04-10-2002 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
April 10, 2002
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Kelly E. Miller, Chairman
Mr. Arthur S. Warren, Vice Chrm.
Mr. Edward B. Barber
Mrs. Renny Bush Humphrey
Mr. J. L. McHale, III
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Colonel Carl R. Baker,
Police Department
Mr. Clay Bowles, Chief
of Admin. Services,
Sheriff's Office
Mr. George Braunstein,
Exec. Dir., Community
Services Board
Mr. Craig Bryant, Dir.,
Utilities
Dr Billy Cannaday, Jr.,
Supt., School Board
Ms Marilyn Cole, Asst.
County Administrator
Mr Richard Cordle,
Treasurer
Ms Mary Ann Curtin, Dir.,
Intergovtl. Relations
Mr William W. Davenport,
Commonwealth's Attorney
Ms Rebecca Dickson, Dir.,
Budget and Management
Ms Lisa Elko,
Clerk
Chief Stephen A. Elswick,
Fire Department
Mr. Michael Golden, Dir.,
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Bradford S. Hammer,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Human Services
Mr. John W. Harmon,
Right-of-Way Manager
Mr. Russell Harris, Mgr.
of Community Development
Services
Ms. Jane Himmelman,
Admin., Interagency
Services
Mr. Joe Horbal, Chief
Deputy Commissioner of
Revenue
Mr. Thomas E. Jacobson,
Dir., Planning
Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir.,
Public Affairs
Ms Mary Lou Lyle, Dir.,
Accounting
Mr Richard M. McElfish,
Dir., Env. Engineering
Mr Steven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mr Paul D. Patten,
Assessor
Mr Francis Pitaro, Dir.,
General Services
Ms Sarah Snead, Dir.,
Social Services
02- 241
04/~0/02
Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Management Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Community Development
Mr. Thomas Taylor, Dir.,
Block Grant Office
Mr. Mike Westfall, Asst.
Dir., Internal Audit
Mr. Miller called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at
3:36 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 27, 2002
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved the minutes of March 27, 2002, as submitted.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
There were no County Administrator's comments at this time.
3. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no Board committee reports at this time.
4. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, ADiDITIONS, OR CHANGES IN
THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
replaced Item 7., Consideration of Revisions to the Zoning
Ordinance Site Plan Review Processes and Associated Appeals
Processes; added Item 8.B.2., Appointment to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission; replaced Item 8.D.4.a.,
Request for Music/Entertainment Festival Permit for Sunday's
Restaurant Outdoor Concert on May 27, 2002; replaced Item
8.D.6.a., Request to Vacate and Rededicate a Variable Width
Storm Water Management/Best Management Practice Easement and
a Twenty-Foot Storm Water Management/Best Management Practice
Access Easement Across the Property of Capital Realty
Associates, L.L.C.; added Item 14.D., Resolution Recognizing
Mr. Harry L. Marsh for his Service to the Chesterfield County
Planning Commission; moved Item 15.A., Public Hearing to
Consider Ordinance Amendments Regarding the Location and
Regulation of Adult Uses, to follow Item 15.E., Public
Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a
Sixteen-Foot Easement Across Lot 4, Block E, Loch Braemar
Subdivision; and adopted the Agenda, as amended.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
5. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
There were no resolutions or special recognitions at this
time.
02- 242
04/~0/02
6. WORK SESSIONS
0 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S PROPOSED FY2003 BIENNIAL FINANCIAL
PLAN, THE PROPOSED FY2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT AND HOME ANNUAL PLAN, AND THE PROPOSED FY2003-
FY2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Ms. Dickson presented a summary of proposed revisions to the
County Administrator's Proposed FY2003 Biennial Financial
Plan, the Proposed FY2003 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME Annual Plan, and the Proposed Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). She reviewed revisions to the
county's strategic goals included in the FY2003 Proposed
Budget. She then reviewed the County Administrator's
recommended changes to the FY2003 Proposed Budget as well as
miscellaneous budget changes. She reviewed the Board's
recommended changes to the FY2003 Proposed Budget.
Questions and comments ensued relative to the adjustment to
the County Administrator's proposal for planning fees; leaf
vacuuming fees; and funding for the Senior Center of
Richmond.
When asked, Ms. Dickson stated that a decrease in the
proposed leaf vacuuming fee would result in expanding
curbside recycling service to 8,000 homes as opposed to
12,000 homes. She reviewed the Board recommended change to
the Proposed FY2003 CDBG and HOME Annual Plan. She then
reviewed recommended changes to the FY2003-2008 Capital
Improvement Program. She stated that the total CIP with
changes is $568,652,400. She reviewed recommended changes to
the FY2002 CIP.
Discussion ensued relative to the origin of cash proffers
requested to be appropriated for Meadowbrook High School.
Ms. Dickson stated that she will provide the Board with
information relative to the origin of the cash proffers for
Meadowbrook High School. She then reviewed the County
Administrator's recommendation for Non-General Fund Changes
in Schools, School Capital Projects, County Capital Projects,
and Grants. She reviewed the County Administrator's
recommendation for FY2002 results of operations (pending
audit results).
when asked, Ms. Dickson stated that the budget is balanced as
presented with changes.
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
0 TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLAN
REViEW,PROCESSESAND ASSOCIATED AppEALs. PROCESSES
Mr. Micas stated that on February 13, 2002, the Board held a
public hearing to consider revisions to the zoning ordinance
~i'~e'~ p~a~ revie~~B~e~and associated appeals-processes.
~e f~r~h~.~.~ted~th~t,~a~ a~result o~ concern~s expressed~by
the Board, staff has expanded the number of issues that can
be appealed and the type of people who are ~'aggrieved
persons.'~ He stated that the proposed ordinance recognizes
that applicants can appeal from the Planning Commission to
the Circuit Court. He further stated that Mr. Miller has
requested an additional change providing that any aggrieved
person might also appeal the Planning Commission.s decision
if permitted by state law.
02- 243
Mr. Miller stated that he feels the applicant and aggrieved
person should be given the same number of days to appeal the
Planning Director's decision.
Mr. Barber expressed concerns that ten calendar days might
not be sufficient for an appeal.
Mr. Jacobson came forward and stated that staff feels ten
days is sufficient for a person to determine whether or not
to appeal a decision.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that, as a result of concerns
expressed by Mr. Miller, the Planning Director will determine
whether a person is '~aggrieved~' rather than the County
Attorney's office.
Discussion ensued relative to an appeal time of ten days
versus fifteen days.
Mr. Micas stated that the county is bound by state law to
complete the site plan review process within 60 days,
including staff review, appeal time, and Planning Commission
review.
Mr. Jacobson stated that a longer time period for appeal
would result in a greater possibility that the Planning
Commission could not meet the 60-day state law requirement
and might have to hold a special meeting to consider an
appeal.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that state law extends an appeal
opportunity for the applicant from the Planning Commission to
Circuit Court, but is silent as to whether anyone else can
appeal. He further stated that the general rule in Virginia
is that an "aggrieved" person can appeal any governmental
arbitrary and capricious action. He stated that the proposed
amendment recognizes the absence of state authority for
aggrieved persons to appeal.
Mr. Miller stated that he feels the amendment addresses some
of the issues raised at the public hearing.
Mr. Miller then made a motion for the Board to adopt
revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan Review Processes
and Associated Appeals Processes, and also to adopt the
ordinance relating to site plan ordinance changes, with all
amendments requested by the Board, including a time
limitation of 15 days for an appeal by both applicants and
aggrieved persons and recognition that aggrieved persons may
appeal Planning Commission decisions if permitted by state
law.
Mr. McHale seconded the motion.
Mr. Miller called for a vote on his motion, seconded by Mr.
McHale~ ~for~-.th~ i~ilBi~ardl ~o~..ia~0~i~ ~visions-~ th~iZoning
Ordinance Site Pi~n ReView ProceSses ~an~d"AsS0ciated Appeals
Processes.
And, further, 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 SECTIONS 19-26, 19-265, 19-266,
19-267,
19-268, 19-269, 19-270 and 19-271 AND ADDING SECTION
19-268.1
RELATING TO SITE PLAN ORDINANCE CHANGES
BE IT ORDAINED
Chesterfield County:
by the Board of Supervisors of
02- 244
04/10/02
(1) That Sections 19-26, 19-265, 19-266, 19-267,
19-268, 19-269, 19-270 and 19-271 of the Code of the County
of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, are amended and re-enacted
and Section 19-268.1 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 19-26.
Hearings; notification and posting of
property.
(a) The adoption of any comprehensive plan, zoning
district map or ordinance or amendment thereto; any request
for zoning approval; appeal of a decision by the planning
director or other administrative officer to the board of
zoning appeals; application for interpretation of the
district map to the board of zoning appeals; or application
for creation of a historic district, or the designation of
landmark and landmark sites shall be advertised by reference,
giving a descriptive summary of the proposed action and the
place or places within the county where copies of the
proposed action may be examined. In the case of proposed
action which involves an amendment to the zoning district
map, the public notice shall state the general usage and
density range of the proposed amendment and the general usage
and density, if any, set forth in the applicable part of the
comprehensive plan. None of the above-referenced actions
shall be acted upon until notice of the intention to do so
has been published once a week for two successive weeks in a
newspaper published or having general circulation in the
county. Such notices shall specify the time and place of
hearing at which persons affected may appear and present
their views, and such hearing shall be held not less than six
days nor more than 21 days after final publication.
(b) The director of planning shall, at least 21 days
before the date of the first hearing on any request for
zoning, or appeal of a decision by the planning director or
other administrative officer to the board of zoning appeals,
post on the land or building involved in any application or
appeal, a notice of the public hearing as follows:
(1)
The notice shall be posted at reasonable intervals
along streets abutting the subject property, or, if
there is no abutting street, then at the proposed
public street entrance to the property. The notice
shall be posted in locations so as to be reasonably
visible from public roads.
(2)
Neither the holding of any public hearing, nor the
validity of any action on an application or an
appeal, shall be affected by the unauthorized
removal of a notice which has been duly posted in
accordance with this section.
(c)
(1) With regard to any action referred to in
subsection (a) above, except amendments to the
comprehensive plan, the owner of the affected
parcel, as identified in the assessor's records,
and the property owners identified in section 19-
24(c) shall be given not less than 15 days' written
notice sent by registered, certified or first class
mail for any hearing on any such action. If the
written notice is provided by first class mail, the
director of planning shall make affidavit that the
mailings have been made and file the affidavit with
the papers in the case. If the public hearing is
continued or deferred to a date that has not
previously been advertised, notice shall be
remailed. If the public hearing is continued or
deferred to a date that has been previously
advertised or if the public hearing is closed and
02- 245
04/10/02
the decision deferred to a later date, notice need
not be remailed.
(2)
With regard to any action referred to in sections
19-16 and 19-17, written notice of any public
hearing on an application to amend a zoning
condition or rezone property shall be given to the
last known representatives of all civic
associations on the Civic Association Notice List
filed with the planning department operating within
the area encompassed by the property which is
subject to the original zoning or condition and to
all property owners of record with the assessor's
office whose property was subject; to the original
zoning or condition and whose property is located
within 1,500 feet of the property which is the
subject of the application.
(d) When a proposed comprehensive plan or amendment
thereto, a proposed change in zoning district map
classification, an application for creation of a historic
district or the designation of landmarks and landmark sites
or an application for special exception or variance involves
any parcel of land located within one-half mile of a boundary
of an adjoining county or municipality, then, in addition to
the advertising and written notification required above,
written notice shall also be given at least 15 days before
the hearing to the chief administrative officer or his
designee, of such adjoining county or municipality.
(e) Posting and notification of adjacent property
owners, as outlined in this section, shall, not be required
when: (i) the hearing involves an application for zoning
approval of 26 or more parcels of land initiated by
resolution of the planning commission, or board of
supervisors; or (ii) on appeal when the appeal involves 26 or
more parcels of land; or (iii) the hearing involves an appeal
concerning no specific property.
(f) A party shall be deemed to have waived the right to
challenge the validity of proceedings for which written
notice is required if the party does not receive the required
written notice, but the party has actual notice of, or
actively participates in, the proceedings.
o o o
Sec. 19-265. Site plan processing.
(a) At the time a site plan is submitted, the applicant
shall elect whether to seek approval under the minor site
plan review process, set forth in section 19-267, the
administrative site plan review process set forth in section
19-268 or the planning commission site plan review process
set forth in section 19-269. If the applicant fails to make a
selection, his application will be processed under the
administrative site plan review process unless a condition of
zoning approval requires the site plan to be submitted to the
planning commission.
(b) The director of planning shall send written notice
of site plan submission to adjacent property owners by
registered, certified or first class mail as soon after site
plan submission as practicable, but in no event less than 10
days prior to approval or disapproval of the site plan. The
minimum period for site plan approval shall be extended to 21
days when an aggrieved person, as defined by Sec. 19-268.1,
files a written request with the Planning Department within
10 days after written notice is sent. If such written notice
is sent by first class mail, the director of planning shall
make affidavit that such notice has been sent and shall file
02- 246
04/10/02
the affidavit with the application. This subsection shall not
be applicable to those site plans which are approved pursuant
to the minor site plan review process.
Sec. 19-266.
Uses eligible for the minor site plan review
process.
The director of planning may approve site plans through
the minor site plan review process in accordance with
recommendations by other departments, as necessary, if the
following conditions are met:
(a)
The proposed building addition or land disturbed is
between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet;
(b) Main water and/or sewer extensions are not
required;
(c)
Industrial uses have independent water supplies
sufficient for fire suppression;
(d)
Ail requisite reviews by the Virginia Department of
Transportation can be performed by Residency Office
staff;
(e)
The use is not located adjacent to property zoned
R, R-TH or R-MF or occupied by a residence unless
such adjacent property owners are notified by the
applicant by registered mail, return receipt
requested, of the proposed minor site plan. The
director of planning may approve such plan no
sooner than 15 days after the applicant sends all
required notifications by registered mail.
(f)
The site plan shall not contain substantial access
changes, road improvements or internal traffic
circulation changes;
(g)
Required buffers are not affected by proposed
improvements or do not require substantial
modification;
(h)
Drainage improvements do not require dedication of
easements to the county; and
(i) The site complies with Chesapeake Bay regulations,
i e~ther~ by ~opt~ng out of the Chesapeake Bay
~ 7~ : ' 'req~ifements~i~confot~ing b~:u:se~of!~an existing: BMP
!''' :' Or by.a~hieving reduced imperviousness.
Sec. 19-267. Minor site plan review process.
(a) The applicant shall submit a preliminary site plan
to the director of planning for a determination of
eligibility for the minor site plan review process.
(b) If the site plan meets the criteria set forth in
sections 19-264(d) and 19-266 it shall be forwarded to other
departments within the count~y'fOr re~ie'w~"as necessary." In
the event the proposed site plan does not meet the
eligibility requirements for the minor site plan review
process, the applicant shall be advised to elect between the
administrative site plan review process set forth in section
19-268 or the planning commission site plan review process
set forth in section 19-269.
(c) Upon approval, the applicant shall be provided two
copies of the approved site plan and shall be required to .
maintain one copy on the sit~.a~all times. 0'~i. I0\,011~
02- 247
(d) If the site plan is approved pursuant to this
section, the applicant shall not be required to pay site plan
or erosion and sediment control fees.
(e) The director of planning shall approve or
disapprove a site plan pursuant to this section in accordance
with the reviewing authorities' recommendations. He shall
notify the applicant of his decision to approve or disapprove
the site plan no sooner than 15 days after the applicant
sends all notifications required by 19-266(e) by registered
mail. If the director of planning fails to approve or
disapprove the site plan within 60 days after it has been
officially submitted for approval, the applicant, after ten
days' written notice to the director of planning, may
petition the circuit court to decide whether the site plan
should or should not be approved.
(f) If the applicant disagrees with the director of
planning's final decision, he may file a written appeal with
the planning commission within 15 days of that decision. The
commission shall fix a reasonable time for hearing of the
appeal and decide the same within 60 days. The commission may
affirm, modify or reverse the decision. Until the planning
commission renders a decision, the director of planning shall
not approve the site plan or a building permit for any
construction that could be affected by the appeal.
(g) Persons with an interest in property adjacent to
the site and zoned R, R-TH, R-MF or occupied by a residence
may file a written appeal within 15 days of the decision.
Appeals must relate to matters specified in § 19-268(d). The
Commission shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the appeal
and decide the same within 60 days of the applicant's site
plan submission. The Commission may affirm, modify or
reverse the decision. Until the planning commission renders
a decision, neither a building permit nor a land disturbance
permit shall be issued for any construction that could be
affected by the appeal. In addition, the director of
planning shall issue a stop work order to the applicant
instructing the applicant to cease any construction that
could be affected by the appeal.
Sec. 19-268. Administrative site plan review process.
(a) Ail site plans which are properly submitted for
administrative review in accordance with the County's Site
Plan Application and Checklist shall be reviewed and
recommended~for approval or denial by: . ~.
(1) The director of planning relative to:
Compliance with the requirements of this
chapter, including~ but riot limited to,
setbacks, side and rear yards, building
height, lot area and lot coverage, fencing,
screening, landscaping, lighting,
architectural design, pedestrian access and
.conditions of zoning approval.
bo
Location, design arid adequacy of automobile
parking as to number of spaces, and square
footage per space, including movement lanes
and total area.
(2) The director of transportation relative to:
so
Location and design of vehicular entrances and
exits in relation to streets giving access to
the site.
02-' 24'8
bo
Adequate provision for internal and external
traffic circulation, including, but not
limited to, access to adjoining property,
traffic-control devices and speed control
devices.
(3)
The Virginia Department of Transportation engineer
relative to highway matters.
(4)
The director of environmental engineering relative
to:
Adequacy of drainage and erosion control
measures.
b. Flood protection.
Compliance with applicable established design
criteria, construction standards and
specifications for all required public road
and drainage improvements.
Compliance with the regulations and
requirements of the Chesapeake Bay
preservation areas, Upper Swift Creek
watershed areas and floodplain districts.
(5) The director of utilities relative to:
so
Adequacy of water supply
wastewater facilities.
and sanitary
Compliance with applicable established design
criteria, construction standards and
specifications for all required public water
and wastewater improvements.
(6)
The building official relative to fire protection
and compliance with the provisions of the county
fire prevention code and the Uniform Statewide
Buildin9 Code.
(7) The director of health
wastewater and water systems.
relative to private
(8) The chief of police relative to police protection
and county safety codes.
(b) The director of planning shall post a sign
notifying the public of site plan submission for
administrative review as soon as practicable, but in no event
less than 10 days prior to approval or disapproval of the
site plan. The minimum period for site plan approval shall
be extended to 21 days when an aggrieved person, as defined
by Sec. 19-268.1, files a written request with the Planning
Department within 10 days after the sign has been posted.
Such posting shall be performed in the same manner required
for public hearings described in section 19-26(b) (1) and (2).
(c) The director of planning shall approve or
disapprove site plans in writing, giving specific reasons in
accordance with the reviewing authorities' recommendations.
He shall notify the applicant of his decision to approve or
disapprove the site plan within 30 days of the date of
submission of the plan, if practicable. If the director of
planning fails to approve or disapprove the site plan within
60 days after it has been officially submitted for approval,
the applicant, after ten days' written notice to the director
of planning, may petition the circuit court to decide whether
the site plan should or should not be approved.
02- 249
04/10/02
(d) If the applicant disagrees with the final decision
of the director of planning, he may file a written appeal
with the planning commission within 15 days of that decision.
In addition, any aggrieved person may file a written appeal
of the final decision of the director of planning with the
planning commission within 15 days of that decision. The
appeal must explain how the site plan will adversely affect
the person and is limited to the following matters:
(1) designation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation areas;
(2) access and internal circulation;
(3) improvement sketch processing;
(4) location of water and sewer lines;
(5) buffers and screening;
(6) land use transitions;
(7) drainage;
(8) conditions of zoning approval;
(9) architectural treatment;
(10) development features affecting public safety; or
(11) development features affecting nearby residential
areas.
The commission shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the
appeal and decide the same within 60 days of the applicant's
site plan submission. The commission may affirm, modify or
reverse the decision. Until the planning commission renders a
decision, neither a building permit nor a land disturbance
permit shall be issued for any construction that could be
affected by the appeal. In addition, the director of
planning shall issue a stop work order to the applicant
instructing the applicant to cease any construction that
could be affected by the appeal.
Sec. 19-268.1. Qualification as "Aggrieved Person".
A person is "aggrieved" for the purpose of appealing an
administratively approved site plan only if:
They are an owner or lessee of property
adjacent to the site; or
They are an owner or lessee of property nearby
the site who will be adversely affected by the
approval of the site plan in an immediate and
substantial manner not shared by the public
generally. For public facilities, aggrieved
shall mean any County citizen who would be
reasonably calculated to use such facility.
A person shall not be considered adversely affected for
purposes of this ordinance by any personal financial hardship
anticipated as a result of business competition associated
with the proposed use.
Sec. 19-269. Planning cox~m%ission site plan review process.
Ail site plans which are properly submitted for planning
commission review in accordance with the County's Site Plan
Application and Checklist shall be reviewed and approved or
denied as follows:
02- 250
04/10/02
(a)
The appropriate departments and/or agencies shall
review and make recommendations as outlined in
section 19-268(a).
(b)
The director of planning shall post a notice of the
site plan public meeting in accordance with section
19-26(b).
(c)
The director of planning shall submit
recommendations to the planning commission. The
planning commission shall approve, with or without
conditions, or disapprove the site plan in writing,
giving specific reasons in accordance with the
reviewing authorities' recommendations.
(d)
If the planning commission fails to approve or
disapprove the proposed site plan within 60 days
after it has been officially submitted for
approval, the applicant, after ten days' notice to
the commission, may petition the circuit court to
decide whether the site plan should or should not
be approved.
(e)
If the applicant disagrees with the final decision
of the planning commission, he may file a written
appeal with the circuit court within 60 days of
that decision. In addition, any aggrieved person
may contest the planning commission's final
decision if permitted by state law.
Sec. 19-270. Site plan approval.
(a) An approved site plan shall become null and void if
no significant work is done or development is made on the
site within five years after final site plan approval.
(b) There shall be no clearing or grading of any site
without approval of a grading and/or erosion and sediment
control plan by the director of planning and the director of
environmental engineering. Construction or development may
begin upon approval of the site plan by the director of
planning and of building permits by the building official.
(c)
Prior to expiration of an approved site plan,
the subdivider or developer may request and
the director of planning may grant one or more
extensions of such approval for additional
periods as the director may determine to be
reasonable, taking into consideration the size
and phasing of the proposed development and
the laws, ordinances and regulations in effect
at the time of the request.
(2)
If the director of planning denies an
extension request, the applicant may file a
written appeal with the planning commission
within 15 days of the denial. The commission
shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the
appeal and decide the same within 60 days. The
commission may affirm, modify or reverse the
decision.
Sec. 19-271. Adjustments in approved site plan.
After a site plan has been approved, minor adjustments
to the site plan which comply with the purposes of this
article and other provisions of this chapter, with the intent
of the approving bodies in their approval of site plans, and
with the general purpose of the comprehensive plan for
development of the area may be approved by the director of
02- 251
04/10/02
planning with concurrence
concerned.
of the reviewing authorities
However, this administrative adjustment process is not
available for changes that were involved in an appeal or were
made as part of an agreement with an adjacent property owner
or that relate to a condition of zoning requiring planning
commission review and approval. Deviation from an approved
site plan without the written approval of the director of
planning shall void the plan and the director of planning
shall require the applicant to submit a new site plan for
consideration.
(2) That this ordinance
immediately upon adoption.
shall become effective
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8. A. BUDGET ITEMS
8.A.1. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
A_ND REENACTING SECTION 18-2:2, RELATING TO UTILITIES
FEE CHANGES
Ms. Dickson stated that the Board held a ]public hearing on
March 27, 2002 relating to utilities fee changes. She
further stated that staff recommends adoption of the proposed
ordinance.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, 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 18-22
RELATING TO WATER CONNECTION FEES
BE IT ORDAINED
Chesterfield County:
by the Board of Supervisors of
(1) That Section 18-22 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to
read as follows:
Sec. 18-22. Connection fees.
o o o
(b) The capital cost recovery charge shall be:
<i)
Capital Cost Recovery Charge
Meter Number
Size of ERU's
Customer Class (inches) per Unit Water
Wastewater
For a dwelling,
single-family,
including townhouses,
mobile homes that are
not located in a
mobile home park, and
5/8 1.00 $ 3,342.00 $ 1,465.00
02- 252
04/10/02
individually metered
multi-family dwelling
units.
(ii) For a dwelling, two-
family (per unit)
5/8
1 · 00 3,342.00 1,465.00
(iii) For mobile homes that
are located in a mobile
home park and for
master metered
multiple-family
dwellings (per unit)
0.85 2,841.00 1,245.00
(iv) For all other customer 5/8
classes
1
1.00 3,342.00 1,465.00
2.50 8,355.00 3,663.00
1-1/2 5.00 16,710.00 7,325.00
2 8.00 26,736.00 11,720.00
16 00 53,472.00 23,440.00
25 00 83,550.00 36,625.00
50 00 167,100.00 73,250.00
80 00 267,360.00 117,200.00
10
115 00 384,330.00 168,475.00
12
155 00 518,010.00 227,075.00
The capital cost recovery charge for meters that are larger
than 12 inches shall be determined by the director based on
the number of ERU's per unit.
(v)
The capital cost recovery charge for a dwelling that is
served by a meter that is larger than five-eighths inch
shall be the same capital cost recovery charge in
subsection (b) (iv).
(2)
That this ordinance shall become effective on July 1,
2002.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
8.A.2.
TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH AN ANNUAL TAX
LEVY ON VARIOUS CLASSES OF REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY
Ms. Dickson stated that the Board held a public hearing on
March 27, 2002 to consider an ordinance to establish an
annual tax levy on various classes of property for the County
of Chesterfield.
When asked, Ms. Dickson stated that the balanced budget is
based on a $1.07 real estate tax rate.
Mr. McHale stated that he feels the Board should continue its
approach to decrease the real estate tax rate. He also
suggested that approximately $750,000 be added to the County
Administrator,s Recommendation for FY2002 Results of
Operations (pending audit results) so that the Board can
consider a $1.06 real estate tax rate for FY2004.
Mr. Warren stated that he supports the concept suggested by
Mr. McHale. He further stated that increased assessments
02- 253
o4/ o/o2
have provided an opportunity for the Board to reduce the real
estate tax rate, and indicated that he feels the reduction
should continue in FY2004 if assessments continue to
increase.
Mr. Barber stated that he will not support the $1.07 tax rate
because the School Board has expressed concerns relative to
overcrowding and the need for additional school facilities
and requested that the tax rate not be lowered. He further
stated that he does not feel the county can meet its
citizens' expectations without the revenue that would be
generated by the extra penny. He expressed concerns relative
to attracting and keeping quality teachers and public safety
officers at the salaries currently being offered in the
county. He noted that the Chesterfield Business Council
requested that the real estate tax rate remain at $1.08. He
expressed concerns that the county cannot propose new
facilities and services while at the same time reducing the
tax rate. He stated that the Board should ~not be going into
areas such as revenue recovery and increased planning fees
rather than maintaining the current real estate tax rate. He
further stated that he feels it would be more appropriate to
reduce taxes by moving to the maximums allowed by the state
in tax relief for the elderly.
When asked, Ms. Dickson stated that the one-cent real estate
tax reduction is equivalent to approximately' $1,650,000. She
further it would cost approximately $3 million to increase
stated that tax relief for the elderly to the maximums
allowed by state law.
Mr. Barber stated that he feels the Board would be doing a
much greater service to its constituency if, instead of
reducing the real estate tax rate, it moved this year to the
half way point of the maximum allowed for tax relief for the
elderly, and next year to the full maximum.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that all recommendations for budget
changes relative to the Matoaca District are revenue neutral.
She further stated that it is not a prudent time to lower the
tax rate one cent, and she feels buying down the School
Board's debt should be of foremost importance. She stated
that she feels the $1.06 suggested by Mr. McHale to be added
to the County Administrator's Recommendations for Results of
Operations gives false hope to the citizens for next year.
She further stated that she will support the $1.07 tax rate
with reluctance because her landowners have requested relief
for increased assessments.
When asked by Mr. McHale, Ms. Dickson reviewed a comparison
of selected county functions which detailed the percentage
changes in those areas from FY2001 to FY2003.
Mr. McHale stated that it is obvious the county values
education, public safety and human services, noting that,
with a real estate tax rate of $1.07, total spending on
Schools will increase 6.9 percent; Human Services will
increase 8.4 percent; and public safety will increase 8.2
percent.
Ms. Dickson reviewed General Fund Transfer to Schools and
Property Tax Revenues from FY1992 to FY2003.
Mr. McHale stated that the Board's commitment to Schools has
nearly doubled in the last ten years and he does not see a
penny decrease in real estate taxes changing that commitment.
He further stated that increased assessments represent a tax
increase unless the Board adjusts its tax rate.
Ms. Dickson reviewed Increase in Assessed Value due to
Revaluation and Taxes Due on Assessment from 1992 through
2002.
02- 254
04/10/02
Mr. McHale expressed concerns that the tax rate has increased
substantially for the person who has not changed homes in the
last ten years. He stated that he feels the Board should
indicate to its citizens that it is going to be fiscally
responsible by managing down its tax rate in a fashion
respectful of its priorities.
Mr. Miller stated that he feels $1.07 is reasonable and
responsible. He expressed concerns that taxes are increasing
because of increased assessments and stated that he would be
prepared to further decrease the tax rate next year if it is
fiscally prudent.
Mr. McHale made a motion for the Board to adopt an ordinance
establishing the annual tax levy on various classes of real
estate and personal property, with a $1.07 real estate tax
rate, and add a $1.06 real estate tax rate to the County
Administrator's Recommendations for FY2002 Results of
Operations (pending audit results).
Mr. Warren seconded the motion.
Mr. Barber made a substitute motion for the Board to adopt
the ordinance establishing the annual tax levy on various
classes of real estate and personal property, with a $1.08
real estate tax rate, and move to 50 percent of the maximum
allocation allowed by the state for tax relief for the
elderly.
Mr. Barber stated that it would be his intention to move to
the maximum allocations allowed by the state for tax relief
for the elderly for FY2004.
Due to lack of a second, Mr. Barber's motion failed.
Mr. Miller called for a vote on the motion made by Mr.
McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to adopt the
following ordinance to establish the annual tax levy on
various classes of real estate and personal property for the
County:
AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY
ON VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY FOR THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Chesterfield that for the year beginning on the first day
of January, 2002, and ending on the thirty-first day of
December, 2002, the taxes on property in all the Magisterial
Districts of the County of Chesterfield shall be as follows:
Sec. 1. Real Property and Mobile Homes.
On tracts of land, lots or improvements thereon and on
mobile homes the tax shall be $1.07 on every $100 of assessed
value thereof.
Sec. 2. Personal Property.
(a) On automobiles, trailers, boats, boat trailers,
other motor vehicles and on all tangible personal property
used or held in connection with any mining, manufacturing or
other business, trade, occupation or profession, including
furnishings, furniture and appliances in rental units, the
tax shall be $3.60 on every $100 of the assessed value
thereof.
(b) On aircraft as defined by Section 58.1-3503 and -
3506 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, the tax shall
be $.50 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof.
02- 255
o4/ o/o2
(c) On motor vehicles owned or leased by members of
volunteer rescue squads, volunteer fire departments,
volunteer police chaplains and by auxiliary police officers
as provided in Section 9-57, Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, the tax shall be $.96 on
every $100 of the assessed value thereof.
(d) On wild or exotic animals as defined by Section
58.1-3506 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the tax
shall be $0.01 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof.
(e) On motor vehicles which 'use clean special fuels as
defined in Section 58.1-2101 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended, the tax shall be $3.24 on every $100 of the
assessed value thereof.
(f) On motor vehicles, trailers, and semitrailers with a
gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or more used to
transport property for hire by a motor carrier engaged in
interstate commerce, the tax shall be $.96 on every $100 of
the assessed value thereof.
Sec. 3. Public Service Corporation Property.
(a) On that portion of real estate and tangible
personal property of public service corporations which has
been equalized as provided in Section 58.1-2604 of the Code
of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, the tax shall be Si.os 1.07 on
every $100 of the assessed value thereof determined by the
State Corporation Commission.
(b) The foregoing subsections to the contrary
notwithstanding, on automobiles and trucks belonging to such
public service corporations the tax shall be $3.60 on every
$100 of assessed value thereof.
Sec. 4. Machinery and Tools.
On machinery and tools used in a manufacturing or mining
business the tax shall be $1.00 on every $100 assessed value
thereof.
And, further, the Board added a $1.06 real estate tax rate to
the County Administrator's Recommendations for FY2002 Results
of Operations (pending audit results).
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: Barber.
8.A.3.
TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FY2003-2008 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Ms. Dickson stated that the Board held a public hearing on
March 27, 2002 to consider the proposed FY2003-2008 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). She further stated that staff is
requesting that the CIP, with changes as presented during the
work session, as well as changes presented for the current
year, be approved.
Mr. Warren made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, for the
Board to approve the FY2003-2008 Capital Improvement Program,
as amended.
And, further, the Board approved amendments to the FY2002
Capital Improvement Program.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
02- 256
04/~0/02
8 oAo4 o
TO CONSIDER THE COUNTY'S FY2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT AND HOME ANNUAL PLAN
Ms. Dickson stated that the Board held a public hearing on
March 27, 2002 to consider the proposed FY2003 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Annual Plan. She
further stated that staff recommends adoption of the Plan
totaling with changes as presented.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that the Ettrick Cemetery Foundation's
request does not qualify for CDBG funding, and indicated that
she intends to address the Foundation's request in FY2003
through District Improvement Funds to the Historical Society.
Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for
the Board to adopt the County's FY2003 Community Development
Block Grant and HOME Annual Plan, as amended.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
8.A.5.
TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FY2002-2003 BIENNIAL
FINANCIAL PLAN
Ms. Dickson stated that the Board held a public hearing on
March 27, 2002 to consider the proposed FY2002-2003 Biennial
Financial Plan. She further stated that staff recommends
adoption of the Plan with changes as presented, as well as
changes to the Strategic Plan as presented.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she does not support adjustments to
the proposed leaf vacuuming fee.
Mr. Barber stated that the leaf vacuuming program is a luxury
that the county provides at a huge expense, and indicated
that he feels it is unfair for all citizens to pay for a
service that only a handful of citizens utilize. He further
stated that he feels it would be much better use of county
resources to increase the leaf vacuuming fee and use the
additional revenue to expand recycling to every home in the
county.
Mr. Warren stated that he has heard from approximately 50
residents who oppose increasing the leaf vacuuming fee from
$48 to $100. He inquired about Henrico County's fee for leaf
vacuuming.
Mr. Stegmaier came forward and stated that Henrico County
currently charges approximately $35 for their leaf vacuuming
service. He further stated that Henrico estimates the full
cost to be approximately $95 and indicated that Henrico is
able to perform the service less expensively than
Chesterfield because it has its own equipment, trucks and
manpower, and Chesterfield has to rent vehicles and hire
temporary staff at a premium rate.
Mr. Warren requested that the leaf vacuuming item be removed
from the budget and voted upon separately.
Mrs. Humphrey expressed concerns relative to additional
funding of the Senior Center of Richmond because all
community organizations that receive funding from the Board
were requested to accept the 20 percent reduction during this
fiscally challenged year. She stated that she is reluctant
to fully fund the Senior Center of Richmond and not fully
fund organizations such as Meals on Wheels and Camp Baker.
02- 257
04/~0/02
Mr. Miller stated that he shares the feelings of Mrs.
Humphrey and Mr. Barber relative to the leaf vacuuming
service. He further stated that he feels it would not be
fair to fully support the Senior .Center of Richmond and not
fully support other organizations' requests for funding.
Mr. Warren made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, for the
Board to remove the leaf vacuumin!3 fee and the contribution
to the Senior Center of Richmond from the FY2002-2003
Biennial Financial Plan for separate vote.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mr. Warren made a motion, seconded by Mr.. McHale, for the
Board to approve the FY2002-2003 Biennial Financial Plan, as
amended.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey made a motion for the Board to adopt a $100
leaf vacuuming fee and provide $21,000 in funding for the
Senior Center of Richmond, as originally proposed by the
County Administrator.
Mr. McHale requested that the Board vote on the two items
separately.
Mrs. Humphrey restated her motion for the Board to adopt a
$100 leaf vacuuming fee.
Mr. Barber seconded Mrs. Humphrey's motion.
Mr. Miller called for a vote on tke motion of Mrs. Humphrey,
seconded by Mr. Barber, for the Board to adopt a $100 leaf
vacuuming fee.
Ayes: Miller, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: Warren.
Mrs. Humphrey made a motion for the Board to provide $21,000
in funding for the Senior Center .of Richmond, as originally
proposed by the County Administrator.
Mr. Barber seconded the motion. He stated that he does not
feel it is fair to provide full funding for one organization,
and not do the same for others. He further stated that he
will provide District Improvement Funds and also work with
the Senior Center of Richmond in private fundraising to
ensure that the Senior Center wi~l be able to provide the
type of services the organization intends to provide in the
county.
Mr. Miller stated that he will also attempt to provide a
means to assist the Senior Center of Richmond.
Mr. Miller then called for a vote on the motion made by Mrs.
Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Barber, for the Board to provide
$21,000 in funding for the Senior Center of Richmond, as
originally proposed by the County Administrator.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
02- 258
04/10/02
8.A.6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
Ms. Dickson stated that staff requests that the Board adopt
the FY2002-2003 Appropriations Resolution which would
incorporate the approved changes. She further stated that
the resolution does still propose withholding of funds from
Schools, with the appropriation being released throughout the
year. She stated that staff is also proposing to change the
classification of some revenues to assist with Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 33 and 34 compliance
issues. She further stated that the resolution would grant
the County Administrator authority to address state and
federal revenue shortfalls and staff would notify the Board
of any significant changes in those items.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE DESIGNATED FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS FROM
DESIGNATED ESTIMATED REVENUES FOR FY2003 FOR THE OPERATING BUDGET
AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 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, 2002, and ending on the
thirtieth day of June, 2003, the following sections shall be adopted:
The following designated funds and accounts shall be appropriated from the
designated estimated revenues to operate and to provide a capital improvements
program for the County:
Oeneral Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Appropriations:
From Local Sources:
General Property Taxes
Other Local Taxes
Licenses, Permits, Fees
Fines, Forfeitures and Uses of Money & Property
Service Charges
Miscellaneous and Recovered Costs
From Other Agencies:
State and Federal
Other Financing Sources:
Reserves
Transfer from County Capital Projects
Transfer from Water Operating Fund
Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/02
Total Revenues
General Government
Administration of Justice
Public Safety
Public Works
Health and Welfare
Parks, Rec., Cultural
Community Development
Debt Service
Operating Transfers
Reserves
Ending Fund Balance, 6/30/2003*
Total General Fund:
FY03 Adopted
$236,066,600
73,065,200
9,477,000
4,743,500
17,508,300
8,456,500
115,915,900
12,436,200
583,300
1,214,500
35,272,700
$514,739,700
$31,304,600
5,522,700
94,960,300
15,026,900
47,021,500
15,442,000
10,278,300
15,533,700
242,904,300
1,472,700
35,272,700
$514,739,700
02- 259
04/10/02
*This includes encumbrances carried forward in all funds not to exceed
$10 million. (See "Section 5")
Comprehensive Services Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Reimbursement, Colonial Heights
State Aid, Comprehensive Services
State, Miscellaneous
Transfer from Social Services
Transfer from Schools
Transfer from General Fund
Total Revenue
3,399,20£
823,50C
Appropriations:
Operating Expenses
Total Appropriations
School Operating Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Local Sources
State
Federal
Transfer from School CIP
Use of Reserve
Transfer from School Operati~g
Transfer from General Fund:
State Sales Tax
Local Taxes
Prior Year Revenue
Grounds Maintenance
Total General Fund
$15,756
142
2
581
$21S
Beginning Balance
Total Revenues, Transfers & 3Reserves
Appropriations'.
Instruction
Administration A./H.
Pupil Transportation
Operations & Maintenance
Debt Service
Food Service
Grounds Maintenance
Total Appropriations
14
16
39
38
14
School Capital Projects Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Bond Proceeds
Interest Earnings
Transfer from Cash Proffer Fund
State Construction Allocation
Construction Management Charges
Total Revenue School Capitall Projects Fund
793
Appropriations:
Transfer to School Operating Fund
School Projects
Construction Management Department
Total Appropriations School Capital Projects Fund
County Grants Fund:
Estimated Revenue:
From Other Grants
From the General Fund
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Commonwealth Attorney - Drug Court
02- 260
378
04/3.0/02
Commonwealth Attorney - Project Exile
Community Corrections Services
Domestic Violence Resource Center
Options
Pretrial
Post Trial
Community Development Block Grant
Families First
Litter Grant
Police - COPS/UHP Grants
Police Domestic Violence Coordinator
Police - Domestic Violence Prosecutor
Police - School Resource Officers
USDA Juvenile Detention Grant
Victim/Witness Assistance
VJCCCA
Total Appropriations
County CIP Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Lease/Purchase Proceeds
Interest Earnings
Transfer from General Fund
Transfer from Utilities
Transfer from Cash Proffers
State Grants/Reimbursements
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
County Capital Projects
Transfer to the General Fund
Total County CIP Funds
County Maintenance Projects Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Transfer from General fund
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
County Maintenance Projects
Total County Maintenance Projects
Cash Proffer Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Cash Proffers
Total Revenues
Appropriations:
Reimbursement
Transfer to County Capital Projects Fund
Transfer to School Capital Projects Fund
Total Appropriations
Vehicle and Communications Maintenance
Estimated Revenue:
Fleet Management Charges
Radio Shop Charges
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Fleet Management Charges
Radio Shop Charges
Total Appropriations
Construction Management Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Reimbursement for Services
Total Revenue
130,800
72,400
59,800
364,600
1,443,000
1,890,000
286,000
27,2OO
239,300
48,600
66,400
90,000
40,000
301,700
1,340,100
$6,778,200
468,300
583,000
8,427,600
70,000
519,400
!20,000
$~oA88,3oo
$9,605,300
583,000
$~o,~88,3oo
$1,700,000
$1,7oo,ooo
$1,700,000
$1,7oo, ooo
$1,911,772
$1,911,772
$145,000
$519,400
1,247,372
$1,911,772
$8,710,500
1,211,300
$9,921,800
$8,710,500
1,211,300
$9,921,80o
$507,400
$507,40o
02- 262.
04/;1.0/02
Appropriations:
Risk Management Fund
Construction Management Operations
Total Appropriations
Estimated Revenue:
Operating Revenues
Use of Reserves
Beginning Retained Earnings
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Risk Management Operations
Ending Retained Earnings
Total Appropriations
Airport Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Sale of Supplies
Rental Fees
Misc. Revenue
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Airport Operations
Total Appropriations
Airport Capital Improvement Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Transfer from General Fund
State Grants
Federal Grants
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Capital Improvements
Total Appropriations
Utilities Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Service Charges
Capital Cost Recovery Charges
Hydrant/Fire Protection
Transfer from General Fund
Used from Water/Wastewater Improvement Replacement
Fund
Other Revenue
Anticipated Future Revenue
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Operations
Debt Service
Transfer to County Capital Projects
Transfer to Capital Projects
Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Total Appropriations
Utilities Capital Project Funds
Estimated Revenue:
Transfer from Water/Wastewat~er Operating Fund
Anticipated Future Revenues
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Capital Projects
Total Appropriations
02- 262
$50Z4~
$3,139,70(
200,00(
3,285,90(
$6,625,60(
$3,318,00(
3,307,60(
$6,625,60C
$40,00C
429,500
$475,00(
$475,00(
$475,00(
$80,70C
64,00C
405,00C
$549,70C
$549,70G
$549,70~
$40,340,000
10,617,000
1,214,500
14,600
3,373,500
6,425,700
11,369,400
$73,354,700
$34,032,300
8,157,900
70,000
29,880,00(
1,214,50(
$73,354,70(
$18,510,600
11,369,400
$29,880,00o
$29,880,000
$29,880,ooo
04/i0/02
Appropriations in addition to those contained in the general appropriation resolution
may be made by the Board only if there is available in the fund an unencumbered and
unappropriated sum sufficient to meet such appropriations.
The County Administrator may, as provided herein, except as set forth in Sections 7, 12,
13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21, authorize the transfer of any unencumbered balance or
portion thereof from one classification of expenditure to another within the same
department or appropriation category. The County Administrator may transfer up to
$20,000 from the unencumbered appropriated balance of one appropriation category to
another appropriation category. No more than one transfer may be made for the same
item causing the need for a transfer, unless the total amount to be transferred for the
item does not exceed $20,000.
The County Administrator may increase appropriations for the following non-budgeted
revenue items that may occur during the fiscal year:
a) Insurance recoveries received for damage to any County property, including
vehicles, for which County funds have been expended to make repairs.
b) Refunds or reimbursements made to the County for which the County has
expended funds directly related to that refund or reimbursement.
c) Revenue not to exceed $20,000.
All outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, in all county funds up to $10
million, at June 30, 2002 shall be an amendment to the adopted budget and shall be
reappropriated to the 2002-2003 fiscal year to the same department and account for
which they were encumbered in the previous year.
a)
At the close of the fiscal year, all unencumbered appropriations lapse for budget
items other than: Capital Projects, general fund transfers for capital projects and
grants, District Improvement Funds, construction reserve for capital projects,
reserves, refunds for off-site and oversized water and wastewater facilities, grants,
cash proffers, Economic Development Incentive funds, rental income received from
properties located at the Meadowville Industrial Park, actual transient occupancy
tax revenues received and budgeted expenditures in connection with the Richmond
Convention Center, Public Safety Career Development Reserve and donations
restricted to specific purposes, including donations made by citizens and citizen
groups in support of County programs.
b) With adoption of this resolution all transient occupancy tax revenue received and
related expenditures prior to June 30, 2002 are hereby reappropriated.
c) With adoption of this resolution all monies reserved for career development for
public safety departments prior to June 30, 2002 are hereby reappropriated.
d) With adoption of this resolution ali monies reserved for District Improvement
Funds prior to June 30, 2002 are hereby reappropriated.
e) With adoption of this resolution all monies reserved for the County and School's
Reserve for Future Capital Projects prior to June 30, 2002 are hereby reappropriated.
With adoption of this resolution all grant program income received prior to June 30,
2002 is hereby reappropriated.
Appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year
but shall remain appropriations until the completion of the project or until the Board of
Supervisors, by appropriate ordinance or resolution, changes or eliminates the
appropriation. The County Administrator may approve necessary accounting transfers
between funds to enable the capital projects to be accounted for correctly. Upon
completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer
any remaining balances to the funding source. This section applies to all existing
appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 2002 and appropriations in the 2002-2003
budget. The County Administrator may approve construction contract change orders
up to an increase of $49,999 and approve all change orders for reductions to contracts.
The Board of Supervisors must approve all change orders of $50,000 or more or when
02- 263
04/~0/02
Sec. 10
Sec. 11
Sec. 12
Sec. 13
Sec. 14
Sec. 15
Sec. 16
the aggregate of all changes to a contract exceed 10% of the original contract amount (or
20% if the contract is for less than $500,000).
The County Administrator may authorize ~le transfer of Utilities Capital Projects funds
that are 20% or up to $100,000 of the original project cost, whichever is less, from any
Utilities Capital Project to any other Utilities Capital Project. Should the actual contract
price for a project be less than the appropriation, the County Administrator may
approve transfer of excess funds to the funding source upon completion of the project.
The approval by the Board of Supervisors to request and accept any grant of funds to
the County constitutes the appropriation of both the revenue to be received from the
grant and the County's expenditure requ:ired by the terms of the grant, if any.
Allocation of Food Stamps will be considered a Board approved grant for purposes of
this section up to the actual value of food stamps received. The appropriation of grant
funds will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, but shall remain appropriated until
completion of the grant or until the Board of Supervisors changes or eliminates the
appropriation. The County Administrator may reduce any grant appropriation to the
level approved by the granting agency during the fiscal year. The County
Administrator may approve necessary accounting transfers between funds to enable the
grant to be accounted for correctly. All transfers to grant funds from operating funds
are automatically carried over and reappropriated, unless the grant is completed and is
to be closed out at June 30. Upon completion of a grant project, County Administrator
is authorized to close the grant and transfer back to the funding source any remaining
balances. The County Administrator h~ authorized to reprogram Community
Development Block Grant Funds by closing program centers and transferrring funding
to newly approved programs based on adoption by the Board of Supervisors . This
applies to appropriations for grants outstanding at June 30, 2002 and appropriations in
the 2002-2003 budget.
The County Administrator may reduce revenue and expenditure appropriations related
to programs funded all or in part by the Commonwealth of Virginia and/or the federal
government to the level approved by the responsible state or federal agency. The
County Administrator may adjust items among appropriation categories in order to
address state/federal reductions.
The Director of Accounting is authorized to make transfers to various funds for which
there are transfers budgeted. The Director shall transfer funds only as needed up to
amounts budgeted, or in accordance with any existing bond resolutions that specify the
manner in which transfers are to be made.
The Treasurer may advance monies to and from the various funds of the County to
allow maximum cash flow efficiency. The advances must not violate county bond
covenants or other legal restrictions that would prohibit such an advance.
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.
The County Administrator is authorized to transfer among appropriation categories
and/or appropriate funds in excess of $20,000 for supplemental retirement, Worker's
Compensation, healthcare for retirees, cost related to other compensation issues, and/or
any amount of Insurance Reserve funds consistent with the County's Risk Management
program to departments, as needed.
The portion of the reserve for capital projects~ related to the school budget will be added
to the reserve for future capital projects in the general fund; and will be designated for
school projects.
The County Administrator may appropriat~e revenues and increase expenditures in
excess of $20,000 for funds received by the County from asset forfeitures for operating
expenditures directly related to drug enforcement. This applies to funds currently on-
hand at June 30, 2002, and all funds received in the 2002-2003 budget year. The
outstanding balance of these funds at June 30, 2002 or June 30, 2003 shall not Iapse but
be carried forward into the next fiscal year.
The County Administrator may increase the general fund appropriation in the School
Operating Fund, contingent upon availability of funds and taking into consideration
any other expenditures which may have occurred, based on the following schedule:
02- 264
04/~0/02
Sec. 17
Sec. 18
Sec. 20
Sec. 21
Sec. 23
a) Increase general fund transfer/appropriation on December 15 by $1,500,000.
b) Increase general fund transfer/appropriation on February 15 by $1,500,000.
c) Increase general fund transfer/appropriation on April 15 by $1,500,000.
Subsequent to all audit adjustments, the County Administrator may increase
appropriations or authorize transfers of existing appropriations at June 30. This
includes the authority to designate all available FY2002 operating funds to the general
fund Reserve for Capital Projects or for subsequent years appropriations, assuming
ending general fund balance is maintained at a minium of 7.5% of general fund
expenditures.
The County Administrator is authorized to reallocate funding sources for Capital
Projects, arbitrage rebates/penalties, and debt service payments and to appropriate
bond interest earnings to minimize arbitrage rebates/penalties. This authority would
include the appropriation of transfers among funds to accomplish such reallocations.
Budgets for specific Capital Projects will not be increased beyond the level authorized
by Sections 3 and 4. This applies to funds currently on-hand in FY2002, and all funds
received in the 2002-2003 budget year.
The County Administrator is authorized to transfer among appropriation categories
any amount of funds associated with implementation of the Comprehensive Services
Act for at-risk youth and families and funding associated with the implementation of
the VJCCCA Grant to record transactions.
Salaries for Planning Commissioners will be increased equivalent to the increase given
to all County employees.
Effective upon adoption of this resolution, the County Administrator is authorized to
approve transfers among funds and capital projects as long as total net appropriation is
not increased.
Beginning with the FY97 budget and effective upon adoption of this resolution, the
Utilities Department rate stabilization reserve shall be created and maintained as per
guidelines outlined below:
a) The minimum annual contribution to the reserve will be 50% of the previous year's
depreciation on fixed assets.
b)
The annual contribution to the reserve will continue until 100% of accumulated
depreciation on the fixed assets is funded. If at the beginning of a fiscal year a
reserve balance exceeds 100% of accumulated depreciation, a reduction in the
annual contribution may be considered.
c) Funds cannot be used from the rate stabilization reserve if the balance falls below
25% of that utility's fixed asset accumulated depreciation.
d)
The declaration of a financial emergency by the Director of Utilities and a
corresponding four-fifths vote by the Board of Supervisors at a publicly advertised
meeting declaring the existence of such an emergency is required to suspend Sec. 23
a, Sec. 23 b, and Sec. 23 c.
Upon adoption of this resolution, the School Board and/or the School Superintendent
may make expenditure changes within the school appropriations as follows:
a) Transfers of $20,000 or less are subject to the approval of the Superintendent.
b) Transfers of $20,001 to $499,999 require the approval of the Superintendent and the
School Board.
c) Transfers of $500,000 or more require the approval of the Superintendent, the
School Board, and the Board of Supervisors.
The School Board and/or the School Superintendent shall prepare a budget status
report reflecting changes to the approved school budget between appropriation
categories, as amended, and the report shall be presented to the County Administrator
quarterly.
02- 265
04/~0/02
Sec. 24
The County Administrator is authorized to reclassify budgeted revenues, as
appropriate, to reflect implementation of the State's Personal Property Tax Relief Act.
This applies to funds currently on-hand in b'~'2002, and all funds received in the 2002-
2003 budget year.
Sec. 25
The County Administrator is authorized to reduce the current year departmental
budget appropriation by the same dollar amount of the prior year overspending
inclusive of encumbrances carried forward.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mr. Ramsey expressed appreciation to the Board and the Budget
and Audit Committee for their efforts in preparing the FY2003
budget.
Mr. Miller expressed appreciation to Ms. Dickson and the
Budget staff for their exemplary efforts in preparing the
FY2003 budget.
Mrs. Humphrey expressed concerns relative to state budget
shortfalls and reminded residents to shop in Chesterfield
County.
8.B. APPOINTMENTS
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
suspended its rules at this time to allow for simultaneous
nomination/appointment of members to serve on the Airport
Advisory Board and the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humpkrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
8.B.1. AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Rick Young to serve on
the Airport Advisory Board, wlhose term is effective
immediately and expires February 14, 2004. (It is noted Mr.
Young will fill the unexpired term of Mr. Charles Sims.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
8.B.2. PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COHMISSION
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Ms. Lynn Crump,
representing the Bermuda District, to serve on the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission, whose term is effective
immediately and expires December 31, 2003. (It is noted Ms.
Crump will fill the unexpired term of Mr. Bryan Walker.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
8.C. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS
AMENDING COUNTY CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO HUNTING
WITH RIFLES AND HANDGUNS AND SETTING OF A PUBLIC
HEARING FOR RE-ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE
Mr. Micas stated that the proposed ordinance will bring the
county ordinance into compliance with changes in state
02- 266
04/~0/02
regulations relating to the definition of muzzle-loading
guns; add turkey to the type of game that can be hunted with
muzzle-loading weapons; and clarify the fact that other small
game can only be hunted with 22-caliber rifles. He further
stated that, in order for the ordinance to be effective for
this year's hunting season, it must be sent to the Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries prior to May 1, 2002; therefore,
staff is requesting that it be adopted on an emergency basis.
He stated that both the Police Department and the
Commonwealth's Attorney support adoption of the proposed
ordinance.
Sergeant Kevin Carroll stated that the proposed ordinance
will allow the county to adopt changes as they are made both
to the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Administrative Code.
He further stated that the ordinance will act as a model for
other counties to follow.
Discussion ensued relative to the necessity to adopt the
ordinance on an emergency basis.
Sergeant Carroll stated that he has been in contact with both
the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia
Deer Hunters Association, and indicated that the proposed
ordinance has been well received both in the hunting
community and by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
Discussion ensued relative to hunting with rifles in the
county.
Sergeant Carroll stated that the proposed ordinance restricts
the hunting of game species, not nuisance species.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
adopted the following ordinance on an emergency basis:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY
AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 14-12 RELATING
TO HUNTING WITH RIFLES OR HANDGUNS
BE IT ORDAINED
Chesterfield County:
by the Board of Supervisors of
(i)
That Section 14-12 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and
re-enacted to read as follows:
Sec. 14-12. Same--Hunting with rifles or handguns.
(a) No person shall hunt deer or turkey with a rifle in
Chesterfield County, except as provided in subsection (c)
herein.
(b) Small game species may be hunted only with a rifle
or handgun that has a caliber no larger than .22 rimfire and
only during the prescribed open seasons, unless prohibited by
the Code of Virginia, Virginia Administrative Code, or
federal law or regulations.
(c) It shall be lawful to hunt game species with a
muzzle-loading rifle during the prescribed open seasons. For
the purpose of this section a muzzle-loading rifle is any
rifle as defined by Title 29 of the Code of Virginia or
Virginia Administrative Code Section VAC15-90-80.
(d) For the purpose of this section, game species shall
be those species as defined by the Code of Virginia or the
Virginia Administrative Code.
02- 267
04/10/02
(e) Any person violating the provisions of this section
shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(2) That this ordinance
immediately upon adoption.
shall become effective
And, further, the Board set the date of May 22, 2002 at 7:00
p.m. for a public hearing to re-adopt the emergency
ordinance.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey excused herself from the meeting.
8.D. CONSENT ITEMS
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
removed the following items from the Consent Agenda to allow
for public comment: Item 8.D.l.b., Adoption of Resolution
Recognizing April, as '~Confederate History and Heritage
Month"; and Item 8.D.3.a., Award of Construction Contract to
Inco, Incorporated for the Secondary Clarifiers Renovation
Project.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.1. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
8.D.l.a. RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF APRIL 28 - MAY 4, 2002, AS
· ~MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK"
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk, a time
honored and vital part of local government exists throughout
the world; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk is the oldest
among public servants; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk provides the
professional link between the citizens, the local governing
bodies and agencies of government at other levels; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever
mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal
service to all; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Clerks serve as the information
center on functions of local government and the community;
and
WHEREAS, Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve
the administration of the affairs of the Office of the
Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs,
seminars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state,
province, county and international professional
organizations; and
WHEREAS, it is most appropriate that we recognize the
accomplishments of the Office of the Municipal Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors recognizes the week of April 28,
02- 268
04/10/02
2002 through May 4, 2002, as "Municipal Clerks Week" and
extends their appreciation to Chesterfield,s Municipal
Clerks, Mrs. Lisa Elko and Mrs. Janice Blakley, and to all
Municipal Clerks for the vital services they perform and
their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.l.c. RECOGNIZING APRIL 2002, AS "CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION
MONTH · ·
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Child Protective Services investigation and
rehabilitation is the state mandated responsibility of the
Department of Social Services; and
WHEREAS, the social work staff at the department
recognizes its mandate and also recognizes the value of its
community partners; and
WHEREAS, Social Services staff spends considerable time
and energy supporting working relationships through
interagency teams and committees; and
WHEREAS, the time invested in working on issues from an
interdisciplinary perspective is well spent in emphasizing
the need for a shared response to families at risk; and
WHEREAS, the future brings both new problems and the
promise of creative answers; and
WHEREAS, all concerned professionals must continue to
challenge themselves and each other in constructive and
supportive ways.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes the month of
April 2002, as "Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Month" and
extends its thanks to the Department's social work staff and
their community collaborators.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.l.d. RECOGNIZING MR. ALEXI JUDE GLASHEEN, UPON ATTAININ~
THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by
Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered
by Congress in 1916; and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build
character, provide citizenship training and promote physical
fitness; and
WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges
in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and
outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop,
carrying out a service project beneficial to his community,
02- 269
04/~0/02
being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and
living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Alexi Jude Glasheen, Troop 460, sponsored
by Southampton Baptist Church, Southampton Recreation Center
and Stratford Hills United Methodist Church, has accomplished
those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-
sought goal of Eagle Scout, which is earned by only four
percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement;
and
WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and
endeavoring to prepare himself for a role as a leader in
society, Alexi has distinguished himself as a member of a new
generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be
very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its
congratulations to Mr. Alexi Jude Glasheen on his attainment
of Eagle Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune of the
County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its
citizens.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.2. STREET-NAME APPROVAL
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved the names McNeer and Rath for use in the naming of
several roads in the development known as The Village at
Swift Creek. (It is noted a copy of the parcel map is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
~ubsent: Humphrey.
8.D.3. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTraCTS
8.D.3.b. TO GODSE¥ AND SONS, INCORPORATED FOR THE LEE STREET
AND DE LAVIAL STREET WATER MAIN REHABILITATION
PROJECT
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
awarded a construction contract in the amount of $141,089,
for County Project Number 01-0200R - Lee Street and De Lavial
Street Water Main Rehabilitation, to Godsey and Sons,
Incorporated; authorized the transfer of $30,000 from 968300R
- Contingency Fund; and authorized the County Administrator
to execute the necessary documents. (It is noted a copy of
the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
02- 270
04/10/02
8.D.4. REQUESTS FOR MUSIC/ENTERTAIN~RNT FESTIVAL PERMITS
8 .D.4 .a.
FOR SUNDAYS' RESTAURANT OUTDOOR CONCERT ON
MAY 27, 2002
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Sundays' Restaurant for a
music/entertainment festival permit to hold an outdoor
concert on May 27, 2002.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.4.b. FOR ENON OPTIMIST CLUB SHRIMP FEST ON MAY 18, 2002
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from the Enon Optimist Club for a
music/entertainment festival permit to hold a Shrimp Fest on
May 18, 2002.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.5. APPROPRIATION OF REIMBURSEMENT REVENUE FROM THR
SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE SCHOOL HEALTH NURSE PROGRAM
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
appropriated $302,000 in reimbursement revenue from the
School Board for the ongoing School Health Nurse Program.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.6.
8.D.6 .a.
REQUESTS TO VACATE AND REDEDICATE
A VARIABLE WIDTH STORM WATER MANAGEMENT/BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE EASEMENT AND A TWENTY-FOOT
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTIC~
ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF CAPITAL
REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an agreement to vacate and
rededicate a variable width Storm Water Management/Best
Management Practice easement and a twenty-foot Storm Water
Management/Best Management Practice access easement across
the property of Capital Realty Associates, L.L.C. (It is
noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
02- 271
04/~0/02
8.D.6.b. A VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PUBLIC) ACROSS
THE PROPERTY OF CAPITAL REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an agreement to vacate and
rededicate a variable width drainage easement (public) across
the property of Capital Realty Associates, L.L.C. (It is
noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.7. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A SIXTEEN-FOOT
WATER EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF CHESTERFIELD
GARDENS, II, L.L.C.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a
portion of a sixteen-foot water easement across the property
of Chesterfield Gardens, II, L.L.C. (It is noted a copy of
the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.8. REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FROM STANLEY A. GREEN TO
CONSTRUCT A FENCE WITHIN A SIXTEEN-FOOT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AND AN EIGHT-FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 20,
BLOCK F, LAKE CRYSTAL FARMS, SECTION E
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
approved a request from Stanley A. Green for permission to
construct a fence within a sixteen-.foot drainage easement and
an eight-foot easement across Lot 20, Block F, Lake Crystal
Farms, Section E, subject to the execution of a license
agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.9. ACCEPTANCE OF PARCELS OF L~D
8.D.9.a. ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JEFFERSON DAVIS
HIGHWAY, THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PINEHURST
STREET AND THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ELOKOMIN
AVENUE FROM MELVIN L. FISHER
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
accepted the conveyance of six parcels of land containing a
total of 0.271 acres, along the east right of way line of
Jefferson Davis Highway, the south right of way line of
Pinehurst Street and the west right of way line of Elokomin
Avenue, from Melvin L. Fisher, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a
copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
02- 272
04/~0/02
8.D.9.b. ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SECOND BRANCH
ROAD FROM STEPHEN M. BRAMLET AND ANGELA B. BRAMLET
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.083
acres along the west right of way line of Second Branch Road
(State Route 653), from Stephen M. Bramlet and Angela B.
Bramlet, and authorized the County Administrator to execute
the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.9.c. ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SECOND BRANC~
ROAD FROM HORACE L. HALL, JR. AND MICHELLE D. HALT,
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.162
acres along the west right of way line of Second Branch Road
(State Route 653) from Horace L. Hall, Jr. and Michelle D.
Hall, and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.9.d. ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF NEWBY'S BRIDGE
ROAD FROM DOUGLAS J. AND DEBORAH A. HACKMAN
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
accepted the conveyance of two parcels of land containing a
total of 0.414 acres along the west right of way line of
Newby's Bridge Road (State Route 649) from Douglas J. and
Deborah A. Hackman, and authorized the County Administrator
to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the
plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.9 .e.
ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KRAUSE ROAD
FROM JERMANHUNTER, EDWIN H. HUNTER, THE ESTATE OF
VIRGINIA RYAN, BRIAN CORBIN AND PETER H. HUBER,
TRUSTEE
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
accepted the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.384
acres along the east right of way line of Krause Road (State
Route 903) from Jerman Hunter, Edwin H. Hunter, the Estate of
Virginia Ryan, Brian Corbin and Peter M. Huber, Trustee, and
authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary
deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
02- 273
04/10/02
8.D.10. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS
8.D.10.a.
TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY FOR
UNDERGROUND CABLE TO SERVE CURTIS ELEMENTARY
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with
Virginia Electric and Power Company for underground cable to
serve Curtis Elementary School. (It is noted a copy of the
plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.10.b.
TO VERIZON VIRGINIA INCORPORATED TO INSTALL
UNDERGROUND CABLE TO SER~E THE NEW MATOACA HIGH
SCHOOL
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with
Verizon Virginia Incorporated to install underground cable to
serve the new Matoaca High School.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
8.D.11. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISE FY2002 SCHOOL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATIONS
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
set the date of April 24, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing to consider increased estimated revenue and
appropriations in the School Capital Improvements fund in the
amount of $2,629,593.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Absent: Humphrey.
Mrs. Humphrey returned to the meeting.
The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda for
public comment:
8.D.l.b.
RECOGNIZING APRIL, AS ~CONFEDERATE HISTORY AND
HERITAGE MONTH~
Mr. George Beadles stated that Confederate history is a part
of our diversity and he feels it should be recognized.
Mr. Ken Fleet, a new county resident, stated that he does not
support the resolution.
Reverend Wilson Shannon, Pastor of First Baptist Church
Centralia, stated that Chesterfield County recognizes
diversity and history lovers. He further stated that,
although history has brought about painful experiences,
02- 274
04/~0/02
positive things can be extracted for citizens to work
together to pursue peace. He stated that First Baptist
Church Centralia, his family, and many other African-
Americans recognize that there is a lot to share from the
past, and indicated that he supports adoption of the
resolution.
Mr. Jim Daniels, member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans,
as well as the dialogue group that drafted the resolution,
stated that he feels the county has set an example for others
that issues such as this do not have to be debated in public
meetings, but can be settled through private discussions. He
expressed appreciation to the Board for allowing the dialogue
group to discuss the issue and also to members of the
dialogue group for their efforts in drafting the resolution.
Reverend Dr. Ivan Perkinson, a member of the dialogue
committee, stated that his family tree consists of relatives
who fought in every war, but never owned slaves. He further
stated that much of what has been taught through generations
relative to slavery is incorrect. He stated that the church
he pastors has a large congregation of mixed races, and
expressed concerns that children need to recognize that race
is not an issue, rather the bigotry that has been brought
down through generations is the issue. He further stated
that the resolution recognizes the history and heritage
balance, expresses hatred for slavery, and agrees that it was
not right. He commended the Board for tackling such a
difficult issue.
Mr. Rob Pettus, a member of the dialogue committee and proud
descendant of a Confederate veteran, stated that when he
flies the Confederate flag, he does so to honor his ancestor
and it has nothing to do with racism. He expressed
appreciation to the Board for its proactive approach to the
issue. He stated that the county has become a multi-cultural
society and indicated that he feels new immigrants need to
understand the history of native Virginians.
No one else came forward to speak to the issue.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the war between the states is one of the most
important and pivotal periods of American history, and this
period is a source of both pride and pain for descendants of
African-Americans and Confederate veterans; and
WHEREAS, this unique period in the history of Virginia
and our nation deserves appropriate recognition, education
and remembrance; and
WHEREAS, both the descendants of Confederate soldiers
and descendants of slaves agree that the institution of
slavery was an abomination and welcome an opportunity for an
open dialogue for healing to improve relationships within our
community; and
WHEREAS, in the spirit of healing and reconciliation,
Chesterfield County and the descendants of Confederate
veterans denounce the misuse and dishonoring by hate groups
of the symbols of the Confederate armed forces; and
WHEREAS, the men who fought for the Confederate armed
forces shed their blood on the battlefields in Chesterfield
County and across this nation defending their nation, their
homes and families; and
02- 275
04/~0/02
WHEREAS, these men and women believed in virtues which
can still be admired today, such as: honor, chivalry,
patriotism and self-sacrifice; and
WHEREAS, at war's end, the Confederate forces pledged
their allegiance to the United States of America and returned
home in peace to forge a new and unified nation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes April, as
"Confederate History and Heritage Month."
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
8.D.3 .a.
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO INCO,
iNCORPORATED FOR THE SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
RENOVATION PROJECT
Mr. George Beadles stated that citizens should be grateful
that the county has two wastewater treatment plants with
clarifiers. He expressed concerns that growth in the county
may lead to the treatment plants reaching their capacity
earlier than anticipated.
No one else came forward to speak to the issue.
Mr. Bryant came forward and stated that the capacity
currently in place should last another 15 to 18 years. He
further stated that there is space at the Proctor's Creek
facility to significantly expand and provide enough capacity
for 30 to 35 years.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
awarded a construction contract in the amount of $204,297,
for County Project Number 00-0124R PCWWTP - Secondary
Clarifiers Renovation, to Inco, Incorporated, and authorized
the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
9. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS
There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or
claims at this time.
10. REPORTS
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
accepted a Status Report on the General Fund Balance, Reserve
for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Fund and
Lease Purchases.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
11. DINNER
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
recessed to the Administration Building, Room 502, for
dinner.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
02- 276
04/10/02
Reconvening:
12. INVOCATION
Reverend Paul Phelps, Pastor of First Church of God, gave the
invocation.
13. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
Eagle Scout Michael Frank Lighthiser led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
14. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
14.A. RECOGNIZING L. C. BIRD, CLOVER HILL, COMMUNITY, JAM~R
RIVER, MANCHESTER, MATOACA, MEADOWBROOK, MIDLOTHIAN,
MONACAN, THOMAS DALE AND THE GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL FOR
PROVIDING DRUG AND ALCOHOL-FREE POST-PROM PARTIER
Mr. Kappel introduced representatives from L. C. Bird, Clover
Hill, Community, James River, Manchester, Meadowbrook,
Midlothian and Monacan High and the Governor's School who
were present to receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the two highest risk nights for teens are prom
and graduation, with some parents seeming to condone parties
where alcohol and drugs are available; and
WHEREAS, students need an alternative to drugs and
alcohol to which they can and will say "YES"; and
WHEREAS, in 2001, more than 350 schools and communities
in Virginia participated in Operation Prom/Graduation's
alcohol and drug-free parties for students; and
WHEREAS, many parents of Juniors and Seniors at L. C.
Bird, Clover Hill, Community, James River, Manchester,
Matoaca, Meadowbrook, Midlothian, Monacan, Thomas Dale High
and the Governor's Schools, with financial support from the
local and surrounding business community, are working to
provide alternative "no alcohol or drugs" parties following
the Matoaca and L. C. Bird Proms on April 13; Thomas Dale on
April 26; Clover Hill and James River on May 4; Monacan and
Manchester on May 11; Community High on May 17; Midlothian
and the Governor's School on May 18; and Meadowbrook on May
24; and
WHEREAS, communities all over Virginia are reaching out
in many ways to their young people with love and concern,
encouraging them to "Celebrate Life.',
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors publicly declares the weekends of
April 13-14, April 26-27, May 4-5, May 11-12, May 17-18, and
May 24-25 as "Drug and Alcohol-Free Among the Teen and Adult
Population of Chesterfield County."
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that adults be encouraged
to provide a positive, no alcohol and drugs example for our
youth, particularly at the high-risk times of prom and
02- 277
graduation, in an effort that we not only change lives, but
save them.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
The Board members presented executed resolutions to each of
the school's representatives, and each Board member expressed
appreciation that the high schools provide drug and alcohol-
free parties following the prom.
(It is noted that representatives from Matoaca and Thomas
Dale High Schools were not present at the meeting and the
resolution will be forwarded to each of the schools.)
14.B. RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE
PROFESSIONALS AND PROCLAIMING APRIL 21-27, 2002, AS
~ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS WEEK~ AND APRIL 24,
2002, AS ~ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS DAY~
Ms. Holly Aitken, Human Resource Specialist, introduced
members of the Tri-Cities and Old Dominion Chapters of the
International Association of Administrative Professionals who
were present to receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, executive secretaries, administrative
assistants, office managers, and other administrative
professionals represent one of the largest segments of the
labor force; and
WHEREAS, administrative professionals have increased
their business contributions in recent years by mastering
computer technology and taking vital information management
roles; and
WHEREAS, a well-trained and fairly compensated
administrative workforce is essential to economic success,
both locally and nationally; and
WHEREAS, it is important to provide education and
training and set standards of excellence for administrative
professionals; and
WHEREAS, the Old Dominion and Tri-Cities Chapters of the
International Association of Administrative Professionals,
which are active in Chesterfield County and include a number
of county employees, support the mission of the national
organization by emphasizing the importance of continuing
education and building business networks.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes April 21-27,
2002, as '~dministrative Professionals Week" and encourages
management everywhere to foster professional development
opportunities for this critical group of employees.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mr. Miller presented the executed resolutions to Ms. Gail
Arthur and Ms. Corinne Kirkland, accompanied by other
members of the Tri-Cities and Old Dominion Chapters of the
International Association of Administrative Professionals,
and expressed appreciation to all county administrative
02- 278
04/10/02
professionals for their dedication and contributions to the
county.
Ms. Arthur expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition.
14.C. RECOGNIZING BOY SCOUTS UPON ATTAINING RANK OF EAGLE
SCOUT
14.C.1. MICHAEL FRANK LIGHTHISER, CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
Mr. Hammer introduced Mr. Michael Lighthiser who was present
to receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by
Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered
by Congress in 1916; and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build
character, provide citizenship training and promote physical
fitness; and
WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges
in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and
outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop,
carrying out a service project beneficial to his community,
being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and
living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Michael Frank Lighthiser, Troop 800,
sponsored by Bethel Baptist Church, has accomplished those
high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought
goal of Eagle Scout, which is earned by only four percent of
those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and
WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and
endeavoring to prepare himself for a role as a leader in
society, Michael has distinguished himself as a member of a
new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all
be very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its
congratulations to Mr. Michael Frank Lighthiser on his
attainment of Eagle Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune
of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of
its citizens.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mr. Warren presented the executed resolution and patch to Mr.
Lighthiser, accompanied by members of his family,
congratulated him on his outstanding achievement, and wished
him well in future endeavors.
Mr. Lighthiser expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition and also to his parents, family members, fellow
scouts and Scoutmaster and his wife for their support.
14.C.2. TYLER WILLIS WIMER, CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
Mr. Hammer introduced Mr. Tyler Wimer who was present to
receive the resolution.
02- 279
04/10/02
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by
Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8., 1910, and was chartered
by Congress in 1916; and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build
character, provide citizenship tra~Lning and promote physical
fitness; and
WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges
in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and
outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop,
carrying out a service project be~Leficial to his community,
being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and
living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Tyler Willis Wimer, Troop 800, sponsored by
Bethel Baptist Church, has accomplished those high standards
of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle
Scout, which is earned by only four percent of those
individuals entering the Scouting movement; and
WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and
endeavoring to prepare himself for a role as a leader in
society, Tyler has distinguished himself as a member of a new
generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be
very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its
congratulations to Mr. Tyler Willis Wimer on his attainment
of Eagle Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune of the
County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its
citizens.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mr. Warren presented the executed resolution and patch to Mr.
Wimer, accompanied by members of his family, congratulated
him on his outstanding achievement:, and wished him well in
future endeavors.
Mr. Wimer expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition and also to his family, members of his troop and
Scoutmaster for their support.
14.C.3. SEANALEXANDER STRAC~L%N, ~IDLOT~IAN DISTRICT
Mr. Hammer introduced Mr. Sean Strachan who was present to
receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by
Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered
by Congress in 1916; and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build
character, provide citizenship training and promote physical
fitness; and
WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges
in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and
outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop,
carrying out a service project beneficial to his community,
02- 280
04/~0/02
being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and
living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Sean Alexander Strachan, Troop 800,
sponsored by Bethel Baptist Church, has accomplished those
high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought
goal of Eagle Scout, which is earned by only four percent of
those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and
WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and
endeavoring to prepare himself for a role as a leader in
society, Sean has distinguished himself as a member of a new
generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be
very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its
congratulations to Mr. Sean Alexander Strachan on his
attainment of Eagle Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune
of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of
its citizens.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mr. Barber presented the executed resolution to Mr. Strachan,
accompanied by members of his family, congratulated him on
his outstanding achievement, and wished him well in future
endeavors.
Mr. Warren presented a county patch to Mr. Strachan.
Mr. Strachan expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition and also to his parents, members of his troop and
Scout leaders for their support.
14.C.4. BENJAMIN LEE AX~2%N, MATOACA DISTRICT
Mr. Hammer introduced Mr. Benjamin Axman who was present to
receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by
Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered
by Congress in 1916; and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build
character, provide citizenship training and promote physical
fitness; and
WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges
in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and
outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop,
carrying out a service project beneficial to his community,
being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and
living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Benjamin Lee Axman, Troop 860, sponsored by
Woodlake United Methodist Church, has accomplished those high
standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal
of Eagle Scout, which is earned by only four percent of those
individuals entering the Scouting movement; and
WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting,
learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and
endeavoring to prepare himself for a role as a leader in
society, Benjamin has distinguished himself as a member of a
02- 281
04/~0/02
new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all
be very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its
congratulations to Mr. Benjamin Lee Axman on his attainment
of Eagle Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune of the
County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its
citizens.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey presented the executed resolution to Mr. Axman,
accompanied by members of his family, congratulated him on
his outstanding achievement, and wished him well in future
endeavors.
Mr. Warren presented a county patch to Mr. Axman.
Mr. Axman expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition and also to his family,, members of his troop and
the community for their support.
14.D. RECOGNIZING MR. HARRY L. MARSH FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Jacobson introduced Mr. Harry L. Marsh who was present to
receive the resolution.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mr. Harry L. Marsh was appointed as the Matoaca
District representative to the Chesterfield County Planning
Commission in January 1992 and[ served diligently and
effectively until his retirement in March 2002; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Marsh served as Planning Commission
Chairman in 1994, 1995, and 2001; and Planning Commission
Vice Chairman in 1998 and 2000; and.
WHEREAS, Mr. Marsh was instrumental in establishing
effective plans, development standards and procedures for
citizens to participate in the development process; and
WHEREAS, under Mr. Marsh's leadership, the Southern and
Western Plan was developed, discussed and adopted in order to
guide growth within this beautiful rural area; and
WHEREAS, this award-winning plan established several
unique plan concepts and implementation ordinances, including
the Deferred Growth Area (Green Area}; Inventory of Visual
Resources and an ordinance to protect visual resources; a
rural residential area and the R-88 zoning district; and
requirements for use of public water and sewer within
critical areas; and
WHEREAS, numerous comprehensive plan elements were
adopted, including the Parks and Recreation Master Plan,
Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan, Route 288 Corridor Plan,
Southern Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan, Riverfront Plan,
Water Quality Plan, and Public Facilities Plan, as well as
other plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, with Mr. Marsh's leadership and involvement,
significant development standards and planning ordinances
were adopted by Chesterfield County, including modern,
countywide commercial development standards; design standards
for developing areas including Route 360; improved
subdivision ordinance, sign ordinance and electronic message
02- 282
04/10/02
center standards; manufactured home park zoning standards;
strategy to improve older trailer courts, communication tower
location and design standards; water quality standards for
the Swift Creek watershed; and many other important actions;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Marsh coordinated the public review and
approval of many significant rezoning cases, including
Chesdin Landing a high quality residential community with a
golf course, walking trails, and public waterfront park along
Lake Chesdin; Commonwealth Center Shopping Center; a 552-acre
Boy Scout camp on Exter Mill Road; and many others; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Marsh excelled at working with citizens,
developers, and county staff towards the development of high
quality new subdivisions and communities for the benefit of
future county citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Harry L.
Marsh and expresses appreciation for his service to the
Chesterfield County Planning Commission and his invaluable
contributions in planning the future of Chesterfield County.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphrey presented the executed resolution to Mr. Marsh,
accompanied by his wife, and expressed appreciation for his
many years of service to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Marsh expressed appreciation to the Board for the
recognition and also to Planning staff and members of the
Planning Commission for their support.
Mr. Miller expressed appreciation to Mr.
integrity shown during his service.
Marsh for the
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS
15 .B.
TO CONSIDER THE 360 WEST CORRIDOR ARCHITECTURAL
STANDARDS
Mr. Greg Allen, Planning Administrator, stated that this date
and time has been advertised for a public hearing to consider
the 360 West Corridor Architectural Standards. He reviewed
summaries of the architectural standards for: 1) the Regional
and Community Mixed Use areas of the Upper Swift Creek Plan
and the area between Courthouse Road and Route 288; 2) the
Mixed Use Corridor areas; and 3) the Southern and Western
Area Plan areas.
Discussion ensued relative to residential design features in
the Mixed Use Corridor areas.
Mr. Allen stated that materials are not as critical as the
form of a structure. He further stated that, if the existing
architecture does not meet the current standards, the
Director of Planning can authorize administratively another
design. He stated that the developer would also have the
right to appeal the Planning Director's decision to the
Planning Commission.
When asked, Mr. Allen stated that existing zoning conditions
that provide for specific architecture will supersede the
proposed architectural standards. He further stated that any
project that comes through western Hull Street up to the
point of Magnolia Green will establish the architectural
theme for the area.
02- 283
04/~0/02
Mr. Miller excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Bill Poole came forward and stated that there are
architectural design standards for the commercial part of
Magnolia Green that fronts on Route 360 which are essentially
the same as the proposed ordinance would require.
When asked, Mr. Allen stated that 'there are no architectural
conditions in place for the Clover Hill Farm property;
therefore, the proposed architectural standards would apply
if adopted.
Mr. Warren called for the public hearing.
Ms. Terry Sheets, representing the 360 West Corridor
Committee, stated that the committee recommends adoption of
the 360 West Corridor Architectural Standards because there
is no plan for development of the area under existing
ordinances. She further stated that she feels nothing
decreases the value of property more than poorly designed
development or vacant, deteriorating development, and
requested that the Board adopt the proposed architectural
standards.
Mr. Miller returned to the meeting.
Mr. Tom Cole, a resident of Mockingbird Hill Subdivision and
member of the 360 West Corridor Committee, stated that he
supports the architectural design standards and feels the
proposed ordinance will keep development from by-passing
sites with conditions relative to architecture.
Ms. Myrna McCaffrey, a resident of Hull Street Road and
member of the 360 West Corridor Committee, expressed concerns
relative to providing for attractive development on Route 360
while protecting private property rights. She stated that
the Upper Swift Creek Plan imposes unnecessary financial
damage on small property owners along Route 360 between
Brandermill and Woodlake by limiting retail uses. She
further stated that she supports architectural guidelines
that promote attractive buildings, but is concerned about
interpretation and subjective judgment given to the Planning
Department. She requested that the Board give more
consideration to the small property owners on Route 360 and
suggested that two conditions be added to the architectural
guidelines: 1) approval providing the guidelines are
administered fairly and equitably with flexibility of
application without undue harm to small property owners; and
2) with the passing of architectural guidelines, give small
property owners on Route 360 between Brandermill and Woodlake
back some of the uses that were taken away by the overly
restrictive Upper Swift Creek Plan.
When asked, Ms. McCaffrey stated that she supports the
architectural guidelines, but feels that some of the overly
restrictive standards imposed by the Upper Swift Creek Plan
should be removed.
Mr. Jacobson came forward and stated that the current plan
for the 360 West Corridor adopted 'with the Upper Swift Creek
Plan addresses steering heavier uses at key locations and not
in a strip fashion along the entire corridor; therefore,
property like the McCaffrey's is designated as office use,
churches, nursing homes, etcetera.. He further stated that
Ms. McCaffrey could seek zoning to allow for low-key retail.
He stated that staff is currently reviewing the land along
the 360 West Corridor and holding community meetings which
would provide the ability for Ms. McCaffrey and other
property owners in the area to work with staff and civic
associations regarding the issue. He further stated that,
when the land use plan comes before the Board for a public
hearing, the Board could consider additional language
changing the uses allowed along the corridor.
02- 284
04/10/02
Mrs. Humphrey requested that Mr. Jacobson ensure that Ms.
McCaffrey be a part of the group discussing the land use plan
for the Route 360 Corridor.
There being no one else to address the issue, the public
hearing was closed.
On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Warren, 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 SECTIONS 19-570, 19-580,
19-585, AND 19-586, REPEALING SECTIONS 19-587, 19-588,
19-589, AND 19-590 AND ADDING SECTIONS 19-585.1, 19-585.2,
19-585.3, 19-585.4, 19-585.5, 19-586.1 AND 19-586.2 RELATING
TO ARCHITECTURAL THEMES FOR PROJECTS THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTY AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE ROUTE 360
CORRIDOR WEST
BE IT ORDAINED
Chesterfield County:
by the Board of Supervisors of
(1) That Sections 19-570, 19-580, 19-585, and 19-586 of
the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, are
amended and re-enacted, sections 19-587, 19-588, 19-589, and
19-590 are repealed, and sections 19-585.1, 19-585.2,
19-585.3, 19-585.4, 19-585.5, 19-586.1 and 19-586.2 are added
to read as follows:
Sec. 19-570. Architectural treatment.
(a)
Prior to the approval of any site plan for a
project, the developer shall submit for approval
documents that define the overall architectural
theme of the project. The architectural theme is a
written and/or graphic description of the planned
architectural treatment of all buildings within a
project. The theme shall describe how exterior
materials, colors, architectural style and building
scale shall be employed to establish a consistent
architectural treatment for the project.
Architectural treatment of buildings, including
materials, color and style, shall be compatible
with buildings located within the same project.
Compatibility may be achieved through the use of
similar building massing, materials, scale, colors
and other architectural features.
o o o
Sec. 19-580. Specified areas.
(a) The Highway Corridor District shall include those lands
identified on the zoning district map or otherwise described
below that include:
(1) The Jefferson Davis Highway corridor;
(2) The Route 360 corridor east;
(2)
The Route 360 corridor west, which shall consist of
Hull Street Road, extending from Courthouse Road to
the Amelia County line, including all land to a
depth of 1500 feet from the centerline of Hull
Street Road, unless the parcel or project extends
further than 1500 feet, in which case these
requirements shall apply to the entire parcel or
project;
02- 285
04/10/02
(4) The Route 10 corridor east; and
(5) The Old Stage and Coxendale Roads corridor.
(b) The Employment Center District shall include all lands
identified on the Route 288 Corridor Plan that include:
(1) Regional employment center.
(c) The Enon Core District shall
identified on the zoning district map.
include those lands
o o o
Sec. 19-585. Route 360 Corridors East and West.
Ail development in the Route 360 corridor east shall comply
with the requirements set forth in sections 19-585.1 through
19-585.5 while all development in the Route 360 corridor west
shall comply with the requirements set forth in sections
19-586 through 19-586.2; provided, however, that specific
zoning conditions shall always be complied with regardless of
whether they are more or less restrictive than the following
conditions.
Sec. 19-585.1.
Route 360 Corridor ]Bast:
commercial.
Established
O O O
Sec. 19-585.2. Route 360 Corridor East:
Rural transition.
o o o
Sec. 19-585.3. Route 360 Corridor East:
Village center.
O O O
Sec. 19-585.4. Route 360 Corridor East:
O O O
Corridor focus.
Sec. 19-585.5. Route 360 Corridor East: Corridor focus;
between Hicks Road, Route 360 and the Proposed
Loop Road.
In addition to the conditions contained in 19-585.4, the
following additional conditions shall be required in that
portion of the corridor focus zone located between Hicks
Road, Route 360 and the proposed Loop road:
0 0 0
Sec. 19-586.
Route 360 Corridor West: Regional and
community mixed use areas.
(a) Within the Route 360 corridor west in the Regional Mixed
Use and Community Mixed Use designated areas of the Upper
Swift Creek Plan and along Route 360 between Courthouse Road
and Route 288, the architectural theme of a project shall
establish a clearly identifiable architectural style, show
how the building elements will break up the mass of large
buildings, and provide for a pedestrian scale environment
between the parking and the buildings.
The architectural style shall 'use building elements that
interrupt the linear pattern and ]provide large scale focal
02- 286
04/10/02
elements and pedestrian
development. Building
follows:
scale elements for the entire
and pedestrian elements are as
(i)
Background Wall: Background wall designs shall
incorporate similar architectural expression of
walls including grid pattern, canopy, abstract
ornamentation and cornice to maintain the
continuity between tenants. Variation in building
wall setbacks shall be employed to interrupt the
massiveness of the building.
(2)
Entry and Tower Features: Entry features shall be
included as key design components to serve as
identification for each tenant and offer relief to
the background wall, or alternatively, continuous
pedestrian canopies with a maximum length of 250
feet may be used between significant entry or tower
features in lieu of entry features for each tenant.
Tower features shall be incorporated into the
entire project to establish large scale focal
points and/or interrupt the overall linear design
of the buildings on the site.
(3)
Colors: Overall designs shall include variations
in neutral color schemes for the building
background, with complimentary colors to enhance
the entry feature design. Accent colors shall be
permitted to represent individual corporate
identification.
(3)
Parapets and Roofs: Variation in parapet and/or
roof heights shall be used to interrupt building
massiveness.
(5)
Pedestrian Elements: Between the buildings and the
parking areas, the architectural theme shall
include at least four of the following pedestrian
elements: decorative post lights, alternative
paving treatments at entrances and/or pedestrian
crossings, benches, plazas, landscaped areas, water
features, display windows, or other pedestrian
elements as approved by the director of planning.
(b) Commercial buildings adjacent to roads other than
arterial or collector roads as identified on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan that serve as an entrance to a residential
neighborhood shall incorporate building elements that are
compatible with residential development using design features
identified for buildings in the Mixed Use Corridor designated
areas of the Upper Swift Creek Plan.
Sec. 19-586.1.
Route 360 Corridor Wests
areas.
Mixed use corridor
Within the Route 360 corridor west in the Mixed Use Corridor
designated areas of the Upper Swift Creek Plan, all buildings
shall be compatible with residential architecture.
Residential design features shall include, but not be limited
to, articulation of doors and windows, architectural
ornamentation, and use of residential materials such as, but
not limited to, brick and/or siding for walls and asphalt
shingle or simulated slate for roofs. There shall be no
visible flat or shed roofs permitted. Within a project,
compatibility shall be achieved through the consistent use of
a residential architectural style, and using, materials,
fenestration, scale and other architectural features
appropriate to that style.
02- 287
04/~0/02
Sec. 19-586.2.
Route 360 Corridor West:
compatibility.
Architectural
Throughout the Route 360 corridor west from Courthouse Road
west to the Amelia County line, architectural treatment of
all buildings shall be compatible with buildings located
within the same project or within the same block or directly
across any road, as determined by the director of planning.
At locations where the existing buildings do not meet current
Zoning Ordinance requirements for architectural treatment,
the director of planning may approve a new architectural
treatment or theme. Compatibility may be achieved through
the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors
or other architectural features.
o o o
Sec. 19-590. Reserved.
(2) That this ordinance
immediately upon adoption.
shall become effective
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
15 .C.
TO CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES
Mr. Hammer stated that this date and time has been advertised
for the Board to consider the appropriation of funds for
Comprehensive Services.
Mr. Miller called for the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak to the issue.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
approved the appropriation of up to $1,355,200 for
Comprehensive Services, including $905,200 in state funds,
$248,500 from general fund non-departmental appropriations,
and $201,500 from schools.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
15.D. TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS RELATING TO CURFEW FOR MINORS
Mr. Micas stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to
curfew for minors. He further stated that the current county
ordinance treats curfew violations as misdemeanors, and
parents are subject to misdemeanor prosecution for curfew
violations of their children. He stated that both of those
requirements are contrary to state law; therefore, Judge
Hendrick from the Juvenile Court. has requested that the
county's ordinance be amended to treat curfew violations in
the same fashion as children in need of services and
supervision or truancy violations.
Discussion ensued relative to parents being held responsible
for curfew violations of their minor children under the
present ordinance.
Mr. Miller called for the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak to the ordinance.
02- 288
04/10/02
Discussion ensued relative to dealing with curfew violations
through the Social Services Department.
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO A~4END THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY
AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 14-19 RELATING
TO CURFEWS
BE IT ORDAINED
Chesterfield County:
by the Board of Supervisors of
(1) That Section 14-19 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to
read as follows:
Sec. 14-19. Curfew for minors.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of 18
years to be upon the streets or in other public places in the
county between 11:00 p.m. and daylight of the following day
unless accompanied by a parent, guardian or some adult person
lawfully in charge of such child.
(b) This section shall not be construed to prohibit children
under 18 years of age from discharging their employment
duties or attending religious, school or civic organizational
functions unaccompanied by a parent, guardian or other adult
person.
(c) Pursuant to § 15.2-926 of the Code of Virginia, a
violation of this ordinance by a minor shall be disposed of
as provided in §§ 16.1-278.4 and 16.1-278.5 of the Code of
Virginia.
(2) That this ordinance
immediately upon adoption.
shall become effective
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
15.E. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A
SIXTEEN-FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 4, BLOCK E, LOCH
BRAEMAR SUBDIVISION
Mr. Stith stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a
portion of a sixteen-foot easement across Lot 4, Block E,
Loch Braemar Subdivision.
Mr. Miller called for the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak to the ordinance.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to HECTOR ALONSO and
CATHY C. ALONSO, ("GRANTEE'.), a portion of a 16'
easement across Lot 4, Block E, Loch Braemar
Subdivision, CLOVER HILL Magisterial District,
Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat
thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book
23, at Page 57.
02- 289
04/10/02
WHEREAS, HECTOR ALONSO and CATHY C. ALONSO, petitioned
the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to
vacate a portion of a 16' easement across Lot 4, Block E,
Loch Braemar Subdivision, CLOVER }{ILL Magisterial District,
Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a
plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
said County in Plat Book 23, Page 57, by BODIE, MILLS, TAYLOR
& PURYEAR, INC., dated JANUARY 2, 1974. The portion of
easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as
follows:
A portion of a 16' easement, across Lot 4, Block
E, Loch Braemar Subdivision, the location of which
is more fully shown on a plat made by BODIE,
MILLS, TAYLOR & PURYEAR, INC., dated JANUARY 2,
1974, a copy of which is attached hereto and made
a part of this Ordinance.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.2-
2204 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, by
advertising; and
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance
of the portion of easement sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
BOARD OF
That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virqinia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of easement
be and is hereby vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virqinia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant
to Section 15.2-2276 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as
amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.2-
2274 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of
the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest
fee simple title of the portion of .easement hereby vacated in
the property owners of Lot 4, Block E, Loch Braemar
Subdivision free and clear of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the
names of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and HECTOR
ALONSO and CATHY C. ALONSO, or their successors in title, as
GRANTEE.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
15.A. TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE
LOCATION AND REGULATION OF ~DULT USES
Mr. Micas stated that this date and time has been advertised
for a public hearing to consider ordinance amendments
relative to the location and regulation of adult uses. He
further stated that the existing ordinance was adopted prior
to 1980 and is outdated and irrelevant to today's adult
businesses, and indicated that the proposed amendments will
modernize the county's regulation of adult uses. He stated
that in September 2001, the Board adopted an expanded permit
requirement issued by the Police Chief in which various
physical requirements for adult businesses and the conduct of
02- 290
04/~0/02
adult businesses was addressed. He further stated that in
February 2002, the Planning Commission recommended
strengthening the adult use ordinances as they relate to the
zoning ordinance by expanding concepts of adult uses to
include the more modern adult use industry concepts for live
entertainment, as well as the concept for electronic forms of
sexually explicit products. He stated that staff is
recommending several changes to the ordinance recommended by
the Planning Commission to further strengthen the
defensibility of the ordinance in light of Henrico's
experience in federal court and state court relative to an
exotic dance club, and to make it legally defensible in light
of some of the issues raised in a letter from the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He further stated that there
are two areas of disagreement in the ordinance between the
Planning Commission and the staff's recommendations: 1) the
time limit in which the Board of Supervisors would have to
consider a zoning application for an adult business; and 2)
the requirement for separation of adult merchandise from
juveniles. He stated that, because the county does not have
any "permitted by right" zone for adult businesses, all such
businesses are considered conditional uses; therefore, the
courts require that there be speedy decision making by the
governing bodies and also a speedy appellate process. He
further stated that staff is recommending a 60-day decision
making requirement as opposed to the Planning Commission's
120 days. He stated that staff has recommended that the
requirement for separation of adult merchandise from
juveniles be applied prospectively through the zoning
ordinance to new businesses, and the Planning Commission
recommended that it be applied in the police power ordinances
retroactively to existing businesses, indicating that they
felt it would be more uniformly applied if retroactive. He
further stated that, because it would require modification of
existing businesses, staff feels the defensibility of the
ordinance would be enhanced if it is only applied
prospectively. He stated that new language has been included
for the segregation requirement for juveniles which staff
feels will improve the enforceability and defensibility of
the ordinance.
Mr. Jacobson came forward and provided information from
national studies relating to the secondary impacts of adult
uses, including reduction of the value of nearby property and
increased crime. He submitted copies of the national studies
for the Board's record.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that case law indicates if there
is no permitted by-right zone and the public intervenes in
adult use areas protected by the First Amendment, there must
be a speedy government decision and appellate review. He
further stated that case law also indicates that 30 and 60
days are considered Constitutionally appropriate, but 150
days is not. He stated that, because of the restrictive
nature of the proposal, staff is recommending 60 days for
both the Planning Commission and the Board to act on a
conditional use application for an adult use. He further
stated that all of the localities surveyed by staff have some
permitted zone for adult uses.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that staff feels it is more
palatable to address the requirement for separation of adult
merchandise from juveniles through the zoning ordinance
because the effect of the ordinance is to regulate speech
protected by the First Amendment, and courts are more lenient
if those regulations imposed by local government are applied
prospectively. He further stated that, when the restrictions
are applied retroactively, courts are much more aggressive in
overturning ordinances because they are considered a
restriction on First Amendment activity. He stated that the
02- 291
04/10/02
restrictions could be enacted prc, spectively through either
police power ordinances or the zoning ordinance.
Discussion ensued relative to differences between addressing
the issue through police power ordinances and the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Miller inquired about standards that might make the
ordinance defensible if the restriction to minors was
addressed retroactively.
Mr. Micas stated that the new language in Attachment Two
requires the business owner to either restrict entrance to
adults only or provide a separation between adult merchandise
and juveniles, but would leave flexibility as to how the
business owner accomplishes this. He further stated that the
flexibility enhances the defensibility of a retroactive
application, but is still at risk from a judicial standpoint.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that, if an existing business
changes its product mix to a substantial amount of adult
merchandise, it would be considered a new use and would
require zoning for an adult business. He further stated
that, if an existing business changes its product mix to a
smaller, insubstantial amount of adult merchandise, the
business would have to comply with the separation standard.
Discussion ensued relative to protection of juveniles from
sexually explicit material.
Mr. Micas stated that separation of materials from juveniles
would not extend to R-rated movies because they are protected
by the First Amendment.
Mr. Barber stated that he feels it would be a good idea for
the Board to communicate with video stores in the county that
concerns relative to protection of juveniles can be addressed
by placing jackets over their video covers.
Mr. McHale stated that he would be concerned about applying
the proposed ordinance retrospectively if there were issues
that needed addressing.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that staff is not aware of any
situations that need to be addressed[ in commercial areas. He
further stated that Mrs. Humphrey has indicated that graphic
videos are displayed in some of the smaller stores in her
area.
Mrs. Humphrey stated that she has received numerous
complaints relative to graphic videos and magazines being
clearly visible in country stores.
Mr. Miller called for the public hearing.
Mr. Dick Page, a resident of the Clover Hill District, stated
that the Board does not have the divine power to legislate
morality in the county. He further stated that the proposed
ordinance will enhance the living conditions of the county
without depriving individuals who wish to purchase adult
merchandise from doing so.
Ms. Elaine Hanger stated that she supports the Board doing
everything possible to keep adult businesses from operating
in the county.
Mr. Larry Miller, a Brandermill resident, stated that he
appreciates the Board considering this issue, and indicated
that he supports addressing separation of adult merchandise
from juveniles through police power ordinances.
02- 292
04/10/02
Mr. Kevin Hoeft, a Clover Hill District resident, stated that
adult businesses are bad for legitimate businesses; reduce
property values; are harmful to children directly and
indirectly; destroy and undermine marriages; and contribute
to the snow-bailing cultural breakdown that is threatening
the nation. He strongly recommended that enforcement of the
proposed ordinance be placed under police power ordinances
retroactively, rather than the zoning ordinance, and
requested that the Board protect children and families by
diligently restricting the establishment of adult businesses
in the community.
Mr. Jack McKosky, a resident of the Dale District, stated
that he feels that are many citizens who support restriction
of adult businesses and expressed concerns that more of them
were not present at the meeting.
Mr. Miller stated that he would like to defer consideration
of the proposed ordinance until such time as the issues
raised have been studied.
Mr. Barber expressed concerns relative to the Board taking a
chance, by adopting the ordinance with a retrospective
separation requirement, that the entire ordinance might be
thrown out if challenged. He stated that no issues have been
identified that require retrospective adoption of the
segregation to juveniles requirement. He further stated that
he feels the Board should adopt the ordinance with staff's
recommendation, but indicated that he will support a
deferral.
Mr. Warren stated that he will support Mr. Miller's request
for a deferral, and encouraged the Board not to defer beyond
60 days. He further stated that he supports police power
ordinances to retroactively address the requirement for
segregation of adult materials to juveniles, but feels it
will take additional time to develop the appropriate language
to accomplish this. He stated that he feels it would be wise
to leave the public hearing open.
Mrs. Humphrey expressed concerns relative to hastily adopting
an ordinance that could jeopardize the quality of life in the
county if challenged, and indicated that she will support
deferral of the public hearing for 60 days.
Mr. McHale stated that he feels the proposed ordinance is
headed in the right direction, and indicated that he will
support a 60-day deferral. He suggested that the review
process for conditional use applications for adult uses be as
rigorous as possible.
When asked, Mr. Micas stated that the Board could adopt the
entire ordinance, apply the separation requirement
prospectively, and continue to address whether to apply it
retroactively. He further stated that, in terms of
defensibility, he would prefer that the Board adopt staff's
recommendation. He stated that, if the Board delays, there
is a possibility that someone might start an adult business
that might be outside of the more restrictive regulations.
Discussion ensued relative to adopting the ordinance at this
time as opposed to deferral.
Mr. Miller expressed concerns relative to adopting an
ordinance that might take away the possibility of expanding
the segregation of materials to juveniles retrospectively.
He suggested that the public hearing be deferred until May
22, 2002, rather than 60 days.
Mr. Barber stated that Mr. Davenport indicated to him that he
agrees with Mr. Micas that, in order to protect the
defensibility of the ordinance, the total number of days for
02- 293
04/10/02
both the Planning Commission and Board to act on a
conditional use application for an adult use should be
limited to 60. He expressed concerns relative to
jeopardizing the ordinance legally if it were to be adopted
with the separation requirement retrospectively.
Mr. Miller expressed concerns that 60 days is a relatively
short time for both the Planning Commission and Board to
consider an application, and indicated that he would like
additional time to think about this issue.
Mr. Barber stated that adopting staff's proposal would not
prohibit the Board from doing more to the ordinance at a
later date, but indicated that he will support a deferral if
that is the will of the Board.
Mr. Warren made a motion, seconded by Mr. McHale, for the
Board to continue the public hearing to consider ordinance
amendments regarding the location and regulation of adult
uses until May 22, 2002.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Barber, Humphrey and McHale.
Nays: None.
16. ADJOD-RNME~
On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded iby Mr. Barber, the Board
adjourned at 9:16 p.m. until April 24, 2002 at 3:30 p.m.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Humphrey, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
L~ B. Ramse~ J
County Administra~r
02- 294
04/10/02