. ~ "'~ "'''' & o 171> 'i ~ o -\Q'<- 'i' '0'" 0",-'" A<<- '" -\ v <<",'?' '0'" O"<V Produced By Chesterfield County GIS 5} UJ OJ i!; ~ o 00001.2 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - SOUTH CREEK, SEC 9 DISTRICT: BERMUDA MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: QUIET FOREST CT QUIET FOREST LN WOODHOLLOW DR Vicinity Map: SOUTHCREEK, SEe 9 RUFFI Produced By Chesterfield County GIS 000013 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - BEN DAHL VALLEY, SEC A DISTRICT: DALE MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: BAXTER BRIDGE DR BAXTER BRIDGE PL FINWORTH LN Vicinity Map: BENDAHL VALLEY, SEe A 11 ~ o ~ :r. 'Z -l 0::: I- Z 0::: UJ I- Produced By Chesterfield County GIS 00001.4 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - CASCADE CREEK DISTRICT: DALE MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: CASCADE CREEK CT CASCADE CREEK LN CASCADE CREEK PL CLEARBROOK CT CLEARBROOK PL SCOTTS BLUFF WAY SPRING GLEN CT SPRING GLEN DR SPRINGMOUNT RD Q:' SPR.ING G " LE:N DR. () t:.: C} ~ Produced By Chesterfield County GIS 000015 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - KINGS GROVE, SEC 1 DISTRICT: DALE MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: REGAL GROVE DR SOUTH JESSUP LOOP SOUTH JESSUP RD Vicinity Map: KINGS GROVE, SEe 1 REGAL ROVE DR ~ <;;-Q :J C/) ~ ;n \.P Produced By Chesterfield County GIS 00001.6 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - KINGS FARM AT RIVERDOWNS, SEC 5 DISTRICT: MIDLOTHIAN MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: POST MILL DR POST MILL PL POST MILL TER Vicinity Map: KINGS FARM AT RIYERDOWNS, SEe 5 o~ -I m ;0 ?\.. .,. ~ (j) ~ /' (j) (/) o if Produced By Chesterfield County GIS 00001.7 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - QUEENS GRANT AT RIVERDOWNS, SEC 4 DISTRICT: MIDLOTHIAN MEETING DATE: October 24, 2007 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: POST MILL DR R1VERDOWNS SOUTH DR Yicinity Map: QUEENS GRANT AT RIYERDOWNS, SEe 4 ?\.. QQ;- ~ 0-0 Cj ~ ~ <P ~((} ~ Produced By Chesterfield County GIS 00001.8 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.2. Subiect: Adoption of the 2008 Legislative Program County Administrator's Comments: j) County Administrator: (/.. ) // Board Action Reaue's-fed: Adoption of the 2008 Legislative Program Summary of Information: The Legislative Program for the 2008 General Assembly will be forwarded to the Board by separate cover prior to the meeting. Title: Director, InterQovernmental Relations Attachments: II No # 000019 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 amended local land use and zoning statutes to shorten review periods for various plans, mandated the inclusion of particular items in local land use plans and other changes which limit county flexibility to manage local growth issues. In addition, state revenues have slowed significantly and staff anticipates that local revenues will be impacted by budget reductions at the state level. 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 additional jail/prison 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, both from individual legislators and as recommendations from the Illegal Immigration Task Force of the State Crime Commission. Staff will closely monitor all legislation introduced in the 2008 session related to illegal immigration and will bring those bills to the attention of the board. The board would like enabling authority from the state for the following: Business License-To have those applying to the county for a business license certify, as part ofthe application process, that they do not employ illegal immigrants. Note: a request for authority to have landlords certify that they do not rent to illegal immigrants was originally contemplated; however, staff has determined that this area can be addressed through existing authority under the building code to enforce square footage per person requirements. . Support creation of a nUl 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. Funding is from existing appropriations. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24,2007 Item Number: a.C.3.a. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Family Lifeline on its 130th Anniversary County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Mrs. Humphrey has requested that the Board is adopt by consent a resolution recognizing Family Lifeline on the occasion of its 130th anniversary. Summary of Information: See attached resolution. Preparer: Georoe E. Braunstein Tille: Executive Director MH/MRISA Department Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000020 RECOGNIZING FAMILY LIFELINE FOR 130 YEARS OF CHANGING THE FUTURE FOR FAMILIES WHEREAS, Family Lifeline has been dedicated to supporting and strengthening families in the communities where they live, work, and learn since 1877 as the City Mission, merging in 1905 to the Associated Charities, in 1928 became Family Service Society, in 1963 merged into Family and Children's Services, and became Family Lifeline in 2001; and WHEREAS, Family Lifeline envisions that strong families nurture their members at all ages and stages of life - supporting children so that they are healthy and prepared to be successful in school, enabling adults to be successful in the workplace, assuring that seniors are protected and well- cared for, all of which contributes to the strength and vitality of our community; and WHEREAS, in fiscal year 2007, Family Lifeline supported and served 2,461 families in Chesterfield, Henrico, Richmond, and Petersburg and with the assistance of 500 volunteers, contributed time and creativity to strengthen families; and WHEREAS, Family Lifeline reaches out to families in the communities where they live, work and learn - not asking them to come to office locations that are remote from where they are; and WHEREAS, Family Lifeline works in partnership with other not-for-profit organizations to increase efficiency and effectiveness, accomplishing more by working together than independently; and WHEREAS, Family Lifeline builds in families and communities that community; and on strengths by identifying the assets can be leveraged to strengthen the WHEREAS, Family Lifeline strengthens the foundation for families by assuring that they live in safe stable houses, are employed in jobs that provide a livable wage and benefits, and take optimal advantage of education opportunities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby congratulates Family Lifeline on celebrating its 130th anniversary and expresses sincere appreciation for its continuing efforts to support and strengthen families and communities, including Chesterfield County. 000021. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.3.b. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing November 2007, as "Family Health History Month" County Administrator's Comments: County Admlnl...."''' ~ Board Action Reauested: Mr. Miller requested that the attached resolution be adopted recognizing November 2007, as "Family Health History Month." Summary of Information: See attached resolution. Preparer: Donald J. Kappel Title: Director, Public Affairs Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000022 RECOGNIZING NOVEMBER 2007, AS "FAMILY HEALTH HISTORY MONTH" WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is committed to the health and well being of all its residents; and WHEREAS, certain diseases and conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, sickle cell anemia and hemophilia, can run in families; and WHEREAS, being aware of the health history of biological or blood relatives, both contemporary and ancestral, can help individuals and families take preventive measures to maintain their health, and to obtain early diagnosis and treatment; and WHEREAS, studies have shown that fewer than one-third of Americans know their family's health history; and WHEREAS, in 2004, U. S . Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, began a campaign to encourage all families to learn more about their family health history; and WHEREAS, November is "Family Health History Month," and an opportune time to remind all Chesterfield County residents of the importance of researching and recording their family health history; and WHEREAS, as we approach the holiday season, a traditional time for family gatherings, it is a good time to discuss family health history and work to improve the health of current-day and future family members, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes November 2007, as "Family Health History Month," and encourages all Chesterfield County residents to learn about their family health history. 000023 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.3.c. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Master Police Officer Michael A. Bickel upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n~"'''''' I Board Action Reauested: The adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Master Officer Michael A. Bickel will retire from the Police Department after having provided 20 years of service to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Preparer: Colonel Thierry G. Dupuis Title: Chief of Police Attachments: II Yes DNa # 000024 RECOGNIZING MASTER OFFICER MICHAEL A. BICKEL UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Chesterfield providing 20 County; and Master Officer Michael A, Bickel retired from the County Police Department on November 1, 2007 after years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield WHEREAS, Master Officer Bickel has faithfully served the county in the capacity of Patrol Officer, Senior Officer, and Master Officer; and WHEREAS, during his tenure, Master Officer Bickel served as a Field Training Officer, DARE Officer, School Resource Officer, Special Response Unit member, and General Instructor; and WHEREAS, Master Officer Bickel distinguished himself by demonstrating teamwork, professionalism and commitment to duty; and WHEREAS, Master Officer Bickel was commended by his superiors within the Chesterfield County Police Department for his outstanding performance of duty, which led to the clearance of numerous cases, recovery of stolen property, and apprehension of criminals; and WHEREAS, Master Officer Bickel from Chesterfield County citizens loyalty and devotion to duty; and received letters of appreciation throughout his career for his WHEREAS, County Police service; and Master Officer Bickel has Department with many years provided the of faithful Chesterfield and dedicated WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Master Officer Bickel's diligent service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Master Officer Michael A. Bickel, and extends, on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, appreciation for his service to the county, congratulations upon his retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. 000025 e CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.4.a. Subiect: Transfer $3,500 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Department of Environmental Engineering to Control Vegetation in Middle Lake and Finger Lake, County-Maintained Storm Water Management Ponds Located in the Queenspark Subdivision County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n~"'''''' -[jJ Board Action Reauested: The Board is requested to transfer $3,500 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Department of Environmental Engineering to control vegetation in Middle Lake and Finger Lake, which are County-maintained storm water management ponds located in the Queenspark subdivision. Summary of Information: Mr. Sowder has requested the Board to transfer $3,500 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Department of Environmental Engineering for the one-time use of Aquatic Services to hire a consultant who will recommend an action plan to control vegetation in Middle Lake and Finger Lake, which are County-maintained storm water management ponds located in the Queenspark subdivision and subject to a County maintenance easement. Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director. Budget and Manaoement 0425(00):76710.1 Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000026 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 This request was jointly made by the Department of Environmental Engineering and the Queenspark Homeowner's Association. The Board cannot make donations to homeowners' associations. The Board can transfer District Improvement funds to the Department of Environmental Engineering to improve a County- maintained storm water management pond. The Department must hire a consultant in accordance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act and must pay the consultant directly. For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. 000027 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? Richard McElfish, Environmental Engineering Director 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.) N/A 3. What is the amount of funding you are seeking? $3500 4. Describe in detail the funding request and how the money, if approved, will be spent. If approved, the funding will be spent on controlling aquatic vegetation in 2 storm water management (SWM) ponds in the Queens Park Subdivision that affects approximately 17 homeowers (Midlothian District) 5. Is any County Department involved in the project, event or program for which you are seeking funds? Env. Engineering 0000Z8 Page 2 6. 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? The requested funding will pay for the County's commitment towards this project. Long term funding and maintenance of the management of the ponds will be funded by the homeowner's association and/or the citizens of the community. 7, If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Yes D No 01 Is the organization non-profit? Yes D No OV Is the organization tax-exempt? Yes D No ov- 8. What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? P.O. Box 40, Chesterfield, VA 23832 9, What is the telephone number; fax number, e-mail address of the applicant? 748-1038 (phone), 768-8629 (fax), mcelfishr@chesterfield.gov 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. Director, Environmental Engineering Title (if signing on behalf of an organization) Richard McElfish Printed Name 000029 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.c.4.b. Subiect: Transfer $3,000 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to Purchase and Install Landscaping on Public Property at Robious Elementary School County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n;.t",,,,,, ~ Board Action Reauested: Transfer $3,000 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to purchase and install landscaping at Robious Elementary School Summary of Information: Mr. Sowder has requested the Board to transfer $3,000 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to install landscaping as part of a landscape restoration and improvement project at Robious Elementary School. This request was originally made by the Robious Elementary School PTA. The Board cannot legally donate public funds to PTA organizations but the Board can transfer funds to a County department to provide landscaping which improves public property. The $3,000 must be transferred to the Parks and Recreation Department and the Department must hire the landscaping contractor in accordance with the Public Procurement Act and must pay the contractor directly. For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director of Budoet and Manaoement 0400:76754.1 Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000030 QJ0~,b'\ G\IV} 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 t\o-biol.L"i E \emE'l'1+ary PT A (person or organization) making this funding request? 2 If an organization is the applicant, what is 10 p-rOM.o+e ~ lVeI+a.-re ot- 1\E5 the nature and purpose of the organization? .' . (Also attach organization's most recent ch\J.-ex-, '111 horo~, 5c.01oo1 and U"'-""""'I+j- articles of incorporation and/or bylaws to a."d -\0 \x'''1 ..Jo dose-, .-J,JiO<7 application.) ~ \wtM "",A -\-1,( w,ool. 3. What is the amount of funding you are seeking? 4. Describe in detail the funding request and how the money, if approved, will be spent. 5. Is any County Department inyolved in the project, event or program for which you are seeking funds? 6, 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? 43,000 ;> -fuL .-eqf'",~.j-eJ -\i,..,d5 WI \I \a.. 1.<5<</ .w lcu<,j' ~Cf'te &X)~, ""rwe ~ 9'~e".n"'te '* -\te sChool ~OIJ..lJs. -The- -I1M~s "'I II b... "-sed +0 t<MC~s<c -4'501 \ I ....u\e'"'. ilv".11'\<>X1U;, " (l-les\-eA,e\':\c"u.n+'t\ 1>a.rks ,,-,oJ 1<~crea:,(iD<() "'"'-'<\.uw.~ -\\y ifiW-'Us "",d ~o.s bU'7 L",*~,<\~-~..r \n~, ? v.k vJ,\\ \ok -\0 o-I-ht\ .~ C.O{'i$Yl..MI~-\:"'" ~${\St.'f~ \{\ e .su.<ytu"",\;,,~ <U"', ros"l~1 "",A e9....e1ot...-~. recJ..J.e..;s 000031. Page 2 7. If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Yes 0 No ~ Is the organization non-profit? Yes ~ No 0 Is the organization tax-exempt? Yes W No 0 8. What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? 'Ro-b,oIl." E\emm+a.ry Sc1oo\WA 220\ ~ot,iD\J.~ UO""";\)(,\ 1Jc,ve. "'i~\~if).41( IJA 2.3\\.1 9. What is the telephone number; fax number,f\'oo~: 3'1g, 2.500 e-mail address ofthe applicant? 1f1Mf-: 3'1&' 2.507 E:~\ ("PIA llr<,'S,c\e..~i): ~\-'o:>l,-e;t'er' \1." @>CoIYlcas-f.ne-l::- 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. f1~~ Signature 1>11\ --V("~IJen-t Title (if signing on behalf of an organization) 'f;/).-rhj t\oshd..\er Printed Name Q,t.-\.01 Date 000032 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.4.c. Subiect: Transfer a Total of $2,000 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to the Police Department to Reimburse the Police Department for the Costs of Traffic Control at the Midlothian Village Day Festival County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n;.tr.",,'fjJ Board Action Reauested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to transfer a total of $2,000 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to the Police to reimburse the Police Department to defray the costs associated with traffic control during the Midlothian village Day Festival. Summary of Information: Supervisor Sowder has requested the Board to transfer $2,000 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to reimburse the police department for a portion of the costs incurred by the County to supply police for traffic control at the Midlothian Village Day Festival on October 20, 2007. The Festival is a long-standing event that is co-sponsored by the County pursuant to a written agreement and is open to the general public. The Police Department has traditionally given assistance to the Festival and the requested funds will help defray the costs incurred by the department to provide traffic control, which has previously been done by the Virginia Department of Transportation, Preparer: Allan Carmody Title: Director Budoet and Manaoement 0825:76871.1 Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000033 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 On August 22, 2007, the Board approved a $2,400 transfer from the Midlothian District Improvement fund to the Police; Parks and Recreation Departments and the School Board to rent space and equipment and to provide services for the Midlothian Village Day Festival. The Board is authorized to defray the cost incurred by County departments for civic events which the County has traditionally sponsored pursuant to a co- sponsorship agreement and which are open to the general public and serve a community-wide audience. For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report, 000034 , DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS APPLICATION /\. \ fNJ Page 1 ,0\' 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? South of the James Jaycees (Junior Chamber of Commerce) 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,) To provide leadership training opportunities through community service projects for young men and women. 3. What is the amount of funding you are seeking? $2,000 4. Describe in detail the funding request and how the money, if approved, will be spent. The funding will be used to pay County Police for traffic direction & safety. It will also be used to provide for rental of 300 traffic cones to establish a detour traffic route and to establish a safer sidewalk area for pedestrians. Prior to 2005, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOTl provided this service, 5. Is any County Department involved in the project, event or program for which you are seeking funds? The County Administrator will serve as the Grand Marshall. The Police Department, Fire & Rescue, Parks and Recreation are also involved, 000035 Page 2 6. 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? Other business sponsors include Comcast Cable, Midlothian Electric Company and Village Bank. 7. If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Yes [8J No 0 Is the organization non-profit? Yes [8J No 0 Is the organization tax-exempt? Yes 0 No [8J 8. What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? P.O. Box 99, Midlothian, VA 23113 9. What is the telephone number; fax number, e-mail address of the applicant? 804-640-7375,794-5074 qlee@midlothianelectric.com 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 / 000036 Page 3 Chairman of the Board Title (if signing on behalf of an organization) Quenton Lee Printed Name September 25, 2007 Date 000037 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.5.a, Subiect: Request permission for a proposed Fence to Encroach Within an Eight-Foot Easement Across Lot 43, Berkley Village, Section A at Charter Colony County Administrator's Comments: County Admlnl....",,, l Board Action Reauested: Grant David E. Young and Amanda H. Young, permission for a proposed fence to encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 43, Berkley Village, Section A at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: David E. Young and Amanda H. Young, have requested permission for a proposed fence to encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 43, Berkley village, Section A at Charter Colony. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: RiQht of Way ManaQer Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000038 VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PERMISSION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH ':VITIllN AN 8' EASElVIENT ACROSS LOT 43 BERKLEY VILLAGE SECTION A AT CHARTER COLONY CHARTER P RK DR \DGE RO W.E S Chester1ield County Department 01 Utilities e 11IcltqI311:J3J.JJ1!@1 000039 LOTE 1 , ~ AIlE NIl E:NCRlJACHMENTS BY Dt>RlIVEMENTS" '-'.- EITHER FRtI4 ADJOlNING PREMISES, DR F'ROM SUBJECT PREMISES UPlJN "DJOINING PROIISES. OTHER THAN SHOVN HERE CCNOJ AReA 'C' RIS ~ 1P. RIS S33'!lO'PO' _ /3' F:A~~"'''8' ...,.,.; -- __ -"'''''CJVT --, \ \ \, \ G BY' _ YO xx - Fence LICENSED AREA --- ,. [2ND FUIDR OVERHANG e&fI T"'O Sl'lRY BRICK .. F1W4E No. 14207 100;( COMPLETE THIS PLAT VAS PREPARED "'ITHCIlJT THE BENEFIT OF" A TITLE REPORT I\lIID MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF' Re:CORD 'JHICH AIlE NOT SHl]\(N ON THIS PUlT. \'il:1l THE SUBJECT PRlJPERTY SHO"'N HEREDN APPEARS TO BE: UlCATED IN ZONE 'C' <AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING) AS GRAPHICAl.!. Y SHINN ()\/ THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COI1MUNITY PANEL NUMBER '10035 00228. Ef'f'ECTIVE DATEI MARCH 16, 1983. THIS SURVE:YOR MAKES NIl GIJARANTEP:S AS TO THE ACCURACY OF' THE ABOVE IN'tRMATION. THE UJCAL F.UIA AGENT SHOULD m: CONTACTED FIlR VERIFlCATIllN. UNDERGROUND PO\IER .. TELEPHONE I..DT 44 / 1la45-40-00 RaSo.oo' ('-39,B5' CHltR7rR$.BUJF'F PLACe (<<' R/..", David E, Young Amanda B. Young 14207 Charters Bluff PI DB. 7983 PG. 673 PIN: 724705255000000 PHYSICAL lMPROVEHE:NTS aN LOT 43 Bf:RKL.Cr VlU.AGE" SCCTIDH A AT CHARTCR CIJI DNY MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERfIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA PURCHASER. YOUNG T N L. 000040 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.5.b. Subiect: Request permission for a Proposed Fence to Encroach Within a Thirty-Foot Drainage and Sewer Easement, and a Sixteen-Foot Easement Across Lot 46, Stewart Village, Section A at Charter Colony County Administrator's Comments: County Admlnl...."''' ~ Board Action Reauested. Grant Roland Price Beazley, III and Kristen Harrell Beazley, permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 30' drainage and sewer easement, and a 16' easement across Lot 46, Stewart Village, Section A at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Roland Price Beazley, III and Kristen Harrell Beazley, have requested permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 30' drainage and sewer easement, and a 16' easement across Lot 46, Stewart Village, Section A at Charter Colony, This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Rioht of Way Manaoer Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000041. VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PERl\TISSION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH "\\'ITHIN A 30' DRAINAGE AND SE\VER EASEMENT AND A 16' EASElUENT ACROSS LOT 46 STEWART VILLAGE SECTION A AT CHARTER COLONY CHARTER P RK DR \OGE. RD W+E S Chesterfield Count?' Department of Utilities e 1110. ~qI3l!: JJJJJ ~~t 000042 HHHUNT BOMBS SETBACKs ZONED R-9 PER SINGLE FAMILY 'A' ZONING REQUIREMENTS FWfj[ :~. . MIN. SIDE . 7:5' (DEVELoPER) CORNER SIDE (BACK TO BACK) . 15' CORNER SlOE (BACK TO SIDE) . 20' _...,..~ \l1u.AGt 3''''.:..--rION'' .':'~;;tR COI.ON'i AT Cl1l"'" 30' DRAINAGE & SEWER ESMT, - r I -,- I I xx - Fence Licensed Area 16' ESMT, LOT 58 - ----7-t----,I'-- ", / ---r---{~-;- _.1 I I I I I I r Roland P. Beazley, III Kristen Beazley 737 Colony Oak Ln . DB. 7886 PG. 263 PIN: 722705903200000 / ~. / ,f ) I I. I I LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE LOT 45 ~ ., ".... ::...- B.50' PRIVATE PEOESTRIAN ACCESS ESMT. (BY SEPARATE AGREEMENT), 8:50' VDOT DRAIN. ESMT" 8.50' WATER ESMT. SILT FENCE ....- - ~ -- . COLONY OAK LANE 44' R/W PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON LOT 46 STEWART VILLAGE SECTION A at CHARTER COLONY MIDLOTHIIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA PURCHASER: YOUNGBLOOD, TYLER e. ASSOCIATES, P.C., CML ENGINEERS, PLANNERS '" LAND SURVEYORS 7309 HANOVER GREEN DRIVE P.O. BOX 517 MECHANICSVILLE, VA 231 " DATE: NOV. 15. 2006 SCALE: l' . 30' CAD FILE: SV-BPP.DWG DRAWNBY:J.S.C. CHECKED BY: G,M , J B No.: 16,896 000043 6) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.5.c. Subiect: Request permission for a Proposed Fence to Encroach Within a Ten-Foot Easement Across Lot 82, Watermill, Phase 1 County Administrator's Comments: County Admlnl...."''' ffJ Board Action Reauested: Grant Vu D. Hoang and Thanh-Tam T. Le, permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 10' easement across Lot 82, Watermill, Phase 1, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Vu D. Hoang and Thanh-Tam T. Le, have requested permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 10' easement across Lot 82, Watermill, Phase 1. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill . Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Rioht of Way Manaoer Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000044 VICINITY SKETCH REQlJEST PERl\TISSION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH \VITlllN A 10' EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 82 WATERl\IILL PHASE 1 \' ~ ~:-' ;- ~ " ~ O:r- II.; - ~ 6"" <;> CC-J ~ 21 ~ ~ ~<:; ~ l\~ M ~~\\,.\- . ~ ~~ ~ D~€ I ~~0J/,'- ~~ ~ ~ __ ~ '\-\ ~ 7. - I.. ...J REQUEST PERMISSION v..-1 ..4' /".:s::-J8I~ ~ ""- FOR A FENCE r:'-<~ .~ Cl>: ~~ B/RNAN \ ~~;- >'l~)i J, ~P" '~~ < H lr 0' 31RNAM .~~~\ ~~~ ~ ~ Jf 7r::/Q~ jQ " y '\ 771'1.- .~ "'" >&:~ ~' 1/~--< ---. ~ J 1 ~ IWA 'ry ~ -- ~ / /" l"" 7 ------ ~ / LI----" ~ ~ Rd,.r.~ _ -- ----'j ~~ ,.. ~ - ~--; -- - ~ ~ - ! ___ -==- 1l / X '-.-. I..f;, -1/ ~ ~.l,.--~. ---- ~~ '/ ~ -- ~ ~ ____ I. i, ~s~wr -- ~ fi)~ 'OA_ (A I. --t. i:: l() ~ IT......'..... --If. CO W+E S Ch@st@rfield Coun~ Department of Utilities 6l 1110. eq...1I: ~16.67 'R@I 000045 Tn/eo f~ to "ertlfy that on 6-21=1-01 ! made arr Clccurate fl.ald 9lH"V9~ of the premise!:> shOOolfl 1'l9r",on Q1Id to the best of my KnOi"lJedge and belief, Ie. correct and cO"JPfle!5 I'tlltl the mlnlrnJm procedvr6~ and stClldardS- a5 ,/!It fOr"th blj. the Vlrqlnla State Board of Archltect$, Profese'onal Eng1neers, Land Surveyors, and CertIFied L~captl Archltscts. 566 title report for eaHmen~ and restrictIve covenants ",hiGh may not be g.hOWl on this plat. Note, This lot apprear& to be In HJJD. Flood Zone ~Q5 ~I'ln on H'u.D. Oommvnlty Panel ~ 5Ioof3.>0024-8 NOTE, This survey hQSc been prepo('t~d wlthQlJt the beneFTt of title report and d~, not therefore rle&ese.arlly indIcatE' a!l encumt;r.alCeS on the property. ~ XX-Fen... L1cenlecl Area NOTE, UTIL.lTJE5 ARE UNDERGROJND. LOT 78 ~ 10' EASEMENT - - - - _ S52'11'04"E 7q 35' -!C _ f'/Re:fI:;r - - - - - - -'- -_ S' --- -- --- ---------- LOT '77 I I 16' DRAINAGE I EASEMENT l- - r/R{){) - -.' --_____ _,__8'_ LOT 82 0.231 ACRES ",-1'>0&' " inside .~ prof'O<"ly II.,. ~ <is ~ 16.20' f.- OW \) fj) -..l ~ ~ :>: /6,10' DECK ~ '"' O/H - 16,71' ~ ~ 2 STORY "" f.- BRICK 4 Ii) \) FRAME ~ -..l # 2213 't 16.37' lR . , , 10'EAS~~~N:l a~ ~~l- ~ ---~~~" 0""""" FIROD 1<=40.00' L = 31.4'1' 177. 77' TO ElL 1<=530.00' N5q'38'02"'" Of' BfLLSTONE -3277' 2201' DRIVE EXT'D. L - . . WATER HORSe C;OUF!1" 40' RII^I /' , ':0 I(,f-O SlJRVE'r' OF LOT 82, PHASE I, /AlA TERM/LL CLOVER HILL DISTRICT, CHESTERFIELD COUN7Y, VIR6INIA. Vu Hoang Thanh-Tam T. Le 2213 Water Hone Ct DB. 7884 PG, 634 PIN: 7221691813900000 .JI 315'11 1tJT6 FL4r FREPARED FCR nE EYt:lJJSIVi lEE CF TIE&aWf'(AJK;E TO W HOAI/& THANH- TAM T. Lf A.6, HAROCOP05, IN(;, CERTIFIED LAND 5(lRVl:YOR AND WI8IL T ANT 5700-e HOPf(INS RD. RJGHMOND, VIR6IN1A 232:34 OFFICE 211-41:34 5<alo, 1"30 Oota, b-2'i-07 Dr""" ,..MD 000046 6) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.5.d. Subiect: Request permission for a Proposed Fence to Encroach Within a Sixteen-Foot Drainage Easement Across Lot 10, Berkley Village, Section A at Charter Colony County Administrator's Comments: County Admln;,u,,,,,, -1 Board Action Reaueste . Grant LaSandra D. Jackson, permission for a proposed fence to encroach 5' into a 16' drainage easement across Lot 10, Berkley Village, Section A at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: LaSandra D. Jackson, has requested permission for a proposed fence to encroach 5' into a 16' drainage easement across Lot 10, Berkley Village, Section A at Charter Colony, This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Rioht of Way ManaQer Attachments: II Yes DNO n00047 VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PERl\USSION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH "'ITH A 16' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 10 BERKLEY VILLAGE SECTION A AT CHARTER COLONY CHARTER P RK DR ?-.\OGE RO Chesterfi@ld County Department of Utilities W_E S e t lie. ~qlal!: JJJ.JJ ~~t 000048 THIS IS TO CERTIF'Y THAT ON JULY 20, 2007 WE MADE AN ACCURATE nELD SURVEY OF' THE PREMISES SHOWN HEREON, THA TALL IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN HEREON) THAT THERE ARE NIl ENCROACHMENTS BY IMPROVEMENTS EITHER FROM ADJOINING PREMISES, DR FROM SUBJECT PREMISES UPON ADJOINING PREMISES, OTHEjit. THAN SHOWN HEREON. BY, L:1.~~~ ( '_ YOUNGBLO[jll',-T~E:R .. ASSOCrA'~C, LICENSED AREA LDT 8 .LD 7 "= .... ... r.. ~ LDT9 ;,. l\J f:i - 11.2' > g ;;, ... "' ~ TWO STORY BRICK .. FRAME No, 14607 100" COMPLETE J5,6' TEL. PED. :ll. 75.52 FT. TO THE C NIL EXTENDED HARTER WALK LANE D=07-o0-00 R=603,04' L=73,68' CHARTCR WALK COURT (44' R/V> PHYSICAL IMPRDVEMENTS DN LDT to BeRKLey VILLAGE: SCCTlDN A AT CHARTCR COLONy MIDLDTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA PURCHASER' JACKSON THIS PLAT VAS PREPARED VITHOUT THE BENEfIT OF' A TITLE REPORT AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD VHICH ARE NOT SHO'w'N ON THIS PLAT. , THIS PROPERTY LIES 'w'ITHIN ZONE 'C' ACCORDING TO THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AS GRAPHICALLY SHIl'w'N ON THE fLIlOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 510035 0022B, EfFECTIVE DATE' MARCH 16, 1983 3' UNDERGROUND POVER .. TELEPHONE 2' SVALE r ALONG P/L If G ih '" ~ 12,0', LOT U \oJ 8 ... ... r" ~ 14.0' LaSandra D. Jackson 14607 Charter Walk Ct DB. 7962 PG. 53 P~: 723705730900000 RtF YOUNGBWOD, TYLER lie ' ASSOCIATES, p, C, CIVIL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS .. LAND SURVEYORS 7309 HANOVER GREEN DRIVE P.IJ. BOX 517 MECHANICSVILLE, VQ, 2311l DATE, JUl.. Y 23 2007 SCALE' l' = 30' DRAWN BY'16836 Ct-ECKED BY, GREG G, McGLOTHLIN L.S, JO No, 16,836 000049 e CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24,2007 Item Number: a.C.5.e. Subiect: Request permission for an Existing Concrete Pad and Two Four-Inch by Four- Inch Wooden Posts to Encroach Within an Eight-Foot Easement Across Lot 15, Block C, Hilltop Farms, Section C County Administrator's Comments: County Admlnl."""'" fJJ Board Action Reauested: Grant Victor J. poltrick and Dawn M. Poltrick, permission for an existing concrete pad and two 4" X 4" wooden posts to encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 15, Block C, Hilltop Farms, Section C, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Victor J. poltrick and Dawn M, Poltrick, have requested permission for an existing concrete pad and two 4" X 4" wooden posts to encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 15, Block C, Hilltop Farms, Section C, This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Rioht of Way Manaoer Attachments: II Yes DNO #000050 VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PE~nSSION FOR AN EXISTING CONCRETE PAD AND TWO 4" X 4" WOODEN POSTS TO ENCROACH 'WITHIN AN 8' EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 15 BLOCK C HILL TOP F AR}\IS SECTION C i-----J '---' 1] - / ,\ N (j;Y REQUEST~RM~~~~! I I II I \ ilJ I I L U, CONCRETE PAD & TWO WOODEN I / ~ ~N1l= ELJ.llI1A POST TO ENCROACH WITHIN EASEMENT Ij ~-~ ~ ;J/ ~ ~'1f{/: j~~ \CI ~ ~~ ~j ~ A. --- \--b~ ~"~I ~ /,,,", Q} IT '- ~J B};f-~~ ~; 1,.. I)C-- Q: 1:,,\J- y J.10~ ~ x" ~ 1;;;.1.D D \\...\ ./ \~~7A~ ~. R M\L: ~u c: 'h'~"'- ~~.~. ~ HA.b--;'J~ l-- -V7Jr ~~J,-~rs i's~ ~ I Ii )~~~ \ ~\ \ (\ ;\,~~ \ \ ~ : _c. r/ (n ,. -\ \ l / II l ...:::;: f:r ~ 7 I \\~ N h / \ IS] I---;I/~ \ / --J ~ " 't---U...J ,\~- ~~~7i5 \\ --" - ~Di;;\ ~ - /- \1\ ~ / I ~ i::?- -qr \\ \:\ ~ ,.,;, /"\, \ (\\" ~ 'j q{ ~_ -L~~ ~0~~ I j ,I :m \' .\ J: "':-, ,-6 ?<h I!J?:;~ ~ \ / ~~ J ~ ~ ~ "" r- ~~ L OLp C~1., ---..: "'..-\ '\'''''':' ---,J::' - _ I'Y ~--\\~ ~ ,- ---' 'n ~ ~ ~ ---' W.E S Chesterfield Coun"t9" Department of Utilities e 1110. ~q'al!: ~16.611!tt 000051. __ -(,.t(!':..<" , I" or 7 ? Q ..J t-,r-I-< ",~D""---:::;:::: I!J" l' r' 1"'0.;<'= /7.:5.00' w..Ef "P . -f~&?' ,l!.oo t"<-""'- f5.~ t-,Ar-If$, fOP H/L-L.- . 31111 Lo-r 7 I' 9 I' LICENSED AREAS LO-T- /4 Victor J, Poltrlcl< Dawn M. Poltrlcl< 4019 mUtop Field Dr. DB. 2171 PG.1731 PIN: 788664021700000 ".o(G>S' 4.J , /'7':'] € 1"":':"{ , /'''''"$ ":l ,:.JJ.:'Q II) {\ I:.:>:..' . 'b I.::~:tl{ O. . 0 /:9':, 'lJ ~ ./..:.....', ') "::'.:/."/ (.:wh I Fl",/ .::~~:..I L =.:5 7. ::Jre.' :'p.:i:i' Lo-r ..5 /5 't:::.O,,>,, ~-x \ ,20. c, ~ Cl. .... '" li' -..j \II .~ W \i\ 0, . ~ /' ~ S7'"O"i'V ,.c-R...qh1E;:. No. ,c;O/,3 'l ':1 'Thr~i.tocertlfythaton "I--A. 9/ I I made an IllXlUI'I.te SU'VeY.oI the prernlan. shown hereon and fh8t there are l'lO euemenlaor encroad'mentI vf8IbIe on the .grQl.Ind other..than thcJ8e shown her:i9n.' *~ ~"gL' ~ P"'A'T 0,.,- Lo-r /.5) 8t...ocK c: U.e-C7. C HIL.t...'TOP ,....cAR,+1S BEI<'MUDA L)/SrRICT CHe:S'7"ER,cIELD COUN-rY'; I/IR61NIA PV~C""'A$ERS.. VIe/oR' J. POL. 7'RICK ~ DAWN .41. POL7"RICk' ' s'Un:fI -li'1 LOT 4 /'37 F,...,qR/I.'1s C<<C.t; ~ J ~ o.~. La, ICa r;~ '-- D L)~. I, Harvoy L. Parks, do certify this property 1'$ .-v.."", In a H.uo. defined flcod hazard area. Har'iey L Parks, C.L.S. (J~~"""~ -;J HARVEY L. PARKSb INC. 4508 W, HUNDRED R . CHESTER, YA. 7~1 748-0515 DATE. AvG. 4. 1"'3/~. 1- - 30' _. V. C.T. CMey-w.s.c. JOBNO.F=8k=-zo.3 P&.4~ 000052 e CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.5.f. Subiect: Request permission for a Proposed Fence to Encroach Within an Eight-Foot Easement Across Lot 1, Tanner Village, Section C at Charter Colony County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n~t"'''''' t Board Action Reaueste : Grant Stephen R. Ruqus, Jr. and Terri Ruqus, permission for a proposed fence to encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 1, Tanner Village, Section C at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Stephen R. Ruqus, Jr. and Terri Ruqus, have requested permission for a proposed fence to encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 1, Tanner Village, Section C at Charter Colony. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Rioht of Way Manaoer Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000053 VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PERMISSION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH \VITHIN AN 8' EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 1 TANNER VILLAGE SECTION C AT CHARTER COLONY W_E S Chesterfield County Department of Utilities e 1110. ~q'311: JJJJJt!et 000054 THIS IS TO CERTIf'Y THAT IlN MI\RCH 15, . 20115 liE MllDE /IN I\CCIJRIl TE FIELD . SURVEY [If' THE PREMISES SHIl'JN HEREON THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS ARE: SHIlIiN HEREiil, THAT THERE ARE: NO ENCRDI\CHMENTS BY II4PRIlVEMENTS EITHER FROM AD.IlINING PREMISES, OR FRCIM SUBJECT PREMISES UPCIN ADJOINING PREM~S' OTHER THAN SHllVN~ BY' -----6 _" Y .~~,~ s,p.c. Stephen R. Ruqus, Jr. Terri Ruqus 1543 Jeffries Way DB. 6312 PG. 249 ',X- LICENSED AREA PIN: 725698713400000 THIS PlAT liAS PREPARED 1JITHOUT THE BENEfiT Of A TITLE REPORT AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS [If' RECORD 1JHICH ARE NOT SHD1JN ON THIS ~LAT, THIS PRIlPERTY LIES 1JITHIN ZONE 'C' ACCORDING TO THE BASE fLOOD ElEVATION GRAPHICALLY SHDVN ON THE INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 51003':5 1)024B, EFfECTIVE DATE. HARCH 16, 1'383 UNDERGROUND PD1JER , TELEPHONE .~ ~ D-Io-I9--40 < R-513.62' ~ L-92,5B' -c. RIf' ::DECK:: ~1P' , AGGREGATE CIlHCRETE DRIVE\,fAY , \,fAll< T\,fO STORY BRICK , FRAME . No. 1543 100X Cti4PLETE If ~~ ~ lo.5.t~... 4!"~ !!~ ;;....l&I ::CC/ltCD 231fl15 YARD LIGHT VARIABLE IiIDTH VDDT DRAINAGE EASEMENT , VARIABLE liIDTH \,fATER EASEMENT -- . D-81-o1-49 R-3':5,OO' L-49.SO' ..-.... RIS .,,--w' .W D-02-12-16 1\1,"S' R-337.7S' L-Ie,99' ..EFF'RlCS . PLN% <..... RJ'IJ) PHYSICAL IHPRDVE:HENTS ON lOT J TANHCR VILLAGE' UCTlCIH C a't CHARTCR CCM ,.,y HATOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA PURCHASERo RUQUS, STEPHEN R, Jr. YOUNG9LooD, TYIER It A88OCIATllS, P. C. . CIVIL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS , U\NIl SURVEYORS 7309 HANOVER GREEN DRIVE p.o. BOX 517 HECHANICSVI1.I.E. Vel. 2"3111 TEl MARCH 21 l!OO5 SCALE. I' :& 30' loIN BY.16762TANC CKEII BY' GREG G. I4cGLOTHLIN L,S. JOB No. 16,762 000055 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.6. Subiect: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Commonwealth Centre Parkway from Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n;.tra"'" -fJ1 Board Action Reauested. Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.039 acres along Commonwealth Centre Parkway (State Route 754) from Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: It is the policy of the county to acquire right of way whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the County Thoroughfare Plan. The dedication of this parcel conforms to that plan, and will decrease the right of way costs for road improvements when constructed. District: Matoaca Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Riaht of Way Manaoer Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000056 VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND ALONG CON.mION\'~ALTHCENTREPARK,VAYFROM CO~~ION\'~ALTHCENTRESTORAGELLC 3 ... 2 FFWAY RIDGE LOOP POINTE RD EIGHTS DR RACE LN GE RUN LN ARBOR CIR CREEK BLVD ~'~:A, W '^'. '"E " .Y "T'" s Chesterfield County Department of Utilities e 1110. ~q'all: 6613.6; ..~t 000057 ..11111111111" I, I III '. ..' ii!lh 1M Mlllli! M,I !I ~~ !il I~~ lIt ~il - ~ ~"" ~~: d~ wm>>:M ~ (]'UJ:RGJS:JHO -""'"SJO"","'" tl73IoRJ3JS3H:),iO,1.,JN/1()t)3HJ 01. fBJlIOI03O 3B OJ. QNY1 .i'O S3J1:)'( 6t:O'O '!JNMf(JH$ J.t'kI I ~..~~, ~ iiilldi;' 8 [.:U! II Ii Ih U t !~t i!;1~ III ~ ~I ~I n ~1::' ~ i~ 0: J~~ U:i!; i!;~~i I.~ ~ ii; i5 ~ !:1 ... " 1'1 " Ii' 1,\ Ii' '" ,,' I" I' \ , \ , , n " " " " " 1 II II II I-\---~-:- 1 \ 1 , 1 , ~ ~ .I: ~ ----- \ \ \ - \, 1- ... \ \ ~ ;:t., \ \ ~ ~\ i--b \~ \ ~~ \ \ GSDS/3JI1(RJ-U1aS AVa 0I1SI1d.06 ..(~ l/33foPW tMJS N 0"' <O~ ",0 0' "''' 0.0 " 0': o ";z: o z-; zO :5&: ~~ to::> "'0 o ~ z . u. 8 d; ; g ~ 0 N ~ " " 0 0 If) ~ 8 e~ 1, ~fJ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.C.7. Subiect: Request to Quitclaim a Portion of a Sixteen-Foot Water Easement Across the Property of The Salisbury Corporation County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n;ot",,,,,, ffl Board Action Reauested: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a portion of a 16' water easement across the property of The Salisbury Corporation. Summary of Information: The Salisbury Corporation has requested the quitclaim of a portion of a 16' water easement across its property as shown on the attached plat. Staff has reviewed the request and approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparer: John W. Harmon Title: Rioht of Way ManaQer Attachments: II Yes DNO #000059 VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST TO QlJITCLAIM A 16' WATER EASElVlENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF THE SALISBURY CORPORATION w &. '~l'a'E ~ 5 Chesterfield County Department of Utilities e t IICI ~q'<lll: 6615.6, toet 000060 .':: till . ! I I I ",,,..',,,,,n..,,,,""""'",, I 'I!! I Ij'lI",ll,1 NOl~VI:IOd"OO.:'n':I;';'~O amn aH~ 'I 001880"" aa~VOYhB8 OUNaWaSl1a Ill! Ilh! 1M !llll !lNnlB~YM,9'Y~OtJOI1.lf0dY!lNIMOHS~Y"Id 1 " ~ ~:l I ;~'~!i <> ~ I ~ ~~ " , ~~ ii~ m r !;I !~~~ iUi @ ~.! ~ ~ !I~~II; ;<~~~ i " ~ " ~ ~~ " r"-- I I I I 3fW7)JJIJ3iJMIfU. OI'W 0'fr>>J Nt 3H1 OJ. ,0p.'9/.1- l ~~ ~ ~ '" '" II~~ ~ ~~-~ i~~:! ~~~~ I ~ --_\.., I I I I ~ ~ ''''l ~Ollf .dQ-JH:}IH ,Ofi} ot._'31noJJ3!.'i1S 3MJO lSNf1H3f)tfd ,99'tgr 3:or.~lstS ~-~ I" h ~ : Ii It 'lll~~ t, It ~ f.<.I<Ol..;j)>.." I II lS i;~ ~ :: : ~ ~~ .~ I It i,,~."1 f ~ ~~!oj : 1 \ .,.-. 'I; ~lfil Ij l<l . It .~< ~::: II ~~~-IIJ ,L'''' ,"":: ~~~R_ 3,,9I',tr;hS-..... "I II ~~e;~ ,..6"~6<.~~~:i c,~_:_-:::::::: ,66'Gr.~ #.:!!!;w,,,m --l----7! ~~ ~ i~ ~lti ~~~I . i~i ~~~ I I~~ r ~ ~~ ~, ~~~i " , ~, I l!: J "'. I \j' ,I ~: , L II. 1o"~ ~Illl' il~ ,t61>!:r' M.OI,~J$tN C<'Hti.:lOJRf)RJ.04 ",d3JIJON3J.'IiS (WON o13tiN31NlM ~ , ;. i- n~ p ih! ~~i- ~h~ p ~~~~ I ~I~~ p~- d~~ a ~ i~~ !lSO o ~ ~ "0 '" ~ , o -'" o () (f] o " ~:JJfS3-31ir.Jv11- a37kIf<<X) 1()_6~\lJJqJ\.GI.WlS\>>Jn8S7IYS(I(J13f.JY31NIM 000000'61,7l1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24,2007 Item Number: a.c.a.a. Subiect: Set a Public Hearing to Amend Section 19-5 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield Relating to Penalties for Violations of Ordinances Regarding the Number of Unrelated Persons in Single Family Dwellings County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator:----4;) , Board Action Reauested: Set a public hearing for November 28, 2007 on the proposed zoning code amendment. Summary of Information: The 2007 General Assembly passed a bill increasing the penalty for zoning violations relating to the number of unrelated persons in single family dwellings. At its June 27 meeting, the Board identified this legislation as one to be implemented in the county and referred it to the Planning Commission, Single family dwellings are a permitted use in all of the county's residential zoning districts. Under the county code, single family dwellings may be occupied by up to four unrelated persons. Zoning code violations are misdemeanors and violators are currently subject to a fine of up to $1,000 with additional violations punishable by a fine that can reach up to $1,500. The proposed amendment creates a separate penalty applicable only to violations relating to unrelated persons in a single family dwelling and sets the fine at a maximum of $2,000 with a fine for additional violations up to $2,500. Preparer: Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 2723:76768.1 (76074.1) Attachments: II Yes DNO 600062 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission its September meeting. vote. held a public hearing on the proposed amendment at The Commission then passed the amendment on a 4-0 This ordinance amendment was proposed prior to the issuance of the county's illegal immigration report and before the Board expressed an interest in an ordinance amendment changing the method of regulating the number of people occupying a single family residence. If the Board begins regulating occupancy through minimum square footage requirements, violators would be subject to only the existing penalty for zoning violations, which is a fine of up to $1,000 with additional violations punishable by a fine of up to $1,500 per violation, 2723: 76768.1 000063 AN ORDmANCETO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDmO AND RE-ENACTmO SECTION 19-5 RELATmO TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDmANCES REOARDmO THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS m SmOLE F AMIL Y DWELLImOS BE IT ORDAmED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-5 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-5. Enforcement. (a) (I) General enforcement duties of director of planning. The director of planning shall enforce this chapter and he shall have the full cooperation of all other county officials in the enforcement of this chapter. Before granting a permit to construct, alter or use any building, structure or premises that may be affected by this chapter, the building official, upon receipt of an application for such permit, shall submit the application to the director who shall certify that the proposed construction, alteration or use of the building, structure or premises is or is not in violation of this chapter. If such proposed use, building or structure is in conflict with this chapter (including zoning or development approval), the building official shall refuse to issue a building or occupancy permit. (2) Enforcement of conditions. The director of planning shall administer and enforce conditions attached to zoning approvals, development approvals and substantial accord approvals for which a public hearing does not occur 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 accord approvals for which a public hearing does not occur, 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. ill Anv person who violates an ordinance regarding the number of unrelated persons in a single familv dwelling shall be punishable bv a fine of up to $2.000. 2723:76074.1 1 000064 ~Q2.(ill For violations under (b)(1) above, If if the violation is uncorrected at the time of the conviction, the court shall order the violator to abate or remedy the violation in compliance with the zoning ordinance, within a time period established by the court. Failure to remove or abate a zoning violation within the specified time period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than $10.00 nor more than $1,000.00, and any such failure during any succeeding ten-day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each ten-day period punishable by a fine of not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,500.00. Dil For violations under (b )(2) above. if the violation is uncorrected at the time of conviction. the court shall order the violator to abate or remedv the violation in compliance with the zoning ordinance within a time period established bv the court. Failure to abate the violation within the specified time period shall be punishable bv a fine of UP to $2,000 and anv such failure during anv succeeding 10-dav period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each 10-dav period, punishable bv a fine of UP to $2.500. ~ffi In addition to the requirements and penalties specified above, the director of planning may invoke any other lawful procedure available to the county, such as injunction or abatement, as may be necessary to prevent, restrain, correct or abate any violation ofthis chapter. f41ill The director of planning or his agents may enter upon or search any real estate or improvements thereon only after first obtaining a valid search warrant unless either: a. The entry or search is made after the property owner's knowing and intelligent consent; b. A violation of this chapter is in plain view; or c. A violation of this chapter occurs in the presence of the director. fB@ 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 accord approval for which a public hearing does not occur, then he shall serve upon that person a notice to comply by either: 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 to 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. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 2723:76074.1 2 000065 6) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 MeetinQ Date: October 24. 2007 Item Number: a.C.a.b. Subiect: Set Public Hearing to Solicit Comment on Illegal Immigration in Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n~"''''" 1 Board Action Reaue d: Mr. Miller has requested that the Board set a public hearing date of November 14, 2007 to solicit public comment on the recommendations contained in the Illegal Immigration Report. Additionally, the public is encouraged to articulate community concerns with respect to illegal immigration in the county. Summary of Information: On August 16, 2007 the Board was sent a report with staff's estimation of the local cost of providing services to illegal immigrants. The report included staff recommendations for County actions that could be implemented under existing County authority. On September 26th the Board held a work session to review the report, and identified other potential options to pursue. Mr. Miller has requested that the Board hold a public hearing to solicit comments on the findings and recommendations outlined in the Illegal Immigration Report. Additionally, Mr. Miller requests the Board to expand Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Deputy County Administrator Attachments: DYes _NO 1 # 0000661 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of2 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Summary of Information (continuedl the scope of public comment beyond the Illegal Immigration Report, to include general community concerns regarding illegal immigration within the county. 000067 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: a.c.a.c. Subiect: Set a Public Hearing to Amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, by adding a new Article XVII to Chapter 9 of the Code relating to Transportation Impact Fees to Fund and Recapture the Cost of Providing Reasonable Road Improvements County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Summary of Information: since June, staff has been working with the Planning Commission and Impact Fee Ordinance Advisory Committee to consider various approaches to the road impact fee authority granted by the General Assembly in 2007. The Advisory Committee has made its recommendations to the Board (See attachment A) and the Planning Commission recommended denial of an impact fee ordinance and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. (Planning Staff had not prepared draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at the time of the agenda). Staff recommends adoption of an ordinance providing for an initial road impact fee of $5,820 (See Attachment B.) The current maximum cash proffer applicable to Preparer: Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 0800 (25) : 76836 ,1 Attachments: II Yes DNO ib00068 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 roads is $8,915. The proposed impact fee ordinance does not impose impact fees on commercial and industrial property or zoned property subject to cash proffers or CDA/service district payments. 000069 I\.ttachment A CHESTERFIELD COUNTY IMP ACT FEE COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT 17 OCTOBER, 2007 :ll1SJionoIable 1\I1LJ5,plly MW-"I The Honorable Ms. Renny Hurnnhrev ----..---.--.------.----....--...-.....--..".-------------'-;,ej,::'_--,--,-,,- Jhe Honorable Mr. Dickie King The Honorable Mr. Arthur Warren TlwJiQDDrable Mr.J2Q!1alcll>o~der ML,_J_a.Y.sJeg[l}.f!j-"!:,__CQ_~!1tu~gmi,!)j~t!~.t91 The members of the Chesterfield County Impact Fee Committee respectfully submit the attached recommendations for YOW' review. The committee members are as follows: Ms,.i\nc:lrel1ErJPs 1\I1r. Ryland Reamv M[. Buddv Sowers ~1s_,_Yjs:hLS1ilt:q MLCTmyJ'Q,Y'-Ts Mr. GeOIQe l':mmerson Mr.Ed Degennaro ML_Ygm~~ll..M_e~ll!Ie Mr. Jim Reid .....,._---_.....-.......... 000070 , CLIESTERFIELJ) COUNTY LMPACr FEE COMMrrrEE FINAL E EJ.'Ql{[ 17 OCTOBER. 2007 The Chesterfield County Impact Fee Advisory Committee respectfully presents the following recommendations for your consideration. The committee wishes to express appreciation for the generous support of county staff. As you will see from this report, we are unanimous in our belief that current and future transportation funding is an issue that must be addressed in a proactive, deliberate manner. Due to the importance of this subject to the future of Chesterfield, it is crucial that all stakeholders have a complete understanding of key issues, and that all possible funding solutions be evaluated by a Transportation Task Force, prior to the adoption of an ordinance. Therefore, the committee concludes that an administratively feasible, equitable method of assessing impact fees is not possible without implementation of the following procedural steps. 1. Select an independent firm having a national reputation to perform an overall economic analysis to determine the total cost and revenue effects of both residential and commercial development in Chesterfield County. Include within this analysis the impact of proffers, impact fees and other infrastructure funding mechanisms already implemented or being considered, as they relate to: A. The affordability of housing B. Total county revenues - real estate taxes, sales and other business taxes and fees C. Employment opportunities D. Impacts on the economic health of Chesterfield's business community 000071. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY IMPACT FEE ('OMMlrrEE IJ]"I~\LJllil'QKI 17 OCTOBER. 2()(]7 2. Appoint a task force consisting of key staff personnel, qualified professionals, contractors and community representatives to review the findings ofthe independent firm, evaluate all relevant information and recommend specific steps to be taken, giving due consideration to the following: A. Factors which have caused the escalation in the costs of providing transportation facilities. B. Quantify the impact of these factors on the county's ability to provide facilities C. Identify alternatives which could reduce cost and maximize efficiency. 3. The task force should initiate the development of a comprehensive plan for transportation funding which fully addresses the current and future shortfalls. This plan should include the benefits and effects of utilizing the following sources of revenue: A. Sales tax B. Gas Tax C. Meals tax D, Designating portion of the Real Estate Tax to transportation E. Designating portion of the BPOL fees to transportation F. Community Development Authority (CDA) and Special Assessment districts G. If increased funding from the state or changes in state statutes and policies is required, a detailed action plan for seeking and obtaining favorable action from the General Assembly should be included as one of the products of this task force. 4. We recommend that the Board initiate actions through the task force, in cooperation with the General Assembly, to create a Greater Richmond Regional Transportation Authority to: A. Address transportation issues on an integrated, comprehensive and cooperative basis for the entire region. B. Increase the political leverage our region has in competing for resources within the General Assembly. 2 000072 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY lMPACT FEE COMMITrrT EHS!\L RJ21'QJ<J' 17 OCTOBER. 2007 In the event the Board wishes to consider Impact Fees at this time, the following recommendations should be considered. It should be noted however, that ifthe Board should choose to initiate a complete evaluation as suggested by this committee, these recommendations could change to reflect the findings of the task force. I, The Impact Fee should be applied to Residential properties which were zoned prior to the implementation of the Cash Proffer system. 2. The Impact Fee should not be applied to commercial properties because of the potentially negative effects on the County's Economic Development initiatives 3. The Impact Fee should not be applied to properties which agreed to a cash proffer in the past which was less than the current impact fee. At the time of zoning in these cases, there was a good faith agreement made between the County and these property owners based on the best information available at the time regarding the cost of the infrastructure required to support development of their property, These agreements should be honored by the county. 4. Community Development Authorities and Special Transportation Assessment Districts should be exempted. 5. The Impact Fee Transportation Service Area should be county-wide 6. Property owners should have 60 days to appeal the Impact Fee calculated for their property to the BZA and an additional 60 days to file the specific details of their claim. 7. The Tax differential between land zoned as Residential vs. Agricultural should be credited toward the Impact Fee calculated for each property. 8, Provisions should be made for crediting the costs of road improvements made to thoroughfare plan roads, either on or off site, by any property owner. 3 000073 CHESTERFIELD CmWIY IMPACT FEE COMMlT"I"EE Ll~ALJmI'n!n 17 OCTOBER. 2007 9. Please note the requirements of the enabling legislation related to credits. 15.2-2324 states: The value of any dedication. contribution or construction from the developer for off-site road or other transportation improvements benefiting the impact fee service area shaH be treated as a credit against the impact fees imposed on the developer's proiect. The locality shaH treat as a credit any off-site transportation dedication. contribution. or construction. whether it is a condition of a rezoning or otherwise committed to the locality. The locality may by ordinance provide for credits for approved on-site transportation improvements in excess of those required by the development. The locality also shall calculate and credit against impact fees the extent to which (i) other developments have alreadv contributed to the cost of existing roads which wiH benefit the development. (m new development wiH contribute to the cost of existing roads. and (iii) new development wiH contribute to the cost of road improvements in the future other than through impact fees. including anv special taxing districts. special assessments. or communitv development authorities. The committee feels the calculation of the credit warrants special attention in its application that is not necessarily reflected in the staff presentation, 4 000074 CHEsrERFIELD COUN"fY IMPACT FEE COivIMfrTEI: FINAL REPORT 17 OCTOBER, 2007 The committee remains optimistic when looking at the possibilities of future transportation funding. We understand the pressing need and political pressures that surround this issue. We thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this important process and we hope these conclusions are beneficial to the Board in making future transportation funding decisions. Andrea M. Epps, Chairwoman Chesterfield County Impact Fee Committee 5 000075 Attachment B AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XVII TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE CODE RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TO FUND AND RECAPTURE THE COST OF PROVIDING REASONABLE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code of the Countv of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended by adding the following: Chapter 9 FINANCE AND TAXATION 000 ARTICLE XVII. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Section 9-250. Establishing a system of impact fees. Pursuant to Code of Virginia 9 15.2-2322, the county hereby establishes a system of impact fees to fund reasonable road improvements benefiting new residential development. In accordance with Code of Virginia 915.2-2320, one or more impact fee service areas shall be designated by amendment to the county's comprehensive land use plan. Such plan amendment may designate the entire county as one impact fee service area. Section 9-251. When impact fees determined and collected. (a) Pursuant to Code of Virginia 9 15.2-2323, the amount of impact fees to be imposed on a specific development shall be determined no later than final subdivision or site plan approval. (b) Pursuant to Code of Virginia 9 15.2-2323, the impact fee shall be collected for each residential lot or housing unit at the time a building permit is issued for such lot or housing unit. (c) No building permit shall be issued for a lot or housing unit on which an impact fee has been imposed unless the owner of the lot or housing unit, or his agent, has (i) paid the applicable impact fee or (ii) has executed an agreement provided by the county and secured by a bond or a letter of credit approved by the county, to pay the impact fee, in equal installments, over a period of no more than 3 years. If payments are made in installments pursuant to subsection (c) (ii), interest on the unpaid portion shall accrue interest at the rate specified in 9 9-6 of this Code. (d) The calculation of an impact fee may be appealed by the owner or his agent to the Chesterfield County Board of Zoning Appeals. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the director of planning within 60 days of the calculation of the impact fee amount by the county. The owner or agent shall submit the substantive basis for his appeal to the director of 000076 0425 :76843.1 Rev'd 9/26/07 planning within 60 days of filing a notice of appeal. The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be appealed in accordance with state law. Section 9-252. Determination of the amount of the impact fee. a) The impact fee for a development shall be determined by dividing (i) the projected road improvement costs within the impact fee service area in which the development is located by (ii) the number of projected housing units within the impact fee service area when such area is fully developed. This calculation shall be based on the number of trips generated by each such housing unit. The projected road improvement costs for each impact fee service area shall be calculated in accordance with the county's road improvement plan as specified in Code of Virginia ~ 15.2-2321. b) The value of any dedication, contribution or construction from the developer for off-site road or other transportation improvements benefiting the impact fee service area shall be treated as a credit against the impact fees imposed on the developer's project whether by condition of zoning of other written commitment to the county. The county shall also calculate and credit against the impact fees the extent to which (i) other developments have already contributed to the cost of existing roads which will benefit the development, (ii) new development will contribute to the cost of existing roads, and (iii) new development will contribute to the cost of road improvements in the future other than through impacts fees, including any special taxing districts, special assessments, or community development authorities. c) The schedule of impact fees is: Use Residential Commerical Industrial Impact Fee $5,820 $0 $0 d) Any lot or housing unit which is subject to a transportation cash proffer or to increased taxes, assessments or fees for road improvements pursuant to a community development authority or a transportation service district, shall not be subject to the payment of impact fees. Section 9-254. Updating road improvement plan and amending impact fees. In accordance with Code of Virginia ~ 15.2- 2325, the Board of Supervisors shall update the impact fee road improvement plan at least every two years. The impact fee schedule shall be amended to reflect substantial changes in the road improvement plan. Any impact fees not yet paid at the time of the amendment to the impact fee schedule shall be assessed at the applicable amended amount. 0425:76843.1 Rev'd 9/26/07 000077 Section 9-255. Use of impact fees. A separate road improvement account shall be established for each impact fee service area and all funds collected through impact fees shall be deposited in the appropriate account. Each account shall bear interest which shall become funds of the account. The expenditure of funds from the account shall be only for road improvements benefiting the impact fee service area as set out in the road improvement plan for such impact fee service area. Section 9-256. Refunds. The county shall refund any impact fee in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Virginia S 15.2-2327. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 0425 :76843.1 Rev'd 9/26/07 000078 BRENDA L. STEWART 5911 Woodpecker Road Chesterfield, VA 23838 Phone/Fax: (804) 590-2309 E-mail: bl-stewart@comcast.net October 24, 2007 MEMORANDUM FOR CHESTERFIELD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT RELATING TO IMPACT FEE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE This proposed amendment is not ready to go forward. I ask that the Board of Supervisors provide the public a proper opportunity to get answers to its questions. Scheduling community meetings at least one week prior to scheduling the public hearing on these amendments would be advisable. My inquiries to both the Planning Department and the County Attorney's office went unanswered. The County Attorney's office suggested that I go to the Planning Commission public hearing to have my questions answered. We all know the system does not work that way. I request that you present us citizens the opportunity to attend a meeting where officials who can and will answer our questions are available. Only after you have afforded us that opportunity will it be appropriate to proceed with consideration of these changes. I suggest scheduling at least two public meetings prior to the public hearing-one in the northern part of the county and one convenient to residents of the southern part of the county. After reviewing these suggested changes along with HB 3202, the bill that embodied the state statute being implemented, I concluded that the staff work so far has been inadequate. I speak as one who spent more than half of my 30- year career in Defense contracting as an analyst involved with drafting policies and procedures based in the law. There are issues with the proposed code amendment that arise from failure to comply with the plain English requirements of the statute, from inconsistencies between the statute and the proposed code amendment, from questions about the statistical process used to develop the proposed impact fee, from failure to properly incorporate intentions stated in an official memo into the proposed code amendment, and from ambiguities that will certainly cause confusion on the part of those required to administer the proposed changes. Details are attached. 2 Other additions to state law effective July 1 st of this year that have not been implemented by Chesterfield appear to be related to these changes. HB 3202 provisions state that local transportation funding "shall be directed to the urban development area" to the extent possible. However, I do not believe that Chesterfield has adopted any such area or a permitted alternative resolution as directed by Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223.1. It appears as if the county is ahead of itself. Why would the county develop a procedure to specify a new fee for road funding before identifying the area that, by state law, must receive all possible funding? Until the county has designated "urban development areas," it appears you are not in a position to "exclude urban development areas... from impact fee seNice areas" as allowed by Virginia Code Section 15.2-2330. Neither do I see that the new requirement that the county prepare and submit environmental impact reports on all road projects costing $100,000 or more has been considered or addressed. The public needs time and answers to questions before the Board holds a formal public hearing on these most significant proposals. See attached details. 3 BRENDA L. STEWART 5911 Woodpecker Road Chesterfield, VA 23838 Phone/Fax: (804) 590-2309 E-mail: bl-stewart@comcast.net October 24, 2007 SOME OF THE ISSUES: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT RELATING TO IMPACT FEE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE Some of the information required by statute is missing from the advertisement of the code amendment. For example, the schedule of the improvements and new roads was not provided in the road improvement plan. Neither did the public hearing notice include all the required assumptions upon which the assessment is based. See Va. Code Section 15.2-2321, Enactment clause 1. I did not see the projections for road improvement needs for the county when fully developed as required by 15.2-2321, Enactment clause 2. Where are the assumptions that are to be presented? The published draft ordinance is inconsistent with the stated assumption in the October 1, 2007, Memo from the Deputy County Attorney that "property for which cash proffers ... will be paid for transportation improvements will be exempted from the payment of impact fees. (Emphasis added.) Note: No information was provided in the advertised notice that there were two versions of the ordinance and the notice did not specify that there were to be two options and did not specify which option was being recommended to the Commission. Also, "exemption" is not synonymous with being subject to "credits." The published draft ordinance does not make it clear that individual lots created outside the formal subdivision process are not subject to the impact fee. Section 9-251 (a): The authority is incorrectly cited. It is 15.2-2319 as stated in the advertised notice and as shown in the Code of Virginia. Section 9-251 (d): The applicant should be allowed to appeal both the amount and the application of the impact fee to any specific lot. (There would not appear to be a "housing unit" until a building is there.) Since the amount of the impact fee has already been "calculated" and is put in the ordinance, it appears improper to say that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days of "calculation." It would 4 make more sense to have the appeal within 60 days of formal notification to the specific applicant of the amount of the fee to be collected. More on the appeal: It is questionable whether the BZA is the appropriate body to hear this type of appeal. Some other process should be considered for something this detailed and technical. Proposed ordinance at Section 9-252 states that the impact fee shall be determined by dividing the projected costs by "the number of projected housinq units within the impact fee service area when such area is fullv developed. " (Emphasis added.) However, the documentation from the Transportation Department shows the number of units to be those at end of twenty years-not when the county is fully developed or at "buildout." Section 9-254: Imposing revised fees on all who have not "paid" their fees as of the date a revised (updated) fee is imposed is questionable. This area needs more thought and more specific instructions to be fair. (This is a very different process from that used with proffers.) What constitutes "substantial" changes? Section 9-255 is inconsistent with the designation of the entire county as the "impact fee service area." Taking this approach to writing the ordinance and then designating only one area in the comprehensive plan makes the guidance unnecessarily confusing. One important key to this entire process is the accuracy and validity of the statistics incorporated into the Transportation Model used. Where are the figures that show the track record of past forecasts as compared to actual figures (past projections of proffer collections compared to actual proffer collections over that period of time, etc.)? How do you justify taking money from people who build on land in the EttricklMatoaca area and applying it to building roads around Route 60 or other roads far away from the area being assessed? How have you shown that building roads in one area 40 miles away "benefits" new development in the remote area? (See the definition of impact fee in Va. Code Section 15.2-2318 and 15.2-2319) How do you justify that the entire county has "clearly related traffic needs" when the county is as diverse as it is and currently has several transportation sheds? Projections over 20 years are generally thought to be "guesses." What makes these figures any different? The school system cannot even predict from one year to the next how many students will enter Chesterfield's system. Just look at the last few years of data. 5 What we are really doing is saying to the state, "Just ignore all those taxes that Chesterfield residents send to the State Department of Taxation every year. Never mind that the state is not fulfilling its legal responsibility to maintain the roads in Chesterfield. We will just put the burden on a group of our citizens and let you off the hook." Where is the analysis of the cost of imposing this system on the citizens, the cost of collecting and administering the impact fees, the costs of the additional environmental impact studies required and the net proceeds to be applied to building roads? Where is any analysis of alternative methods of raising the funds to improve/build needed roads? CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 3 Meetin Date: October 24,2007 Item Number: 8.C.8.d. Subiect: Set a Public Hearing Date to Consider the Foxcroft Landscaping Enhancement Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: c91 Board Action Reauested: The Board is requested to set November 14, 2007, as a public hearing date to consider the Foxcroft Landscaping Enhancement Project. 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 facilities; pedestrian and bicycle educational/safety activities; scenic easement/ historic site acquisition; sceniC/historic highway programs; landscaping; historic preservation; rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings; preservation of abandoned railroad corridors; control/removal of outdoor advertising; archaeological planning and research; mitigation of highway run- off and wildlife protection; and establishment of transportation museums. 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 from 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 Program. (Continued on Next Page) Preparer: R.J. McCracken Agen670 Title: Director of Transportation Attachments: Dyes _NO I # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 3 Summary of Information: (continued) The Board adopted the FY09 Enhancement Priority Projects at the October 10, 2007 meeting. We have been requested to submit one more application for $150,000 in Enhancement funds for the Foxcroft Landscaping Project. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board set November 14, 2007, as a public hearing date to consider the Foxcroft Landscaping Enhancement Project and authorize the advertisement for that hearing. District: Matoaca CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 3 of3 Meeting Date: October 24,2007 Item Number: 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. Pre parer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director. Budaet and Manaaement e CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24,2007 Item Number: 9.A. Subiect: Developer Water and Sewer Contracts County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;nl.t..",,, gJ 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: 03-0270 Bethel Baptist Church Fellowship Hall Developer: Contractor: Bethel Baptist Church Ward and Stancil, Inc. Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $18,000.00 District: Midlothian Preparer: William O. Wriaht Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: DYes II No #000079 Agenda Item October 24, 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: 06-0050 Beechwood Section ~A", Lot 5 Block C Sewer Extension George Brothers Construction Company, Inc. R.M.C. Contractors, Incorporated Wastewater Improvements - $7,938,00 Dale 06-0313 Villages at Midlothian Town Centre Michaux Associates, LLC Richard L. Crowder Construction Company Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - $121,597.59 $81,392.90 Midlothian 06-0388 Rivermont Multi-Family and Commercial Area Rivermont Development Co., LLC Boyd Corporation Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - $150,920,00 $279,154.95 Bermuda 07-0228 Cesare's Restaurant Evola Properties Management, LLC Greg Jones Excavating Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - $14,000.00 $3,750.00 Bermuda 000080 G CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: 9.B. Subiect: Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Fund, and Lease Purchases County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: a1 () Board Action Reauested: Summary of Information: Preparer: James J. L. SteQmaier Title: County Administrator Attachments: II Yes DNO # 000081. BOARD MEETING DATE 07/01/07 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY UNDESIGNATED GENERAL FUND BALANCE October 24, 2007 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FY2008 Beginning Budgeted Balance 'Pending outcome of FY2007 Audit Results BALANCE $49,945,000 · 000082 Board Meeting Date 6/30/2007 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS October 24, 2007 Description Amount FY07 Ending Balance FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 BEGINNING JULY 1,2007 4/1112007 4/11/2007 10/1 0/2007 FY08 Budgeted Addition 15,521,300 FY08 Capital Projects (14,889,300) Fire Logistics Facility, Phase II (150,000) 'Pending outcome of FY2007 Audit Results Balance $1,097,798 16,619,098 1,729,798 1,579,798 000083 0Jl- = e: "'" go ..., M "'" 0 .~ .. .... "'" 0'1 "'" .... 0 'CI => r- go l/l "l, "'" l/l = .. M ~ ~ = ..; " .... Il-; go .... M 0 go .... -( fA .... .... .... " " 'CI = .. e: e: - e: => I:l:II:l:I = e: => 'CI 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 '" = '" 0 N on 6 " fA 0 " -( - .... .... "'" ~ 0 .... 00 ~ 'CI " Z " .... 0 0 N 0 '" 0 ~ '" e: 0'1 0 0 0 - ~~ 1.0 00 - 0" on Iii< ""," ~ ~." 0'1" Eo< '" => '" 'CI .... N - Z = .. <A r- = e: ... 0 Iii< " ~ 0 >< M ... .,f ;.. M 0 .. ~ " Il-; .Cl go = ~ => 0 => 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... " >: .... on on on on on on" 0 e: Eo< .~ 00" 00" 00" 00" cO '" .. U Iii< "'" "<I" "<I" "<I" "<I" - => <A .... ~ .. Eo< 00 -( .... ~ '" I .. 0 00 on N r- e: "<I" "'" 0'1 "<I" N " - - - 00" 0'1" >< 0'1" on" "<1"" on - .. on 00 00 on on => <A <A <A <A <A .~ .. Il-; " - 'CI = ,~ - ~ e: .~ e: = e: .~ .... 'CI '" -= .eo '" = .. e: .... .~ " => .. 6 .. " => - = .... .... 'CI = '" .. => - e: .~ " - e: .~ => ~ I:l:I U ~ ~ ~ U 000084 Prepared by Accounting Department September 30, 2007 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES APPROVED AND EXECUTED Outstanding Date Original Date Balance Began Descriotion 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; Acquisition/Installation 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 Archival/Retrieval System Lease 21,639 01/08 3,139 12/04 Energy Improvements at County Facilities 1,519,567 12/17 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 22.220,000 11/27 22.220.000 TOTAL APPROVED $117763839 $102 178 409 AND EXECUTED PENDING EXECUTION Approved Description Amount None 000085 G CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: 9.C. Subiect: Report on Comcast's Petition for Relief from Local Rate Regulation County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ ~ G Board Action Reauested: Summary of Information: Comcast filed a petition for Special Relief with the FCC on September 27, 2007. The Petition asks the FCC to exempt it from local regulation of its Limited Basic Cable rates and associated installation and equipment rates. Under the federal law, Comcast can be relieved from local regulation if it has "effective competition", as that term is defined by federal regulation. Among the ways a cable company can prove that it has effective competition in a particular franchise area is to show that competing video providers offer their services to more than 15% of the households in the franchise area. Comcast's filing with the FCC provides data which indicates that direct broadcast satellite providers like Direct TV and EchoStar provide video service to 18% of the households in Chesterfield. The filing does not provide any information about the penetration rates of Verizon and Cavalier, which also provide competing services in Chesterfield. Preparer: Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 0623(00):76806.1 (76832.1) Attachments: II Yes DNO #000086 . CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 The only action the County can take with respect to the petition is to review the factual data provided in the petition (such as number of households in each zip code area, population, number of subscribers, and channel line-ups). Staff is currently verifying this information. If errors are found, staff will file an opposition to the Petition with the FCC. If the FCC grants the Petition, the County will no longer have any authority to review filings for the Limited Basic Cable rate and associated equipment and installation rates. The Limited Basic Cable service is the most limited package Comcast sells. It includes only 18 channels, and few County residents subscribe solely to this service. Review of the Limited Basic rate by the County in the past was limited, in any event, to determining whether the calculations were correct. Comcast's Basic rate structure is attached. The FCC generally approves petitions of this kind when they are based on the same kind of data Comcast has used to support its Petition. Staff expects the FCC to approve Comcast's Petition. Even if the County will no longer have the opportunity to review Comcast's calculation of its Limited Basic Rate, the County will, however, retain the right to enforce the terms of the existing franchise agreement, which includes customer service standards. 0623:76806.1 000087 Comcast's Rate Structure ON DEMAND & pay-per-view varies up to $13.00 + $5.00 (') 0 c: + :::J ~ '< $6.99 () III :::J :::J + 0 ~ ro $9.99 < iii' + :E "'C ~ approx. $17.00 o' CD C/l + 0 - C/l CD $29.90 :< o' CD + C/l III a. $14.95 a. CD a. + ~ 0 ~ ::T $11 .95 CD r + ~r ;:+ CD $1.00 a. OJ III + C/l o' $41.70 CJ) CD :< + o' CD $10.75 Sports Entertainment Package Hispanic Tier Baby First TV HBO & other movie channels Family Tier Digital Plus (30 channels) Digital Classic . (33 channels) Enhanced Cable (6 channels) Expanded Basic Service (80 channels) Limited Basic Service (18 channels) 0623:76832.1 000088 October 24, 2007 h'~~ 1. The two council members failing to vote on the Branner Station issue. Whether the citizens of Chesterfield County agreed on the Board's approval of Branner Station to be built, we want honest people in our government and failing to vote on this or any issue will not benefit you at election time. 2. Roads in need of repair. Why not repair the roads that already exist before agreeing to build new ones. 3. Ceasing of the private citizen's homes and land. With the unsure planning of roads and subdivisions in our community as citizens of Chesterfield County we wouldn't be able to sell our homes if we needed or wanted to relocate. Judy Hamilton Board of Supervisors Meeting 10/24/07 RE: Branner Station 06SN0244 I'm Mike Uzel and I would like to present to the Board a Petition signed by residents of Chesterfield. It states: (read petition). I have requested a written comment from the Chesterfield County Attorney just now through the Clerk of the Board. The Petition speaks for itself. There are many Citizens concerned about this "NON-VOTE" by the Board. Abstaining From Voting means NOT VOTING. It is not just a question of legality here, but also of what is right and wrong, of what is ethical and unethical, and the long-tenn effects on our County as a result. The NON-VOTES mean there was NO REPRESENTATION from two Districts. This was on the largest rezoning case in Chesterfield's history, decided on a 2-1 vote with 2 NON-VOTES. To have unanswered questions about Branner Station and therefore NOT VOTING is unjustifiable. The credibility of the Board went way down with these NON-VOTES. Will it occur again? Will it happen on any of the dozens of zoning cases before the Board tonight? It should never happen again. How do we prevent it? If you can show me an Ordinance that allows this, I'll show you one that needs to be changed. There is too much riding on this rezoning case to dismiss this NON-VOTE as an "unusual vote." IT WASN'T A VOTE AT ALL! I believe most people in this room would agree that the right to vote is the foundation of our Democracy. The Board's NOT VOTING on Branner Station was inexcusable. Voters and candidates in all Districts, but especially those in Midlothian and Clover Hill should take heed and exercise their right to vote. I invite you all to a meeting of Concerned Citizens on Thursday, November 1 at 6:30 p.m. at Carver Middle School. If you want to explain this NON- VOTE and all that goes with it, please attend. Mike Uzel Mr. Steven Micas Chesterfield County Attorney c/o Board of Supervisors Meeting October 24,2007 Mr. Micas: How does the Board of Supervisors' vote and abstentions on September 26, 2007 for rezoning for Branner Station (Case No. 06SN0244) conform to Chesterfield County Code S. 3.4, which states: "No member shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved."? Your comments are welcome at today's Board of Supervisors meeting. Please respond in writing to: Michael Uzel 3900 Heritage Drive Chester, Va. 23831 (804) 526-2628 Sincerely, ~-4dJ a: ~/ Michael Uzel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: ~No member (of the Board) shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the New Board of Supervisors after the election. Address 1'1fo}J r Phone /",.. 'y r ..\ f .fl. (). J:. ~ ".. ~~.~ fi\0 0 J\!lJL1~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: "No member (of the Board) shall be excused from votin~ except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the New Board of Supervisors after the election. Name -r\ I -..J " :/\, Phone C .It\.; -+- G.- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: "No member (of the Board) shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the New Board of Supervisors after the election. Ph<?Ee ;) <~ :JL) - / ~JO ,... -;)()- 5156 ;'(;' ~.... I! '"., i il ,2., If. ,",' :t ~r ,', I /'I/(""}),4",' ~"I i ~ .J..., ~I J ~ 1 .i.",' l!i,'j /".: . ..) i k ,f:, '~J It.. ~: "f". ',' /,! .i.~.',_,j .t, .' ,. I < 'I: ~ l'" /'/ It ,.J~~ ' l , ") '.' r' \1 t.; "" 02..J 'i Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: "No member (of the Board) shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the New Board of Supervisors after the election. - c"",\ ("- 5~la <J(; C I l'{ 6~ (p -lcd '. ,._~.i'i~ . "5". E ....~. '~.>'<::' f '/,I ;)/1' ,/ A / (',... " "-,:,,' . \ .,.,.....1,.......".;, / \ f I.. //: ./.:~/~ '~/,j;:;,; ,;i' ~/' //;, {j \ "):"_~\' """."'l t;.~,;\ -~ i_,~,"'t~' //::"(;~,?)P 1.~" (^., t-f,.':,,"f'l"L,.':" () \ .,~ " lJ,' .\ '~'\:(( ) ii ~l,i'-:L/ IJ.it I t- 1\ \1, I' \ '~, ,l'_:- :; '~? . \', (---;~\ \.,' ~ ~-"'f ...""....'" ''t' ,,_. . . -' .-t\, )f ~. Ii r 1.',:</-/,1' j" '>~:l ,;:rl' ~,,<'jr, / :.i,-_~';'- ..-.~" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: "No member (of the Board) shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the New Board of Supervisors after the election. Name Phone . L ~. LtL\3Cj .52\"1 .,(c;? 5 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: "No me"lber (of the Board) shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the New Board of Supervisors after the election. Phone '+s: ( -" 3"l ~a !r?&-L{Y5" "1 ;L'>> ; , ls; ') ->- '~. ~ 1. .,2. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: "No me~er (of the Board) shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where dis financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the ~ew Board of Supervisors after the election. Name f~~~ / ) .- r \ a .- l;:-- J ..) 0 '\ -- /08-y3 7 J 'nMtd~yA/,I//I~ ~O.,(r;,1 IjmYr~ ''\ ~s\ ,tt-.';-\t'O 'S:~,. ~;~ I :h"1 t~ 'r (f't.Alj 'J .;. ':)' - <2, _ <) <If Of PA-Jt i)~ lo~562 c;r)l (I') st. J1; ~+- i" \,,,) '::\. ~ ;~~ ~ i cl. \~t'\ \1.,::, C\ ',&1\ \ j \.. ,j \~\) \, I (\: S\('.' , q')/.,o ~ T~ 'j}14yr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: "No member (of the Board) shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the New Board of Supervisors after the election. Name ~ Address BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTE ON BRANNER STATION The following Chesterfield County residents believe the Board of Supervisors' vote of September 26, 2007 to rezone the Branner Station property should be nullified due to the abstention of two Board members, which violated Chesterfield County Code S 3.4: "No member (of the Board) shall be excused from voting except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or where his financial or personal interests are involved." This vote should be rescinded and decided by the New Board of Supervisors after the election. Name Address Phone CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: 11. Subiect: Closed Session County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n;.tra",,,1 Board Action Reaueste . Summary of Information: Closed session pursuant to ~ 2.2-3711(A) (3), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to discuss the acquisition of real estate for an economic development purpose where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. Preparer: Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 2723:76816.1 Attachments: DYes II No # 000089 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2007 Item Number: 1a. Subiect: Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting of the Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: County Adm;n;.t..",,, * Board Action Reauested: Summary of Information: Motion of adjournment and notice of the Board of Supervisors meeting to be held on November 14, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room. Preparer: Janice Blakley Title: Clerk to the Board Attachments: DYes II No # 000090