Chesterfield County, Virginia | Board of Supervisors

Supervisors in Attendance:

Mr. Kelly E. Miller, Chairman

Mrs. Renny B. Humphrey, Vice Chairman

Mr. R. M. “Dickie” King, Jr.

Mr. Donald D. Sowder

Mr. Arthur S. Warren

Mr. James J.L. Stegmaier
County Administrator

Staff in Attendance:

Mrs. Janice Blakley, Clerk

Mr. George Braunstein, Exec. Dir., Community Services Board

Mr. Kevin Bruny, Dean, Chesterfield University

Mr. Allan Carmody, Dir., Budget and Management

Ms. Marilyn Cole, Asst. County Administrator

Mr. Roy Covington, Dir., Utilities

Ms. Mary Ann Curtin, Dir., Intergovtl. Relations

Mr. Charles Dane, Dir., External Services

Mr. Jonathan Davis, Dir., Real Estate Assessments

Ms. Rebecca Dickson, Dep. County Administrator, Human Services

Mr. William Dupler, Building Official

Ms. Karla Gerner, Dir., Human Resource Mgmt.

Mr. John W. Harmon, Right-of-Way Manager

Mr. Russell Harris, Mgr. of Community Development
Services

Mr. Garrett Hart, Development Manager, Economic Development

Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir., Public Affairs

Mr. Rob Key, Director, General Services

Chief Paul Mauger, Fire Department

Mr. R. John McCracken, Dir., Transportation

Mr. Steven L. Micas, County Attorney

Mr. Francis Pitaro, Acting Deputy County Admin., Management Services

Lt. Emmett Smith, Jr., Sheriff’s Office

Ms. Sarah Snead, Dir., Social Services

Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Deputy County Admin., Community Development

Mr. Kirk Turner, Dir., Planning

On motion of Mr. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. King, the Board approved the minutes of September 26, 2007, as submitted.

2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS

Mr. Stegmaier had no County Administrator’s comments at this time.

4. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADDITIONS, OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION

There were no requests to postpone agenda items, additions, or changes at this time.

Ms. Curtin stated changes in the membership of the General Assembly and its committees as a result of the November election is a factor in the county’s 2008 legislative program. She expressed concerns that the state budget will significantly impact county revenues, indicating that the most significant issue will be the re-benchmarking of the K—12 education funding formula. She reviewed key challenges facing the county and legislative priorities relative to each of the challenges, which include transportation, growth, financial strength, quality of life and safety/security issues.

There was brief discussion relative to supporting legislation that assists local government in addressing community concerns relative to illegal immigrants.

Mr. Miller requested that the issues outlined in the immigration report that would require state action be added to the county’s legislative program.

Ms. Curtin provided a timeline relative to adoption of the legislative program; release of the Governor’s budget; and convening of the General Assembly.

There was brief discussion relative to the legislative priority of creating a DUI Court for Chesterfield/Colonial Heights.

In response to Mr. Miller’s question, Ms. Curtin stated she has not yet seen any proposals relative to group homes that would be harmful to Chesterfield.

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Sowder, the Board suspended its rules at this time to allow for simultaneous nomination/appointment of a member to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board.

On motion of Ms. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Sowder, the Board nominated Captain Karen C. Carr, at-large member from the Chesterfield Police Department, to serve on the Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee, whose term is effective immediately upon appointment by the Governor.

On motion of Ms. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Sowder, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Ms. Kellan Latif, a student representing the Matoaca District, to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board, whose term is effective July 1, 2007 and expires June 30, 2008.

8.B.2 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS

8.B.2.a. COGNIZING MS. JUDITH A. DAVIS, CHESTERFIELD-COLONIAL HEIGHTS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, UPON HER RETIREMENT

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board adopted the following resolution:

WHEREAS, Mrs. Judith A. Davis began her public service with Chesterfield County as an eligibility worker in the Department of Social Services in June 1987, having come to the county with several years of experience with Petersburg Social Services; and

WHEREAS, in July 1994, Mrs. Davis was promoted to senior eligibility worker; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Davis was a member of the Application Benefit Delivery Project (ADAPT) implementation process for the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Department of Social Services; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Davis has provided the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Department of Social Services with 20 years of loyal and dedicated service; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Davis has been a dedicated and loyal advocate for the citizens of Chesterfield County and the City of Colonial Heights.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mrs. Judith A. Davis, and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, appreciation for her service to the county, congratulations upon her retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

8.B.2.b. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MS. MARLENE K. PASCARELLA, TREASURER’S OFFICE, UPON HER RETIREMENT

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board adopted the following resolution:

WHEREAS, Mrs. Marlene K. Pascarella retired effective October 1, 2007 after providing over 22 years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella began her tenure with the Chesterfield County Treasurer’s Office on January 7, 1985 as a part-time account clerk; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella was promoted to full-time employment with the Treasurer’s Office on September 16, 1985 and has been promoted to multiple positions throughout her years in the office, most recently to the position of Principal Account Clerk; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella has been instrumental during her career in helping implement accounting practices in the Treasurer’s Office of the highest integrity; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella has consistently performed over and above her normal responsibilities, assisting the office when decal issuance and tax collections were offered off-site; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella has faithfully and effectively discharged her duties in each and every capacity with proficiency, passion and uncompromising commitment to world-class customer service; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Pascarella will be tremendously missed for the quality and caliber of her commitment and performance to the Treasurer’s Office and to our citizens.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mrs. Marlene K. Pascarella and extends its appreciation for her 22 years of dedicated service to the county, congratulations upon her retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

8.B.3. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE II OF THE FIRE LOGISTICS FACILITY TO SUN BAY CONTRACTING, INCORPORATED

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract with Sun Bay Contracting, Incorporated, in the amount of $3,400,000, for the construction of Phase II of the Fire Logistics Facility; transferred $550,000 from projects nearing completion; and transferred $150,000 from the County’s Reserve for Capital Projects.

8.B.4. CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE FOR UNDERGROUND CABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE NEW RIVER ROAD PUMP STATION

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an easement with Southside Electric Cooperative for underground cable to provide service to the new River Road Pump Station. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board approved the following utility contract for Belfair Townhouses, Contract Number 07-0145, and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents:

Contract Amount:
Estimated County Cost for Additional Work . . $25,271.64
Estimated Developer Cost. . . . . . . . . . .$155,413.25
Estimated Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$180,684.89

8.B.6. REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FROM GREGORY AND LESLIE BREWER FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH WITHIN A SIXTEEN-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 24, TANNER VILLAGE, SECTION A AT CHARTER COLONY

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board approved a request from Gregory and Leslie Brewer for permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 16-foot drainage easement across Lot 24, Tanner Village, Section A at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)

8.B.7. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION’S CHARTER ADDING CHARLES CITY COUNTY AS A MEMBER

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board approved an amendment to the Crater Planning District Commission’s Charter adding Charles City County as a member. (It is noted a copy of the amendment is filed with the papers of this Board.)

8.B.10. TRANSFER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO MAKE FIELD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING BASEBALL FIELD AT JAMES RIVER HIGH SCHOOL

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board transferred $2,000 from the Midlothian District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to make field improvements to the existing baseball field at James River High School.

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the following item was removed from the Consent Agenda for public comment: Item 8.B.9., Declaration of Mandatory Water Use Restrictions.

Mr. George Beadles expressed concerns relative to waste of water in the county because it is inexpensive. He stated increasing the cost of county-supplied water could be an incentive for citizens to begin conserving it. He further stated the county should determine a way to reserve water throughout the year instead of waiting until mandatory water use restrictions become necessary.

No one else came forward to speak to the issue.

In response to Mrs. Humphrey’s question, Mr. Covington stated the mandatory water restrictions are effective October 15th to allow staff ample time to advertise them.

Discussion ensued relative to advertisement of the water restrictions through various media outlets.

Mr. King expressed concerns relative to sprinkler systems used to water the medians throughout subdivisions in the county, resulting in unnecessary water usage on the streets. He inquired whether staff could enforce water conservation measures in cases such as this throughout the year.

Mr. Covington stated staff would respond to water usage situations that are brought to their attention.

Discussion ensued relative to the current water levels in Lake Chesdin and the James River.

In response to Mr. Sowder’s question, Mr. Covington stated the Appomattox River Water Authority will address the issue of residents pumping water from Lake Chesdin for their own personal use.

After further discussion, Mr. Miller suggested that the county could require developers to make on-site provisions for watering, landscaping and irrigation of future subdivisions that would not access public water.

On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board confirmed and approved the declaration of mandatory water use restrictions to assure maximum beneficial use of available water resources for the public welfare during the prevailing drought conditions, effective October 15, 2007.

Mr. Turner provided details of Mr. Ernest Belvin’s request to Mrs. Humphrey regarding initiation of this rezoning application. He stated Mr. Belvin believes there were restrictions on his property that he did not agree to or understand during the zoning process, and that an error was made in the action involving the zoning case. He further stated Mr. Belvin is asking that 70 percent of the property be available for C-5 uses and 30 percent for C-3 uses.

Mrs. Humphrey stated she felt comfortable bringing this item forward because the property is located at a very strategic place adjacent to Magnolia Green and the county’s newly proposed CDA.

Mr. Miller inquired why Mr. Belvin did not initiate the rezoning request himself.

Mrs. Humphrey stated she cannot answer why Mr. Belvin did not initiate it himself, indicating that he requested that she do so since he did not agree with staff’s interpretation.

In response to Mr. King’s question, Mr. Turner stated staff’s control of the property would not be affected in any way, regardless of whether Mr. Belvin was the applicant or the county was the applicant.

Mr. Sowder and Mr. King each expressed concerns relative to Mr. Belvin not pursuing the rezoning himself.

Mrs. Humphrey suggested that the Board defer this issue to allow Board members to ask Mr. Belvin to initiate the zoning himself.

Mrs. Humphrey then made a motion, seconded by Mr. King, for the Board to defer the initiation of a rezoning application for Tax I.D. 709-668-0844 until November 28, 2007.

8.B.1. ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT AWARDED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING FOR THE 2007 SECURE OUR SCHOOLS PROGRAM

There was discussion relative to the cost of the overall security project for schools and the cash match required for the grant award.

On motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board authorized the Police Department to accept and appropriate an award from the United States Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 2007 Secure Our Schools grant program in the amount of $282,904, and authorized the County Administrator to execute all documents. (It is noted the $282,903 local cash match will be paid for by Schools.)

Ayes: Miller, Humphrey, King and Sowder.
Nays: None.
Absent: Warren.

9.B. REPORT ON STATUS OF GENERAL FUND BALANCE, RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS, DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS AND LEASE PURCHASES

9.C. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION FOR NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC (CASE 08PD0134) TO CO-LOCATE AN ANTENNA ON A VIRGINIA POWER STRUCTURE LOCATED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SPRING RUN ROAD, WEST OF RAVEN WING DRIVE

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Sowder, the Board accepted the following reports: a Report on Developer Water and Sewer Contracts; a Report on Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Funds and Lease Purchases; and a Report of Planning Commission Substantial Accord Determination for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Case 08PD0134) to Co-Locate an Antenna on a Virginia Power Structure Located on the North Line of Spring Run Road, West of Raven Wing Drive.

Mr. Joe Cacciotti addressed the Board relative to equal representation among the jurisdictions on the Richmond Metropolitan Authority Board of Directors. He provided details regarding the reception of other jurisdictions and the legislative delegation relative to this issue. He then thanked the Board members for their service to the county.

On motion of Mr. Sowder, seconded by Ms. Humphrey, the Board recessed to the Administration Building, Room 502, for dinner.

Eagle Scout Elliott Howell led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

14.A. RECOGNIZING MR. WILLIAM M. “WILLIE” HARRIS GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, UPON HIS RETIREMENT

Mr. William Harris was unable to attend the meeting; therefore, his resolution will be presented at a later date.

WHEREAS, Mr. William M. “Willie” Harris retired on October 1, 2007 after providing 28 years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Harris began his service February 1, 1979, collecting refuse for the Department of General Services, Chesterfield County; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Harris transferred from the collections section to convenience center operations in February 1998; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Harris helped the county’s Sanitation Department change and become the Division of Solid Waste, and then the Division of Waste and Resource Recovery, representing a shift to protection of the environment; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Harris is known for his friendly, easy-going manner; his ability to work with citizens in an effective way; caring for his fellow co-workers; and performing his duties in a most professional manner; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Harris provided the wisdom of his years and experience in contributing to the division’s strategic planning conferences, process action teams, and other activities; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Harris always performed his duties and responsibilities in an excellent manner placing the welfare and safety of co-workers, other county employees, and the public above his own personal comfort and feelings and will be missed by his fellow co-workers.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 10th day of October 2007, publicly recognizes Mr. William M. “Willie” Harris and extends appreciation for his 28 years of dedicated service to the county, congratulations upon his retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Harris and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.

Ms. Snead introduced Mrs. Barbara Chapman, this year’s Christmas Mother, who was present to receive the resolution.

WHEREAS, most families in Chesterfield County enjoy peace and happiness during the Christmas holidays; and

WHEREAS, there are many children, elderly and the less fortunate, who do not have the means to enjoy this special time of year; and

WHEREAS, the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Christmas Mother Program has successfully provided food, gifts and clothing to many of our citizens in the past; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Barbara Chapman has been elected Christmas Mother for 2007 and requests support of all the citizens of Chesterfield County to ensure that those less fortunate may enjoy this special season of the year; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes October 16, 2007, as “Christmas Mother Day” and urges all citizens of Chesterfield County to support this worthy endeavor.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors publicly commends the Christmas Mother Program for its successful efforts in past years and extends best wishes for a successful 2007 season.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Chapman and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County Virginia.

Mrs. Humphrey presented the executed resolution and a contribution to the Christmas Mother Program to Mrs. Chapman and wished her success as this year’s Christmas Mother.

Mrs. Chapman stated she is honored to serve as Christmas Mother for 2007. She expressed appreciation to the Board for its continued support and wished everyone an early Merry Christmas.

Mr. Kappel introduced Mr. Matthew Bukas and Mr. Elliott Howell, who were present to receive the resolutions.

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 their community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the Scout Oath and Law

Mr. Matthew Ryan Bukas, Troop 800, sponsored by Bethel Baptist Church, and Mr. Elliott Reuel Howell, Troop 806, sponsored by Woodlake United Methodist Church, have accomplished those high standards of commitment and have reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by only four percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and

WHEREAS, growing through their experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and endeavoring to prepare themselves for roles as leaders in society, Matthew and Elliott have distinguished themselves as members of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 10th day of October 2007, hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Matthew Ryan Bukas and Mr. Elliott Reuel Howell, and acknowledges the good fortune of the county to have such outstanding young men as its citizens.

Mr. Sowder and Mrs. Humphrey presented executed resolutions and patches to Mr. Bukas and Mr. Howell, accompanied by members of their families, congratulated them on their outstanding achievements, and wished them well in future endeavors.

Mr. Bukas and Mr. Howell provided details of their Eagle Scout projects and expressed appreciation to members of their troop and others for their support.

15.A. TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF 3.44 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON REYCAN ROAD IN THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL AIRPARK TO COURTHOUSE III, LLC

Mr. Garrett Hart, Development Manager, New Business Attraction, stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider conveyance of 3.44 acres of property located on Reycan Road in the Chesterfield County Industrial Airpark to Courthouse III, LLC.

On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. King, the Board authorized the County Administrator to convey a 3.44-acre parcel located on Reycan Road to Courthouse III, LLC. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)

Ayes: Miller, Humphrey, King, Sowder and Warren.
Nays: None.

15.B. TO CONSIDER FY2009 ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

Mr. Stith stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider FY2009 Enhancement Projects.

On motion of Mr. Sowder, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board approved the proposed FY2009 Enhancement Project list, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board, and directed staff to forward it to the Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization for endorsement.

And, further the Board adopted the following resolution requesting Virginia Department of Transportation approval and guaranteeing the local match for the projects:

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that the local governing body request, by resolution, approval of a proposed enhancement project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for the restoration of the Falling Creek Bridge on Jefferson Davis Highway.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $960,000 for planning, design, right-of-way, and construction of the Falling Creek Bridge Restoration Project, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for the installation of streetlights along Genito Road from Fox Chase Lane to Watercove Road.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $50,000 for planning, design, right-of-way, and construction of the Genito Road Streetlight Project, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for Phase II of the Cogbill Road Sidewalk Project from Meadowbrook High School to Meadowdale Branch Library.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $425,000 for planning, design, right-of-way, and construction of Phase I of the Cogbill Road Sidewalk Project from Meadowbrook High School to Meadowdale Branch Library, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for the rehabilitation of sidewalk on Chesterfield Avenue.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $200,000 for planning, design, right-of-way, and construction of Chesterfield Avenue Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the CTB establish a project for Phase II of Walton Park Road Sidewalk Project located between North Woolridge Road and Queensgate Road.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $375,000 for planning, design, right-of-way, and construction of Phase II of the Walton Park Road Sidewalk Project, and that, if the Board subsequently elects to unreasonably cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees that the Virginia Department of Transportation will be reimbursed for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.

And, further, the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into agreements between VDOT/county/consultant/ contractor, for design, environmental permit, right-of-way acquisition, and/or construction agreements, acceptable to the County Attorney, for projects approved by VDOT.

(NOTE: If projects are approved and funded by VDOT, staff will return to the Board with an identified source for the required match, up to a total of $402,000.)

Mr. Turner stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider an amendment to substantial accord determination. He further stated the prior administrative policy allowed the Planning Director to make an administrative determination of plan compliance with confirmation by the Planning Commission and did not require notice of any area property owners. He stated the Planning Commission expressed a desire to amend the policy to require a public hearing and notice to area property owners. He further stated County Administration has amended that policy, and the Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the proposed amendment to clarify that public hearings are required.

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. King, the Board adopted the following ordinance amendment:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-5, 19-6, 19-24, 19-25 AND 19-301 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATIONS

(1) That Sections 19-5, 19-6, 19-24, 19-25 and 19-301 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows:

(2) Enforcement of conditions. The director of planning shall administer and enforce conditions attached to zoning approvals and development approvals and he shall have the authority to: issue a written order to remedy any noncompliance with a condition; bring legal action, including injunction, abatement or other appropriate action, to insure compliance with such conditions; and require a guarantee, in a form satisfactory to the county attorney, and in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of any physical improvements required by the condition, or a contract for the construction of such improvements and the contractor's guarantee, in like amount and so conditioned, which guarantee shall be reduced or released by the county, upon the submission of satisfactory evidence that construction of such improvements has been completed in whole or in part. Failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required occupancy or building permits.

(b) Penalties for violation; right of entry.
(1) Any person who violates this chapter or fails to comply with any conditions of zoning and development approvals other than those provisions set forth in section 19-6, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $10.00 and not more than $1,000.00.

ooo

(5) If the director of planning determines that any person has violated this chapter or failed to comply with any condition of a zoning or development approval then he shall serve upon that person a notice to comply by either:

a. Delivering the notice to the person by hand; or
b. Mailing the notice by first class mail to the last known address of the person. The notice shall set forth the nature of the violation or failure to comply. Upon failure of the person to remedy the violation, comply with the condition or receive an extension within ten days after the date of delivery or mailing of the notice, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth above. With respect to violations or failures to comply involving portable signs or the parking or display of motor vehicles, the person shall remedy the violation or comply with the condition within 24 hours of service of the notice or receive an extension, or the person shall be subject to the penalties above.

(a) Any violation of the following provisions shall be punishable by a civil penalty of not more than $100.00 for the initial summons and not more than $250.00 for each additional summons:

(1) Operation of a business that is not a home occupation, on a lot or parcel inside or outside of a dwelling unit or accessory building, in any R, R-TH, R-MF or A district, without a special exception or conditional use.

(2) Violation of any condition of zoning and development approvals and substantial accord approvals that relates to the hours of operation of the use of land or that relates to reduction or control of noise from the use of land.

Sec. 19-24. Applications.

(a)(1) Any application for zoning approval or modification to development standards or requirements, may be initiated by resolution of the board of supervisors; by motion of the planning commission; or by petition of the property owner, contract purchaser with the property owner's written consent, or the property owner's agent, with the property owner's written consent. An application for substantial accord of a County facility may also be initiated by the Director of any County Department or County Office and by School Board administration with the approval of the School Board.

(c) Each application shall have attached a list of names and addresses of all persons owning any adjacent property to include property across any street, road, railroad right-of-way, body of water or political boundary. In addition, if the property is situated at or within 100 feet of the intersection of any two or more roads or highways or within 100 feet of the intersection of the right-of-way of any two railroads, the names and addresses of all property owners situated at all corners of the intersection shall be furnished. The information shall be obtained from the assessor's records.

(d) Any applicant, other than one seeking to modify development standards or requirements, shall furnish the following information:

(1) A list of the names and addresses of all persons owning any legal or equitable interest in the real property which is the subject of the application or petition as a title owner, lessee, easement owner, contract purchaser, assignee, optionee, licensee or noteholder, including trustees, beneficiaries of trusts, general partners, limited partners and all other natural or artificial persons owning any such interest; however, the names and addresses of governmental entities and public service companies owning recorded easements over the subject property need not be disclosed.

(2) If any of the persons disclosed under section 19-24(d)(1) is a corporation, then the application shall also list the names and addresses of any shareholders who own ten percent or more of any class of stock issued by such corporation and, if such corporation has ten or fewer shareholders, a list of the names and addresses of all the shareholders. If any of the persons disclosed under section 19-24(d)(1) is a partnership, joint venture, trust or other artificial person other than a corporation, then the application shall also list the names and addresses of any persons having any interest therein equal to ten percent or more of the total of all such interests and, if ten or fewer persons own all such interests, a list of the names and addresses of all such persons. For any corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other artificial person whose owners are unknown to the applicant and whose identities cannot be ascertained by the exercise of due diligence and for any corporation that has more than 100 shareholders or whose stock is regularly traded on a stock exchange or in the over the counter market, the applicant may so certify in lieu of providing a list of its stockholders or other persons having an interest therein.

The following fees, which include the costs of hearings, advertisements and notices when required, shall be deposited simultaneously with the filing of the application:

(k) Substantial accord determinations:
(1) Existing zoning R, R-TH, R-MF, MH or A classification. . . 3,100.00

(2) Existing zoning O, I or C classification . . . 1,540.00
ooo

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:

Substantial accord: A determination pursuant to Va. Code §15.2-2232, the County’s Charter and the County’s Substantial Accord Policy that certain proposed public features, uses areas, structures and facilities are substantially in accord with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

Zoning approval: Includes conditional use, conditional use planned development, conditional zoning, variance, special exception, substantial accord, mobile home permit and rezoning approvals.

15.D. TO CONSIDER THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AMENDMENT AND COMPANION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

Mr. Turner stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment and companion ordinance amendments. He reviewed the geography of the existing Plan and the Plan amendment. He then provided details of the accompanying ordinance amendments. He stated, in addition to recommending denial of the Plan amendment, the Planning Commission also recommended that the Board adopt level of service standards for roads and public schools; approve additional commercial uses along Route 360; not adopt the buffer ordinance, but adopt the mandatory water and waste water connections; not adopt water and waste water prohibition in the deferred growth area; and not adopt the phosphorus loading limitations. He further stated during the period since the Board’s deferral of the Plan amendment, staff has met with citizens, Board members and Powhatan officials to discuss the imposition of possible water quality limitations, which would lessen the impact of development on the reservoir. He provided details of actions being requested of the Board, including adoption of the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment, approving changes to the Thoroughfare Plan as recommended by the Transportation Department including the realignment of the Powhite Parkway extension at Genito Road. He stated the Board could adopt the Plan with the Planning Commission’s modifications, or instead of adopting a deferred growth area, could not adopt the deferred growth area and replace it with residential, at two units per acre. He further stated another option would be to expand the deferred growth area east to Otterdale Road and south to Duval Road. He stated the Planning Commission recommended that language be included to provide levels of service for schools and transportation within the Plan, but staff is recommending that the Board not adopt those standards for this geography because this could better be addressed on a county-wide basis. He provided details of the Plan strategies relative to phosphorous load standards. He stated staff is recommending that the Board adopt the water quality standards presented in the ordinance, with the exception that a 0.45 standard be maintained for commercial and industrial property. He further stated concerns have been expressed relative to the study provided to the county by its consultant, CH2M Hill, and staff is recommending that there be no peer peer-review of the study at this time. He stated both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance that would require mandatory connection to water and wastewater systems as property develops. He further stated concerns have been expressed relative to the ordinance requiring a 200-foot buffer adjacent to roads within the Plan geography. He stated the Planning Commission recommends that the Board not adopt the buffer ordinance, and staff is suggesting that the Board not adopt 200 feet, but adopt a 100-foot buffer instead.

Mr. Tyler Craddock, representing the Homebuilders Association of Richmond, stated in his opinion, the Plan should not be adopted. He expressed concerns relative to the phosphorous load requirements, indicating that it is clear that the proposed 0.16 standard is unrealistic and not based on scientific data. He also expressed concerns relative to the deferred growth area and the buffer requirements. He urged the Board to not adopt the Plan as it is fatally flawed.

Mr. Carson Martin expressed concerns relative to the proposal to move the Powhite Parkway extension further west. He inquired why the densities are so high for the Plan geography and suggested that they be lowered. He expressed concerns relative to the commercial zoning proposed at the intersection of the proposed Powhite Extension and Genito Road.

Ms. Norma Szakal expressed concerns relative to rapid growth in the Matoaca and Clover Hill districts. She stated the county needs to plan for land use and development and calculate the future impact on schools, mental health services, police service, and better roads. She expressed concerns relative to the need for water, indicating that the county has seen the dire affects of the drought on the lakes and the surrounding land.

Mr. Ryland Reamy, President of the Brandermill Community Association, stated he supports the Plan amendment and related ordinances. He further stated he also supports the transportation and schools level of service recommendations from the Planning Commission and urged the Board to include these recommendations in the revised Upper Swift Creek Plan. He stated the Board needs to approve the Plan now so that the updated guidelines will be applied to pending zoning cases in the Upper Swift Creek area. He suggested that a sunset provision be added to the water quality ordinance, requiring it to be reevaluated within no more than five years to ensure that it is accomplishing the desired outcomes. He also suggested that staff meet the timeline to complete the remaining ordinances, policies and practices needed to implement, monitor and enforce the Plan revisions. He suggested that a comprehensive infrastructure funding plan be initiated to identify the means to pay for the county’s projected needs for transportation, schools and other infrastructure. He stated it is important that the growth management tools employed by the county not impede in economic development or the availability of affordable housing.

Anne Marie Sheridan, a resident of the Matoaca District, requested that the Board consider a sunset clause for the water quality ordinance.

Mrs. Lee Diller, a resident of the Matoaca District requested that the Board defer the Plan amendment and take additional time to study the issues, such as the deferred growth area and the phosphorous load levels.

Mr. Charles Payne requested that the Board consider moving the Powhite Parkway extension west.

Mr. Stuart Nixon, a Woodlake resident, expressed concerns relative to allowing developers to cause problems and then attempting to collect money to fix the problems.

Ms. Kitty Snow expressed concerns relative to infrastructure and safety issues. She requested that the Board include Otterdale Road as a boundary of the deferred growth area. She expressed concerns relative to the number of homes already approved between Mount Hermon and Otterdale roads. She also expressed concerns relative to lengthy school bus rides of Moseley students.

Mr. Barrett, a resident of Clover Hill Road, requested that the Board deny the deferred growth area, indicating that it is a bad policy that affects the ability of home ownership throughout the entire county and may actually be in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Mr. Dave Anderson, a developer for the Roseland development, which is currently under zoning review, expressed concerns relative to the proposed ordinance requiring a 200-foot buffer, indicating that this is the wrong solution to combat an environmental problem. He stated adding this buffer would make it harder for citizens to use anything but their automobile for their transportation needs. He expressed concerns relative to the proposal to change the phosphorus loading numbers to 0.16 for residential development, indicating that this would have the unintended effect of furthering the worst form of sprawl. He stated it is troubling that the Roseland neighborhood could not be built as envisioned with the 0.16 requirement. He further stated it has become clear that there are many assumptions deserving of peer review, which he believes is an important next step in assessing solutions. He stated he agrees with the consultant that there were options that would keep the reservoir healthy, including low impact development techniques, without ever having to change the ordinance. He further stated, for more than three years, developers have spent millions of dollars and worked with some of the country’s finest consultants to develop the plan for Roseland. He requested that the Board not increase buffers or reduce the phosphorous loading requirement.

Bruce Moseley, owner of a cattle farm on Mount Hermon Road, expressed concerns relative to the proposed deferred growth area, indicating that this would impact the market value of his property should he become unable to continue farming. He urged the Board not to totally stop development in this area and to work with landowners and developers to achieve a plan that protects the environment and allows for realistic development in a responsible manner. He stated roads and schools should be built as the area is developed in a timely and logical manner.

Jim Theobold stated, in his opinion, the Plan is flawed in the areas of water quality and growth management. He stated lowered phosphorous removal criteria will have a negative impact on business. He further stated restricting development in a deferred growth area is not consistent with the county’s advertisements that Chesterfield is open for business. He stated he represents Otterdale Ventures, which has a pending zoning case, and expressed concerns that the proposed Plan suggests no fewer than four different land use categories on the 177 acres included in the case. He suggested that the area along Route 360 would be more appropriate as a mixed-use pattern consistent with the Magnolia Green CDA. He requested that the Board consider the impact of 200-foot buffers on small property owners. He expressed concerns that moving the Powhite Parkway extension further west would potentially cost an additional $6 to $10 million.

Mr. Michael Brandon, a long-time resident of Chesterfield County, expressed concerns that the deferred growth proposal would take away his right to develop his property.

Mr. James Shelton stated he hopes to continue to drink water in Chesterfield County over the next 40 or 50 years, expressing concerns relative to the increased levels of phosphorous going into the reservoir.

Ms. Andrea Epps stated she feels it would be better to step back and review the phosphorous data and come up with a number that is supported by the validated model. She further stated, although she understands the concerns of the residents in the proposed deferred growth area, she sees no harm in implementing this if the Board is going to re-consider it in five years. She suggested that, in January, the Board have serious discussions relative to one countywide comprehensive plan, indicating that this would be in the best interest of everyone.

Mr. William Shewmake, a resident of the Midlothian District, stated the Planning Commission, with their recommendation for denial, has recognized that the Plan is not right. He requested that the Board follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and not approve the Plan. He expressed concerns relative to flawed phosphorous load level data, indicating that lowering the phosphorous load standards would essentially eliminate all residential development.

Dr. Betty Hunter-Clapp, a resident of the Clover Hill District, expressed concerns relative to infrastructure issues and water quality in the Plan area. She stated she agrees that the county needs additional commercial growth, indicating that one of the best ways to get stable commercial ventures to locate in the county is to demonstrate a government that provides a safe and adequate infrastructure for the workers who move here. She stressed the need for a plan for the reservoir and begged the Board to look beyond the short-term when considering this issue.

Mr. Bob Schaffer, a licensed engineer in Virginia and a resident of the Matoaca District, expressed concerns relative to maintaining the quality of the water in the reservoir. He stated, in his opinion, the county needs to determine what the 0.22 phosphorous load level is doing to the reservoir before decreasing it again. He urged the Board to deny the Plan and put forth some effort to develop a better plan.

Ms. Marti Mitchell, representing the Board of Directors of the Woodlake Community Association, stated although she recognizes that there are still some issues with the proposed Upper Swift Creek Plan revision, she supports it with the related water quality ordinances recommended by the staff. She further stated she also supports the transportation and school levels of service recommendations made by the Planning Commission and would like to see these recommendations included in the revised Plan. She requested that the Board include a sunset provision in the water quality ordinance requiring it to be re-evaluated within five years. She stated she does not oppose development in the Plan area, just wants to see growth that is responsible and mindful of the environment and safety and welfare of its citizens.

Mr. Tom Pakurar, a Clover Hill District resident, reminded the Board that we are not owners of the land, just stewards taking care of it for future generations. He provided details of the history of water quality studies of the reservoir and urged the Board to support a no net increase phosphorous level provision.

In response to Mr. Warren’s question, Mr. Pakurar stated the Brandermill community has 33 percent open space and trees, and the natural buffers remove the pollutants from the runoff, indicating that both Brandermill and Woodlake have achieved a 0.12 or 0.13 phosphorous standard, as measured by county staff for the past five years.

Mr. Peter Martin, a resident of the proposed deferred growth area, stated he supports the Planning Commission’s recommended levels of service. He further stated all of the problems in this area cannot all be solved with this small area of deferred growth. He stated, in his opinion, the water quality restrictions need sunset clauses and he agrees that the issue needs to be further studied. He noted that Woodlake and Brandermill are very good models to follow for phosphorous levels.

Mr. Andy Scherzer, a resident in the Upper Swift Creek area, stated a critical issue that needs to be considered is the economic engine and the responsible growth that could occur around the Watkins Centre. He expressed concerns relative to having a deferred growth area immediately adjacent to the regional employment center. He stated it makes sense to have fair and responsible growth of the area designated for deferred growth. He further stated he supports the level of service for schools and roads. He suggested that the Board take additional time to evaluate the issues fully because of the uncertainties and the questions that have been raised.

Mr. Casey Sowers expressed concerns relative to the processes that have led to some of the proposed ordinance changes, specifically the 0.16 phosphorous level and the buffers. He provided details of the landscape master plan for the Roseland project and noted that the plan documents speak to both water quality and water conservation.

Mr. Ashby Spence, a resident of West County Road and owner of a 100-acre cattle farm, expressed concerns relative to the deferred growth area. He stated the farmers are doing things to conserve runoff and protect the environment. He suggested that the county come up with a total watershed solution that addresses the existing homeowners, as well as new and potential homeowners.

Mr. John Easter, representing the Chesterfield Business Council, expressed concerns relative to the proposed ordinance to lower the total phosphorus runoff to 0.16 pounds of phosphorus per acre per year. He stated serious questions remain unanswered concerning the proposed ordinance relative to phosphorous content. He further stated discussions with members of the private engineering community and with the county’s Environmental Engineering staff indicate that the .16 phosphorous limit cannot be achieved on site. He stated the watershed includes a number of locations intended for commercial or industrial development that are critical to the ongoing economic vitality of the county. He noted that the ordinance already includes the ability to meet the phosphorus standard through the purchase of phosphorus credits or through payment into a county fund that would be used for reductions in the phosphorus loading. He stated, although he recognizes the need for the county to act as an environmental steward, the necessity of adopting a standard that is not realistic should be considered carefully. He inquired whether the phosphorous limitation was being proposed out of necessity or to preserve the esthetics of the reservoir. He expressed concerns relative to imposing severe limitations on development and requested that the Board not take action on the proposed phosphorous limitations until answers are available.

Mr. Buddy Sowers, a resident of Midlothian, stated the phosphorous levels are already at or below the recommended new limitations, and inquired why the Plan does not consider development at those densities that already exist on developed property in the area. He expressed concerns that numerous engineers have indicated to the Board that 0.16 is not achievable, without 5-plus acre densities, and is impossible for commercial development. He suggested that the Board consider peer review of the models that have been submitted and carefully consider the issues. He stated if the phosphorous limitation was applied county-wide, it would stop development in its tracks. He urged the Board to reconsider the Plan, postpone it, or perhaps do what the Planning Commission recommended and deny or reject it.

Mr. Mike Harten, Vice President of the Responsible Growth Alliance of Chesterfield County, stated a complicated and crucial plan like this cannot be rushed, indicating that the Plan is not ready for approval. He further stated the Planning Commission recommended, on a vote of 4-0, that the Board not adopt the Plan. He stated a deferred growth area in the watershed is essential, but there are far more infrastructure issues yet to be satisfactorily addressed in order to insure that the public facilities and service needs are met. He requested that the Board remand the Plan to the Planning Commission and not short circuit the progress that has been made by adopting this half-completed draft.

Mrs. Humphrey referenced a pending zoning case at Otterdale Road and Hull Street, which includes 177 acres, and stated she believes that based on the size of the project, a regional mixed-use commercial center would be appropriate at that location and would also be a commercial opportunity for the county. She proposed as an amendment to the Plan that from the corner of Otterdale Road and Hull Street all the way to the property line of Chesterfield Baptist Church, to include the Deckert and Nunnally parcels, be included in a regional mixed-use area. She stated, in her opinion, this is a practical use of the property.

Discussion ensued relative to the Thoroughfare Plan alignment referenced by several of the speakers.

Mr. McCracken stated the proposed alignment was requested by residents in the area, who were affected by the current alignment and requested that the Board look at an adjustment that would avoid their properties and move the Powhite Parkway extension to the west.

Mr. Warren expressed concerns relative to the amount of conflicting information from to the Planning Commission and staff’s recommendations. He stated serious questions still remain, and in his opinion, the Plan is not ready for approval. He stated the required phosphorous levels need to be reevaluated one way or another. He stated he thinks the Board needs to be more realistic about the impact of commercial development on the deferred growth area. He further stated he does not support adopting a Plan that is not ready for adoption.

Mr. Sowder thanked Mr. Turner for following up with Powhatan County since Chesterfield supplies water to Powhatan, and this is an opportunity for regional cooperation. He stated the Board’s challenge is to make sure what is implemented is realistic, fair to all segments of society and done in such a way as to not have any adverse impact on potential economic development. He further stated he agrees with a lot of the proposed Plan, but has a problem with the county selecting a proposed deferred growth area. He stated prohibiting the extension of water and sewer to that area does in fact determine the current marketability and market value of that property. He further stated he is uncomfortable with a government system, which he is a part of, that negates the rights of property owners to do what is right with their property as long as it meets government regulations. He stated, in his opinion, there are better ways to manage growth in an area than suggesting it for deferred growth, indicating that he could not support that portion of the proposed Plan. He expressed concerns relative to restricting future developments adjacent to the Route 288 Corridor. He also expressed concerns relative to establishing the new standard for phosphorus run off of 0.16 pounds per acre per year and to misinformation regarding this issue. He inquired whether the proposed phosphorous standard is attainable. He expressed concerns that statistical data was used from 2003, which was the year of Hurricane Isabel, when we had the most rain in 20 years. He stated there are huge amounts of unknowns for the Board to undertake a new, unknown, undocumented standard. He further stated the current standard, which is 0.22, appears to be working well and worth considering with the provisions that the county continues to monitor the reservoir. He stated he could support the Plan as presented tonight, with the deferred growth area being removed and the water quality standard remaining as it currently exists.

Mr. King stressed the importance of commercial development in the corridor not being affected.

Mr. Miller inquired why staff does not approve of the Planning Commission’s proposed levels of service.

Mr. Turner stated staff evaluates infrastructure needs on a countywide basis, allocates resources to address those needs, and prioritizes them across the county. He further stated, in staff’s opinion, developing standards in an isolated geography without the benefit of taking the rest of the county into consideration puts other parts of the county in jeopardy.

Discussion ensued relative to the Planning Commission and staff’s differing proposals relative to buffers.

In response to Mr. Miller’s question, Mr. Turner stated staff is recommending the increase in buffers because of competition in the buffer areas. He stated, as roads widen, utilities need to be relocated. He further stated increasing would make room for improvements as they arise, while still having trees remaining.

Discussion ensued relative to the prohibition of water and wastewater within the proposed deferred growth area and to staff’s determination of the proposed phosphorous standards.

Mr. Turner stated the state is developing new water quality standards that the county would be able to adopt in the future so that circumstances would change and what is being committed to through the Plan would be a model to look at water quality on a regular basis every three years, and as changes need to be addressed, return to the Board at that time with recommendations.

Mr. Miller inquired about the possibility of adopting the Plan at the current 0.22 phosphorous standard, and add a provision for developers who submit future residential rezonings to supplement those standards and to help protect the water quality of the Swift Creek Reservoir. The county would measure the phosphorous levels and at some point in time, when there are two years, back to back data that the water quality of the Swift Creek Reservoir has reached a median level that exceeds at 0.04 milligrams per liter in-lake phosphorous, then developers must implement phosphorous loading standards that are more restrictive than the standards of the zoning ordinance, or implement more restrictive requirements for zoned but undeveloped land.

Mr. Turner stated a provision such as Mr. Miller has outlined could be included in the Plan. He noted that, for the county to impose that condition, zoning cases would need to be for rezoning plus conditional use.

Mr. Miller stated adding this language to the Plan protects future water quality.

Mr. Turner provided the following suggested language for Mr. Miller’s request relative to effective water quality alternatives: “The zoning ordinance includes maximum post-development phosphorus load standards for new development in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. In order to supplement those standards and to help protect the water quality of the Swift Creek Reservoir, the County establishes the goal that future residential rezonings include appropriate conditions, in addition to the requirements of the zoning ordinance, to mitigate the impact of development on water quality in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Such conditions could include (i) implementing phosphorus loading standards that are more restrictive than the standards of the zoning ordinance; (ii) implementing more restrictive requirements for zoned but undeveloped land if notified by the Director of Environmental Engineering that the water quality of the Swift Creek Reservoir has reached a median level that exceeds .04 mg/l in-lake phosphorus for two consecutive years, or exceeds other applicable water quality standards; and/or (iii) implementing other measures approved by the Director of Environmental Engineering to address the impact of development on water quality in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed.”

Mrs. Humphrey expressed concerns that three-year samplings, rather than two, would provide more valid and comparative data.

Mr. Scott Flanigan, Senior Water Quality Analyst, noted that the state water criteria adopted in August 2007, would require two consecutive years at 0.04.

Mr. Turner stated the provision would only impact residential development, and not business owners. He further stated the standard that staff has suggested for businesses, 0.45 pounds of phosphorous per acre per year, is actually the standard that has been adopted by the state for the localities that are subject to the Chesapeake Bay Act.

Mrs. Humphrey made a motion for the Board to adopt the Upper Swift Creek Plan and ordinances with the following revisions: include the provision she outlined relative to the Nunnally, Bailey and Decker properties for a regional mixed-use corridor; delete the deferred growth area recommended by the Planning Commission and staff; not adopt the water and wastewater prohibition ordinances; adopt the buffer ordinances to include a 100-foot buffer along arterial roads and scenic vistas; adopt the mandatory water and wastewater ordinances; not include levels of service criteria for schools or roads; and include Mr. Miller’s recommendation relative to water quality monitoring. She noted that she does want to maintain the current 0.22 pounds of phosphorous per acre.

In response to Board members’ questions, Mr. Turner stated the water quality staff will monitor phosphorous levels every two years, but will rerun the model and monitor the impacts every three years.

Mrs. Humphrey stated her last suggestion is to confirm the western alignment of the Powhite Parkway extension.

Mr. Turner inquired whether Mrs. Humphrey wanted to include in her motion the amendment recommended by Mr. Bass, regarding the property on the south side of Route 360, between Route 288 and Winterpock Road and the appropriateness of commercial uses, including neighborhood convenience retail, restaurants and personal services.

Mrs. Humphrey clarified that her motion included the associated ordinance amendments for mandatory water and wastewater and a 100-foot buffer along arterial roads for residential zoning.

Mr. Miller called for a vote on the motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Sowder, for the Board to adopt the Upper Swift Creek Plan, including all of the amendments proposed by Mrs. Humphrey.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-520, 19-522 and 19-523 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUFFERS

(1) That Sections 19-520, 19-522 and 19-523 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows:

(a) Buffers shall be designed to provide a horizontal distance and open space between certain uses; preserve vegetation; provide transition and separation; reduce noise and glare; maintain privacy, and/or preserve existing forested vistas adjacent to arterial roads. Buffers shall provide intermittent visual separation between uses.

(a) Buffers: Buffers shall be provided as shown on the buffer width matrixes in section 19-523. Landscaping shall be accomplished within required buffers as follows:

(5) A 100-foot buffer shall consist of an unbroken strip of open space and shall be planted at three times the density of perimeter landscaping C.

(a) Buffers between adjacent properties: The required width of buffers shall be determined from the following matrix. The left column of the matrix represents the zoning of the lot on which the buffer must be provided and the top column of the matrix represents the zoning district of property contiguous to the zoning lot. The interior numbers in the matrix represent the width in feet of the required buffer on the zoning lot. However, whenever the primary use on a parcel zoned O, C or I is a single family residential subdivision, adjacent parcels shall be required to apply the buffer matrix below as though the property is residentially zoned.

*Note: In all zoning districts expect industrial zoned districts, buffers are only required adjacent to property zoned "A" when the property is vacant and its designation on the comprehensive plan is for residential uses. Property zoned I-1 through I-3 require a buffer when adjacent to property zoned “A” that is occupied by a residential use or the property is designated on the comprehensive plan for residential use.

**Note: Where property zoned R-7 through R-88 is adjacent to property zoned R-TH, R-MF, or MH, a buffer shall be required on the R-TH, R-MF, or MH property. No buffers are necessary between any single-family residential districts unless required by the board of supervisors, planning commission (modification to development standards and requirements only) or board of zoning appeals.

b. Buffers adjacent to streets: The required width of buffers shall be determined from the following matrix.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 17-72, 17-84, 18-63 AND 18-64 RELATING TO MANDATORY SEWER AND WATER CONNECTIONS IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN AREA

(1) That Sections 17-72, 17-84, 18-63 and 18-64 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows:

(k) Connection to the county water supply system shall be required in any of the following circumstances except as may be waived by the planning commission per County Code section 18-63:

(7) When a lot is located within the area of the Upper Swift Creek, unless residential zoning was obtained for such subdivision prior to October 10, 2007.

(n) Connection to the county wastewater supply system shall be required in any of the following circumstances except as may be waived by the planning commission per County Code section 18-64:

(7) When a lot is located within the area of the Upper Swift Creek Plan, unless residential zoning was obtained for such subdivision prior to October 10, 2007.

Sec. 17-84. Standards for lots and parcels served by onsite sewage disposal systems.

(g) No subdivision of land within the Upper Swift Creek Plan for which residential zoning is obtained after October 10, 2007 may utilize onsite wastewater disposal systems unless all lots in such subdivision are at least one acre in size.

(e) All structures which are located on property that is included in the Upper Swift Creek Plan and which received zoning approval after October 10, 2007 shall connect to the water system. However, the following structures shall not be required to connect unless connection to the water system is otherwise required by law:

(1) Temporary manufactured or mobile homes;
(2) Structures that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were renewed after October 10, 2007;
(3) Structures that are authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions that were granted after October 10, 2007 if the use that is permitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was previously allowed with a private well;
(4) Governmental structures and institutional buildings; and
(5) Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance.

(f) For purposes of this section "structure" and "institutional building" shall have the same meaning as in the zoning ordinance

(g) The planning commission may grant exceptions to subsections (b) and (c) during schematic plan, site plan or tentative subdivision review. The planning commission may also grant exceptions to subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) to an applicant who files an application with the planning department on a form prescribed by the director of planning and who pays a fee of $260.00 to the planning department, if the applicant is not subject to the schematic, site plan or subdivision review process. The planning commission shall find that:

(1) The use of a private well will not adversely affect the ability to extend public water to other property;
(2) The use of a private well will not encourage future development that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; and
(3) The use of a private well is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare.

The planning commission may impose conditions to mitigate the impact of any exception that it grants.

(d) All structures which are located on property that is included in the Upper Swift Creek Plan and which received zoning approval after October 10, 2007 shall connect to the wastewater system. However, the following structures shall not be required to connect unless connection to the wastewater system is otherwise required by law:

(1) Temporary manufactured or mobile homes;
(2) Structures that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were renewed after October 10, 2007;
(3) Structures that are authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions that were granted after October 10, 2007 if the use that is permitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was previously allowed with a septic system;
(4) Governmental structures and institutional buildings; and
(5) Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance.

(e) For purposes of this section, "structure," "single-family dwelling" and "institutional building" shall have the same meaning as in the zoning ordinance.

(f) The planning commission may grant exceptions to subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) during schematic plan, site plan or tentative subdivision review. The planning commission may also grant exceptions to subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) to an applicant who files an application with the planning department on a form prescribed by the director of planning and who pays a fee of $260.00 to the planning department, if the applicant is not subject to the schematic, site plan or subdivision review process. The planning commission shall find that:

(1) The use of an on-site disposal system will not adversely affect the ability to extend public wastewater sewer to other property;
(2) The use of an on-site disposal system will not encourage future development that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; and
(3) The use of an on-site disposal septic system is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare.

The planning commission may impose conditions to mitigate the impacts of any exception that it grants.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 17-62, 17-70 AND 17-83 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUFFER CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN

(1) That Sections 17-62, 17-70 and 17-83 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, are amended and re-enacted to read as follows:

(h) Any required buffers are subject to the requirements of section 17-70 (a) and (b).

(a) Buffers and special setbacks outside the Upper Swift Creek Plan geography, or within the Upper Swift Creek geography for lots which have a tentative plat approved prior to October 10, 2007.

1. For lots which have a tentative plat approved after February 27, 2001, buffers shall be exclusive of easements which are generally parallel to the buffer, required setbacks and street cut and fill slopes, and shall be preserved in an undisturbed condition unless otherwise approved by the director of planning. Easements crossing buffers shall generally be at right angles or shall cross the buffer so as to have the least impact to the buffer.

2. Post construction vegetation within the buffer shall meet a standard of not less than one and one half times the perimeter yard landscaping "C" quantity requirements as defined in County Code section 19-518 prorated for every 25 feet of depth. If insufficient vegetation exists within the buffer as determined by the director of planning, the subdivider shall submit a landscape plan to the director of planning for review and approval prior to release of the final check plat review comments. The subdivider shall install the required plant material prior to recordation. If conditions do not exist for good plant survival as determined by the director of planning, surety shall be provided to the county in the amount sufficient to guarantee the installation approved by the director of planning and in a form as indicated in section 17-73(a). The planning department shall hold any required surety. Any such installation shall be completed prior to state acceptance of the subdivision's streets.

3. Buffers of the following minimum width shall be provided adjacent to existing and proposed streets with the following classifications:
a. Arterial streets--50 feet.
b. Collector streets--35 feet.
c. Residential collector streets--30 feet.
d. Local streets to negate double frontage condition--20 feet.

4. Adjacent to limited access streets, a setback distance of 200 feet, exclusive of required yards, shall be provided from the limited access street right-of-way, unless a noise study demonstrates that a lesser distance is acceptable as approved by the director of transportation. Natural vegetation shall be retained within the setback area unless removal is required to install noise attenuation measures or is approved by the planning commission.

5. Setbacks from temporary turnarounds easements shall conform to permanent cul-de-sac right-of-way standards.

6. A minimum setback for all structures of 20 feet shall be provided from any petroleum product transmission pipeline easement or 35 feet from the pipeline whichever is greater.

ooo

(b) Buffers and special setbacks within the Upper Swift Creek Plan geography for lots which have a tentative plat approved after October 10, 2007.

(1) For lots which have a tentative plat approved after October 10, 2007, buffers shall be exclusive of easements which are generally parallel to the buffer (except for buffers along arterial streets which shall allow within the buffer a maximum of 100 feet of total easement width generally parallel to the buffer, so long as easements are located a minimum of 25 feet from subdivision lot lines), required setbacks and street cut and fill slopes, and shall be preserved in an undisturbed condition unless otherwise approved by the director of planning. Easements crossing buffers shall generally be at right angles or shall cross the buffer so as to have the least impact to the buffer.

(2) Post construction vegetation within the buffer shall meet a standard of not less than one and one half times the perimeter yard landscaping "C" quantity requirements as defined in County Code section 19-518 prorated for every 25 feet of depth. If insufficient vegetation exists within the buffer as determined by the director of planning, the subdivider shall submit a landscape plan to the director of planning for review and approval prior to release of the final check plat review comments. The subdivider shall install the required plant material prior to recordation. If conditions do not exist for good plant survival as determined by the director of planning, surety shall be provided to the county in the amount sufficient to guarantee the installation approved by the director of planning and in a form as indicated in section 17-73(a). The planning department shall hold any required surety. Any such installation shall be completed prior to state acceptance of the subdivision's streets.

(3) Buffers of the following minimum width shall be provided adjacent to existing and proposed streets with the following classifications:
(a) Arterial streets--100 feet.
(b) Collector streets--35 feet.
(c) Residential collector streets--30 feet.
(d) Local streets to negate double frontage condition--20 feet.

(4) Adjacent to limited access streets, a setback distance of 200 feet, exclusive of required yards, shall be provided from the limited access street right-of-way, unless a noise study demonstrates that a lesser distance is acceptable as approved by the director of transportation. Natural vegetation shall be retained within the setback area unless removal is required to install noise attenuation measures or is approved by the planning commission.

(5) Setbacks from temporary turnarounds easements shall conform to permanent cul-de-sac right-of-way standards.

(6) A minimum setback for all structures of 20 feet shall be provided from any petroleum product transmission pipeline easement or 35 feet from the pipeline whichever is greater.

(c) If a subdivision borders on or contains an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the director of transportation may require the subdivider to limit access to said street(s) requiring a local street design utilizing a series of cul-de-sacs and/or loop streets. The lots shall only be entered from such a local street, and a buffer as required in section 17-70 (a) or section 17-70 (b) shall be provided along the lot lines adjacent to the arterial or collector street.

Mr. Warren inquired whether the new Board could revisit the entire Upper Swift Creek Plan.

Mr. Micas responded that the new Board could revisit the Plan and associated ordinance amendments; however, the Board would have some limitations regarding zoning cases that may have been processed based on the adopted Plan.

15.E. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE AN EIGHT-FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 164, EAGLE COVE, SECTION 3

Mr. Stith stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider an ordinance to vacate an 8-foot easement across Lot 164, Eagle Cove, Section 3.

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. King, the Board adopted the following ordinance:

AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to JOSEPH B. ELKO and BETTY S. ELKO, ("GRANTEE"), an 8' easement across Lot 164, Eagle Cove, Section 3, MATOACA 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 55, at Page 100.

WHEREAS, JOSEPH B. ELKO and BETTY S. ELKO, petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate an 8' easement across Lot 164, Eagle Cove, Section 3, MATOACA 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 55, Page 100, by CHARLES C. TOWNES & ASSOCIATES, P.C., dated SEPTEMBER 2, 1987, recorded DECEMBER 31, 1987. The easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows:

An 8' easement across Lot 164, Eagle Cove, Section 3, the location of which is more fully shown on a plat made by HARVEY L. PARKS, INC., dated AUGUST 5, 2004, 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 Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and,

WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the easement sought to be vacated.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:

That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid 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 Virginia, 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 Virginia, 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 easement hereby vacated in the property owners of Lot 164, Eagle Cove, Section 3 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 JOSEPH B. ELKO and BETTY S. ELKO, or their successors in title, as GRANTEE.

15.F. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF LOT 16, MAP OF LOTS STAKED OUT ON PROPERTY OF HARVEY HORNER

Mr. Stith stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing for the Board to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of Lot 16, Map of Lots staked out on property of Harvey Horner.

On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Sowder, the Board adopted the following ordinance:

AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR") vacates to LEWIS W. COMBS, JR., ("GRANTEE"), a portion of Lot 16, Map of Lots staked out on property of Harvey Horner, 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 Deed Book 259, at Page 134.

WHEREAS, LEWIS W. COMBS, JR., petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of Lot 16, Map of Lots staked out on property of Harvey Horner, CLOVER HILL 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 Deed Book 259, Page 134, by W. W. LAPRADE AND BROS., dated JUNE 1, 1939, and recorded AUGUST 14, 1940. The portion of lot petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows:

A portion of Lot 16, Map of Lots staked out on property of Harvey Horner, the location of which is more fully shown on a plat made by BARTHOL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, dated SEPTEMBER 19, 2007, 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 Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and,

WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of lot sought to be vacated.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:

That pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of lot be and is hereby vacated.

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 lot hereby vacated in the property owner 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 LEWIS W. COMBS, JR., or his successors in title, as GRANTEE.

On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board adjourned at 9:38 p.m. until October 24, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.

Chesterfield Officials

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MINUTES

October 10, 2007