Loading...
2020-06-24 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES June 24, 2020 Supervisors in Attendance: Ms. Leslie A. T. Haley, Chair Mr. Kevin P. Carroll, Vice Chair Mr. James A. Ingle, Jr. Mr. Christopher M. Winslow Mr. James M. Holland Dr. Joseph P. Casey County Administrator Ms. Haley called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. She stated due to COVID-19 and the occupancy limits of the Public Meeting Room, citizens requesting to speak before the Board will be given the opportunity to comment in person at the appropriate time. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Winslow, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board of Supervisors approved the minutes of May 27, 2020, as submitted. is Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 2. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Winslow, the Board added Item 12.B.1.k. - Resolution Recognizing Chesterfield County Centenarian, Adelbert 'Del' Baker's 100th Birthday, and approved the agenda, as amended. 3. WORK SESSIONS 3.A. EVERYDAY EXCELLENCE - GENERAL SERVICES Mr. Clay Bowles, Director of General Services, introduced Mr. Jim Poff, a thirty-year veteran of the Department of General Services. He stated for the last 19 years, Mr. Poff has served as the Facility Maintenance Supervisor for the Courts, which are the single- and third-largest government buildings • maintained by the Department. He further stated Mr. Poff is revered and appreciated at the Courts buildings, and he has a quiet, can -do attitude. He introduced the Honorable Edward 20-350 6/24/2020 Robbins, Jr., Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, to provide additional remarks. Judge Robbins compared Mr. Pof f to a crew 'chief on an armed forces aircraft who is a skilled and dedicated individual responsible for every nut and bolt, nose to tail. He stated it is a singular position of tremendous responsibility, great skill, and extraordinary trust. He further stated Mr. Poff is the crew chief of the local courthouse complex, and he takes care of it like it is his own house. He stated Mr. Poff is a greatly valued and vital team member, and he has never heard Mr. Poff say "no" to any requests, no matter how challenging. He described Mr. Poff as even-tempered, always smiling, and loved by the courthouse staff. He stated Mr. Poff has shown his dedication to the citizens of the county by giving prompt attention to so many things which has enabled the Courts to safely serve the public every day, and he cannot be thanked. enough for his care of the workplace. Mr. Poff expressed appreciation for the kind words, and he thanked Earl Kirby, Buildings and Grounds Division Manager, for his support. Ms. Haley acknowledged the many challenges faced during COVID- 19 and expressed appreciation for keeping the Courts buildings safe. 3.B. HEROIN/OPIOID STEERING COMMITTEE UPDATE Ms. Sarah Snead, Deputy County Administrator, introduced Melanie Meadows, Drug Court Administrator; Sheriff Karl Leonard; and Captain John Miller, Co -Chair of the Public Safety sub -committee. Ms. Meadows reviewed the history of the committee which was established in the fall of 2017. She discussed the committee's three primary areas of focus which are Prevention, Outreach, and Education. She provided details of training efforts; community outreach; regional efforts through the Opioid Solutions RVA program; Chesterfield partnerships and representations on the national,. regional and state levels; the Mobile Integrated Health program; medication -assisted opioid addiction treatment; and the Building Bridges Initiative. She provided statistics of percentage of clients in treatment that have an opioid/heroin addiction. Sheriff Karl Leonard provided the Board with an update on the Heroin Addiction Recovery Program (HARP) population and how it was affected by COVID-19. He stated 16 female inmates will be moved from Riverside Regional Jail to the county jail where they will be placed in a quarantine pod for 14 days and then integrated into HARP. He provided the Board with heroin intake statistics. Captain Miller discussed Public Safety's role in advancing the goals of the committee. He provided statistics and mapping of 20-351 6/24/2020 �J • • Heroin/Fentanyl overdoses in the county. He discussed the CHOICE database which identifies the locations of heroin problems in the county. Ms. Meadows compared overdoses occurring in a ten -week period during COVID-19 with those occurring in the same 10 -week period in 2019. She discussed many efforts in response to COVID-19. She stated Fentanyl continues to grow as a significant factor among overdose deaths related to opioid use. She reviewed the purpose statement of the committee, noting the name of the committee will change to the Substance Abuse Steering Committee. She provided the Board with a summary of projects and initiatives moving forward. In response to Mr. Winslow's question relative to the new opioid drug Iso, Captain Miller stated he is not aware of a growing concern regarding this drug in the county. He further stated methamphetamine is a growing concern in the county at this time. 3.C. RISK MANAGEMENT'S ANNUAL REPORT Mr. David Johnson, Risk Manager, provided the Board with Risk Management's Annual Report. He reviewed, data relative to the total cost of risk per $1,000 of county revenue. He discussed the average cost of workers compensation claims; average cost of auto liability, other general liability, and property claims; workers compensation reported claims and total spent; workers compensation claim count by county division and public safety as well as the school division; total OSHA recordable • case rates; and total lost workday case rates. He also discussed key root causes and trends of claims and cost. He provided details of the management of big risks and building a culture of safety. In response to Mr. Winslow's question relative to distracted driving, Mr. Johnson stated the county is addressing distracted driving by educating employees and revising the county's driving policy. 3.D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UPDATE Mr. Jesse Smith, Deputy County Administrator, read a complimentary letter from a major customer of both the Planning and Building Inspection departments. The letter expressed appreciation for their efforts to maintain continuity of services despite COVID-19 closures. Mr. Ron Clements, Building Official, reviewed Building Inspections' modified procedures to assist customers despite public building closures. He discussed the new eReview system • which allows for online submittal and review of plans and permits. He noted the ELM Project is still on track for November, but this piece of the project was accelerated due to COVID-19. He provided statistics of Building Inspections Permit 20-352 6/24/2020 Application Averages and Single Family Dwelling Permits Issued, and Inspection Averages. Mr. Andy Gillies, Director of Planning, discussed statistics of New Zoning Applications Filed as well as New Site Plan and Subdivision Submittals. He gave an overview of Planning's 2020- 2023 Work Program including current projects, immediate new projects, and long-term projects. 3.E. FINANCIAL AND'ECONOMIC UPDATE Mr. Matt Harris, Deputy County Administrator, stated several topics in this work session are on the Board's consent agenda. He further stated the county's rating review agency calls occurred on June 10, and he is awaiting those results. He reviewed the remaining 2013 bond referendum projects and noted the county is planning for the next referendum in November 2021. He provided statistics of FY20 Year End and Monthly Cash and Investments Balance - General Fund and noted the county will end FY20 in a positive financial position. He stated there is a delay in obtaining local -level data. He provided the Board with a graphic of Year -Over Year Change, 12 -Month Moving Average for Local Sales Tax and stated amongst regional peers the county had the best April in the state. Dr. Casey stated staff needs to work more closely with state agencies to obtain more data points. Mr. Harris reviewed data on Chesterfield unemployment claims noting new claims are going back down. He provided the Board with an update on Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding, noting the county received $30.8 million. He discussed the upcoming public hearing to increase the courthouse security fee as well as a public hearing in July relative to personal property interest and possible consideration of payment plan alternatives. In response to Mr. Winslow's question relative to downward pressures on real estate revaluations, Mr: Harris stated staff took a conservative approach when the FY2021 budget was rebuilt. He further stated the Real Estate Assessor's Office is staying on top of market conditions, and information will be shared with the Board in late summer or early fall. He stated staff hopes to revisit the revenue forecast in December or January and determine the county performed better than projected, which is preferable to the alternative of performing worse than expected and needing to cut programs. 4. REPORTS 4.A. KEY FINANCIAL INDICATORS QUARTERLY REPORT The Board accepted the Key Financial Indicators Quarterly Report. 20-353 6/24/2020 • • 4.B. DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS (DIF) MONTHLY REPORT The Board accepted the Monthly Report on District Improvement Funds. 05. FIFTEEN -MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS There were no speakers at this time. (It is noted citizen comments on unscheduled matters received through the online portal are attached as Attachment A.) 6. DINNER On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Winslow, the Board recessed for dinner. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. Reconvening: Ms. Haley reviewed the precautions taken by Board members and staff gathered in the Public Meeting Room to prevent the spread is of coronavirus. She outlined the Board's expectations of all persons entering the room and the process for speaking to the Board. She announced no handouts or USB (thumb) drives would be accepted by staff or Board members and stated any handouts should be sent electronically to the clerk for distribution prior to the start of the meeting. 7. INVOCATION The Honorable Leslie Haley, Midlothian District Supervisor, gave the invocation. 8. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Matt Harris, Deputy County Administrator, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 9, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION UPDATE • • Dr. Case announced the count has received 14 National Y Y Association of Counties (NACo) Achievement Awards which can be viewed on the county's home page at 20-354 6/24/2020 chesterfield.gov. He shared that Lorie Newton, Acting Director of Procurement, was recently recognized by the Virginia Association of Governmental Purchasing as their Manager of the Year. He provided the Board with an update on the retiree brick program and stated many additional county employees will be recognized. He introduced Sheriff Karl Leonard and Colonel Jeffrey Katz to share their perspectives on the sworn officers, the community partnerships, and the citizen engagements that go along with being Chesterfield County. • • Sheriff Leonard expressed his appreciation to Colonel Katz for asking at the beginning of COVID-19 what he could do to ease issues at the jail. He shared this as an example of their relationship and how Colonel Katz thinks beyond his own organization. He expressed pride in his workforce which has continued to show up day in and day out during COVID-19, especially those jail personnel who knowingly work in pods housing COVID-19-positive inmates. He stated the outpouring of support from citizens and businesses has been phenomenal. He further stated one gentleman used his stimulus check to buy food for the deputies. He thanked the citizens for their support. • Colonel Katz also expressed his appreciation for the outpouring of support from citizens. He shared that many people have reached out to the Police Department with their concerns, thoughts and ideas. He stated he has hosted a number of community events including two events with Mr. Holland. He shared his pride in being a part of a winning team and stated he is excited about where the department has gone and where it continues to go. He further stated the department has not authorized chokeholds in 30 years, nor does the department request no-knock warrants or perform dynamic entries. He stated the leadership of the department both now and in the past has blazed trails to do the right thing for the right reason in the right time because it was their best practices to do so. He expressed pride in the men and women on his team and their families. He stated community concerns are often alleviated through discussions. He thanked the Board members and Dr. Casey for their service and support and Sheriff Leonard for his partnership. He shared effective July 13, 2020, for the first time in 25 years, the Police Department will be fully staffed with sworn personnel which is a tribute to the men and women in the department and the fact that everyone wants to be part of a winning team. Mr. Holland expressed his appreciation to Sheriff Leonard and Colonel Katz for their outstanding leadership and quality workforce. Mr. Winslow also expressed his appreciation to Sheriff • Leonard and Colonel Katz. He read a statement regarding the horrific killing of George Floyd and underscoring the 20-355 6/24/2020 need for unity and relationship -building between the community and the police. Mr. Ingle shared his confidence in the Sheriff's Department and the Police Department and expressed his appreciation for their workforces. Mr. Carroll stated Sheriff Leonard and Colonel Katz are approachable and thanked them for their leadership, their mentorship, and.all that they do. Ms. Haley stated the citizens of the county won the professional lottery with Sheriff Leonard and Colonel Katz, and the citizens are served so well by their leadership. • Dr. Casey announced the debut of a new county webpage, Know Your Rights and Resources, to help citizens fight injustices. 10. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Holland expressed his appreciation for the new Know Your Rights and Resources webpage. He congratulated Ms. Lorie Newton for her recent selection as Manager of the Year by the Virginia Association of Governmental Purchasing. He discussed two recent community conversations between Police Department personnel and faith -based leaders and recognized Ms. Kimberly Conley for her assistance in organizing those events. He stated the conversations were honest, frank, and very engaging, and • the takeaways from those conversations were communications on various platforms about current initiatives, programs and services offered, academies, and accessibility of information about officer training, including cultural and diversity training and training to handle mentally ill citizens. He thanked many Police Department personnel for their participation in these sessions and noted Mr. Winslow's participation in the session on Wednesday, June 17th. He recognized Mr. Adelbert "Del" Baker on the occasion of his 100th birthday on June 20th. He provided details of Mr. Baker's service in the military during World War II as well as his career and many volunteer endeavors. He introduced a video of Mr. Baker's drive-by birthday parade. He acknowledged some concerns with voting at the recent primary. He shared a statement regarding the recent killing of George Floyd and the ensuing civil unrest, and he strongly condemned racism and injustice in any form. He called for citizens to move past dialogue toward specific and tangible actions to better the community. Mr. Winslow announced the planting of more Yoshino Cherry Trees this fall in the median between the Clover Hill and Midlothian • districts. He stated the project will be completed through a contract with SOAR 365, which is a provider of pediatric therapies, youth and adult programs, and employment services for more than 1,300 people with disabilities in our region. He 20-356 6/24/2020 further stated the planting of trees is a natural way to reduce the harmful impacts of stormwater and provide natural beauty along the roadways. Mr. Carroll stated he had the opportunity to attend Mr. Del Baker's drive-by birthday parade. He noted many American Legion Posts from all over the state were in attendance as well as historic fire trucks. He stated the Fire Department presented Mr. Baker with a gift basket which Mr. Baker really appreciated. He applauded all those involved for doing something special for Mr. Baker's 100th birthday. Ms. Haley referenced the new Know Your Rights and Resources webpage and stated embracing cultural diversity includes ensuring citizen services are not only in place at every level but also accessible to those citizens who need them. She stated the Board is listening on so many levels, and she encouraged citizens to access or help others access county services. 11. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS There were no Resolutions and Special Recognitions at this time. 12. NEW BUSINESS 12.A. APPOINTMENTS 12.A.1. COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Winslow, the Board nominated/appointed/reappointed the following individuals to serve as members on the Community Criminal Justice Board, whose terms are effective on July 1, 2020, and will expire June 30, 2022: Honorable Keith N. Hurley, General District Court Judge Honorable Frederick G. Rockwell, III, Circuit Court Judge Mr. Chad A. Knowles, Education Representative, Chesterfield County Schools Colonel Jeffrey Katz, Police Chief, Chesterfield County Colonel Jeffrey W. Faries, Police Chief, City of Colonial Heights Ms. Becca Lynch, City of Colonial Heights Representative Ms. Rachel Gillus, City of Colonial Heights CSB Representative Sheriff Todd Wilson, Sheriff, Colonial Heights Mr. Lee Coble, Chesterfield County Citizen Representative Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.A.2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. Ingle, seconded by Mr. Winslow, the Board simultaneously nominated/reappointed Mr. Harril Whitehurst and 20-357 6/24/2020 • • Mr. John Hughes to serve as at -large representatives on the Economic Development Authority, whose terms are effective July 1, 2020, and expire June 30, 2024. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.A.3. CHIPPENHAM PLACE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY • On motion of Mr. Winslow, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board simultaneously nominated/reappointed Mr. John Pettengill, Ms. Chris Zitzow, Mr. Quenton Lee, Mr. Jay Lafler, and Mr. Sam Kaufman to serve as at -large representatives on the Chippenham Place Community Development Authority, whose terms are, effective July 1, 2020, and expire June 30, 2024. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B. CONSENT ITEMS 12.B.1. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 12.B.1.a. RECOGNIZING MR. WILLIAM C. OWEN II, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, UPON HIS RETIREMENT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: • WHEREAS, Mr. William C. Owen II retired from the Chesterfield County Utilities Department on June 1, 2020; and WHEREAS, Mr. Owen began his public-service career with the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department on March 18, 2000, as a principal maintenance worker who was responsible for maintaining the county parks and facilities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Owen worked at various park locations and operated various types of construction equipment to perform ground maintenance tasks; and WHEREAS, Mr. Owen accepted the position in the Utilities Department as a meter reader on June 18,2005, where he read meters accurately and timely which helped provide excellent customer service on behalf of the department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Owen learned and mastered the meter reading equipment and other tools necessary to perform daily meter reading responsibilities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Owen's willingness and diligence to learn new procedures was rewarded with a promotion to Senior Meter Reader on December 2, 2006, which gave him the responsibility of completing service orders for water connections and disconnections for customer accounts; and 20-358 6/24/2020 WHEREAS, Mr. Owen received complimentary emails, letters, and calls from customers and supervisors regarding the excellent customer service that he provided to them; and WHEREAS, Mr. Owen has been an asset to the county because of his dedication to customer service, his high degree of integrity, his. willingness to learn new processes, and his promptness in handling and processing meter reading responsibilities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Owen was committed to supporting excellence • in local government and exhibited knowledge, pride, and quality in the work he performed at both the Parks and Recreation Department and Utilities Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mr. William C. Owen II and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County appreciation for his 20 years of service to the county. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.1.b. RECOGNIZING MR. JOHNNIE CRITES, BUILDING INSPECTION, UPON HIS RETIREMENT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Mr. Johnnie S. Crites Jr. will retire from Chesterfield County on July 1, 2020, after providing 23 years • of dedicated service to the residents of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crites was hired by Chesterfield County in August of 1997 as an electrical inspector in the Department of Building Inspection; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crites is highly regarded within the construction and code enforcement professions for his extensive knowledge across multiple trades holding residential and commercial electrical inspector certifications, and electrical, HVAC, and gas fitter Master licenses in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crites was recognized by the Building Official in 2001 for his leading role in performing electrical inspections on swimming pools throughout the county, ensuring our citizens' safety; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crites shared his expertise by providing many hours of education for department staff and personally training all electrical inspectors working in the Building Inspection • department today; and 20-359 6/24/2020 WHEREAS, Mr. Crites in 2011 and 2012 took the lead role in performing electrical inspections and directing remedial actions on dozens of illegally installed backup generators throughout the county, averting possible loss of life and property; and .WHEREAS, Mr. Crites' professionalism throughout his career provided citizens and visitors of Chesterfield County with safe and secure buildings, designed and inspected under • the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Codes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding contributions of Mr. Johnnie S. Crites Jr. and extends appreciation, on behalf of its members and the employees and citizens of Chesterfield County, for 23 years of dedicated service to the county, congratulations upon his retirement, and best wishes in his next season of life. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.1.c. RECOGNIZING SERGEANT FIRST CLASS STEVEN M. PRICE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE, UPON HIS RETIREMENT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price has faithfully served Chesterfield County for 25 years; and • WHEREAS, on April 10, 1995, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price joined the Sheriff's Office as a deputy under then Sheriff Clarence G. Williams, and faithfully served Clarence G. Williams, Jr., Sheriff Dennis S. Proffitt; and current Sheriff Karl Leonard; and WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price was promoted to Sergeant on July 22, 2002, and was promoted to Lieutenant on November 14, 2009; and WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price has demonstrated his versatility, skill, strong work ethic, and leadership in a wide range of departmental assignments in both the Correction Bureau and Operations Bureau of the department; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2017, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price met all requirements to qualify as a Sergeant First Class; and WHEREAS, from November 3, 2018, to December 29, 2018, • Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price served as Acting Lieutenant; and 20-360 6/24/2020 WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price served as Member of the Awards and Recognition Committee, Sheriff's Office Process Action Team and New Jail Transition Team, as well as served as Chairman for the Wellness Team Committee and the Firearms Qualifications, Standards, Policy Review Committee; and WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price is a Member of Virginia Tactical Police Association, Virginia Sheriffs' Association; and • WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price served as Commander for the Honor Guard Team, and as a member of the Sheriff's Special Operations Response Team; and WHEREAS, through the years, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price has supported Chesterfield County, the Sheriff's Office and county citizens through participation in numerous activities such as the Seniors in Touch Program, the Virginia Special Olympics, and acting as Coordinator for the Chesterfield County Black History Month celebration in 2005 through 2009, Coordinator for the Sheriff's Office Cadet Safety Camp for 2007 through 2009; and WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price has aided in ensuring that employees of the Sheriff's Office meet the highest standards by serving as a field training officer; and WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price received numerous letters of appreciation and commendation for his dedication and service to the employees and citizens of Chesterfield County; and • WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price was selected as Employee of the Quarter in 1999 and again in 2007; and WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price was selected as Sheriff's Office Employee of the year in 2016; and WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price received the Exceptional Performance in Community Services Award 2008; and WHEREAS, Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price received a Unit Citation Award for Honor Guard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding contributions of Sergeant First Class Steven M. Price, expresses the appreciation of all residents for his service to Chesterfield County and extends appreciation for his dedicated service to the county and congratulations upon his retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. • Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20-361 6/24/2020 12.B.1.d. RECOGNIZING MR. T. MICHAEL LIKINS, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, UPON HIS RETIREMENT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Mr. T. Michael Likins will retire from the Chesterfield County Cooperative Extension Office on July 1, is 2020, after providing 18 years of loyal, dedicated and quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Likins began his career as the State Plant Pathologist for the Virginia Department of Agriculture; and WHEREAS, in 2002, Mr. Likins became the Extension Agent and Director for Chesterfield County and in that same year established a small diagnostic laboratory for Cooperative Extension; and WHEREAS, in 2018, Mr. Likins took possession of the gold standard of Extension offices, highlighted by the renowned Chesterfield County Extension Plant Pathology, Entomology, and Plant Science Laboratory; and WHEREAS, in 2019, Mr. Likins, his staff, and Master Gardener volunteers provided accurate and timely diagnoses and identifications to approximately 1,300 citizens; and WHEREAS, during his 18 -year membership on the James River Soil & Water Conservation District Board, Mr. Likins has • continually supported the farmers and agricultural community and participated in the distribution of cost -share monies to farmers; and WHEREAS, for the last 18 years, Mr. Likins has applied his knowledge, skills and abilities to his science for the benefit of commercial landscapers, nursery operators, farmers, and residents of Chesterfield County, and has successfully detected and identified numerous pests and diseases not seen in Chesterfield or the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, Mr. Likins was the first plant pathologist in the Commonwealth to detect the contagious and devastating disease known as boxwood blight; established the Virginia Boxwood Blight Taskforce; and conducted research to mitigate the disease; and WHEREAS, Mr. Likins has authored peer-reviewed publications on boxwood blight and has lectured on the disease at symposia, conferences, re -certification courses, and Master Gardener classes; and • WHEREAS, Mr. Likins continues to work on saving the boxwood, an ornamental plant that is, both historically significant and economically significant to the nursery and landscape industries; and 20-362 6/24/2020 WHEREAS, Mr. Likins was essential in the design and function of the new Cooperative Extension facility; and WHEREAS, Mr. Likins worked with the C -Fit Employee Wellness Program to establish and maintain the successful Chesterfield Farmers' Market; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mr. Likins' diligent service. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mr. T. Michael Likins and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County appreciation for his 18 years of service to the county. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Likins, and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.1.e. RECOGNIZING MS. JANET LOVING, MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT SERVICES, UPON HER RETIREMENT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Ms. Janet Lovingwas hired b Chesterfield Count • Y Y Mental Health Support Services on July 14, 1997 as a clinician on the Adult Substance Use Disorders Men's Team; and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving became clinical supervisor for the Women's Team in 2000; and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving pioneered the CSBs successful implementation of the Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) Program in 2003; and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving became the manager of the Substance Use Disorders program encompassing Outpatient, Dual Treatment Track, Adult Drug Court, Court Services, Jail Services and Opioid services; and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving, in 2017, oversaw the joining of two outpatient SUD teams into one general services program and was instrumental in the implementation of Addiction Recovery Treatment Services (ARTS); and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving helped implement the use of harm • reduction treatment in the County's response to the opioid epidemic including the support of Mediation Assisted Treatment (MAT) services, was instrumental in the development of the 20-363 6/24/2020 Office Based Opioid Treatment (OBOT) program and advocated for the use of fentanyl testing and the distribution of Narcan for individuals struggling with an opioid use disorder; and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving was a trainer in Motivational Interviewing (MI) and a member of the Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers (MINT) hosting several trainings for MHSS as well as Early Impact Virginia; and 14 • WHEREAS, Ms. Loving championed women's specific treatment services and the engagement of the family as part of the treatment process and served on the Region IV planning committee to address issues related to prenatal and perinatal substance use, substance exposed infants and their families; and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving collaborated and partnered with Chesterfield Department of Social Services, Community Corrections, Probation and Parole, Virginia Commonwealth University, and regional CSBs as well as local and state-wide treatment resources including non-profit and private providers; and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving participated on the Virginia Association of Community Services Boards (VACSB) and served as Chair of the SUD Council; and WHEREAS, Ms. Loving advocated for peer support services in collaboration with clinical treatment services and recovery and was instrumental in the expansion of peer positions at MHSS. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 24th day of June 2020, publicly recognizes the outstanding contributions of Ms. Janet Loving and extends appreciation, on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, for 23 years of service, congratulations upon her retirement, and best wishes for a long, happy and healthy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Ms. Loving and be permanently recorded among the papers of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.1.f. RECOGNIZING MS. CONNIE WILLIAMS, INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, UPON HER RETIREMENT On -motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Ms. Connie Williams will retire from the Chesterfield County Information Systems Technology Department 20-364 6/24/2020 on July 1, 2020, after providing 29 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams began her career in the Information Systems Technology Department in January 1991 as an Analyst Programmer; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams served in the capacity of Analyst Programmer, Senior Analyst Programmer, Lead Programmer Analyst, and IT Specialist III and consistently exceeded expectations in her annual reviews; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams has been a key contributor to many projects and customers including school system student and teacher processing, the GEAC financials system, the year 2000 project team, the planning and information management system, the integrated financials accounting system, the enterprise land management system, systems that support the Real Estate Assessor, Utilities, Health Department and the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams has been recognized many times for superior performance and commitment to her customers and has received special recognitions and accolades for her timely and thoughtful support; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams was committed to continual improvement and completed training courses in Mainframe Programming, Agile Development, Total Quality Improvement, .Net programming, UNIX systems, Accela scripting and C++ programming; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams contributed for many years to the support of cultural diversity in Chesterfield County by her unwavering support of and tireless devotion to the annual Black History Month celebration; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams was nominated in 2010 to be the annual Information Systems Technology Department Employee of the year in recognition for her outstanding contributions; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams has provided excellent customer service throughout her career and served as a model for her co-workers in the Information Systems Technology Department; and WHEREAS, Ms. Williams has been a valued friend and co- worker to many in the Information Systems Technology Department, demonstrating her pleasant and charming personality, always willing to help her coworkers and commit her time generously. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 24th day of June 2020, publicly recognizes Ms. Connie Williams, and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, appreciation for her service to the county, congratulations 20-365 6/24/2020 • • upon her retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Williams and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.1.g. RECOGNIZING THE 2020 SENIOR HALL OF FAME INDUCTEES On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, volunteering is a powerful force for the solution of human problems, and the creative use of human resources is essential to a healthy, productive and humane society; and WHEREAS, our nation's heritage is based on citizen involvement and citizen participation, and volunteerism is of enormous benefit in building a better community and a better sense of one's own wellbeing; and WHEREAS, the active involvement of citizens is needed today more than ever to combat growing human and social problems, to renew our belief that these problems can be solved and to strengthen our sense of community; and • WHEREAS, volunteering offers all, young and old, the opportunity to participate in the life of their community and to link their talents and resources to address some of the major issues facing our counties, such as education, hunger, the needs of youths, and the needs of our elderly; and WHEREAS, agencies that benefit from volunteers should show their appreciation and recognition to the many volunteers who possess numerous skills and talents, which they generously and enthusiastically apply to a variety of community tasks, and encourage others to participate in programs as volunteers; and WHEREAS, seven adults in Chesterfield County, aged 60 - plus, have donated 31,307 hours of volunteer service since they have attained the age of 60 and were nominated for the Chesterfield Senior Volunteer Hall of Fame. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 24th day of June 2020, publicly recognizes Mr. Thomas Hoekstra, Ms. Shirley Jezierski and Ms. Karen Poole, who were selected among the seven and were inducted into the Chesterfield Senior Volunteer Hall of Fame on June 3, 2020, and expresses appreciation to these dedicated volunteers who contribute immeasurably to various programs throughout the area to strengthen our county and build bridges to the future. 20-366 6/24/2020 AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Hoekstra, Ms. Jezierski and Ms. Poole, and this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.1.h. AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS TO FINANCE SCHOOL PROJECTS On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND AWARD OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2020, IN THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $59,755,000 OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, HERETOFORE AUTHORIZED, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF WHEREAS, the issuance of general obligation bonds of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"), in the principal amount of $304,000,000 for school projects and $49,000,000 for public safety projects, was approved by the qualified voters of the County in an election held on November 5, 2013 (the "Election"), and was authorized by a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") • on May 28, 2014, as amended by a resolution adopted on June 27, 2018 (together, the "Authorizing Resolution"); WHEREAS, the County has previously issued $244,245,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds for school projects and $43,585,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds for public safety projects pursuant to the Election and the Authorizing Resolution (together, the "County Authorization"); WHEREAS, the Board desires to issue general obligation bonds in a principal amount not to exceed the remaining principal authorization for school projects available under the County Authorization ($59,755,000) to finance a portion of the costs of capital improvements for school purposes (including reimbursement of expenditures for such costs made by the County prior to the date hereof), including but not limited to the acquisition, design, construction and equipping of replacement school facilities for three existing schools and the undertaking of major maintenance with respect to another existing school (collectively, the "Projects"), and to pay the related costs of issuance; and WHEREAS, the County administration, in consultation with Davenport & Company LLC, the County's financial advisor (the 20-367 6/24/2020 "Financial Advisor"), has recommended to the Board that the County issue and sell a single series of general obligation public improvement bonds in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $59,755,000 to pay a portion of the costs of the Projects, or to reimburse prior expenditures made therefor, and to pay the related costs of issuance; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. Issuance of Bonds. There shall be issued and sold, pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, general obligation public improvement bonds of the County in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $59,755,000 (the "Bonds") to provide funds to pay a portion of the costs of the Projects, or to reimburse prior expenditures made therefor, and to pay the related costs of issuance. 2. Bond Details. (a) The Bonds shall be designated "General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2020," shall be in registered form, shall be dated such date as may be determined by the County Administrator (such term as used herein to include the County Administrator and the Deputy County Administrator for Finance and Administration), shall be in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof and shall be numbered R-1 upward. Subject to Section 8, the issuance and sale of the Bonds are authorized on terms as shall be satisfactory to the County Administrator; provided, however, that the Bonds shall (i) have a "true" or "Canadian" interest cost not to exceed 5.00% (taking into account any original issue discount or premium) , (ii) be sold at a price not less than 95% of the original aggregate principal amount thereof (excluding any original issue discount), and (iii) mature or be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in annual installments ending no later than December 31, 2041. (b) Principal of the Bonds shall be payable annually on dates determined by the County Administrator. Each Bond shall bear interest from its date at such rate as shall be determined at the time of sale, calculated on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months, payable semiannually on dates determined by the County Administrator. Principal and premium, if any, shall be payable to the registered owners upon surrender of Bonds as they become due at the office of the Registrar (as hereinafter defined). Interest shall be payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their addresses as they appear on the registration books kept by the Registrar on a date prior to each interest payment date that shall be determined by the County Administrator (the "Record Date"); provided, however, that at the request of the registered owner of the Bonds, payment may be made by wire transfer pursuant to the most recent wire instructions received by the Registrar from such registered owner. If any payment date with respect to the Bonds is not a Business Day (as 20-368 6/24/2020 hereinafter defined) , such payment shall be made on the next succeeding Business Day with the same effect as if made on the payment date and no additional interest shall accrue. "Business Day" shall mean a day on which banking business is transacted, but not including a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, or any other day on which banking institutions are authorized by law to close in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. (c) Initially, one Bond certificate for each maturity of the Bonds shall be issued to�and registered in the name of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") or its nominee. The County has heretofore entered into a Letter of Representations relating to a book -entry system to be maintained by DTC with respect to the Bonds. "Securities Depository" shall mean DTC or any other securities depository for the Bonds appointed pursuant to Subsection 2(d). (d) In the event that (i) the Securities Depository determines not to continue to act as the securities depository for the Bonds by giving notice to the Registrar, and the County discharges the Securities Depository of its responsibilities with respect to the Bonds, or (ii) the County in its sole discretion determines (A) that beneficial owners of the Bonds shall be able to obtain certificated Bonds or (B) to select a new Securities Depository, then its Deputy County Administrator for Finance and Administration or Director of Budget and Management, either of whom may act, shall, at the direction of the County, attempt to locate another qualified securities depository to serve as Securities Depository and authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the new Securities Depository or its nominee, or authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the beneficial owners or to the Securities Depository participants on behalf of beneficial owners substantially in the form provided for in Section 5; provided, however, that such form shall provide for interest on the Bonds to be payable (X) from the date of the Bonds if they are authenticated prior to the first interest payment date or (Y) otherwise from the interest payment date that is or immediately precedes the date on which the Bonds are authenticated (unless payment of interest thereon is in default, in which case interest on such Bonds shall be payable from the date to which interest has been paid). In delivering certificated Bonds, the Deputy County Administrator for Finance and Administration or Director of Budget and Management, either of whom may act, shall be entitled to rely on the records of the Securities Depository as to the beneficial owners or the records of the Securities Depository participants acting on behalf of beneficial owners. Such certificated Bonds will then be registrable, transferable and exchangeable as set forth in Section 7. (e) So long as there is a Securities Depository for the Bonds, (i) it or its nominee shall be the registered owner of the Bonds, (ii) notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Resolution, determinations of persons entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest, transfers of 20-369 6/24/2020 ownership and exchanges and receipt of notices shall be the responsibility of the Securities Depository and shall be effected pursuant to rules and procedures established by such Securities Depository, (iii) the Registrar and the County shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records maintained by the Securities Depository, its participants or persons acting through such participants, (iv) references in this Resolution to registered owners of the Bonds shall mean such Securities Depository or its nominee and shall not mean the beneficial owners of the Bonds and (v) in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Resolution and the provisions of the above -referenced Letter of Representations such provisions of the Letter of Representations, except to the extent set forth in this paragraph and Subsection 2(d), shall control. 3. Redemption Provisions. (a) The Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the County on or after the dates, if any, determined by the County Administrator, in whole or in part (in integral multiples of $5,000) at any time, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds, together with any interest accrued to the date fixed for redemption, plus a redemption premium not to exceed 2.0001 of the principal amount of the Bonds, such redemption premium to be determined by the County Administrator. (b) Any Bonds sold as term bonds may be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption upon terms determined by the County Administrator. • (c) If less than all of the Bonds are called for redemption, the maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the Deputy County Administrator for Finance and Administration or Director of Budget and Management, either of whom may act, in such manner as such officer may determine to be in the best interests of the County. If less than all the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for redemption, the Bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by .the Securities Depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book -entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (i) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (ii) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be considered as representing that number of Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. The County shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile or electronic transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 • days prior to the date fixed for redemption, to the registered owner of the Bonds. The County shall not be responsible for giving notice of redemption to anyone other than DTC or another qualified securities depository then serving or its nominee 20-370 6/24/2020 unless no qualified securities depository is the registered owner(s) of the Bonds. If no qualified securities depository is the registered owner of the Bonds, notice of redemption shall be mailed to the registered owners of the Bonds. If a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion thereof will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender thereof. (d) In the case of an optional redemption, the notice may state that (i) it is conditioned upon the deposit • of moneys, in an amount equal to the amount necessary to effect the redemption, no later than the date fixed for redemption or (ii) the County retains the right to rescind such notice on or prior to the date fixed for redemption (in either case, a "Conditional Redemption"), and such notice and optional redemption shall be of no effect if .such moneys are not so deposited or if the notice is rescinded as described herein. Any Conditional Redemption may be rescinded at any time. The County shall give prompt notice of such rescission to the affected bondholders. Any Bonds subject to Conditional Redemption where redemption has been rescinded shall remain outstanding, and the rescission shall not constitute an event of default. Further, in the case of a Conditional Redemption, the failure of the County to make funds available on or before the date fixed for redemption shall not constitute an event of default, and the County shall give immediate 'notice to all organizations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") as securities depositories or the affected bondholders that the redemption did not occur and that the Bonds called for redemption and not so paid remain outstanding. 4. Execution and Authentication. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Chair or Vice Chair of the Board, and the Board's seal shall be affixed thereto, or a facsimile thereof printed thereon, and shall be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board; provided, however, that if both of such signatures are facsimiles, no Bond shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or employee of the Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon. 5. Bond Form. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as ,may be approved by the officers signing the Bonds, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bonds. 6. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for • timely payment of the Bonds, the Board shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate 20-371 6/24/2020 or amount, on all locally taxable property in the County sufficient to pay when due the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. 7. Registration, Transfer and Owners of Bonds. (a) The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to appoint a qualified bank or trust company as paying agent and registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). The Registrar shall maintain registration books for the • registration of the Bonds and transfers thereof. Upon presentation and surrender of any Bonds to the corporate trust office of the Registrar, together with an assignment duly executed by the registered owner or its duly authorized attorney or legal representative in such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar, the County shall execute, and the Registrar shall authenticate, if required by Section 4, and deliver in exchange, a new Bond or Bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized denominations, of the same form and maturity, bearing interest at the same rate, and registered in name(s) as requested by the then registered owner or its duly authorized attorney or legal representative. Any such exchange shall be at the expense of the County, except that the Registrar may charge the person requesting such exchange the amount of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect thereto. (b) The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments • shall be made to the person shown as owner on the registration books on the applicable Record Date. 8. Sale of Bonds. The Board approves the following terms of the sale of the Bonds: (a) The Bonds shall be sold through a competitive sale or a negotiated sale, as the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, determines to be in the best interests of the County. (b) If the County Administrator determines that the Bonds shall be sold by competitive sale, the County Administrator is authorized to receive bids for such Bonds and award such Bonds to the bidder providing the lowest "true" or "Canadian" interest cost, subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2. Following a competitive sale, the County Administrator shall file a certificate with the Clerk of the Board setting forth the final terms of the Bonds. The actions of the County Administrator in selling the Bonds by competitive sale shall be conclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds shall be necessary on the part of the Board. (c) If the Bonds are sold by competitive etitive sale, the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, is authorized and directed to take all proper steps 20-372 6/24/2020 to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the terms and conditions as shall be provided in the Notice of Sale relating to the Bonds. The County Administrator is further authorized to cause to be prepared and disseminated a Notice of Sale of the Bonds in such form and containing such terms and conditions as the County Administrator may deem advisable, subject to the provisions of this Resolution. (d) If the County Administrator determines that the Bonds shall be sold by negotiated sale, the County • Administrator is authorized, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, to choose one or more investment banks or firms to serve as underwriter(s) for the Bonds and to execute and deliver to the underwriter(s) a bond purchase agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") in a form to be approved by the County Administrator in consultation with the County Attorney and the County's bond counsel. The execution of the Bond Purchase Agreement by the County Administrator shall constitute conclusive evidence of his approval thereof. Following a negotiated sale, the County Administrator shall file a copy of the Bond Purchase Agreement with the records of the Board. The actions of the County Administrator in selling the Bonds by negotiated sale to the underwriter(s) shall be conclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds shall be necessary on the part of the Board. 9. Approval of Preparation and Execution of Official Statement. (a) The County Administrator and other appropriate officials and employees of the County are hereby authorized • and directed to prepare and distribute, or cause to be prepared and distributed, to prospective purchasers of the Bonds a Preliminary Official Statement (the "Preliminary Official Statement") describing the Bonds and the County in a form consistent with the provisions of this Resolution. All actions taken by the County Administrator and such other officials and employees of the County with respect to the preparation and distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement are hereby ratified and confirmed. (b) The County Administrator and other appropriate officials and employees of the County are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, or cause to be prepared, a final Official Statement (the "Official Statement"), which shall be in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as are necessary to complete the Official Statement and deem it final for purposes of Rule 15c-12 (the "Rule") of the SEC. (c) The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver. to the purchasers of the Bonds the final Official Statement. The County shall arrange • for the delivery to the purchaser of the Bonds of a reasonable number of printed copies of the final Official Statement, within seven business days after the Bonds have been sold, for 20-373 6/24/2020 delivery to each potential investor requesting a copy of the Official Statement and to each person to whom the purchaser initially sells Bonds. 10. Official Statement Deemed Final. The County Administrator is authorized, on behalf of the County, to deem the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form, each to be final as of its date within the meaning of the Rule, except for the omission in the Preliminary • Official Statement of certain pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to the Rule. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and the execution and delivery of the Official Statement in final form shall be conclusive evidence that each has been deemed final as of its date by the County, except for the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of such pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to the Rule. 11. Preparation and Delivery of Bonds. After the Bonds have been awarded, the Chair or Vice Chair and the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to take all proper steps to have the Bonds prepared and executed in accordance with their terms and to deliver the Bonds to the purchaser thereof upon payment therefor. 12. Arbitrage Covenants. The County covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or omission of which will cause any of the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" (within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations issued pursuant thereto (the "Code")), or otherwise cause interest on any of the Bonds • to be includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the County shall comply with any provision of law that may require the County at any time to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the gross proceeds of the Bonds, unless the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not required to prevent interest on the Bonds from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law. The County shall pay any such required rebate from its legally available funds. 13. Non -Arbitrage Certificate and Elections. Such officers of the County as may be requested by the County's bond counsel are authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth (a) the expected uses and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds in order to show that such expected uses and investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and (b) any elections such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States for purposes of complying with Section 148 of the Code. Such • certificate shall be prepared in consultation with the County's bond counsel, and such elections shall be made after consultation with bond counsel. 20-374 6/24/2020 14. Limitation on Private Use. The County covenants that it shall not permit the proceeds of the Bonds or the facilities financed therewith to be used in any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds or facilities being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (b) 50 or more of such proceeds or facilities being used with respect to any output facility (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used • directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized.bond counsel that any such covenants need not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Bonds from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the County need not comply with such covenants. 15. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chair or Vice Chair of the Board or the County Administrator, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a continuing disclosure agreement (the "Continuing Disclosure Agreement") setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary to assist the purchaser of the Bonds in complying with the provisions of the Rule promulgated by the SEC. The Continuing Disclosure Agreement shall be substantially in the form of the County's prior continuing disclosure agreements, which is hereby approved for purposes of the Bonds; provided that the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, may make such changes in the Continuing Disclosure • Agreement not inconsistent with this Resolution as the County Administrator may determine to be in the best interests of the County. The execution thereof by such officers shall constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes. 16. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. The County Treasurer is authorized and directed to provide for delivery of the proceeds of the Bonds to or at the direction of the County in such manner as necessary to pay the costs of the Projects. 17. SNAP Investment Authorization. The Board hereby authorizes the County Treasurer, in his discretion, to utilize the State Non -Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") in connection with the investment of the proceeds of the Bonds. The Board acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia is not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the County in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the Contract. 18. Reimbursement of Expenditures. The County intends that the proceeds of the Bonds may be used to reimburse • expenditures for the Projects made prior to the date hereof. As such, the County intends that the ,adoption of this Resolution confirms the "official intent" within the meaning 20-375 6/24/2020 • 40 • of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Code. 19. Other Actions. All other actions of officers of the County and the Board in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds and the financing of the Projects are hereby approved and confirmed. The officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all such further action as may be considered necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and the financing of the Projects. 20. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. 21. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 20-376 6/24/2020 EXHIBIT A [FORM OF BOND] Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company, a New York corporation ("DTC"), to the issuer or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange or payment, and any certificate is registered in the name of Cede & Co., or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. REGISTERED No. R - INTEREST RATE 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD General Obligation Public Improvement Bond Series 2020 MATURITY DATE DATED DATE REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: 2020 REGISTERED CUSIP DOLLARS The County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"), for value received, promises to pay, upon surrender hereof to the registered owner hereof, or its registered assigns or legal representative, the principal sum stated above on the maturity date stated above, subject to prior redemption as hereinafter provided, and to pay interest hereon from its date semiannually on each _ and beginning , at the annual rate stated above, calculated on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months. Principal[, premium, if any,] and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by [ ], which has been appointed paying agent and registrar (the "Registrar") for the Bonds (as hereinafter defined). If any payment date with respect to the Bonds is not a Business Day (as hereinafter defined), such payment shall be made on the next succeeding Business Day with the same effect as if made on the payment date and no additional interest shall accrue. "Business Day" shall mean a day on which banking business is transacted, but not including a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, or any other day on which banking institutions are authorized by law to close in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, this bond is subject to a book -entry system maintained by The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), and the payment of principal[, premium, if any,] and interest, the providing of notices and other 20-377 6/24/2020 u • • matters shall be made as described in the County's Blanket Letter of Representations to DTC. This bond is one of an issue of $ General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2020 (the "Bonds"), of like date and tenor, except as to number, denomination, rate of interest, privilege of redemption and maturity. The issuance of the Bonds was approved by the qualified voters of the County in an election held on November 5, 2013, and • authorized by a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") on May 28, 2014, as amended by a resolution adopted on June 27, 2018. The Bonds are issued pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, and a resolution adopted by the Board on [June 24, 20201 (the "Resolution"), to provide funds to finance the costs of capital improvements for school purposes, or to reimburse prior expenditures made therefor, and to pay the related costs of issuance. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of [and premium, if any,] and interest on the Bonds. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, the Board of the County shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, on all locally taxable property in the County sufficient to pay when due the principal of [and premium, if any,] and interest on the Bonds. Optional Redemption Provisions. Bonds maturing on or before— 20_, are not subject to redemption prior to maturity. Bonds maturing on or after 20_, are subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the County on or after— 20_, in whole or in part (in integral multiples of $5,000) at any time, upon payment of the following redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of principal amount of Bonds to be redeemed) plus interest accrued and unpaid to the date fixed for redemption: Period During Which Redeemed Redemption Both Dates Inclusive Price 20 , to 20 % 20 , to 20 20 , and thereafter [Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption Provisions. Bonds maturing on [20_], are required to be redeemed in part before maturity by the County on [ -- ] in the years and amounts set forth below, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, plus interest • accrued and unpaid to the date fixed for redemption: 20-378 6/24/2020 Year Amount Year Amount Selection of Bonds to be Redeemed. If less than all of the Bonds are called for redemption, the maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the Deputy County Administrator for Finance and Administration or the Director of Budget and Management of the County, either of whom may act, in such manner as such officer may determine to be in the best • interests of the County,. If less than all of the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for redemption, the Bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by DTC or any successor securities depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book -entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In either case, (a) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be considered as representing that number of Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. The County shall cause notice - of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile or electronic transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption, to DTC or its nominee as the registered owner of the Bonds. If a portion of this bond is called for redemption, a new bond in the principal amount of the unredeemed portion hereof shall be issued to the registered owner upon surrender hereof. Conditional Notice. Subject to the provisions of the Resolution, the County may give a notice of redemption prior to a deposit of redemption moneys if such notice states that the redemption is to be funded with the proceeds of a refunding bond issue and is conditioned on the deposit of such proceeds. Provided that moneys are deposited on or before the date fixed for redemption, such notice shall be effective when given. If such proceeds are not available on the date fixed for redemption, such Bonds will continue to bear interest until paid at the same rate they would have borne had they not been called for redemption. On presentation and surrender of the Bonds called for redemption at the place or places of payment, such Bonds shall be paid and redeemed. The Registrar shall treat the registered owner of this bond as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal of [and premium, if any,] and interest on this bond and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person shown as the owner on the registration books on the 15th day of the • month preceding each interest payment date. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to 20-379 6/24/2020 • happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in connection with the issuance of this bond have happened, exist and have been performed, and the issue of Bonds of which this bond is one, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, has caused this bond to be to be signed by the Chair or Vice Chair of the Board of Supervisors of the County, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, and this bond to be dated the date first above written. (SEAL) Chair, Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (ATTEST) Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia 20-380 6/24/2020 ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto (Please print or type name ana aaaress, incluaing postal zip code, of Transferee) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE: the within bond and all rights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and appointing Attorney, to transfer said bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an Eligible Guarantor Institution such as a Commercial Bank, Trust Company, Securities Broker/Dealer, Credit Union or Savings Association who is a member of a medallion program approved by The Securities Transfer Association, Inc. (Signature of Registered owner) NOTICE: The signature above must correspond with the name of the registered owner as it appears on the front of this bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.1.i. ADOPTING THE CHESTERFIELD EMERGENCY OPERATIONS BASIC PLAN, 2020 UPDATE On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the Chesterfield County Emergency Operations Plan, 2020 Update. (It is noted a copy of the Plan is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20-381 6/24/2020 • • 12.B.1.j. RECOGNIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE & EMS, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN RE- CERTIFYING CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AS A NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE "STORM READY" COMMUNITY On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board recognized the Department of Fire & EMS, Division of Emergency Management for their efforts in re -certifying Chesterfield County as a National Weather Service "Storm Ready" community. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.1.k. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CENTENARIAN, ADELBERT -DEL- BAKER -S 100TH BIRTHDAY On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Adelbert "Del" Baker, the youngest of two children, was born in New York on June 20, 1920, and raised in Surry, Virginia from 1924 to 1938; and WHEREAS, after receiving his high school diploma and serving his country in World War II, Mr. Baker married Katherine "Kitty" Toler in 1946, enjoying 64 years of marriage; and WHEREAS, in 1951, Mr. Baker and his wife had one daughter, Ms. Sandra Baker; and WHEREAS, Mr. Baker proudly served his country fighting in World War II in the U.S. Army as Staff Sergeant with the 25th Infantry in the South Pacific from 1942 to 1945; and WHEREAS, after the war, Mr. Baker returned to work at Dupont and retired in 1981 after 42 years of service in Spruance Fibers, Field Maintenance, Machine Shop; and WHEREAS, Mr. Baker wanted to serve his community and joined the Dale Ruritan Club in 1962; and WHEREAS, Mr. Baker served twice as president of the Dale Ruritan Club and as chaplain for more than 10 years; and WHEREAS, Mr. Baker has been a long-standing member of the American Legion; and WHEREAS, Mr. Baker's volunteer service with the Dale Fire Department began it 1961 at the original firehouse located at 6036 Ironbridge Road; and WHEREAS, Mr. Baker was a volunteer firefighter for more than 10 years for the Dale District Volunteer Fire Department No. 11; and 20-382 6/24/2020 WHEREAS, Mr. Baker enjoyed spending time outdoors hunting, fishing or camping; and WHEREAS, Mr. Baker enjoys listening to the Big Bands of the 1940s and 1950s, watching the Lawrence Welk show, and collecting baseball caps; and WHEREAS, Mr. Baker's 100th birthday on June 20, 1920, is a suitable time to recognize a century of service to his community and the United States. 49 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 24th day of June 2020, publicly recognizes Mr. Adelbert "Del" Baker's service to his country in World War II and the example he set serving his community, and on the occasion of his 100th birthday, extends to him on behalf of all Chesterfield County residents appreciation for his service and best wishes. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Baker and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.2. REAL PROPERTY REQUESTS 12.B.2.a. ACCEPTANCE OF PARCELS OF LAND 12.B.2.a.1. APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF A PARCEL OF LAND ADJACENT TO THE FULGHUM CENTER On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved the purchase of a parcel of land containing 1.84 acres, more or less, with improvements, for $225,000, plus closing costs from Patsy M. Kelley adjacent to the Fulghum Center and authorized the County Administrator to execute the sales contract and deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.2.b. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS 12.B.2.b.1. CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the Chair of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an agreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company for a variable width underground easement 20-383 6/24/2020 • LJ • for new service to the Addison -Evans Water Treatment Plant. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.2.b.2. DESIGNATION OF A 16' COUNTY TRAIL EASEMENT AND A VSMP EASEMENT FOR THE COURTHOUSE ROAD TRAIL PROJECT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board designated a 16 -foot county trail easement and a VSMP easement for the Courthouse Road Trail Project. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.2.c. REQUESTS TO QUITCLAIM 12.B.2.c.1. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PRIVATE) ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF GEORGE STREET CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the Chair of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a portion of a variable width drainage easement (private) across the property of George Street Corporation. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.2.c.2. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PRIVATE) ACROSS THE PROPERTIES OF HHHUNT HOMES, L.C., AND SHATERRIA TAYLOR AND BRANNAN D. TAYLOR On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the Chair of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a portion of a drainage easement (private) across the properties of HHHunt Homes, L.C., and Shaterria Taylor and Brannan D. Taylor. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20-384 6/24/2020 12.B.2.d. REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION 12.B.2.d.1. REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONNECT THE DWELLING LOCATED AT 14510 ST. STEPHENS PLACE, POWHATAN, VIRGINIA TO THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WATER SYSTEM On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board granted Robert E. Bellows, Jeffrey L. Hooper, and Beth B. Hooper (joint owners) permission to connect property at 14510 • St. Stephens Place, Powhatan, Virginia to the Chesterfield County water system and authorized the County Administrator to execute the water connection agreement in a form acceptable to the County Attorney. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.3. ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATE SMART SCALE PROJECTS On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized staff to submit the specified projects for Smart Scale funding, and adopted the following resolution endorsing the Smart Scale candidate projects: WHEREAS, it is necessary that the local governing body endorse Smart Scale candidate projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of • Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board provide funding for the following Smart Scale candidate projects submitted in 2020: 288/360: Route 360 at Brad McNeer Parkway Continuous Green -T Intersection Powhite Parkway Northbound at Chippenham Parkway Capacity and Safety Improvements Powhite Parkway Southbound at Chippenham Parkway Capacity and Safety Improvements Route 60/Chippenham Parkway Access and Pedestrian Improvements Route 360/Courthouse Road Intersection Improvement Alverser Drive/Old Buckingham Road Roundabout Matoaca Road/Woodpecker Road Roundabout Route 1 Transit Accessibility Improvements Ashland -to -Petersburg Trail: Chester Linear Park Trail Extension and Chester Road Ashland -to -Petersburg Trail: Route 1 Northbound (Elliham Avenue - Dwight Avenue) Route 60 (Providence Road - Wadsworth Drive) Multiuse Trail • Dundas Road (Route 1 - Wentworth Street) Bike and Pedestrian Improvements 20-385 6/24/2020 Ashland -to -Petersburg Trail: VSU Section including Appomattox River Crossing Courthouse Road (Route 10 - Pocahontas State Park) Trail I-95/Route 10 Interchange Improvement, Phase II N. Enon Church Road Widening Hopkins Road/Chippenham Parkway Interchange Improvement Ashland -to -Petersburg Trail: Route 1 (Falling Creek Avenue - Food Lion) Bike, Pedestrian & Transit Improvements • Ashland -to -Petersburg Trail: Galena Avenue Turner Road (Route 60 - Elkhardt Road) Ultimate Road Diet Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.4. JAIL MENTAL HEALTH PILOT PROGRAM - CONTINUATION OF GRANT NUMBER 20-C6102MH20 On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board authorized the County Administrator to accept and appropriate the FY2021 DCJS grant award of $324,073 for continuation of the Jail Mental Health Program at the Chesterfield County Jail. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.5. ACCEPTANCE OF FY2020 BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE (BJA) CORONAVIRUS SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING GRANT • On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board accepted and appropriated FY2020 BJA Coronavirus Supplemental Funding grant, in the amount of $185,482, from the Bureau of Justice Assistance for the purchase of PPE for the Chesterfield County Police Department, Sheriff's Office and Juvenile Detention Center. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.6. ADOPTION OF A REVISED CALENDAR OF HOLIDAYS AND THE INCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL OBSERVANCES On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted a revised calendar of holidays exchanging Lee -Jackson Day for Presidents' Day effective 2021. (It is noted the complete holiday calendar, including religious and cultural observances, is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. • Nays: None. 20-386 6/24/2020 12.B.7. APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE MAGNOLIA GREEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board appropriated $400,000 in Cash Proffers (Shed 6) to the Magnolia Green Community Development Authority Road Widening Project. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. • 12.B.8. COUNTY FY2020 YEAR-END ADJUSTMENTS AND RESERVE REQUESTS AND FY2021 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER FUNDS On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board took the following actions: 1. Authorized the County Administrator to assign to a revenue stabilization reserve, all unspent, not otherwise unreserved, FY2020 appropriations that are in excess of the items detailed in the schedules filed with the papers of this Board. 2. Appropriated revenues and expenditures for specific programs as well as authorized reallocations among general fund departments and related funds and made adjustments to revenues and expenditures as outlined on Schedule A, filed with the papers of this Board. 3. Appropriated revenues and expenditures and authorized • other adjustments for specific programs, projects, and non -general fund departments as outlined on Schedule B, filed with the papers of this Board. 4. Authorized the County Administrator to assign and re - appropriate various revenues and unspent expenditures contingent upon positive results of operations as determined by the County's financial audit, as outlined on Schedule C, filed with the papers of this Board. 5. Adopted the following Appropriations Resolution approving technical amendments to other funds in the FY2021: RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE DESIGNATED FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS FROM DESIGNATED ESTIMATED REVENUES FOR FY2021 FOR THE OPERATING BUDGETS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield: That for the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 2020 and ending on the thirtieth • day of June 2021, the following sections shall be adopted: 20-387 6/24/2020 Sec. 1 The following designated funds and accounts shall be appropriated from the designated estimated revenues for operations and to provide a capital improvement program for the County. It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors that general propertytaxes levied on January 1, 2020, and due December 5, 2020, be appropriated for FY2021. These appropriations will be made with revenues projected with a $.95 real estate tax rate for calendar year 2020. General Fund FY2021 Adopted Estimated Revenue: Local Sources • General Property Taxes $482,639,100 Other Local Taxes 107,726,900 Licenses, Permits, & Fees $7,310,500 Fines, Forfeitures & Uses of 35,901,700 Money & Property $4,450,700 Service Charges 15,584,200 Miscellaneous and Recovered 28,329,100 Costs 4,195,700 Other Agencies 500,000 State and Federal 82,940,200 Other Financing Sources Use of Restricted, Committed, or Assigned Fund Balance 14,310,900 Transfer from County Grants Fund 2,351,000 Transfer from Mental Health, Support Services 334,800 Total Revenues $721,844,000 Appropriations: General Government 59,763,800 • Administration of Justice 10,369,700 Public Safety 186,595,300 Public Works 20,466,900 Health & Welfare 35,901,700 Parks, Recreation, Cultural 20,549,900 Community Development 17,169,800 Debt Service 28,329,100 Operating Transfers 342,197,800 Assignments 500,000 Total General Fund $721,844,000 Children's Services Act Fund Estimated Revenue: Reimbursement, Colonial Heights $555,300 State Aid, Comprehensive Services 10,507,200 Transfer from Schools 4,843,200 Transfer from General Fund 1,816,900 Use of Unrestricted Net Assets 2,500,000 Total Revenues and Funding $20,222,600 Sources • Appropriations: Operating Expenses 17,722,600 Addition to Unrestricted Net Assets 2,500,000 20-388 6/24/2020 Total Appropriations School Operating Fund Estimated Revenue: Local Sources State Federal Transfer from School Operating Transfer from School Food Service Use of Reserve Transfer from General Fund: Local Taxes Interest Earnings Prior Year Revenue Total General Fund Use of Assigned Fund Balance Total Revenues and Funding Sources Appropriations: Instruction Administration, Attendance & Health Pupil Transportation Operations & Maintenance Technology Debt Service Food Service Transfer to and/or Assignment for School Capital Projects Unassigned Fund Balance, 6/30/2019 Total Appropriations Schools - Appomattox Regional Governor's School Fund Estimated Revenue: Local Sources Appropriations County Grants Fund Estimated Revenue: State Total Revenues and Funding Sources Education Total Appropriations Other Governments Transfer from General Fund Transfer from Mental Health Special Revenue Funds Total Revenues and Funding Sources Appropriations: Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts Child Advocacy Center Community Development Block Grant/HOME 20-389 $20,222,600 $19,154,800 386,924,500 48,156,000 789,700 0 •0 291,417,600 1,225,000 7,061,700 299,704,300 2,958,500 $757,687,800 $514,130,500 22,059,300 40,896,700 61,710,200 20,744,800 58,923,200 28,254,000 9,219,100 • 1,750,000 $757,687,800 $2,948,100 1,326,900 $4,275,000 $4,275,000 $4,275,000 $15,002,500 1,175,000 383,100 $16,560,600 $1,019,400 • 295,800 2,067,500 6/24/2020 Domestic Violence Prosecutor 92,200 Domestic Violence Victim Advocate (V -STOP) 61,900 Mental Health Support Services Grants 2,883,100 Fire and EMS Revenue Recovery 7,980,100 Police Grants 72,300 Technology Trust Fund 303,000 • USDA Grant - Juvenile Detention Home 67,100 Victim/Witness Assistance 842,000 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) 876,200 Total Appropriations $16,560,600 County CIP Fund Estimated Revenue: Transfer from General Fund $14,141,700 Debt Financing 0 Transfer from Cash Proffers 2,360,300 State Funds 12,400,000 Total Revenues $28,902,000 Appropriations: County Capital Projects $27,721,800 Transfer to Capital Projects from Cash Proffers 1,180,200 Transfer to School Capital Projects Funds Total County CIP Funds $28,902,000 Note: An additional $5,031,200 in county project savings is • already appropriated in the capital project fund that will be reallocated for new projects. Schools CIP Fund Bond Proceeds/ Other Debt Estimated Revenue: Financing $23,950,000 Transfer from School Food Service 0 Transfer from School Reserve for Future Capital Projects 9,219,100 Total Revenue and Transfers $33,169,100 Appropriations: School Capital Projects $33,169,100 Total Appropriations $33,169,100 Fleet Management and Radio Shop Estimated Revenue: Fleet Management Charges $18,190,700 Use of Reserves 8,000,000 Radio Shop Charges 1,931,500 • Total Revenue and Funding $28,122,200 Sources Appropriations: Fleet Management Operations $22,190,700 20-390 6/24/2020 Transfer to Capital Projects 4,000,000 Radio Shop Operations 1,931,500 Total Appropriations $28,1221200 Risk Management Fund Estimated Revenue: Operating Revenues $8,726,500 Use of Unrestricted Net Assets 1,130,700 Total Revenue $9,857,200 Appropriations: Risk Management Operations $9,857,200 Total Appropriations $9,857,200 Healthcare Fund Estimated Revenue: Employee Contributions $33,268,500 Employer Contributions 105,355,700 Total Revenue $138,624,200 Appropriations: Operating Expenditures $138,624,200 Total Appropriations $138,624,200 Airport Fund Estimated Revenue: Operating Revenue $883,700 Transfer From General Fund 462,900 State/Federal 0 Total Revenue $1,346,600 Airport Operations and Capital Appropriations: Projects $1,346,600 Total Appropriations $1,346,600 Utilities Funds Estimated Revenue: Service Charges $104,468,900 Capital Cost Recovery Charges 20,604,000 Other 10,872,900 Total Revenue $135,945,800 Appropriations: Operations $68,781,100 Debt Service 6,994,700 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 38,790,000 Addition to Unrestricted Net Assets 21,380,000 Total Appropriations $135,945,800 Utilities Capital Proiect Funds Transfer from Estimated Revenue: Improvement/Replacement Fund $38,790,000 Total Revenue $38,790,000 Appropriations: Capital Projects $38,790,000 Total Appropriations $38,790,000 20-391 6/24/2020 • r Stormwater Utility Fund Estimated Revenue: Appropriations: Operating Revenue Total Revenue Operating Expenses Total Appropriations Mental Health Su000rt Services Estimated Revenue: State Federal Other Revenue Transfer from GF Reserves Total Revenue Appropriations: Operating Expenses Transfer to County Capital Projects Transfer to General Fund Transfer to Grants Total Appropriations $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $4,882,300 889,500 25,821,200 12,976,200 1,000,000 $45,569,200 $43,851,300 1,000,000 334,800 383,100 $45,569,200 Sec. 2 Subsequent to the appropriations outlined in section 1, the Board of Supervisors may make additional appropriations if there is an unencumbered and unappropriated sum sufficient to appropriate. Sec.3 The County Administrator may increase appropriations for non -budgeted revenue that may occur during the fiscal year as follows: insurance recoveries of any amount received for damage to any County property, including vehicles, for which County funds have been expended; refunds or reimbursements, in any amount, made to the County for which the County has expended funds directly related to that refund or reimbursement; and other revenue not to exceed $50,000. Budget Change Requests are required when transferring funds between appropriation categories and capital projects, when appropriating revenue and expenditures, or when using a reserve. Approval levels below the County Administrator's $50,000 threshold are delegated at the following increments: $0- 10,000 Budget and Management Analyst, $10,001-20,000 Budget and Management Director, $20,001-50,000 County Administrator. Any budget change request above $50,000 will be taken to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Sec. 4 The County Administrator — in concert with the Board of Supervisors — may make available the general fund transfer to schools and make appropriations in the school operating fund, contingent upon availability of funds and other circumstances, based on the following schedule: $4 million on December 15, $4 million on February 15, and $4 million on May 15. Sec. 5 The County Administrator may, as provided herein, authorize the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure 20-392 6/24/2020 to another within the same department or appropriation category. Unless otherwise provided below, the County Administrator may transfer up to $50,000 from the unencumbered appropriated balance and prior year end carry forward assignments from one appropriation category (including assigned fund balance) to another appropriation category or between capital projects. No more than one transfer may be made for the same item unless the total amount to be transferred for the item does not exceed $50,000. The School Board or School Superintendent may make revenue and expenditure • transfers among school appropriations categories or between capital projects during the fiscal year with approval delegated, in aggregate, in the following increments: $0-50,000 Superintendent, $50,001-499,999 School Board, $500,000+ Board of Supervisors. Sec. 6 The County Administrator may approve transfers among County and Utility funds to enable the capital projects or grants to be accounted for correctly as long as funding sources are consistent and total appropriation is not increased. The County Administrator is authorized to reallocate funding sources for capital projects, cash proffers, and debt service payments. Upon completion of a capital project or grant program, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer any remaining balances to the original funding source and appropriate outside revenue up to the amount received. Savings in projects initiated as part of a major maintenance program are authorized to be transferred by staff to the corresponding major maintenance account for future improvements and staff is authorized to transfer remaining balances from completed projects within the same CIP category to enable future reallocation. Staff is authorized to reprogram Community Development Block Grant funds by closing program cost centers and transferring funding to newly approved programs based on adoption by the Board of Supervisors. If outside contributions or external revenues do not • materialize at the level budgeted, staff may reduce revenue and expenditure appropriations to the level received. The School Superintendent is authorized to reallocate funding sources for capital projects as long as funding sources are consistent and total appropriation is not increased. Upon completion of a capital project or grant program, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer any remaining balances to the original funding source or the Reserve for Future Projects. Savings in projects initiated as part of a major maintenance or food services program are authorized to be transferred to the corresponding major maintenance or food services account for future improvements. If outside contributions or external revenues do not materialize at the level budgeted, staff may reduce revenue and expenditure appropriations to the level received. Sec.7 The County Administrator is authorized to transfer among appropriation categories and/or appropriate funds and assignments of fund balance in any amount for supplemental retirement, or other retirement expenses, Workers' Compensation, healthcare, career development plans, part-time salaries, and other compensation -related costs, as well as for transfers to departments to cover expenses as needed due to impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency, energy/fuel costs, and funds received from asset forfeitures for • allowable expenditures. Within the healthcare fund, the County Administrator is authorized to appropriate use of reserves, interest earnings, and additional 20-393 6/24/2020 employee or employer contributions in any amount to pay claims, deductibles, settlements, and any costs associated with healthcare. Sec. 8 All outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, in all County funds up to $150 million, at June 30, 2020 shall be an amendment to the adopted budget and shall be reappropriated to the next fiscal year to the same department for which they were assigned in the previous year. At the close of the fiscal year, all unassigned appropriations lapse for budget items other than: those contained in life -to -date funds, budgeted transfers to life -to -date funds; other use of restricted, committed, or assigned fund balances; District Improvement Funds; asset forfeiture funds; grant funds; construction assignments; assignments for County and School reserves for future capital improvements; donations received for specific purposes; tax revenues received for special assessment districts and interest earnings thereon; Fire and Emergency Medical Services apparatus and equipment funding; Police Department funding for replacement vehicles; Sheriff Department funding for replacement vehicles and equipment; General Services vehicle and equipment funding; Parks and Recreation vehicle and equipment funding; Economic Development incentive funds; and refunds for off-site and oversized water and wastewater facilities. Sec. 9 Any funds specifically budgeted to add to an assignment of fund balance shall be automatically assigned during the year end audit process. All excess revenues and unspent appropriations in the telecommunications program are authorized to be automatically assigned for future telecommunications upgrades. All excess revenues in the BPOL program are authorized to be reserved for future transportation or economic development initiatives.. Any revenues received from the sale of real property to satisfy delinquent taxes are authorized to be reserved at year end. All excess transient occupancy taxes and VDOT reimbursements received in the General Fund are authorized to be reserved at the end of each • fiscal year. All Utilities Department Rate Stabilization Reserve funds are authorized to be reserved at the end of each fiscal year. All funds generated from real estate taxes as a result of the Summit development shall be authorized to be reserved for transportation improvements within the traffic shed in which the development is located, or any traffic shed which would provide relief to that shed. All funds generated from real estate taxes as a result of the Carvana development shall be authorized to be reserved for transportation improvements within the traffic shed in which the development is located, or any traffic shed which would provide relief to that shed. Sec. 10 The County Administrator is authorized to make expenditures from Trust & Agency Funds for the specified reasons for which the funds were established. In no case shall the expenditure exceed the available balance in the fund. Sec. 11 In accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1-3524(C)(2) and Section 58.1-3912(E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of the Acts of Assembly (2004 Special Session 1) and as set forth in Item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief Program) of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly, any qualifying vehicle situated within the County, shall receive personal property tax relief in the following manner: a) Personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less will be eligible for 100% tax relief; b) Personal use vehicles valued at $1,001 to $20,000 will be eligible for 49% tax relief; 20-394 6/24/2020 c) Personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall receive 49% tax relief on the first $20,000 of value; d) All other vehicles which do not meet the definition of "qualifying" (business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program. Pursuant to authority conferred in Item 503.1) of the 2005 State Appropriations Act, the County Treasurer shall issue a supplemental personal property tax bill in the amount of 100 percent of tax due without regard to any former entitlement to state PPTRA relief, plus applicable penalties and interest, to any taxpayer whose taxes with respect to a qualifying vehicle for tax year 2005 or any prior tax year remain unpaid on September 1, 2006, or such date as state funds for reimbursement of the state share of such bill have become unavailable, whichever occurs first. e) Penalty and interest with respect to bills issued pursuant to this section shall be computed on the entire amount of tax owed. Interest shall be computed at the rate provided in Section 9-51 of the County code from the original due date of the tax. Sec. 12 The County Administrator is authorized to assign position numbers from the Board approved unallocated pool to a specific department as long as there is sufficient funding appropriated to cover the personnel costs. No new full-time position numbers can be created without Board of Supervisor approval. Sec. 13 The County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, will ensure that the payment amounts for defined benefit pension plans for each liability is funded and paid annually. The County Administrator is authorized to withhold and adjust general fund contributions to other funds to make pension plan payments for the respective funds if not paid on the policy established timeline as applicable. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.9. APPROVAL OF SCHOOLS' FY2020 YEAR-END ADJUSTMENTS AND RESERVE REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board took the following actions: 1. Appropriated revenues and expenditures and authorized other adjustments for the school division as outlined in Schedule. A, filed with the papers of this Board, along with any other associated transfers required as a result of the requested actions. 2. Authorized the County Administrator to assign and re - appropriate the reserve requests listed in Schedule B, filed with the papers of this Board. • r � Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 0 20-395 6/24/2020 12.B.10. APPROPRIATION OF UP TO $10.0 MILLION IN CARES ACT FUNDING; UP TO $S.OM IN FY2020 TO REIMBURSE FOR ELIGIBLE EXPENSES AND $5.OM IN FY2021 TO TRANSFER TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE BACK IN BUSINESS PROGRAM On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board appropriated up to $10.0 Million in CARES Act Funding as follows: up to $5.0 Million in FY2020 to reimburse for eligible expenses, and $5.0 Million in FY2021 to transfer to the Economic Development Authority for the Back in Business program. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.11. ACCEPT GRANT FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE POCOSHOCK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board 1) accepted and appropriated a grant of up to $1,104,150.00, as anticipated grant funding reimbursements, from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents; and 2) awarded the construction contract to Finish Line Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,307,687.42 and authorized the Director of Procurement to execute the necessary documents. • Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.12. ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF CARES FUNDING FOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board accepted and appropriated $69,000 in federal CARES Act funding for the Chesterfield County Airport. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.13. ACCEPTANCE OF STATE ROADS On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on a plat • recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; and K1Z&VZ-1 6/24/2020 WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described below to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Sections 33.2-705 and 33.2-334, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Project/Subdivision: Harper's Mill 'South Section 2 Type Change to the Secondary System miles of State Highways: Addition Reason for Change: New Subdivision Street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: 933.2-705, 33.2-334 Street Name and/or Route Number • Blooming Court, State Route Number 8205 From: Blooming Road, (Route 8204) To: The cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.04 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 254, Page 89 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 • Blooming Road, State Route Number 8204 • From: Blooming Court, (Route 8205) To: The cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.09 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 254, Page 89 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 • Blooming Road, State Route Number 8204 From: Kenbrook Drive, (Route 8203) To: Blooming Court, (Route 8205), a distance of: 0.03 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 254, Page 89 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 • Kenbrook Drive, State Route Number 8203 From: Otterdale Road, (Route 667) To: Blooming Road, (Route 8204), a distance of: 0.08 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 254, Page 89 Right of Way width (feet) = 61 • Blooming Road, State Route Number 8204 From: Blooming Place, (Route 8206) To: The end -of -maintenance, a distance of: 0.02 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 254, Page 89 Is Right of Way width (feet) = 50 20-397- 6/24/2020 • Blooming Place, State Route Number 8206 From: Blooming Road, (Route 8204) To: The cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.04 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 254, Page 89 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 • Blooming Road, State Route Number 8204 From: Kenbrook Drive, (Route 8203) To: Blooming Place, (Route 8206), a distance of: 0.14 miles • Recordation Reference: Plat Book 254, Page 89 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described below to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Sections 33.2-705 and 33.2-334, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any • necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Project/Subdivision: Rivers Trace Section G Remainder Type Change to the Secondary System miles of State Highways: Addition Reason for Change: New Subdivision Street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.2-705, 33.2-334 Street Name and/or Route Number • Haggis Terrace, State Route Number 8207 From: Haggis Drive, (Route 7287) To: The cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.05 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 171; Page 13 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on a plat • recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; and 20-398 6/24/2020 WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described below to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Sections 33.2-705 and 33.2-334, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Project/Subdivision: Rivers Trace Section H and Section F Remainder Type Change to the Secondary System miles of State Highways: Addition Reason for Change: New Subdivision Street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.2-705, 33.2-334 Street Name and/or Route Number • Chantry Drive, State Route Number 8209 From: St Audries Drive To: The cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.12 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 254, Page 2 and Plat Book 151, Page 11 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described below to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Sections 33.2-705 and 33.2-334, Code of Virginia, and the'Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. 20-399 6/24/2020 • is AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Project/Subdivision: Rivers Trace Section K Type Change to the Secondary System miles of State Highways: Addition Reason for Change: New Subdivision Street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.2-705, 33.2-334 • Street Name and/or Route Number • Millay Drive, State Route Number 7286 From: 0.02 miles west of Haggis Drive, (Route 7287) To: The temporary cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.07 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 252, Page 50 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 And, further, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the streets described below are shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described below to the secondary system of state highways, • pursuant to Sections 33.2-705 and 33.2-334, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Project/Subdivision: Westerleigh Section 11 Type Change to the Secondary System miles of State Highways: Addition Reason for Change: New Subdivision Street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.2-705, 33.2-334 Street Name and/or Route Number • Easter Road, State Route Number 7651 From: Warren Crest Court, (Route 8197) To: Old Westridge Drive, (Route 8198), a distance of: 0.09 • miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 248, Page 38 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 20-400 6/24/2020 • Warren Crest Court, State Route Number 8197 From: Easter Road, (Route 7651) To: The cul-de-sac, a.distance of: 0.09 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 248, Page 38 Right of Way width (feet) = 40 • Old Westridge Drive, State Route Number 8198 From: Old Westridge Place, (Route 8199) To: The end -of -maintenance, a distance of: 0.01 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 248, Page 38 • Right of Way width (feet) = 50 • Easter Road, State Route Number 7651 From: 0.01 miles north of Broadmoor Road, (Route 771) To: Warren Crest Court, (Route 8197), a distance of: 0.50 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 248, Page 38 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 • Old Westridge Drive, State Route Number 8198 From: Easter Road, (Route 7651) To: Old Westridge Place, (Route 8199), a distance of: 0.10 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 24.8, Page 38 Right of Way width (feet) = 50 • Easter Road, State Route Number 7651 From: Old Westridge Drive, (Route 8198) To: 0.02 miles south of Shoreland Drive, (Route 7924), a distance of: 0.03 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 248, Page 38 • Right of Way width (feet) = 50 • Old Westridge Place, State Route Number 8199 From: Old Westridge Drive, (Route 8198) To: The cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.04 miles Recordation Reference: Plat Book 248, Page 38 Right of Way width (feet) = 40 Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 12.B.14. APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL FUNDING AWARDED FOR FY2021 INFANT PART C EARLY INTERVENTION CONTRACT On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board appropriated an additional $155,141 in state and federal funding for the FY2021 Infant Part C Early Intervention contract between the Chesterfield Community Services Board (CSB) and the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20-401 6/24/2020 • 12.B.15. 2020 GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION On motion of Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board acted as follows: The Board set the date of July 22, 2020, for a public hearing to adopt mandatory amendments to County Code Section 14-21 relative to cursing and swearing in public [HB1071]. And, further, the Board referred to the Planning Department for recommendation legislative changes relative to amending the County Code regarding notice of zoning determinations [SB589] . And, further, the Board referred to the Planning Department for further analysis and possible preparation of optional zoning ordinance amendments relative to national standards for solar panels and batteries [HB656; SB875]. And, further, the Board directed staff to study the need for optional amendments to the County Code requiring property owners to remove vegetation which is alongside roadways and public rights-of-way that "might dangerously obstruct" the line of sight of drivers or otherwise interfere with driving, and to report back to the Board at its September 23, 2020 meeting [HB284; SB2251 . And, further, the Board set the date of August 26, 2020, for a public hearing to consider amendments to the County Code to establish a monthly fund of $500 on property owners who do not • submit plans to rehabilitate their derelict properties [HB150]. And, further, the Board concurred with staff's recommendation to take no action to: 1. Amend the County Code to add a civil penalty not to exceed $100 for failure of the owner of a building that fronts on a right-of-way to display a number on the building that is easily readable from the right-of-way [HB106] ; 2. Amend the County Code to provide for the small purchase exemption for single or term contracts for goods and services to be increased from $100,000 to $200,000 [HB452; SB6501. 3. Amend the County Code to enact an ordinance to authorize the County to require bidders, offerors, contractors or subcontractors to enter into project labor agreements for County construction and public works projects [HB358 ; SB1821 is 4. Amend the County Code to enact an ordinance requiring contractors for public works contracts to pay employees the prevailing wage [HB833; SB81; 20-402 6/24/2020 5. Amend the County Code to exempt businesses with gross receipts below $200,000 from the BPOL ordinance [HB466] ; and 6. Amend the County Code to impose a $1400 per megawatt revenue sharing fee on solar energy projects [HB1434; SB762; SB763] . Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 10 13. FIFTEEN -MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS Mr. Mike Uzel addressed the Board relative to the censorship of citizen comments at virtual meetings and asked the Board to remand all cases heard during virtual meetings. Mr. Phil Lohr addressed the Board relative to the virtual meeting process and asked for the cases to be remanded. (It is noted citizen comments on unscheduled matters received through the online portal are attached as Attachment A.) 14. DEFERRED ITEMS There were no Deferred Items at this time. 15. REQUESTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND REZONING • PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: - WITHDRAWALS/DEFERRALS - CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATION AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION - CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AND/OR THERE IS PUBLIC OPPOSITION WILL BE HEARD AT SECTION 17 &IMM �M-ftiL'1 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Carthan F. Currin requests rezoning from Corporate Office (0-2) and Community Business (C-3) to Community Business (C-3) with Conditional Use to permit multi -family residential use plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements and amendment of zoning district map on 4.1 acres fronting 180 feet on the west line of W. Booker Boulevard 310 feet south of Iron Bridge Road and located 225 feet off the south line of Iron Bridge Road measured from a point 220 feet west of W. Booker Boulevard. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive • Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Community Mixed Use and Office/Residential Mixed Use. Tax ID's 779-652-8746, 779-652-8969 and 780-652-0565, 1448 and 1556. 20-403 6/24/2020 Mr. Andy Gillies presented a summary of Case 20SN0535 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Jack Wilson was present on behalf of the applicant and stated he believes the proffered conditions are reasonable under state law. Ms. Haley called for public comment. • Mr. Gillies stated no citizen comments were received on the online portal. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Ingle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved Case 20SN0535 and accepted the following proffered conditions: The property owner and applicant in this case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves and their successors and assigns, proffer that the property under consideration ("the Property") will be developed according to the following proffers if, and only if, the request submitted herewith is granted with only those conditions agreed to by the owner and applicant. In the event this request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the owner and applicant, the proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. • 1. Master Plan. The Textual Statement dated March 10, 2020, and the Conceptual Site Plan dated February 13, 2020 and attached as Exhibit A (Attachment 3), shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Density. The maximum number of dwelling units on the Property shall be 50. (P) 3. Age Restriction. Except as otherwise prohibited by the Virginia Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and such other applicable federal, state or local legal requirements, all dwelling units shall be restricted to "housing for older persons" as defined in the Virginia Fair Housing Law and no persons under 19 years of age shall reside therein. All site plans shall note this restriction. (P) 4. Road Cash Proffers. The applicant, sub -divider, or assignee(s) shall pay $2,914 for each senior housing unit to Chesterfield County for road improvements within the service district for the property. Each payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for a • dwelling unit unless state law modifies the timing of the payment. (B&M) 20-404 6/24/2020 5. Access. Direct vehicular access from the Property to West Booker Boulevard shall be limited to one (1) emergency access. The exact location and design of this access shall be approved by the Transportation Department and Fire Department. (T and F) 6. Drainage. For any storm water drainage that will discharge to the eastern boundary into Carver Homes Sites Subdivision either the drainage shall be retained and released at a rate that can be handled by the existing storm sewer system, or improvements to the downstream storm system needed to handle this development shall be made. (EE) 7. Water and Wastewater. The property water and county wastewater for all domestic service. (U) shall utilize county structures requiring 8. Building Elevations. Buildings shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the elevations dated October 30, 2019 and attached as Exhibit B. (P and BI) 9. Roof Treatment. Roofing material shall be standing seam metal, dimensional architectural shingles, or better with a minimum of 30 -year warranty. (P and BI) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20SN0547 In Bermuda Magisterial District, AREC 10, LLC requests rezoning from Community Business (C-3) to General Business (C-5) plus conditional use planned development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements and amendment of zoning district map on 3.1 acres located 420 feet along the west side of Jefferson Davis Highway and 315 feet on the south side of Goolsby Avenue. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for the Neighborhood Business use. Tax ID's 789- 689-9157, 9757 and 9764. Mr. Andy Gillies presented a summary of Case 20SN0547 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions, and acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Jack Wilson was present on behalf of the applicant. He accepted the conditions and stated the proffered conditions are reasonable under state law. Mr. Winslow stated this case is a good example of cleaning up an existing use while protecting zoning and commended the work on this case. Ms. Haley called for public comment. 20-405 6/24/2020 • • Mr. Gillies stated no citizen comments in opposition to the case were received on the online portal. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Ingle stated while there was no opposition to the case, he did receive a question from one association on process. He further stated he and his Planning Commissioner answered the question, and they believe they will not have that issue in the future. (It is noted citizen comments received through the online portal pertaining to Case 20SN0547 are attached as Attachment A.) On motion of Mr. Ingle, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved Case 20SN0547 subject to the following conditions: 1. Non -Transferable. Approval for any outdoor storage units and outdoor storage of vans, trucks and utility trailers on the premises shall be granted to AREC 10, LLC, exclusively, and shall not run with the land. The landowners may substitute a new qualified operator experienced with such use, subject to the approval by the Director of Planning. Such request shall be submitted thirty (30) days prior to any change of the operator. 2. Time Limitation. Approval for any outdoor storage units on the premises shall be granted for a period not to exceed three (3) years from the date of approval. • And, further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: The property owners and applicant in this rezoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for themselves and their successors and assigns, proffer that the property under consideration will be developed according to the following proffers if, and only if, the rezoning request submitted herewith is granted with only those conditions agreed to by owners and applicant. In the event this request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the owners and applicant, the proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. 1. Uses: Uses on the property shall be limited to all uses permitted in the Community Business (C-3) District, plus van, truck and utility trailer rentals, mini -storage, and outdoor storage accessory to the van, truck and utility trailer rental use and mini -storage use. 02. Master Plan: The Textual Statement dated April 8, 2020 shall be the Master Plan for the Property. 20-406 6/24/2020 3. Development Plan: Improvements on the Property shall be maintained in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Exhibit attached as Exhibit A dated April 7, 2020 and as shown on Exhibit B. 4. Architectural End Caps: Architectural end caps shall be located on the ends of storage units as shown on Exhibit A and the design shall be substantially similar to Exhibit C. 5. Dedication. Prior to any site plan approval or within sixty (60) days from a written request by the Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, thirty-five (35) feet of right-of-way along the north side of Cogbill Road, measured from the centerline of that part of Cogbill Road immediately adjacent to the property, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. 6. Access and Road Improvements. With redevelopment of the property, as determined by the Transportation Department, the following access modifications and road improvements shall be completed. The Transportation Department shall approve the exact design, location, and length of the access and road improvements: a. Direct vehicular access from the property to Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) shall be limited to one (1) entrance/exit. b. There shall be no direct vehicular access from the property.to Cogbill Road. C. Construction of additional pavement along southbound Route 1 to provide a separate right turn lane at the approved access. d. Construction of a VDOT standard wide sidewalk along the entire property frontage to Route 1, with modifications approved by the Transportation Department. e. Dedication, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County, of any additional right-of-way (or easements) required for these improvements. 7. Phasing Plan. Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing plan for the access and road improvements identified in Proffered Condition 6 shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. The approved phasing plan shall require, among other things, that the road improvement identified in Proffered Condition 6.d. (VDOT standard wide sidewalk) shall be designed and completed in conjunction with the initial site plan, as determined by the Transportation Department. 20-407 6/24/2020 • • • Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20SN0577 In Bermuda Magisterial District, The Landings at Meadowville, LLC requests rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R- 15) with conditional use planned development to permit an exception to buffer requirements and amendment of zoning district map on 1 acre fronting 300 feet on the east line of North Enon Church Road, 100 feet south of Meadowville Road. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Low Density Residential (Maximum of 1.0 dwelling per acre). Tax ID 825-660-0940. Mr. Andy Gillies presented a summary of Case 20SN0577 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Kerry Hutcherson was present representing the applicant. He stated the reason this one -acre piece of property was not included with the original zoning case is the owner of the property was not ready to sell at that time. He accepted staff's recommendation and stated he believes the proffered conditions are reasonable under state law. Ms. Haley called for public comment. Mr. Gillies stated no citizen comments were received on the online portal. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Ingle, seconded by Mr. Carroll, the Board approved Case 20SN0577 and accepted the following proffered conditions: The Applicant in this case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for itself and its successors or assigns, proffer that the property known as Chesterfield County Tax Identification Number 825-660-0940 ("the Property") will be used according to the following proffers if, and only if, the request submitted herewith is granted with only those conditions agreed to by the Applicants. In the event this request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the owners and Applicants, the proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. 1. Master Plan. The Textual Statement last revised May 1, 2020, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Pedestrian and Vehicular Connectivity. In order to enhance pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and access to 20-408 6/24/2020 recreational amenities within the adjacent subdivisions, at least one side of each street within the Property shall be constructed with a sidewalk, and the streets and sidewalks constructed within the Property shall be connected to one or more streets within the subdivisions or adjacent parcels that adjoin the Property to the north and the south. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the County's Residential Sidewalk Policy. The sidewalks and sidewalk connections described herein shall be completed in conjunction with the construction of streets within the Property. (P & T) 3. Recreational Amenities. In order to provide residents of the Property with opportunities to engage in an active lifestyle, the following existing recreational amenities shall be made available, subject to and in accordance with membership rules of the Homeowner's Association, to residents of the Property: clubhouse, trails, fitness center, pool, riverwalk trails, cricket field, and two (2) community docks for river access. Such recreational amenities shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The locations of the existing recreational amenities are shown generally on the exhibit map incorporated herein and attached hereto as Exhibit A. (P) 4. Architectural Design Standards. All dwelling units developed on the Property shall be subject to the following architectural design standards: a. Style and Form. The architectural styles of all dwellings shall use forms and elements compatible with those in the Mount Blanco on the James subdivision. 0 b. Exterior Facades. All dwelling units shall have brick, stone or masonry fronts that cover a minimum of 20 percent of the fagade (which fagade shall exclude gables, windows, trim, and doors). Other acceptable siding materials shall include stucco, synthetic stucco (E.I.F.S.), or horizontal lap siding. Horizontal lap siding may be manufactured from natural wood or cement fiber board or may be premium quality vinyl siding with a minimum wall thickness of .042 inches. Synthetic Stucco (E.I.F.S.) siding shall be finished in a smooth, sand or level texture, no rough textures are permitted. C. Foundations. All foundations shall be constructed .entirely of brick, stone, or a mixed combination of both. Synthetic or natural stucco foundations may be permitted for facades constructed entirely of stucco. d. Roofs. i. Varied Roof Line. Varied roof designs and materials shall be used on facades of dwellings 20-409 6/24/2020 that face a street. Minimum roof pitch shall be 8/12. ii. Roof Materials. Roofing material shall be dimensional architectural shingles with a minimum 30 year warranty. All flashing shall be copper or pre -finished aluminum (bronze or black) . • e. Porches and Stoops. i. Porches and Stoops. All front entry stoops and front porches shall be constructed with a continuous masonry foundation wall. Individual front porches and stoops shall be one-story in height, or taller if the porch/stoop design is architecturally compatible with the dwelling it serves. Extended front porches shall be a minimum of 5' deep. Handrails and railings shall be finished painted wood or metal railing with vertical pickets or swan balusters. Pickets shall be supported on top and bottom rails that span between columns. Columns supporting roofs of porches and stoops shall be masonry piers, tapered round (Tuscan or Doric) column, or square box columns a minimum of 8" square as appropriate to the character of the unit. All front steps shall be masonry to match the foundation. ii. Rear Porches. All rear porches shall be • constructed on masonry or stone piers with lattice screening spanning between columns. Handrails and railings shall be finished painted wood or metal railing with vertical pickets or swan balusters. f. Fireplaces, Chimneys and Flues. i. Chimneys. Sided chimneys are permitted on roof planes or facades and must have masonry foundations. Cantilevered chimneys are not permitted. The width and depth of chimneys shall be appropriately sized in proportion to the size and height of the unit. For gas fireplaces, metal flues may be used on the roof. ii. Direct Vent Fireplaces: Direct vent gas fireplace boxes which protrude beyond the exterior plane of the unit, are not permitted on facades facing a street. All the exterior materials and finishes used to enclose the fireplace box must match the adjacent facade. • g. Minimum dwelling sizes. The minimum gross floor area for each single-family dwelling shall be 2,500 square feet. 20-410 6/24/2020 h. Variation in Front Elevations., Unless otherwise approved by the Director of Planning, the following restrictions are designed to maximize architectural variety of the houses. i. The same front elevation may not be located adjacent to, directly across from, or diagonally across the street from each other on the same street. • ii. Variation in the front elevation to address the paragraph above may not be achieved by simply mirroring the fagade but may be accomplished by providing at least three (3) of the following architectural changes: 1. adding or removing a porch or covered entry or increasing or decreasing the length of the porch or entry 2. varying the location and/or style of a front facing gable (s) 3. alternating the location of the garage 4. providing different materials and/or siding types on at least 50 percent of the elevation, or 5. providing a different roof type/roof line. (P) • 5. Front Walks/Driveways. a. All private driveways serving residential uses shall be hardscaped (which hardscaping may be constructed of brushed concrete or asphalt). Private driveways shall not require curb and gutter. b. Front walks shall be provided to each dwelling unit. Front walks shall be hardscaped (which hardscaping may be constructed of brushed concrete or asphalt). Front walks shall be a minimum of 3' wide. (P) 6. Front Loaded Attached Garages. No front -loaded garages shall be permitted except in the case where a dwelling includes three garages. In the case where a dwelling.has three garages, no more than one garage shall be front- loaded. (BI & P) 7. Landscaping and Yards. a. Sod and Irrigation. All front yards shall be sodded • and irrigated. 20-411 6/24/2020 b. Front Foundation Planting Bed: Foundation planting is required along all dwelling facades facing a street. Foundation Planting Beds shall be a minimum of 4' wide from the unit foundation. Planting beds shall be defined with a trenched edge or suitable landscape edging material. Planting beds shall include medium shrubs spaced a maximum of four (4) feet apart. Unit corners shall be visually softened with vertical accent shrubs (41- 51) or small • evergreen trees (6'-81) at the time of planting. (P) 8. Post -Development Runoff. For portions of the Property that are designated to drain to Johnson Creek, the post - development runoff rate for the 2, 10, and 100 year storms shall not exceed the corresponding pre -development runoff rate. Off-site stormwater management facilities may be used to satisfy the requirements of this Proffered Condition 7. (EE) 9. Densitv and Lots. a. Numbers of Lots. No more than 3 single-family dwellings shall be constructed on the Property. b. The average lot size shall be no less than 18,500 square feet. (P) 10. Access. There shall be no direct public road access provided from the Property from/to N. Enon Church Road. (T) • 11. Dwellings fronting N. Enon Church Road. For any dwellings located on lots fronting on N. Enon Church Road, the front facade of such dwellings shall face N. Enon Church Road. (BI & P) 12. Road Improvements and Dedication. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the following road improvements and right-of-way dedication: a. Widening/ improving the east side of N. Enon Church Road to a twelve (12) foot -wide travel lane measured from the centerline of the road with an additional four (4) foot -wide paved shoulder plus a four (4) foot -wide unpaved shoulder and overlaying the full width of the road with one and a half (1.5) inch of compacted bituminous asphalt concrete with any modifications approved by the Transportation Department for the entire property frontage. Said widening/improvement shall be completed, as determined by the Transportation Department, in conjunction with the initial development. The owner/developer shall dedicate to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, any additional right- of-way (or easements) required for the road improvements identified above. 20-412 6/24/2020 b. In conjunction with recordation of the initial subdivision plat or within sixty (60) days from a written request by the Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, of thirty-five (35) feet of right-of-way along the east side of N. Enon Church Road, measured from the centerline of that part of N. Enon Church Road immediately adjacent to the Property. (T) 13. Connection to County Water/Sewer. The Developer shall connect the Property to County water and sewer at time of initial site construction. (U) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20SN0582 In Midlothian Magisterial District, GRCRE, LLC, LATC, LLC, Tak Tent LP, and Midlogreen, LLC request amendment to zoning approval (91SN0172) relative to uses (farmers market and outdoor vendors) and amendment of zoning district map in Community Business (C-3) and Corporate Office (0-2) Districts on 46.8 acres located on the northeast corner of North Woolridge and Coalfield Roads and also fronting 1,775 feet on the west line of North Woolridge Road, 490 feet south of Walton Park Road. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Neighborhood Business, Residential Mixed Use (minimum of 12.0 dwellings per acre plus limited integrated commercial), and Conservation/Recreation uses. Tax IDs 729-704-0035, 731-705-0120 and 2856. Mr. Andy Gillies presented a summary of Case 20SN0582 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval, subject to one condition, and acceptance of the proffered conditions. He further stated the applicant was not present but did submit in writing their agreement with the conditions of the case. Ms. Haley called for public comment. Mr. Gillies stated no citizen comments were received on the online portal. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Haley thanked staff and the Parks and Recreation Department in particular for ensuring the safety of citizens accessing the farmer's market by adding signage identifying the underground tunnel to safely cross underneath Woolridge Road. On motion of Ms. Haley, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved Case 20SN0582 subject to the following condition: 20-413 6/24/2020 • • 1. Operation of Use on Sites 2 & 2A. When either Site 2 or 2A (as shown on Exhibit A) is used for a temporary farmers market with outdoor vendors ("the use"), the following restrictions shall apply: a. Parking. No more than forty (40) of the existing ninety-three (93) parking spaces shall be occupied by the vendors of the use on Site 2. The remaining parking spaces shall be maintained for visitors and patrons of the use. b. Vendors. No more than twenty (20) vendors shall be permitted to participate for this use during each operating day. C. Temporary Wayfinding Signage for Parking Area. During the operation of the use, the operator shall post temporary signs on the request property frontage (adjacent to Sites 2 and 2A) to direct vehicular traffic to the parking area on Site 2. This signage shall be removed at the close of business, each operating day. d. Temporary Wayfinding Signage for Pedestrians. During the operation of the use, the operator shall post temporary signs on the request property to direct pedestrian traffic to and from the Woolridge Road pedestrian tunnel from the use on Site 2 or 2A. This signage shall be removed at the close of business, each operating day. • e. Site Usage Prior to 2021. Sites 2 and 2A may not host the use before 2021. (P) And, further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Use Permitted. This use exception shall be for the operation of a temporary farmers market with outdoor vendors. (P) 2. Transferable Ownership. The use shall be exclusively granted to the landowners, GRCRE LLC, LATC LP, and MidloGreen LLC, and shall not run with the land. The temporary farmers' market and outdoor vendor shall initially be operated by RVAg, Inc. The landowners may substitute a new qualified operator experienced with such markets, subject to the approval by the Director of Planning. Such request shall be submitted thirty (30) days prior to any change of the operator. (P) 3. Location of Use. All activities associated with the • farmers, market and outdoor vendors (including booths and merchandise displays) shall be located within the areas (i.e. sites) identified on Exhibit A, titled "URBAN FARMHOUSE FARMERS MARKET PROPOSED CONDITIONAL 20-414 6/24/2020 USE SITES LOCATED IN THE MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA", and dated February 14, 2020. No more than one (1) of the three (3) identified sites shall be used at a time. (P) 4. Hours of Operation. The use shall be permitted to operate one (1) day per week from April through October. In the months of March, November, and December, one (1) farmers' market and outdoor vendors event shall be permitted once a month in conjunction with a holiday or special event (e.g. Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, foot race). a. Weekday Hours. Use shall operate between 12 PM to 8 PM. b. Weekend Hours. Use shall operate between 9 AM to 8 PM. (P) 5. Continuous & Overnight Storage. No continuous or overnight storage, as well as display of merchandise, shall be permitted. (P) 6. Litter & Trash Removal. The property owner shall be responsible for the removal of litter from the sites and parking areas at the close of business, each operating day. (P) 7. Time Limitation. This use exception approval shall be granted for a period not to exceed ten (10) years from the date of approval. (P) 8. Permanent Structures & Signage. There shall be no permanent structures or signage erected to accommodate or identify this use. (P) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20SN0526 In Dale Magisterial District, 29:11 Chesterfield, LLC requests a rezoning from Agricultural (A) and General Business (C-5) to Community Business (C-3), with conditional use and conditional use planned development to permit multi -family and townhome uses plus to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements and amendment of zoning district map on 123.9 acres located at the northeast quadrant of Iron Bridge and Courthouse Roads, also fronting the south line of Route 288. Density will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for Corporate Office uses. Tax. IDs 768-666-9817, 769-667-9512, 770 -664 -part of 0099, 773 -665 -part of 2424. Mr. Harold Ellis presented a summary of Case 20SN0526. He reviewed the history of the case. He discussed the three areas 20-415 6/24/2020 0 of concern noted in Mr. Holland's remand letter (Traffic, Impact on the Airport, and Impact on Schools) and how those concerns have been addressed with the applicant's revised submission. He stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions, noting initial concerns discussed were addressed with the applicant's revised submission and pertained to transportation impacts, airport proximity, location and visibility of uses, and assurances relative to phasing. He Mr. Andy Condlin was present on behalf of the applicant. He presented a summary of the case. He stated every issue that was raised has been addressed, and the applicant has shown a substantial economic benefit anticipated from the development. He described how approval of the case will resolve already - existing traffic issues. He accepted all conditions and stated he believes the proffered conditions are reasonable under state law. Ms. Haley called for public comment. Ms. Linda Ramey, a school bus driver, shared her experiences with traffic at the Iron Bridge Road and Courthouse Road intersection and provided the Board with statistics relative to school bus traffic at that intersection. Mr. Linwood Hines, a resident of Deerfield Estates, expressed his opposition to the case and questioned why residents of other districts were in favor of the case. • Ms. Suzanne Fleming of the Bermuda District expressed her support for good growth and progress in the county and asked the Board to approve the case. 20-416 6/24/2020 further stated of the 170 online comments and voice messages • received, 143 were in support of the case, and 27 were in opposition to the case. He stated commenters in favor of the request indicated they believe initial concerns of the project have been addressed with the changes made; the project is well- planned, and is an upscale development which will offer needed medical, office, hotel, restaurant and retail space; the proposed development, along with planned uses and recreational area, will attract a variety of age groups, provide jobs, and provide additional ways for people to shop Chesterfield and provide the county with needed additional tax revenue; the proposed road improvements will improve existing traffic problems; and overall the development will be a positive impact on the Dale District and the county as a whole. He further stated commenters in opposition to the case expressed concerns with the project's impact on traffic, the airport, and nearby schools; the proposed uses such as a gas station and mini - storage may be unsightly and result in additional crime in the area and, therefore, reduce nearby property values; the land uses such as Residential are not wanted; there are other vacant retail spaces in the area which could be used rather than moving forward with this project; and toxic emissions and loud • noises may result from the proposed uses. Mr. Andy Condlin was present on behalf of the applicant. He presented a summary of the case. He stated every issue that was raised has been addressed, and the applicant has shown a substantial economic benefit anticipated from the development. He described how approval of the case will resolve already - existing traffic issues. He accepted all conditions and stated he believes the proffered conditions are reasonable under state law. Ms. Haley called for public comment. Ms. Linda Ramey, a school bus driver, shared her experiences with traffic at the Iron Bridge Road and Courthouse Road intersection and provided the Board with statistics relative to school bus traffic at that intersection. Mr. Linwood Hines, a resident of Deerfield Estates, expressed his opposition to the case and questioned why residents of other districts were in favor of the case. • Ms. Suzanne Fleming of the Bermuda District expressed her support for good growth and progress in the county and asked the Board to approve the case. 20-416 6/24/2020 Mr. David Harris stated he is in favor of the project and asked the Board to approve the case. Mr. Randy Powers stated the developer has gone above and beyond to address the concerns of the case and asked the Board to approve the case. Mr. Bruce Tibbetts, a Matoaca District resident, discussed the benefits of the project and encouraged the Board to vote, in favor of the case. Mr. John Kline stated the project will attract millennials who are looking for bike lanes and walkability. Mr. David Shuster, a resident of Deerfield Estates, asked the Board to consider the impact of the project on wetlands before making a final decision. Ms. Kay Robertson addressed the Board relative to its obligation to protect the health, safety, and quality of life of citizens, and she asked the Board to deny the case. Mr. Mike Uzel addressed the Board relative to the health, safety and welfare of residents and stated the case should not be approved. Mr. Phil Lohr asked the Board to remand the case to the Planning Commission and stated the case is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Barbara Roe addressed the Board relative to concerns about the flightpath and noise from aircraft. She asked the Board to lower the buildings and not to allow residential uses. There being no one else to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. (It is noted citizen comments received through the online portal pertaining to Case 20SNO526 are attached as Attachment A.) In response to Ms. Haley's question relative to the environmental concerns of stormwater on the property, Mr. Scott Smedley, Director of Environmental Engineering, stated the developer will have to either bring in fill or build a significant storm sewer infrastructure network to deal with moving the stormwater off the property. He further stated while the property does contain many wetlands and low-lying areas, there are methods of engineering and moving the stormwater offsite. In response to Ms. Haley's question, Mr. Smedley stated the site plan would not be approved if stormwater management was not properly addressed. In response to Ms. Haley's question relative to the county's ability to handle wetlands and stormwater issues and ensuring 20-417 6/24/2020 u • • compliance with guidelines, Mr. Smedley stated in 2014 the Department of Environmental Engineering assumed complete management of the stormwater process, and the county is in a better position'to deal with those developments. Mr. Condlin clarified the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has provided approvals. He stated the avigation easement provides the protection the airport is seeking, and airplanes are getting quieter even though they are getting bigger. He further stated the office use is guaranteed, but there is no guarantee for other uses. He stated there is a market for the other uses such as medical services and a hotel. Mr. Jim Dunphy, the developer, stated the hurdles to this case have been overcome, and this project is one the community can be proud of and participate in. He further stated the airport is a vital part of the community and protections are provided within the development. In response to Mr. Winslow's question relative to the disconnect between the opinions of the FAA and the pilots' association regarding building height, Mr. Condlin stated the FAA as the controlling body was the determining factor for the avigation easement. He further stated it is his understanding that the pilots' association is concerned with the safety of residents under the flight path, while the FAA is concerned with having any buildings over a certain ,height. He stated those concerns currently exist on the other side of the airport, the schools, and the office buildings, and this project expands the protections based on the avigation easement. He further stated the county's own consultant agrees with the FAA that this is safe. In response to Mr. Winslow's question relative to the provision of notice of the neighboring airport to new residents, Mr. Condlin stated there will be a required provision in the apartment lease, and notice will be contained in the declarations. In response to Mr. Winslow's request to discuss the deed requirement, Mr. Condlin stated there will be two areas where the notice will be provided, which are the within the declaration itself and within the deed and title work. In response to Mr. Winslow's request, Mr. Garrett Hart, Director of Economic Development, reviewed the history of the property and what items have come before the Board for consideration. He stated 14 years ago the project was under contract between the Board of Supervisors and North American Properties, but the contract stalled due to the discovery of $8 million of road infrastructure requirements. He further stated the second time the property was before the Board was for authorization to sell the property and move forward with final agreements on the contract. He stated the third time this property came before the Board was in 2008, but the contract was withdrawn prior to Board action due to the recession. He further stated North American Properties subsequently pulled 20-418 6/24/2020 out of the agreement. He stated this case presently before the Board is the fourth occurrence. Mr. Winslow stated the fact that this is a difficult property needs to be kept in mind throughout the process. Mr. Hart concurred but stated its location offers an opportunity to have economic development on a regional scale. In response to Mr. Winslow's question, Mr. Hart stated he does • believe the county will get a medical facility and a hotel on this site. Mr. Ingle expressed appreciation to citizens on both sides of the case as well as the applicant, Planning staff, and the Planning Commission who made the case better than it was. He thanked his colleagues on the Board for productive conversations. He stated the case was thoroughly vetted, and the Board read all the comments from both sides. He further stated regardless of the outcome, the decision should be accepted. Mr. Carroll stated he reviewed all comments received throughout the process including both times the case went before the Planning Commission. He further stated he has had numerous conversations with people on both sides of the project. He stated he thinks there is work to be done on the county side, regardless of the outcome of the case, to alleviate some of the issues that were brought forward such as weave. He further stated he thinks this Board is committed to providing safe roads for the community. He thanked the community and Board members for their input and the applicant for bringing the case • forward. Mr. Holland expressed his appreciation to citizens and the Planning Commissioners in 2019 and 2020 for their outstanding work on the case. He stated Courthouse Landing is a quality development that will enhance the quality of life and result in positive growth in the area and the region. He further stated the project is a gateway to the county which will result in substantial revenues. He stated the developer has addressed the three critical issues for which the case was remanded. He noted the lack of a medical facility for Lucy Corr. He expressed his disappointment in the lack of a hotel, restaurants and businesses to accommodate sports tourism generated by the Harry G. Daniel Park at Iron Bridge and stated he cannot allow this to continue. He stated this mixed-use development will benefit all age groups, the airport, other businesses, and Lucy Corr. He further stated this development meets all the criteria of an enhancement to the county and the Dale District. He applauded the 'hard work of citizens and staff. He made a motion to approve Case 20SNO526 and accept the proffered conditions. Ms. Haley seconded Mr. Holland's motion. r 20-419 6/24/2020 Mr. Winslow stated he does believe the county will get a medical facility and a hotel in this development which makes the difference for him in this case. He further stated this is a net -positive case, and he believes the noise from the airport has been mitigated. He stated the airport runway extension is going forward, and Courthouse Landing does not interfere with that project. He expressed his support for the case. Mr. Carroll stated he is a proponent of public safety and • expressed his hope that the Board will make it a priority to address traffic concerns that are not being addressed by the developer. He stated he is cognizant of unemployment rates in the county, and this is an opportunity to create jobs. He expressed his support for the case. Ms. Haley stated the property, by nature of its location, will offer needed housing for public safety personnel and teachers. She expressed appreciation to staff for helping the Board understand how the interfacings work together to bring a good multi -use project. She stated by putting in protections the Board can mold and define a project to ensure it is ultimately what the Board intended. Ms. Haley called for the vote on Mr. Holland,s motion, seconded by Ms. Haley, to approve Case 20SN0526, subject to the following proffered conditions: The Owner -Applicant in this rezoning Case 20SN0526, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, Virginia, for itself and its successor or assigns, proffers that the development of the property will be developed as set forth below; however, in the event the request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the Owner -Applicant, these proffers shall be immediately null and void and of no further force or effect. The Applicant hereby proffers the following conditions: 1. Master Plan. The Textual Statement last revised April 28, 2020, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Burning ban. The Developer shall not use burning to clear or timber the Property. (F) 3. Density. The maximum density of this development shall be 265,000 square feet of shopping center/retail, 100,000 square feet of medical/dental office, 100,000 square feet of mini -warehouse, 120 room hotel, and 600 multi -family units; or equivalent density as approved by the Transportation Department. At the request of the Developer, higher densities may be approved by the Planning Commission if the other requirements of zoning are met. (T) 4. Access. 20-420 6/24/2020 a. Direct vehicular access from the Property to Ironbridge Road (Route 10) shall be limited to one (1) entrance/exit, if approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). b. Prior to any tentative subdivision plan, site plan, or construction plan approval,' whichever occurs first, an access plan for Courthouse Road shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. Vehicular access from the Property to Courthouse Road shall conform to the approved access plan. (T) 5. Dedication. Prior to any site plan approval, in conjunction with recordation of the initial subdivision plat, or within thirty (30) days from a written request by the Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, all rights of way and easements as shown on the construction plans for the widening of Ironbridge Road (Route 10 Widening from Frith Lane to Whitepine Widening Project) from the Property, as determined by the Transportation Department, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to Chesterfield County. (T) 6. Road Improvements. To provide an adequate roadway system, prior to the issuance of any final certificate of occupancy, the following road improvements shall be completed as determined by the Transportation Department. The exact alignment, design, and length of these road improvements shall be approved by the Transportation Department. a. Ironbridge Road (Route 10) and Courthouse Road intersection: i. Construction of additional pavement along the western approach of Courthouse Road to provide a nine (9) lane typical section (i.e., six (6) westbound lanes (dual lefts, one thru, and triple rights) and three (3) eastbound lanes) . ii. Construction of additional pavement along the eastern approach of Courthouse Road to provide a five (5) lane typical section (i.e., four (4) eastbound lanes (left, two (2) thrus, and right) and one (1) westbound lane). iii. Construction of additional pavement along northbound lanes of Route 10 to provide a separate right turn lane. iv. Construction of additional pavement along the southbound lanes of Route 10 to provide an additional southbound left turn lane (i.e. third left turn lane) . 20-421 6/24/2020 • • • V. Construction of additional pavement along eastbound lanes of Courthouse Road to provide an additional thru lane (i.e. third thru lane) to accommodate triple left turn lanes from Route 10 to Courts Complex Road. vi. Full cost of traffic signal modifications at the Route 10/ Courthouse Road intersection to accommodate road improvements identified above. b. Construction of Courthouse Road to a four (4) lane divided road section from Route 10 to the Government Center Parkway intersection, with modifications approved by the Transportation Department. C. Construction of additional pavement along Courthouse Road to provide separate right turn lanes and adequate left turn lanes (where left turn movements are permitted) at each approved access. These improvements may be modified based on intersection control at the Courts Complex/Road A and Government Center Parkway/Road B intersections, as determined by the Transportation Department and approved by VDOT. d. Construction of additional pavement along the eastbound lanes of Courthouse Road to provide dual left turn lanes at the Courts Complex Road/Road A intersection, unless otherwise approved by the Transportation Department. This improvement may be . modified based on approved intersection control, as determined by the Transportation Department and approved by VDOT. e. Construction of traffic signal or other intersection control at the Courthouse Road/Courts Complex Road/Road A and Courthouse Road/Government Center Parkway/Road B intersections, if warranted by the Transportation Department and approved by VDOT. f. Construction of additional pavement along the eastbound lanes of Courthouse Road to provide a separate right turn lane (slip lane) at the Government Center Parkway intersection, with modifications approved. by the Transportation Department. g. Construction of additional pavement along the northbound lanes of Krause Road at the Courthouse Road intersection to provide for a separate right turn lane. This improvement will result in two (2) northbound lanes (left and right turn lanes). h. Construction of a 10 -foot VDOT standard shared use path along the north side of Courthouse Road ("Courthouse Shared Use Path") for the entire 20-422 6/24/2020 7. Property frontage, unless otherwise approved by the Transportation Department. This path may be located within the Courthouse Road buffer. i. Relocation of the stormwater management facility as shown on the construction plans for the Route 10 Widening (Frith Lane to Whitepine Road) Project (labeled as "SWM 17" on the construction plans) and restoration of the area as determined by the Planning Department. On-site stormwater system shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the relocated stormwater management facility drainage, including dedication of any required drainage easements. j. Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted,_ of any additional right-of-way (or easements) required for the improvements identified above. (T) Open Space/Pedestrian Areas. a. Common and open space areas designated in the Design Guidelines shall include common spaces for use by all owners, residents, tenants, guests, and invitees of all or any specific portions of the Property, designed to include amenities that add high visual interest, such as some or all of the following, but not limited to: decorative pedestrian -style lighting; benches; landscaped areas; plantings; bike racks; plazas; water features; gathering areas; multi-purpose open lawn (for use for such activities as bocce ball and Frisbee golf); pond overlook; native plant meadow; grilling areas; fire pit areas; outdoor dining areas; dog park; fitness stations; community gardens; picnic shelters; bird -watching areas; and other pedestrian elements. b. Pedestrian areas such as trails, walks and paths, and the above amenities along such areas, shall be provided throughout the Property as generally shown in the Design Guidelines to provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the entire development and in particular between buildings and different uses on the Property and to and from the Courthouse Shared Use Path, all as generally shown in the Design Guidelines. The exact design, material and location of such pedestrian elements shall be approved by the Planning Director as part of plan approval. C. There shall be an internal system of sidewalks, paths and crosswalks along and between roads and drives providing overall pedestrian connectivity within the Property and to and from the Courthouse Shared Use Path. Such hardscaped walks shall be constructed of various hard and decorative materials, such as, but not limited to pavement, concrete, stone pavers, 20-423 6/24/2020 • • • asphalt, or stamped concrete, in locations as generally shown in the Design Guidelines. d. The Landing, as shown in the Design Guidelines, shall be a minimum of 3 acres, serve as a focal point upon entry into the Property and provide a common area transition between the residential and commercial portions of the Property. The Landing shall be connected to all portions of the Property by the various pedestrian elements described above. (P) • 8. Street Lights. Decorative street lights will be provided along the Property boundary as it adjoins Iron Bridge Road and Courthouse Road and such lights shall be limited to 15 feet in height. Decorative street lights will also be provided along those internal roads designated in the Design Guidelines as "Road A", "Road B" and "Road C". The specific light fixture and spacing shall be approved by the Planning Director in conjunction with plan approval. The installation of the street lights may be phased as approved by the Planning Director based on the extent of the plan approval. (P) 9. Stormwater Facilities. No retention (wet) ponds shall be constructed on the Property and such other stormwater measures shall be designed and constructed for stormwater management, such as underground stormwater facilities, detention facilities designed to drain water within a set period of time not to exceed 48 hours, or as otherwise approved by the County of Chesterfield. (EE) 10. Stormwater. The maximum post -development discharge rate for the 100 -year storm shall be based on the maximum capacity of the existing facilities downstream, and shall not increase the recorded and/or established 100 -year backwater and/or floodplain. On-site detention of the post -development 100 -year discharge rate to below the pre - development 100 -year discharge rate may be provided to satisfy this requirement. Further, the Developer shall dedicate a permanent drainage easement for the benefit of the County for the upstream off-site drainage through the Property as determined at the time of plan review and approval. (EE) 11. Public Water and Wastewater. Public water and wastewater system shall be used. (U) 12. Utilities. The Developer shall submit and receive approval from the Utilities Department for an overall utilities master plan indicating the on-site and off-site utilities improvements necessary to support the development prior to the submission of any schematic, tentative subdivision, construction, or site plan on the Property. The Developer shall perform a hydraulic analysis of the county's water and wastewater systems to verify adequate capacity exists as part of the overall utilities master plan. Any capacity related improvements required to support the demands of this development will be reflected on the overall 20-424 6/24/2020 utilities master plan and shall be the responsibility of the Developer. (U) 13. Avigation Easement. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy on the Property, the Developer shall record an easement on the Property, as agreed to and for the benefit of the County, extending across the entirety of the Property the easement rights provided to the County pursuant to the Order recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 3385, page 94, and which easement shall include, without limitation, limiting the height of any building to no greater than sixty (60) feet as measured pursuant to the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance. (A,P) Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Winslow and Holland. Nays: Ingle. 16. PUBLIC HEARINGS 16.A. TO CONSIDER AMENDING LEASE OF COUNTY PROPERTY AT 3701 JAMES RIVER ROAD Mr. Dean Sasek, Real Property Manager, stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider amending the lease of county property at 3701 James River Road with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. Ms. Haley called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Winslow, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved an amendment to the lease of county property at 3701 James River Road with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC to include up to five additional 60 -month renewal terms, and rent will be $13,250 annually with two percent annual increases. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 16.B. TO CONSIDER AMENDING LEASE OF COUNTY PROPERTY AT 2750 DREWRYS BLUFF ROAD Mr. Sasek stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider amending the lease of county property at 2750 Drewrys Bluff Road (Bensley Park) with American Tower Corporation. Ms. Haley called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. 20-425 6/24/2020 • On motion of Mr. Winslow, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board approved an amendment to the lease of county property at 2750 Drewrys Bluff Road with American Tower Corporation to include up to five 5 -year renewal terms, and rent will be $17,280 annually with a 10 percent increase each renewal term. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 16.C. TO CONSIDER AMENDING COUNTY CODE SECTION 9-132 TO INCREASE THE $10 COURTHOUSE SECURITY FEE TO $20 Mr. Matt Harris stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider amending County Code Section 9-132 to increase the $10 Courthouse Security Fee to $20. He further stated the fee increase is permissible by state law and will generate revenue to reimburse the county for expenses such as physical improvements, staffing, or Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) improvements. Ms. Haley called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Holland made a motion to adopt the ordinance. Mr. Winslow seconded the motion and stated he is certain with the advent of COVID-19 and everything else going on the money • will be used very wisely, and he sees the need for the fee increase at this point in time. On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Winslow, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 9-132 RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF FEES FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 9-132 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 9-132. - Collection of processing fees for persons admitted to jail following conviction and fees for courthouse security. • (a) (1) In addition to any other fees prescribed by law, a $25.00 processing fee is hereby imposed on every individual admitted to the county or regional jail following conviction in a district or circuit court. 20-426 6/24/2020 (2) This processing fee shall be ordered as a part of court costs collected by the clerk, deposited into the account of the county treasurer, and shall be appropriated to the sheriff to defray the costs of processing arrested persons into the jail. (b) (1) In addition to any other fees prescribed by law, a fee of $20.00 is hereby imposed in each criminal and traffic case in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of • any statute or ordinance. The clerks of the district and circuit courts shall charge and collect this fee as a part of the fees taxed as costs. (2) After collection by the clerk of the court in which the case is heard, the fee shall be remitted to the county treasurer and held by the county treasurer to be appropriated by the board of supervisors to the sheriff's office for funding courthouse security personnel, and, if requested by the sheriff, equipment and other personal property used in connection with courthouse security. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 16.D. TO CONSIDER CODE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO COMPUTER CONTROLLED VARIABLE MESSAGE ELECTRONIC (EMC) SIGN AND COMMUNICATION TOWER ZONING FEES (20PJ0116.) Mr. Ray Cash stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider amending County Code Section 19.1-41 relative to Computer Controlled Variable Message Electronic (EMC) Sign and Communication Tower Zoning Fees. He reviewed the current EMC and communication tower zoning fees and the proposed lower fees. He stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of the amendments. Ms. Haley called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Holland made a motion for the Board to adopt the ordinance and stated the county desires to set fees that are reasonable and economically smart, and this fee adjustment is a good move in the right direction. On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Ingle, the Board adopted the following ordinance: • 20-427 6/24/2020 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 19.1-41 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO CONTROLLED VARIABLE MESSAGE ELECTRONIC (EMC) SIGN AND COMMUNICATION TOWER ZONING FEES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1). That Section 19.1-41 of the. Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted, to read as follows: .. Chapter 19.1 ZONING 000 The fees shown in Tables _19.1-41.A., B. and C. shall be submitted in conjunction with the specified. application or request, provided, however, fees for a single application shall not exceed $75,000.. Fees shall be waived for. any County department or agency excluding the. Chesterfield County Airport, Utilities Department and Public Schools. Except where. otherwise stated, each application shall be limited to either a single lot, A combination of lots provided the lots are contiguous to, each other, or any combination of lots which were the subject of the same condition of a zoning approval. Acreage fees shall be prorated on any portion in excess of each whole acre. 20-428 6/24/2020 s.. Application Type Fee (in dollars) Rezoning. 1.400 plus 70 per acre in excess of 1 acrel11121 Communication Tower 4000121 Landfill, Quarry, Mine or Borrow Pit 7500 plus 100 per acre in excess of .1 acre 121 Conditional Use Adult Business 7500 plus 100 per.acre. in excess of 1 acrelzl. or Conditional Use Use Incidental to Principal Dwelling to " 300121 include Family. DaCare Home Planned Development['] Recreational Facility and Grounds Primarily Serving Surrounding 300121 Residential Community All Others 1400 plus 70 per acre in excess of 1 acre1111�1 Substantial Communication Tower 4000121 Accord All Others 1400 plus 70 per acre in excess of I acres�l . Manufactured Home Permit 200 Single Family Dwelling or Accessory 300 Resource Use to Single Family Dwelling Protection Area Exception All Others 2300 .. .. Use Incidental to Principal Dwelling to include Family Day Care Home or 300[.21 Resource Protection Area Single Family Dwelling Recreational Facility and Grounds Amend Conditions of Primarily Serving Surrounding; 300121 Previously Residential Community - Approved Application['] Manufactured Home Permit 200 2000 for first 2 conditions All Others plus 1000 for each condition thereafter (includes condition of textual statement)111121 Deferral. Request by Applicant of Planning Commission or. 1000 for first deferral . Board of Supervisors' Public Hearing/Meeting('] plus 2000 for each deferral thereafterlll .Notes for Table 19.1-4 LA. [1] For any office, commercial or industrial use within an -enterprise zone, enterprise subzone or technology zone as designated by the county code, an application fee shall not be required provided the director of planning determines that the request is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. [2] One application may be "made for any,combination of the requests footnoted as [2]. The fee for any combination of these requests shall not be_cumulative; rather the fee shall be based upon the category having the highest fee. [3] If a use does not conform to the zoning district in which located, a business license was issued for the use, and the holder of the license has operated continuously in the same location for at least 15 years and paid all local taxes for the use, the holder of the business license shall be exempt from the fed when .applying (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland." Nays: None. 20-4.29 6/24/2020 • • 16..E..*.. TO.. CONSIDER. CODRAMENDMENT.RELATIVE.TO.COMPUTER CONTROLLED VARIABLE_ MESSAGE ELECTRONIC (EMC) SIGN RESOLUTI.ON.-STANDARDS.(20PJO.113). Mr._.Cash stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for.the Board to -consider amending County.Code Sections.19.1=53, 19.1-27.7, and -19.1-570 relative to. Standards fo.r_.Computer,.Controlled ...Variable Message_ Electronic (EMC.) Sign Resolution, Changeable Copy Signs and Entertainment, Recreational and Athletic Facility Signs. He provided details of the. proposal which incl udes:..adjiis.ting:resolution standards for. :EMC- signs: and requiring minimum pixel .:pitch;' adjusting. the definition of fixed message electronic signs, and adjusting standards;. and codifying..the allowed use of EMC on drive-. through facility.signs He.stated the -Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of -.the amendments. Ms;:.:Haley called for public comment.. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. There being no : one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed:. On: motion of- : Mr.' _ Winslow, seconded by Mr;-. Carroll, the Board adopted the.following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997,.AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 19.1-53, 19.1- 277 & 19.1=570 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE: RELATIVE TO STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER CONTROLLED VARIABLE MESSAGE ELECTRONIC (EMC) SIGN RESOLUTION, CHANGEABLE. COPY SIGNS AND ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATIONAL -AND ATHLETIC. FACILITY SIGNS BE IT ORDAINED by. the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19.1-53, 19.1-277.4 19.1-570 of the Code. of the County of Chesterfield, 1997,: as amended; are amended and re-enacted, to read as follows: Chapter 19.1 ZONING 000 See. 19.1-53. Restricted Uses Listed as "R" or "RS". Those uses listed as "R".or "RS"..in Table 19.1-52.A. shall -be permitted in the respective :zoning districts: provided that the restrictions as outlined below are. nmet. If the restrictions cannot -be. met, the use may be. allowed in the respective zoning. district through either a Conditional Use or Special Exception. 6/24/2020 Sign, changeable copy R-88, R-40, R-25 -15, R-12, R-9; R-7; R.=C Districts R-TH, R -MF Districts MH District A District 04, 0-2 Districts C-1, C-2; C-3, C -4,:C-5 Districts . ... . 1-1,,1-2, 1-3 Districts: a. . Except:as stated herein,'sign complies with Article IV. Division:6.; • b. Sign isnot located on A, MH, R, R-TH or R -MF property unless the property is occupied by a church; place of worship, public park or school or the -.sign serves as the residential community _entrance sign at the*: primary entrance into: a: development having community open space and recreational facilities; c. Sign is not incorporated into a. nonconforming sign; d. In projects with outparcels, signs are spaced 30 feet apart; e. Changeable copy is integratedinto a permitted freestanding sign. per 19.1-276.-B. f. Except for an outdoor advertising sign which is governed by Sec. 19.1-279, . changeable copy shall be designed as an integral component of a monument sign :. compatible with the architectural style of the principal building which it serves provided that if the principal .:building does not conform .to .the architectural standards of the Design District :in which located, the director of planning may. . approve a monument sign that .has an alternative., architectural style.. For a permitted. outdoor advertising sign, .changeable copy is .incorporated intosign, sign: . structure. meeting sign design requirements of sec. 19.1-279; . g. Changeable copy for outdoor. advertising sign. which is governed by: Sec. -19.1-_ . . 279 shall be limited to computer controlled -variable message electronic sign. (EMC); h. Except.for an outdoor advertising sign which is governed by Sec. 19..1-279,'a permitted freestanding sign. area may be increased by 25 percent for the purpose of including manual changeable copy, :provided the. area by .which . the: sign :is. • increased is used solely for such changeable copy. The area. of manual changeable copy is limited to one-half or less of the total area of the sign face; i. Fixed message electronic display shall be limited to one -third -of permitted sign face and shall default to blank copy if there is a malfunction- iri the device; and j. For outdoor advertising sign which is governed by Sec... 19.4-279, or where the '. only changeable: copy is computer controlled variable message. electronic sign_ (EMC) copy, the area of changeable copy may.include entire sign face:: Sign, computer controlled variable message electronic sign (EMC):! R-88, R-40; R-25; R-15, R-12, R-9 R-7, R -C Districts R-TH, R -MF Districts . MH -2, MH -3 Districts A District 04, 0-2 Districts C-19 C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 Districts . I-1, 1-2,.1-3 Districts: . a. Sign complies with restrictions of changeable copy sign. and outdoor advertising. sign as applicable; b. Sign is not incorporated into a nonconforming sign or. a. sign containing manual. copy; c. Except for a permitted outdoor advertising sign; _sign 'is not located in Belmont • Turner Area Central, Bon Air Special Design District,'.Chester. Area Central, '. Midlothian -Area; West or Route 10 Area North as -shown on the zoning: map; 20-431 . .. 6/24%2020 d. Excluding. copy that. includes only. current time. of day. or outdoor .temperature, interval' of copy, change for permitted EMC sign is. limited as follows: 5. minutes forp. ropertY .located in A, :MH, R, R-TH, R-MF districts, if such . sign is the. freestanding sign for property. occupied by a. church,. place of worship; public park or school: Any. other EMC located: in A, MH, R, R-TH, R-MF districts shall onlybe permitted by conditionaluse and may be subject to more restrictive standards than this section;. • 1. minute for .property..Iocated . oii.tside..Of . a ..inixed-use or nonresidential community. in O, C.and. I districts or an outparcel within such a community; r. • 10. seconds for mixed=use or.nonresidential community sign; or a 10. seconds for outdoor advertising sign;. e. Excludinng copy, that includes. only current time of day, date or outdoor temperature,. copy changes simultaneously; f. Copy does riot move, or give the illusion of movement; such as, blink. scroll, flash; spin, fly in%out, scintillate or similar effects; however; copy. may fade as transition to next copy;. g. Copy is limited to a still image or lines of text; h.. Excluding .outdoor. advertising signs greater than 200. square feet. (s/f) in area, displays. shall be high resolution Having no larger:than 12-mm pixel pitch. Outdoor advertising signs greater than 200 s%f and'less than 400.s/f shall have a maximum Pixel pitch of 16 inm. Outdoor advertising. signs :greater than 400 s/f shall have a maximum pixel -pitch of 20 mm; i. Sign defaults to blank copy. if there is a malfunction in, device; j. Sign does not display coordinated messages which are intended to be continued on opposite sign face, other signs on-site or signs off-site; k. A. photocell or other device is used_that automatically adjusts brightness. according ..to ambient conditions; and 1.. Brightness does.not exceed.0.3 foot. candles. above ambient light as measured at a. . distance in feet that is the square root of the sign area in square .feet multiplied by 100 (Distance from Sign= ,Sign Area (Sq.e) X 100 00.0 :.'ISee. 19.1-277. Additional Signs. The signs in this section shall be in addition to other signs permitted by this division. 1. Freestanding Sign at Entrances. to Projects in 0,C and I Districts. 2.on-site signs, each riot to.exceed 4 square: feet and a height of 5 feet, shall be permitted at .eachroad entrance to a. project..Signs. .shall be limited to 2 colors, one for lettering and one for background. Lighting shall be limited to internal means. 2.. Freestanding. Signs at Entrances to Establishments O, C and I Districts Located Outside a Nonresidential Community that Share Access to a Road. Where 2 establishments, are. required by the transportation department to share access to a road, each establishment shall be. allowed 1 sign, either on- or off-site, along the shared access. Each sign shall not exceed 4. square feet and a height of .... .. .... 5 feet: 3. Freestanding Off--site : Signs for Specific Public and :: Semi-Public .Places.. Assembly uses exceeding .10,000 , gross _ floor .area; hospitals on greater than 25 acres, transit uses, or other.public uses without a direct entrance.to a major arterial road shall be-site.sign. If:the signs are located on.a major arterial. road, 2 signs shall be -permitted on.opposite sides: of such road. Signs shall not exceed 7 square feet and a height of 7 feet. 20.-432 6/24/2020 4. Drive-through Facility Stacking Lane Signs: Adjacent.to each stacking lane; 2 signs shall be ;permitted provided they are not:legible from off site. Signs shall; be limited to -6 feet -in height. In Special. Design. Districts, the cumulative area of all such signs.shall not exceed. 24. square feet, and. in all other areas 45 square feet. Computer. controlled variable .message electronic (EMQ copy may .:be incorporated where, in addition to. the standards -:of this. subsection, such:copy is not be visible from roads. .. .. .... .... . 5.. Establishments Accommodating Orders from Parking Spaces or Fueling, Stations. 1 sign, not to exceed:4 square feet,- shall be permitted adjacent to each space 'or station. The: sig n shall be attached to columns supporting a canopy. The - color of the sign box shall match the color of the column- on which thesign• is mounted. 6. Fuel Dispenser Mounted Signs. 8. square feet of signage, attached to, :.or immediately. above;' each fuel dispenser shall be. permitted:. Signs shall not be . internally illuminated. T Entertainment,. Recreational. or Athletic Facility Signs. Signs interior to an. entertainment, recreational or. athletic: facility -that have copy -visible only within such facility shall not count towards the number or area of signage permitted for such facility elsewhere in this division. Where a sign has copy visible from off- site. it shall count towards ;the facility permitted signage and be subject to all applicable regulations. of this division. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter; the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: . 1661 Pixel pitch. The ' distaince between individual pixels for computer controlled: variable message electronic (EMC) signs. The smaller the pixel pitch the higher the resolution of such sign. nnn. Sign, changeable copy: Sign upon which copy can be changed or altered;. Changeable copy: signs include the following: • Manual: -Sign with copy that can be changed or: altered.by manual means. • Electrical: Sign, with copy that can:. be, changed or:altered on a fixed :display surface composed of electrically illuminated.or mechanically driven changeable segments. Electrical signs include the following::. Fixed message electronic. Sign with copy designed or preprogrammed to solely provide static monochromatic numeric display. For the purposes of this definition the following symbols that, indicate the unit of the numbers . displayed are permitted: $ for dollar, %: for percent,. ¢ for cent and ° for degree. Computer controlled variable message electronic(EMC)..Signwith copy that can be changed or altered by means of computer -driven :electronic: impulses,excluding fixed message: electronic signs. .000. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption: Ayes Haley, Carroll, -Ingle,. Winslow and Holland'.. Nays: None. - 20 -433 6/24/202.0 16.F. TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH 5G AIR, LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AIRCRAFT HANGARS AT THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT Mr. Al Pace, Assistant Director of General Services, stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider an amendment to the lease agreement • with 5G Air, LLC for construction of aircraft hangars at the Chesterfield County Airport. He further stated the existing lease agreement requires the lessee to complete construction of the hangars by July 1, 2020, but the lessee has encountered over 70 days of weather-related delays since initiation of construction. He stated the lease has no provision to address weather-related construction delays, and staff requests the Board approve an amendment authorizing an additional 120 days to complete construction of the hangars. Ms. Haley called for public comment. There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Winslow, the Board approved an amendment to the lease agreement with 5G Air, LLC authorizing an additional 120 days to complete construction of the hangars. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 16.G. TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD "COUNTY" AND DAVID TILLER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, "LESSEE" ALSO KNOWN AS SOFTBALL NATION Dr. James Worsley, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider an amendment to the lease agreement with David Tiller and Associates, LLC, also known as Softball Nation, to account for the lessee's loss of income due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He stated the lessee leases fields at the Harry G. Daniel Park at Iron Bridge and the Warbro Athletic Complex. He provided details of the current lease agreement dated December 16, 2013. He stated staff is requesting the rent due June 2020 in the amount of $15,000 be waived due to the closure of the leased facilities and loss of income by the lessee during March, April, and May. Ms. Haley called for public comment. • There being no one to speak to the issue, the public hearing was closed. 20-434 6/24/2020 On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Winslow, the Board approved an amendment to the lease agreement dated December 16, 2013, with David Tiller and Associates, LLC, also known as Softball Nation, waiving the rent due June 2020 in the amount of $15,000. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 17. REMAINING MANUFACTURED HOME PERMITS AND ZONING REQUESTS There were no remaining manufactured home permits or zoning requests. 18. FIFTEEN -MINUTE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS There were no speakers at this time. (It is noted citizen comments on unscheduled matters received through the online portal are attached as Attachment A.) 19. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Winslow thanked staff, and the Department of Communications and Media in particular, for their hard work communicating with the public during this time. Ms. Haley thanked the Sheriff's deputies for their hard work behind the scenes to coordinate the best use of the Public Meeting Room for the safety of staff and the public. Mr. Holland concurred with Mr. Winslow and Ms. Haley and expressed his thanks and appreciation. Mr. Carroll also expressed appreciation to staff and the Sheriff's deputies. He expressed his appreciation to the public for understanding the limitations in the Public Meeting Room to ensure a safe environment. He stated the Board will continue to utilize the online comment portal which is a great opportunity for those who do not -wish to attend a Board meeting in person. He wished everyone health and safety. On motion of Mr. Winslow, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adjourned at 9:12 p.m. until July 22, 2020 at 2 p.m. for a work session in Room 502 or at such other place or using such other means of communication as may be selected. Ayes: Haley, Carroll, Ingle, Winslow and Holland. Nays: None. 20-435 6/24/2020 �1 • • • • 20-436 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 5/28/2020 No comment submitted 5/29/2020 No comment submitted 5/30/2020 No comment submitted 5/31/2020 No comment submitted 6/1/2020 No comment submitted 6/2/2020 No comment submitted 6/3/2020 No comment submitted 6/4/2020 Carl Schwendem Midlothian Citizen Could the Chesterfield an Comment on Board of Supervisors Unscheduled ask the County Matters Transportation Department to go after federal funds in the Cares Act to aid building 6 foot wide sidewalks along US Route 60 and Huguenot Road and Old Buckingham Road and Route 1 and Hull Street and Robious Road and other local roads. I remember reading that the Cares Act could possibly have federal funding for local infrastructure projects in the Community Block Grant Program with possibly 1.5 billion to 3 billion dollars set up to fund local community projects. 20-437 6/24/2020 • �J • t • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Chesterfield County could use these funds to extend the sidewalks along Route 60 and along Old Buckingham Road and Huguenot Road and Robious Road. The sidewalks have to be at lest 6 feet wide or 8 feet wide with six foot wide squares between the cracks in the sidewalk to promote social distancing. 6/5/2020 No comment submitted 6/6/2020 No comment submitted 6/7/2020 No comment submitted 6/8/2020 No comment submitted 6/9/2020 No comment submitted 6/10/2020 No comment submitted 6/11/2020 No comment submitted 6/12/2020 No comment submitted 6/13/2020 No comment submitted 6/14/2020 No comment submitted 20-438 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/15/2020 No comment submitted 6/16/2020 No comment submitted 6/17/2020 No comment submitted 6/18/2020 Robert Wrenn Matoaca 20SN0526- I would like to register Courthouse my comments in Landing support of the Chesterfield Landing Project. I do believe this to be solidly planned progress for this portion of Chesterfield. It is an invitation to both young and old with the means to come into a planned community. It should help accommodate future traffic issues for that interchange, offer medical services and easily accessed amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods. Overall, I compare this to similar county projects such as the, one at Otterdale and Hull Streets, a more upscale projection of what Chesterfield can be. Thank you for your time. 6/18/2020 Jennifer Wrenn Matoaca 20SN0526- I would like to register Courthouse my comments in Landing support of the Chesterfield Landing Project. I do believe this to be solidly planned progress for this portion of Chesterfield. It is an invitation to both young and old with the 20-439 6/24/2020 • • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments means to come into a planned community. It should help accommodate future traffic issues for that interchange, offer medical services and easily accessed amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods. Overall, I compare this to similar county projects such as the one at Otterdale and Hull Streets, a more upscale projection of what Chesterfield can be. Thank you for your time. 6/18/2020 Alan Jones Dale 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. If we don't continue to grow and improve our community the younger generation will continue to leave the County. 6/18/2020 Emmitt Totty Bermuda 20SN0526- I am in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. I think it is well worth our effort to get started on it. Please consider a "YES" vote for it. 6/18/2020 Ann Totty Clover Hill 20SN0526- I am in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. Great tax source for the county. 6/18/2020 Suzann Flemming Bermuda 20SN0526- Good Evening Courthouse Mr. Chairman Landing Members of Board of Supervisors My name is Suzanne Fleming and I have resided in Chesterfield County for 50 years and worked 32 of those years for the county. Currently I live 20-440 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments in the Bermuda District. When I started, work in 1974, Route 10 was a two lane road. Over the years I have had the privilege of being part of Good Growth for Chesterfield. I am proud to say I live in this County. Webster's Dictionary defines progress as" to move forward; to develop to a higher better, or move advanced stage." Courthouse Landing meets this definition. I am in support of continued progress in our County; therefore, I am here tonight to advise you of my support of Courthouse Landing. We must continue to move forwa rd. I have two areas I would like to address. I am pleased that part of the development will include a quality hotel which will be easily accessible to the county when trainers and speakers need overnight accommodations. This was not available when I was working. Also it will be a good resource for residents. As I live within a 5 mile radius of Courthouse Landing the hotel will be convenient for me when I have overnight guests and need additional space vs going to the 195 area. Although I am retired I 20-441 6/24/2020 • C • • 0 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments remain committed to the County and volunteer at the Police Department and often meet friends for lunch. We would welcome the additional restaurant choices as my friends and I strongly support keeping our money in the county. The retail shops will also keep our money locally and be most convenient instead of having to drive to a mail. I ask that you vote in favor of Good Growth for Chesterfield. Thank you for your time this evening 6/18/2020 Shannon Ingraham Midlothian 20SN0526- I'm in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse landing Landing project. 6/18/2020 Emily Ingraham Midlothian 20SN0526- I'm in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse landing Landing project. 6/18/2020 Alton & Copley Bermuda 20SN0526- My wife and I are in Emily Courthouse favor of the approval Landing of the Courthouse Landing Project in our county. It will be a benefit to the community and bring added revenue as well. 6/18/2020 John Kline Matoaca 20SN0526- The Courthouse Courthouse Landing has been a Landing project I have been following since the first public meeting. In this first meeting the developers made many notes on what the public had concerns about. After the second meeting the developers again made many changes to the plan and addressed the public 20-442 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments once again for their input and concerns. There have been many road improvement changes to their plan. The developers again went back to the plan and made changes to address their comments. The developers then went to the Planning Commission meeting. They were turned down for the issue of bird strikes because of the airport traffic. They were required to have open silt retention ponds. It was redesigned to put all water runoff under ground. They received written FAA approval . The developers have tried to work in every way with the County and the public. The developers have spent time and money to make this the upscale development for Chesterfield county .After fulfilling all of these requests, they . again went back to the Planning Commission and they received a unanimous approval. This is the largest project in the Dale District that I can ever . remember. I would suggest that you approve this plan. simply on the merits and that it is best for Chesterfield. County 6/18/2020 Barbara Kline Matoaca 20SN0526- This development has Courthouse been "in the works" for Landing a very long time. My 20-443 6/24/2020 • • 01 • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments opinion is firmly in support of this development. This area of Chesterfield County is conveniently located right off Rt 288. The revenue for Chesterfield County would be tremendous. The road issues have been addressed, the airport issues have been addressed, the citizen concerns have all been addressed. You have a developer who has proven to be responsible and concerned with the community. The time is now to pass this zoning case. I am concerned leaving this area undeveloped would hinder the progress in Chesterfield. Do the right thing and more forward with approval of this project 6/18/2020 Herbert Yancey Matoaca 20SN0526- Board of Supervisors Courthouse Chesterfield County, Landing VA In reference to the Courthouse Landing case, I see no issue in the re -zoning requested. Therefore, I vote in favor of this proposal. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Herb Yancey 6/18/2020 Jane Waldrop Dale 20SN0526- I support approval to Courthouse proceed with the Landing development of Courthouse Landing. This will be an excellent addition to 20-444 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Chesterfield County and the improvement of Iron Bridge Road. 6/18/2020 Bee Spencer Clover Hill 20SN0526- I fully support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. Please bring more tax dollars to Chesterfield! Please help Chesterfield grow the economy by voting yes to Court House Landing! 6/18/2020 Ronnie Bryant Matoaca 20SN0526- Route 10 in the Courthouse chesterfield Court Landing house area is growing at a fast pace.We are no longer a rural county. Courthouse Landing is a good fit for that property.With all thats being spent on road improvements and other improvements It's a win-win for the County.With the tax base it will generate hopefully it will help keep our real estate taxes down. With a nice hotel and restaurant on the property it will be a win-win for the County airport as well.) hope as a board of supervisors you will pass this project. Ronnie Bryant 6/18/2020 Robert Wrenn Matoaca 20SN0526- I would like to register Courthouse my comments in Landing support of the Chesterfield Landing Project. I do believe this to be solidly planned progress for this portion of Chesterfield. It is an invitation to both young and old with the 20-445 6/24/2020 is U is • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments means to come into a planned community. It should help accommodate future traffic issues for that interchange, offer medical services and easily accessed amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods. Overall,.) compare this to similar county projects such as the one at Otterdale and Hull Streets, a more upscale projection of what Chesterfield can be. Thank you for your time. 6/18/2020 James Taylor Matoaca 20SN0526- PLEASE SUPPORT AND Courthouse PASS, "THE Landing COURTHOUSE LANDING CASE." WOULD BE GREAT FOR CITIZENS AND COUNTY. THANK YOU 6/18/2020 Donna Lythgoe Dale 20SN0526- Chesterfield Board of Courthouse Supervisors, Landing It is my hope you will approve the request to allow the Courthouse Landing project to move forward. It has been a long time since the Dale District has benefited from a much needed growth project. I know the traffic is currently an issue for traffic entering Courthouse Rd at Ironbridge, especially during school hour openings. I see this as a solution to this problem with the cost being incurred by the developers thus saving Chesterfield 20-446 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments County money to solve a current problem. I see job opportunities for the citizens of Chesterfield County as well as tax revenue. The close proximity to 288 will make this a great housing option for young couples and singles wishing to live in Chesterfield and work elsewhere having the best of both worlds. The recreation area will enhance the option for everyone choosing this as their residence. I see this as a win-win for Chesterfield County keeping more revenue in Chesterfield as opposed to shopping and dinning in neighboring localities. The developers have met and surpassed the request and concerns of the county while paying for improvements to this intersection issue. I see this development enhancing the Dale District in Chesterfield and making it possible to improve property values and revenue for the county. Who turns down free money??? Thank you for considering this request. 6/19/2020 Mi Taylor Matoaca 20SN0526- I support this project. Courthouse Please vote yes. Thank Landing you. 6/19/2020 David Harris Matoaca 20SN0526- I ask that you approve Courthouse the Courthouse Landing Landing case and let's get this project going! 20-447 6/24/2020 u �J • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Although I have no financial or business interest in the development, I can recognize the benefit to Chesterfield and the Dale district having worked in this area for over 34 years and lived in the Dale district almost as long. This development will generate construction & ongoing jobs, improve the existing traffic issues though road improvements, create substantial annual tax revenue and offer amenities where we can enjoy a meal, take a walk, host out of town teams for sporting tournaments and shop. For years, Chesterfield placed bumper stickers on county vehicles that said "Shop Chesterfield". Help us to Shop Chesterfield but voting YES. 6/19/2020 Leslie Shepperson Matoaca 20SN0526- I support Courthouse Courthouse Landing and helping Landing Chesterfield County Grow. Vote Yes! 6/19/2020 Isom Ford Matoaca 20SN0526- I support Courthouse Courthouse Landing and the Landing growth of Chesterfield County. Vote Yes! 6/19/2020 Earle Spencer III Matoaca 20SN0526- I support Courthouse Courthouse Landing and the Landing growth of Chesterfield County. Vote Yes! 6/19/2020 Bubba Shepperson Matoaca 20SN0526- Vote Yes! Courthouse Landing 6/19/2020 Linda Ford Matoaca 20SN0526- I support Courthouse Courthouse Landing and the Landing 20-448 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments growth of Chesterfield County. Vote Yes! 6/19/2020 Travis Jimenez Matoaca 20SN0526- As a lifelong resident Courthouse of Chesterfield County Landing I fully support the development of the Courthouse Landing project. There should absolutely be affordable housing as well as a hotel near the county government complex. The planning commission has fully vetted this project and recommends it. Supervisors who don't approve are doing so against the advice of their own organization as well as public opinion. 6/19/2020 Tonya Jenkins Dale 20SN0526- I fully support this Courthouse project as it helps to Landing develop the Dale district. 6/19/2020 Cedell Jenkins Dale 20SN0526- I fully support this Courthouse project as it helps to Landing develop the Dale district. 6/19/2020 Eileen Jenkins Dale 20SN0526- I support this project Courthouse and am excited for Landing more development in our district. 6/19/2020 Bill Jenkins Dale 20SN0526- I support this project Courthouse and am excited for Landing more development in our district. 6/19/2020 Cabell Clements Clover Hill 20SN0526- Dear Board of Courthouse Supervisors, Landing My name is Chuck Clements and I am writing to request your support for the Courthouse Landing Project! I have been a resident of the County for 70 20-449 6/24/2020 • is • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments years and I am in support of mixed use development in our county! These type of projects bring much needed revenue that is necessary to support the county's infrastructure (schools,roads, etc.) I have been very impressed with the Cloverleaf Mall mixed use development! I have attended every public meeting that has been associated with the Courthouse Landing Project and it appears that the developer along with planning commission has adequately addressed the citizen concerns related to this project regarding the airport, schools, traffic, retention ponds etc. At the present time this vacant county land has produced no revenue for over 20 years! This is good growth for Chesterfield County and again I request your support for this project! Sincerely yours, Chuck Clements 6/19/2020 Melissa Brockwell Matoaca 20SN0526- We vote in favor of Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. 6/19/2020 Barry Brockwell Matoaca 20SN0526- I vote in favor of Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. 20-450 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/19/2020 Sandra Weeks Matoaca 20SN0526- I would like to . Courthouse encourage you to Landing approve the Courthouse Project. This has the unanimous support and approval of the Planning Commission. This will create tax revenue for Chesterfield County. Thank you for your support and affirmation of the Courthouse Landing Project. Sandi Weeks 6/19/2020 Walter Weeks Matoaca 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project and encourage you to approve at the upcoming Board of Supervisors meeting. This is an exciting time for the Dale district and will bring new possibilities to Chesterfield County. Thank you, W. Keith Weeks 6/19/2020 Nicole Jones Dale 20SN0526- I support this project Courthouse as I think it is great Landing development for the Dale district where my mother lives. 6/19/2020 Robin Gary Dale 20SN0526- Please vote to support Courthouse the Courthouse Landing Landing Project. This will bring positive changes and opportunities to the Dale District. Thank you, Robin Gary 6/19/2020 James Fry Matoaca 20SN0526- As a resident of Courthouse Chesterfield for over Landing 40 years, I support the 20-451 6/24/2020 • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Courthouse Landing project. Tax revenue will become of prime driver of maintaining current service levels of Police,Fire etc in the whole county which will undoubtedly be effected by the CCV virus pandemic. Thanks for your attention. James Fry 6/19/2020 Bonnie Tinsley Dale 20SN0526- I support this project Courthouse and think it is good Landing development for this area. 6/19/2020 Susan Snyder Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of the Courthouse proposed Courthouse Landing Landing project. It sounds like Dunphy has addressed several of the zoning concerns and would construct the transporation infrastructure first before the apts and condominiums. Plus the retail would bring income into the area by means of jobs and the school systems capacity study shows it can accomadate new students. Let this go through! 6/19/2020 Hunter Belcher Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. 6/19/2020 ivy phillips Matoaca 20SN0526- I approve of the Courthouse courthouse landing Landing project 6/19/2020 kim phillips Matoaca 20SN0526- I approve of the Courthouse courthouse landing Landing project. It will be nice not to have to go on Hull Street Road to go to a restaurant. 20-452 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/19/2020 Kim Shults Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of this Courthouse great chance for Landing economic growth for the county. I hope board of supervisors will support the unanimous planning commission decision! 6/20/2020 Kim Spencer- Matoaca 20SN0526- This would be great for Boyles Courthouse the community and Landing bring revenue to the County!! 6/20/2020 Elizabeth Toney Dale 20SN0526- I support the project. Courthouse Landing 6/20/2020 Dawn Toney Matoaca, 20SN0526- I support the project. Courthouse Landing 6/20/2020 Ellen Steinmetz Matoaca 20SN0526- I support the project. Courthouse Landing 6/20/2020 Marie Taylor Matoaca 20SN0526- Please support the Courthouse COURTHOUSE Landing LANDING CASE IT WILL BE GOOD FOR OUT COMUNITY, CITIZENS AND CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. THANK YOU 6/20/2020 Evelynn Pell Bermuda 20SN0526- I fully support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing development project. Vote yes and bring some much needed jobs, tax revenue.and road improvements to Chesterfield! 6/20/2020 Sandra Saunders Dale 20SN0526- I support this request. Courthouse It's from a very Landing reputable Chesterfield County resident. It will certainly help with the county revenue. 6/20/2020 Charles Clements Matoaca 20SN0526- Courthouse Landing is Courthouse an opportunity to Landing bring a much-needed development in the Dale District. Please vote yes to the 20-453 6/24/2020 • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Courthouse Landing project. 6/20/2020 Daniel Jordan Bermuda 20SN0526- Please vote yes on the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing case. The developer would like to invest in our community and IMPROVE the roads! 6/20/2020 Allison MacMillan Dale 20SN0526- I think Courthouse Courthouse Landing will be an Landing asset to Iron Bridge Road and Chesterfield County. 6/20/2020 Ralph MacMillan Dale 20SN0526- Courthouse Landing Courthouse will be a great addition Landing to Chesterfield County and also Iron Bridge Road. I look forward to this addition to our County. 6/20/2020 Richard' Mullis Clover Hill 20SN0526- I am in support of this Courthouse change in Chesterfield Landing County. I am looking forward to the diversity and options that this will bring to our community. Keep bringing great projects like this to our neighborhoods! Great job! 6/20/2020 Hugh Crittenden Dale 20SN0526- The Courthouse Courthouse Landing development Landing will be a great addition to Chesterfield County. I've attended the meetings, and I am very much in favor of this project. 6/20/2020 Claudia Stewart Midlothian 20SN0526- Please support the Courthouse project for Landing development! Thanks. 6/20/2020 Kristi Higgins Bermuda 20SN0526- The Courthouse Courthouse Landing project will be Landing a great addition to Chesterfield County. I'd rather see it move forward rather than some other development that may 20-454 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments not enhance our quality of life. 6/20/2020 Ruth Stinson Matoaca 20SN0526- Moving the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing zoning case forward will help Chesterfield build the Dale district! Vote yes to improving this area that has needed it for years! 6/20/2020 Gayle Clements Matoaca 20SN0526- Courthouse Landing is Courthouse a great opportunity to Landing improve the roads in Chesterfield without the county paying for it. Please vote yes to this improvement to land that has been an eye sore for years! 6/21/2020 Chris Davis Matoaca 20SN0526- I fully support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. Bring a much- needed hotel to the area by voting yes!!!! 6/21/2020 James Clements Matoaca 20SN0526- A project like Courthouse Courthouse Landing is Landing exactly what is needed for that corner! Bring something pleasant and well designed to that area. I encourage everyone to vote yes! 6/21/2020 Beverly Garner Matoaca 20SN0526- Help Chesterfield Courthouse move forward after Landing this pandemic by voting yes to the Courthouse Landing project. It will provide jobs and additional tax revenue to our great county! 6/21/2020 Connie Vaughan Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in full support of Courthouse the Courthouse Landing Landing Project. The developers have worked very hard hear the public's concerns and address them. This area of Chesterfield has limited retail and 20-455 6/24/2020 • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments restaurants. I would like to not have to go over to either Midlothian Turnpike or Hull Street to shop. 6/21/2020 Belinda Isbell Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of this Courthouse project. This area Landing needs some revitalization. My daughter works in the area and it would be great if she had somewhere to go at lunch. 6/21/2020 Nicki Isbell Matoaca 20SN0526- I work in the area and I Courthouse would love some Landing additional retail in the area. 6/21/2020 William Bottoms Matoaca 20SN0526- I no longer travel down Courthouse Route 10 in that Landing direction because there is nothing there. It would be great to have something new. 6/21/2020 Jane Bottoms Matoaca 20SN0526- I would love some new Courthouse retail that would Landing improve this area. 6/21/2020 Frederic Simmons Dale 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse courthouse landing Landing project because I believe it will enhance the area's economy. 6/21/2020 Sheri Soencer Matoaca 20SN0526- I would like to let you Courthouse know that I am in favor Landing of the Courthouse Landing Prohect. I think it would be really nice for the County to. have new restaurants, gas station, over 55 community, townhouses, hotel etc. Thankyou 6/21/2020 Jennifer Smith Matoaca 20SN0526- I support this project. Courthouse It would be nice to go Landing to Ironbridge Rd versus Hull St. 6/21/2020 Kenneth Smith Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in support of this Courthouse project! Landing 20-456 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/21/2020 Wilson Spencer Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of The Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. The tax base created by this project . is definitely needed by the County. Thank you for your vote in approving this project. 6/22/2020 Lawrence Taylor Matoaca 20SN0526- As a resident of Courthouse Matoaca District and a Landing property owner in Dale District in Deerfield Estates, I strongly support the Courthouse Landing Project. It will not only give an economic boost to Chesterfield County, but will provide a quality project. This will promote "good growth" for our county at a time when it is greatly needed. Thanks for voting yes! 6/22/2020 Lester Stinson Matoaca 20SN0526- Vote yes for the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. It will bring in not just tax revenue but also provide jobs. 6/22/2020 Ronald Trent Dale 20SN0526- Moving the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing zoning case forward will help Chesterfield build the Dale district! Vote yes to improving this area that has needed it for years. 6/22/2020 John Waldrop Dale 20SN0526- I feel that this should Courthouse be approved. The Landing location next to 288 and with all the new construction in the county there is no reason nit to approve this. 6/22/2020 Tammy Woodcock Dale 20SN0526- I am in favor of this Courthouse project as it will bring Landing much needed business 20-457 6/24/2020 • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments to Chesterfield as well as providing more housing for those of us that are over 55. 6/22/2020 Dylan Simmons Matoaca 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. I think it would be great for our county. 6/22/2020 Vincent Peters Dale 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse courthouse landing Landing project. 6/22/2020 Justin Toney Dale 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse development of this Landing difficult property. I am a lifelong chesterfield resident, and live in dale district about 4 miles from the proposed development. We need a build to spec Medical Office Building to attract a top tier provider in our area. The hotel will be a positive attribute to this project as well, offering convenient lodging for the various tournaments at Iron Bridge and Pocahontas Parks. The proposed road improvements are just that. Improvements to a difficult intersection. I hope to see positive results from the Board of Supervisors meeting in this week. 6/22/2020 Gladys Hancock Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of this Courthouse project. Landing 6/22/2020 William Pearce Dale 20SN0526- I am not in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project, case number 20SN0526. My name is William Pearce and I live in the Deerfield 20-458 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments subdivision. I believe because of the density of the project and its future effect on the traffic at the intersection of Courthouse Rd and Route 10, along with the 288 exchange, it would be detrimental to the safety of the community and add too the traffic congestion already surrounding the courthouse area. The interference by the residential construction in the project to the airport flight path would be detrimental to the airport's existence, after so much county money has gone to the airport for its continuing upgrade to make it a vital part of community development. I am not in favor of the Courthouse Landing Project as it has been presented and amended. Thank you." 6/22/2020 Clifford Brown Clover Hill 20SN0526- I am I favor of the Courthouse project. A motel would Landing be really nice to have in that area and bring in more tax revenue. 6/22/2020 Patricia Brown Clover Hill 20SN0526- I am very much in Courthouse favor of the project. Landing 6/22/2020 Robert Meadows Midlothian 20SN0526- I'm in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse landing Landing Project. 6/22/2020 V Meadows Midlothian 20SN0526- I'm in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. 20-459 6/24/2020 • �J • LJ 0 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/22/2020 Jill Waldrop Dale 20SN0526- This is an excellent Courthouse location for growth. Landing There is no reason to not approve this request. 6/22/2020 MerriBeth Gibson Dale 20SN0526- The BOS needs to Courthouse approve this case. We Landing need to attract and sustain business growth in the county or we lose out to other local jurisdictions. 6/22/2020 Keith Jones Dale 20SN0526- I approve of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. 6/22/2020 Jen Garrett Matoaca 20SN0526- Please pass this case. _Courthouse The unanimous Landing approval from the planning commission was a great step, but now we need you to approve this and take another step forward. Thank you in advance for your consideration. 6/22/2020 Jason Totty Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project 2OSN0526 6/22/2020 Brian Smith Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of the Courthouse project Landing 6/22/2020 Jim Gibson Midlothian 20SN0526- Dear Board of Courthouse Supervisors, Landing As a longtime resident of Chesterfield County and business owner I strongly encourage all supervisors to support the courthouse Landing project. Chesterfield County needs to create opportunities for small businesses. It is time to help small business owners of Chesterfield County. This project would be a huge asset to Central Chesterfield and the metropolitan 20-460 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments area. Thank you, Jim Gibson 6/22/2020 Mark Rondina Dale 20SN0526- Please vote in favor for Courthouse the Courthouse Landing Landing Project. It would be very beneficial to all county residents. 6/22/2020 Robert lenhart Clover Hill 20SN0526- Dear Supervisors, Courthouse Landing I am in support of this project which is mixed use development that represents positive growth for Chesterfield County! The proposed medical offices, hotel, restaurants are all needed in this area! 1 thank you for supporting this project! 6/22/2020 Steve Vaughan Matoaca 20SN0526- Hello! Courthouse I am writing to Landing encourage your support on the Courthouse Landing project. I supported this project early on but then heard all of the questions for clarification that were brought up that individuals felt needed to be addressed. I feel even more in favor of this project now as those questions have been addressed by those putting this project together. I see that this would be a huge plus for the continued growth of Chesterfield County, and specifically the area of 20-461 6/24/2020 is is • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Chesterfield Courthouse. The courthouse itself and the nearby police and fire safety building all bring in individuals that would benefit from the convenient hotel arrangements that would be made. The area would itself would benefit from the housing and medical offices provided. Everyone would benefit from the additional shops that would be included. I hope that you will see the importance of the Courthouse Landing project. Thank you! Steve Vaughan 6/22/2020 William Gleason Midlothian Citizen I am a resident of the Comment on Midlothian District and Unscheduled have written to Matters Supervisor Leslie Haley on several recent occasions regarding gunshots in the vicinity of our neighborhood in the Queensmill subdivision and the homes adjacent to and just south of Darrell Dr. near Lucks Lane and homes located just east of Evergreen Parkway I live on Boggs Circle and have complained 2-3 times to the police about gunfire in our area. An incident occurred recently to one of our neighbors who lives on Darrell Dr. He and his son were working their yard when heard a 20-462 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments whizzing sound pass just over their heads. Subsequently, they found a 9, mm bullet, that had apparently ricocheted off a nearby object and was on the ground. Our neighbor said that the bullet sound came from the south. He is aware of the individual who lives south of 288 and who has a firing range. Our neighbor notified the Chesterfield Police and an officer indicated that the bullet would be sent off to have a ballistics test. But it once again brings up the. issue of firearms being discharged near residential areas. My neighbors and I are very concerned about the potential danger of firearms being discharged within fairly close proximity to residential . neighborhoods and two major highways (288 & 76). 1 believe that the current ordinance is woefully outdated and needs to be modified to increase the legal distance allowed for discharging firearms. The current ordinance is 600 feet from any public buildings, homes, etc. Given how far a bullet can travel, 600 feet is unacceptable when there are highways 20-463 6/24/2020 0 is • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments and residential areas within 2,000 feet or less. I am bringing this issue to your attention to ask that the county consider amending its firearms ordinance to do the following: 1. Extend the allowable distance for the discharge of firearms from 600 feet to 2,500 feet, and 2. Prohibit the discharge of firearms within the proximity of major roads In her response to me, Supervisor Haley said "there is no evidence that this property and the firing of these guns on this property has any hint of danger." I strongly disagree with her statement and would argue that a bullet passing near the heads of our neighbors as dangerous. 6/22/2020 Cheryl Daoulas Dale 20SN0526- I am in support of the Courthouse zoning request for the Landing Courthouse Landing case. Development in the Iron Bridge Rdarea of Chesterfield will bring businesses and housing, thus increasing revenue to the County to benefit County residents. 6/22/2020 Linwood Hines Dale 20SN0526- I am opposed to the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. The projected additional traffic adds danger to school commutes. It takes 59 County owned acres of 20-464 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments woodland and wetland that can be used for . other good County purposes, at a land, sale rate that is ridiculously low. It ads danger to the potential residents and customers of the project because of the airport extended flight path. The "gas station" will create noise, crime, pollution (light, air, noise). We have local facilities that are already in a commercial area one mile away. The project will decrease property values in the overall vicinity, negating additional tax revenue generated by the commercial tax. I also encourage the County to purchase the Spencer property utilizing it for County facilities that will not pose the negatives above. Further, the project has been pushed by the Planning Department and Planning Commission, with lack of transparency, suppression of facts, leaving one to believe that the present Planning Commission is arrogantly ignoring the Dale District citizens. They have suppressed expert input, in favor of project rhetoric. The Planning Commission 20-465 6/24/2020 • is • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments disallowed public meeting and reported false statistics. Our County held a public march at roughly the same period with hundreds of people, but the Planning Commission couldn't find a way for the public to be heard? I now do not trust any work that this commission puts forth to the public. therefore call for the resignation of the existing members of the Planning Commission. They do not represent the citizens of Chesterfield County. 6/22/2020 Kimberly Hicks Matoaca 20SN0526- I'm am in favor of Courthouse developing this area. Landing This would bring needed revenue to our local area and help keep our taxes lower, as well as provide jobs. 6/22/2020 Arthur Hicks II Matoaca 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse development of this Landing area for bringing jobs and revenue to our local area. 6/22/2020 Bew Tracey Dale 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. Thank you. 6/22/2020 Bew Dennis Dale 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. Thank you. 6/22/2020 Deborarh Hines Dale 20SN0526- I am opposed to the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing proposal, zoning case 20SN0526. 20-466 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Ifeel that the commercialization of the area is unnecessary, as there. are many businesses close by. It will . increase traffic into sensitive school zones; therefore endangering our children, teachers and parents. Please add my comment to the public record. Deborah P. Hines 9509 Woodgate Rd. Chesterfield, VA 23832 6/22/2020 Jennifer Mullis Clover Hill 20SN0526- Thank you for the Courthouse opportunity to show Landing my support for the Courthouse Landing project. I have lived in chesterfield county for 40 years. This proposed project is one that I believe will be an asset to our, county for years to come. Improved road conditions, additional business opportunities, and wider diversity in shopping options will all serve to boost the economy of this area. I appreciate the county's willingness to hear the concerns of its citizens, and applaud the developer and the County for working together to see this project though! I support good. growth for Chesterfield! 20-467 6/24/2020 • • • • t • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/22/2020 Elizabeth Bryson Matoaca 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project for the following reasons: It will be a valuable resource to our part of Chesterfield County for numerous reasons Hotel for this area Condominiums and residential housing that will appeal to young adult, families and older adults with close proximity to 288.. Medical services, closer to our homes, Restaurant Generate Tax revenue to our county Much planning has gone into this proposal in addressing traffic concerns, building heights, wet lands, sidewalks, park like setting etc. with concerns being addressed. I appreciate the opportunity to vice my support of this project Elizabeth "Betty" Bryson 6/22/2020 Donna Lythgoe Dale 20SN0526- Dear Members of the Courthouse Board of Supervisors, Landing The Courthouse Landing project is long overdue for the Dale District. It will bring tax revenue to Chesterfield alleviating the need to raise taxes for citizens. The fact the developers of this project will be paying for much needed road improvements at 20-468 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Courthouse and Ironbridge will also save the taxpayers money. This development will offer options for singles, and young couples wishing to live near transportation to jobs in Richmond without having to live in the city. The recreational open space will allow residence to enjoy outdoor activities without leaving their area. The hotel, nicer restaurants and retail will keep money in the county as opposed to Chesterfield citizens spending their dollars in surrounding counties. The job opportunities to complete the project as well as much needed jobs for residence of the county upon completion is another reason to vote yes to get this project underway. I see students at the Chesterfield Technical center and Bird High School having internship/career shadowing and job. opportunities within close proximity as well. The developers have made the adjustments required to make this a win-win project for Chesterfield County and the residents of the Dale District. Vote YES, help make Dale District a more 20-469 6/24/2020 • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments desirable area for future residents. This is a fiscally wise decision for Chesterfield County. Thank you, Bobby Lythgoe 6/23/2020 Phil Lohr Bermuda 20SN0526- I oppose this case. Courthouse Traffic counts should Landing have been conducted earlier in the school year. Lighter traffic in late May and June. They always use Tues or Wed, never Monday or Friday. My previous experience with these large scale traffic studies in several cases, including the Mega Site, indicates traffic on Mon and Fri is normally 10-20% higher than what the survey for this case has shown. By waiting until the school year end and using a Tues this survey really does not reflect true counts. My FOIA response from the County which stated Steve Adams, CDOT, resolved the complex weave issues with verbal meetings, there were NO written documents, begs to compare with Planning's falsification of the for and against counts as presented at the PC meeting. Staff does not want BOS or citizens to see transportation details before the case is passed. Common sense reasoning by any person would understand 20-470 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 21,000 plus trips added to the current weave should dictate that one or two of the suggested CDOT major improvements must be funded as part of this case to protect the health, welfare and safety of all citizens and students who travel this area. Not doing so proves Chesterfield leaders put their desire for commercial growth ahead of citizen safety. What we'll get -- mostly residents with same old retail, restaurant, storage, and gas station mix. If passed, will this be another Watkins Center, just another example of typical surburban sprawl. This case should be denied. 6/23/2020 Julie Ranson Bermuda 20SN0526- Please vote NO on this Courthouse development. it's Landing difficult to envision this project will emerge as stated - restaurants, hotels? Its proximity to OB Gates is also concerning. Thank you 6/23/2020 Pat Taylor Matoaca 20SN0526- The upcoming Courthouse proposal is a much Landing needed project for Chesterfield. It appears that the county lacks businesses and restaurants in this area. We need this growth. We should be competitive with other counties and localities to improve the revenue in our county. This would lessen our 20-471 6/24/2020 • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments taxes and improve the area. The road improvements would be a plus for the citizens of Chesterfield, because of this need. I am in approval of Courthouse Landing. 6/23/2020 Kay Robertson Dale 20SN0526- I remain OPPOSED to Courthouse the Courthouse Landing Landing (29:11) proposal, Case #20SN0526.One of my resounding complaints rest with the non - transparency and lack of correct figures regarding this case. I can document this observation. At the Planning Commission, Dr. Hylton did not relay true facts on the citizen voting of this case. Dr. Hylton reported at the virtual meeting "89 were supportive and 102 were in opposition." I have read all 57 pages from that hearing (citizen input), and they were absolutely wrong. My findings show: 59 individuals in support and 112 individuals NOT in support of Courthouse Landing. This is a monumental difference from "reality" and what was reported. And, even worse is that the Planning Commission did not admit to the fallacy of their figures; they refused to change the minutes. That was wrong, and is unacceptable as 20-472 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments leaders of our community. It is up to you as responsible leaders to accurately relay facts. And it is your obligation to take into consideration ALL submissions. For the Planning Commission to not even acknowledge the letter from Mr. Collins, nor to reflect that letter in the minutes is objectionable. It reveals to me that the Planning Commission was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the citizens they represent. That was wrong! I genuinely hope that you will not follow that same path. I do not want Courthouse Landing (29:11) • Traffic is problematic. Congestion will be a nightmare. • Unsightly gas station at the entrance. We don't need additional gas stations. • Mini storage units unsightly. And we have four within a 2 -mile radius. And the square footage was increased from the original proposal of 100,000 to 115,000. • Not an upscale project. • Too many homes, apartments, condos. We don't want them. • Adjacent to an. airport. Not wise. . o Toxic emissions 20-473 6/24/2020 • • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments o Noise levels o De -evaluation of home values • Too close to the schools on Courthouse Road. • Too many empty stores now as it is. 6/23/2020 Larry Robertson Dale 20SN0526- I am opposed, Courthouse absolutely opposed, to Landing the Courthouse Landing Project. It is not needed; it will be a nightmare traffic -wise; it should never be close to an airport; you should not have a complex like this even remotely close to a school; and it is not upscale at all. The citizens who live close by will be negatively affected. Please use wise judgment and vote to NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT. Please listen to the citizens you represent. It is your duty. 6/23/2020 Thomas Surles Midlothian 20SN0526- My wife will be calling Courthouse in, but I wanted to put Landing my comments in writing to you. I don't want the project. I don't want the headaches of traffic and I don't think what they plan to build is even needed. We don't need a gas station. And we certainly don't want mini -storage units built there. And I heard they now plan to increase these from 100,000 to 115,000 square feet -- ridiculous. And the airport is too close. I heard people report 20-474 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments that airplanes cause health problems. You should not let the developers build there. Buy the land for County use or even better yet, use the land for education of the young people whose schools are on Courthouse Road. 6/23/2020 Donna Spencer Dale 20SN0526- It is time to move Courthouse forward and vote yes Landing for the Courthouse Landing Project. After addressing ALL of the concerns expressed by the community and adding millions of dollars to the overall cost of the project, the Developer answered every concern. After doing their due diligence in the process, each of the Planning Commissioners YOU APPOINTED voted to approve this quality, project. By approving Courthouse Landing YOU will be saying yes to the most exciting thing to happen in Dale District in years, while at the same time, contributing to GOOD GROWTH FOR CHESTERFIELDM 6/23/2020 Mike Uzel Bermuda 20SN0526- I am registering my Courthouse opposition to this Landing project now..Due to the censoring of the comments from this on-line portal in the past by the Board'of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, I will speak my reasons LIVE DURING the 20-475 6/24/2020 is • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Board of Supervisors meeting Wednesday. Covid-19 will still keep people from attending in person. Your censorship actions have been a travesty to the right to free speech of the Citizens of Chesterfield. 6/23/2020 Alton Copley Matoaca 20SN0526- My wife, Linda and I Courthouse would encourage you Landing . to vote for approval of the Courthouse Landing Project. We feel that it will add value to our community, increase local employment and contribute added revenue to the County. 6/23/2020 Sandra Brasili Bermuda 20SN0526- The laundry list of Courthouse concerns attached to Landing this project (sounds more like a giveaway) is troubling. The fact that there was no Public Hearing during the meeting, as required by Chesterfield's code is even more troubling. I believe most residents like to kid themselves that their localities are like Mayberry when compared to behemoth cities and the federal government, but the sleight-of-hand sausage making is the same. Bulldozing ahead with "what the county bureaucrats want" at the expense of the taxpayers who did NOT elect them, became SOP in Chesterfield County years ago. I had hoped 20-476 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments that getting "new blood" on the Board of Supervisors would upset the "rubber stamp" reputation the supervisors have where the bureaucrats and unelected boards call the shots. Apparently not. It has been evident for quite. some time that the BoS is a little group of people with ceremonial titles who have no interest in looking out for or taking accountability for their actions where taxpayers interests are involved. 6/23/2020 Kelly Harris Dale 20SN0526- This end of the county Courthouse stands to become Landing irrelevant if we do not have NEW growth, NEW development, NEW job opportunities, and. NEW tax revenue!! All the new growth is happening north of us on 288 - Westchester Commons is still expanding and here we are at a standstill - or worse - a backslide because we are not bringing NEW business to the Dale district! Please vote YES so that I can keep my consumer dollars here in this district!! Chesterfield needs these new opportunities now more than ever. Let's rebound from the COVID-19 crisis in a big way. SAY YES TO 20-477 6/24/2020 • 0 11 • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments COURTHOUSE LANDING. Thank you. 6/23/2020 Dennis Proffitt Dale 20SN0526- I fully support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. It's important that the development enhances the County. Restaurants and much needed medical offices are just two of the many benefits it will offer. I believe this is just what is needed at this time. 6/23/2020 Matthew Stinson Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in support of the Courthouse courthouse landing Landing project. It will be a welcome addition to the county. Please vote to approve the project. Thank you 6/23/2020 Maddie Jordan Bermuda 20SN0526- Please vote yes to Courthouse Courthouse Landing. Landing The added tax revenue would be great for Chesterfield. When we are not growing, we are dying! 6/23/2020 Paul Garner Matoaca 20SN0526- The Courthouse Courthouse Landing project should Landing be approved! Please vote yes and bring new development to an area that could really use it. Bring some tax dollars back to Chesterfield. 6/23/2020 Lisa Mansfield Bermuda 20SN0526- I am registering my Courthouse opposition to this Landing project now. The location is terrible -- and dangerous for school students who are drivers, as well as students who ride the bus and have to travel through the Courthouse Rd/Route 10 intersection. No amount of 20-478 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments "engineering" can change the distance from the exit off of 288 and the left turn onto Courthouse Road. The citizens of the Dale district as well as neighboring districts who actually have to deal with the results of this project DO NOT want the increased traffic ... hence the reason we all live on this end of the county. Please do turn route 10 into the nightmare that is Hull Street and Midlothian Turnpike. Listen to the actual residents who live near this project and NOT those who have a vested interest in this project moving forward. 6/23/2020 Alan Brasili Bermuda 20SN0526- The thing that gets me Courthouse the most is the lack of Landing citizen input on this and many other cases. A maximum of 15 people can leave comments is absurd with a county population of over 300,OOO.Why is the county planning officials being led like a horse to water on this and many other EDA cases. They are going to do nothing but paint a rosy picture.These are taxpayer funds and should we should be able to have input and track how they are being spent/abused.The county has enough gas stations and self 20-479 6/24/2020 • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments storage facilities - from what I see - these are the only real commitments.lt seems like it is "Business as Usual in Chesterfield County"! 6/23/2020 Bonnie Gold Clover Hill 20SN0526- It is time to move Courthouse forward with Landing Courthouse Landing. Please vote yes. 6/23/2020 Jerry Trainham Midlothian 20SN0526- The opportunity to Courthouse have someone invest Landing in Chesterfield if here. Vote yes for Courthouse Landing! 6/23/2020 Lorna Kirby Dale 20SN0526- I hope that you will Courthouse vote yes to growth in Landing our great county, by voting yes to Courthouse Landing! 6/23/2020 Cecile Taylor Matoaca 20SN0526- Supporting Courthouse Courthouse Landing would bring a Landing much-needed hotel and medical offices to the area. It will provide road improvements that have been needed for years. It will provide a needed boost to the landscape at the corner of Courthouse & Ironbridge Road. Vote yes to improving Chesterfield! 6/23/2020 Robert Meadows Matoaca 20SN0526- I strongly support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. It will bring jobs and improve the roads in the area. Please vote yes! 6/23/2020 Richard Jordan Bermuda 20SN0526- I hope that you will Courthouse vote yes to growth in Landing our great county, by voting yes to Courthouse Landing! 6/23/2020 Keenan Watson Dale 20SN0526- It's very concerning Courthouse that this was rejected Landing by the planning 20-480 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments commission in the fall, yet was still pushed through to the BOS instead of working with the planning commission to revise the previous proposal and address the planning commissions concerns. There are plenty of valid concerns from the citizens who will be directly impacted by this decision all of which I hope are heard by the BOS. How are we not already concerned with traffic in this area before the Courthouse Landing project was brought to this counties attention? I hope you all considerthe nightmare this will bring our county, and not the $ you think will come with it. 6/23/2020 Diane Starnes Dale 20SN0526- I hope you will vote NO Courthouse on the Chesterfield Landing Landing project. The traffic on Route 10 is already a nightmare, especially during high traffic times. Building more businesses such as apartments, hotel, and whatever else else is planned will contribute to the nightmare. Also, as a resident of South Courthouse Rd., I frequently feel my life is at risk when in attempt to turn right onto Courthouse road and have to pass the exit off 288 onto Courthouse going 20-481 6/24/2020 • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments South. WHy create an even more dangerous traffic pattern by adding more chaos? THank you for hearing my concerns. 6/23/2020 Heather Jones Matoaca 20SN0526- Please vote yes to new Courthouse development in our Landing great county! Growth is needed to move us forward after this COVID19 pandemic. Courthouse Landing is a way to do that! 6/23/2020 Lindsay Stinson Matoaca 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing development. I have followed this case closely and the developer has done everything that has been asked to improve the project. That includes major road improvements, lessening the number of homes, and lowering the height of the buildings for the airport and requiring additional sound proofing of the homes. Do not force out a developer that has gone above and beyond to bring a well- planned development and an improvement to land that has sat vacant for years. Vote yes to Courthouse Landing! 6/23/2020 Matthew Carroll Matoaca 20SN0526- Courthouse Landing is Courthouse a win for the county. Landing The developer is willing to invest and improve this area. Vote yes to Courthouse Landing. 20-482 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/23/2020 Misty Jones Bermuda 20SN0526- I think that Courthouse Courthouse Landing will improve Landing and enhance the area that has not been touched in years. Move this project forward and let the developer invest in our community. Vote yes to Courthouse Landing! 6/23/2020 Amaya King Bermuda 20SN0526- I'm in favor of this Courthouse project! Landing 6/23/2020 Allen Butler Bermuda 20SN0526- I am in favor of this Courthouse project. Landing 6/23/2020 Cynthia Clements Matoaca 20SN0526- During this trying time Courthouse when a lot of people Landing are without work, vote yes to Courthouse Landing and provide jobs for Chesterfield and additional tax revenue. 6/23/2020 Marion Trent Dale 20SN0526- Help the Dale District Courthouse thrive like that rest of Landing Chesterfield. Vote yes to the Courthouse Landing project. 6/23/2020 Donald Gentry Matoaca 20SN0526- Please vote yes to.the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing development. It will provide much needed road improvements! 6/23/2020 Ron Crawley Bermuda 20SN0526- Courthouse Landing is Courthouse a great project that Landing will improve the roads! Please vote yes for this project! 6/23/2020 Annie Jordan Bermuda 20SN0526- Vote yes to the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Development. Let the developers invest in Chesterfield and improve the roads. Let them bring new development to the Dale District. 20-483 6/24/2020 • • • • • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/23/2020 Kristen Chin Matoaca 20SN0526- Voting yes to Courthouse Courthouse Landing in Landing voting yes to an investment in Chesterfield. It is an opportunity to create jobs and provide major road improvements. Vote yes to Courthouse Landing!!!!! 6/23/2020 Christine Bivens Bermuda 20SN0526- I'm in favor of this Courthouse project. Landing 6/23/2020 Betty Bryant Bermuda 20SN0526- Help Chesterfield and Courthouse the Dale district grow. Landing Vote yes to the Courthouse Landing development. 6/23/2020 Susan Altice Dale 20SN0526- Change happens Courthouse everywhere and is Landing important to keep people in Chesterfield. Vote yes to Courthouse Landing and invest not only in the property and land in Chesterfield, but also the people that are growing in it. 6/23/2020 Peggy Meadows Matoaca 20SN0526- Courthouse Landing in Courthouse am opportunity for Landing Chesterfield to have a development that will attract young people to stay and grow into the area. Vote yes to Courthouse Landing. 6/23/2020 Chris Jones Matoaca 20SN0526- Courthouse Landing is Courthouse an opportunity to Landing create jobs and invest in our community. Vote yes to Courthouse Landing!!!!! 6/23/2020 James Bryson Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. 20-484 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/23/2020 Jean Strohm Bermuda 20SN0526- No more storage unit Courthouse eyesores. No more Landing apartments to flood into our already crowded schools! The road to Gates elementary and the fairgrounds are not nearly able to accommodate more traffic! Have you ever tried to get into the fairgrounds at 4th of July or Halloween? It's already a nightmare! Please take into consideration those of us who are already crowded and do not waste this prime real estate on mediocre proposals like storage units and cheap apartments. 6/23/2020 Timothy Breedan Dale 20SN0526- This project will great Courthouse for this part of Landing Chesterfield County and needs to be approved. We can't keep the developments to just_ the Midlothian and Hull Street corridors. 6/23/2020 Jordan Sandy Matoaca 20SN0526- I support the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing Project. 6/23/2020 Lois Quaiff Matoaca 20SN0526- I am in favor of the Courthouse Courthouse Landing Landing project. It will bring large amount of tax revenue to the county. 6/23/2020 Jose Zepeda Dale 20SN0526- I ask you not to Courthouse support the Landing Courthouse Landing proposed development as it will significantly reduce the quality of life for the surrounding area and anyone using the I110/11288 intersection. 20-485 6/24/2020 r � • • 0 • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments The area is already strained as it is, and a different approach is needed to solve the area's problems. Digging a bigger hole for us to get out of is simply not good business. Entering Iron Bridge from our neighborhood is extremely difficult at times, with cars and dump trucks on Iron Bridge frequently running red lights. The increase in traffic would only make these intersections even more dangerous and potentially deadly. There is already a high level of Iron Bridge roadway noise audible within our home at all hours of the day and night. This project would only increase that noise exponentially. Furthermore, there are plenty of empty storefronts on Iron Bridge in the nearby area, such as the former Walmart and Martin's buildings. These have become eyesores. There is absolutely no need to erect more buildings when there are usable ones sitting vacant. Please support your community by not supporting the Courthouse landing project. 6/23/2020 Charlene Tibbetts Matoaca 20SN0526- Dear members of the Courthouse board of supervisors, I Landing was excited to hear 20-486 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments about the Courthouse Landing development. This area of Chesterfield County is in need of a mixed use development with badly needed medical care and restaurants. The revenue from this development will be advantageous to the county as opposed to county residents having to leave the area to find needed services. The location of this development is a convenient gateway from 288 for commuters and travelers. This type of development is a vast improvement for the Rt.10 corridor. I trust you will vote to proceed with this development. Thank you! 6/23/2020 Peggy Taylor Matoaca 20SN0526- I would like to Courthouse comment on the Landing upcoming proposal for the Courthouse Landing. This project will have only a positive impact for Chesterfield County. There is a great need to have different businesses here, because Chesterfield needs to be competitive with other localities. Especially at this time, we need jobs and monies coming into the county. The revenue that will be collected, can be used for the citizens of Chesterfield, especially the children. 20-487 6/24/2020 • �J 0 0 • Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments Our schools are great, but need so much more! As a retired teacher in Chesterfield, I have seen times when we needed certain materials, but had to wait because of funding. Finally, the road improvements that have been proposed, would be a great addition, since the citizens of Chesterfield wouldn't have to foot the bill, through additional taxation. I am in full support for the Courthouse Landing . 6/23/2020 Cheryl Moore Bermuda 20SN0526- We are in support of Courthouse the Courthouse Landing Landing Project as it is presented and think it will be an asset to the county. Thank you for your support in this project. 6/23/2020 Ann Price Dale 20SN0526- Voiced her concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 Jacqueline New Dale 20SN0526- Voiced her concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 William Robertson Dale 20SN0526- Voiced his concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 Doris Robertson Dale 20SN0526- Voiced her concerns Courthouse relative to the case, Landing specifically an increase of traffic, and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 Mary Parker Dale 20SN0526- Voiced her concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 20-488 6/24/2020 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments 6/23/2020 Gale Gilliagan Dale 20SN0526- Voiced her concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 Patsy Black Dale 20SN0526- Voiced her concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 Alice Surles Dale 20SN0526- Voiced her concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 Albert Cooper Dale 20SN0526- Voiced his concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 Michael Connock Dale 20SN0526- Voiced his concerns Courthouse relative to the case Landing and urged the Board to deny the proposal. 6/23/2020 Renae Eldred Bermuda 20SN0547 — For nearly 3 decades AREC 10, LLC the JDA has supported the efforts of any business or resident that puts forth the effort to improve the appearance or condition of their property. Revitalization is our goal. U -Haul has been a proven business for many decades and these changes that are planned will enhance the overall appearance of this, location. Although the JDA will support the proposal as it is presented with the proffered . ' conditions, we do feel the need to comment on the process. This is the first zoning case after the implementation of the Northern Jefferson Davis Special Area Plan and it falls short. The 20-489 6/24/2020 is • • • • 0 Attachment A Board of Supervisors Meeting June 24, 2020 Citizen Comments on Unscheduled Matters and Public Hearings Comment Date First Name Last Name District Category Comments NJDSAP took three years to develop and included certain enhanced development/design standards for such cases and yet U -Haul does not have to follow them. Their appearance may be enhanced when completed, but think how much nicer it would have been if they had follow the NJDSAP design standards. The JDA was extremely disappointed the applicant failed to notify or engage the community with their plans. If the County actually wants citizen input then they should reach out to citizens when the opportunity arises. With any zoning case, that should always be a priority. If not for Covid we would be there in person to express our concerns and disappointment. 20-490 6/24/2020