Coraggio Consulting
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Meeting - March 26, 2025, Wednesday, March 26, 2025

Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2025
Place: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, Virginia
Length: 1h 34m (video)
Official meeting video (CivicClerk): https://chesterfieldcova.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1228/media
Official agenda (CivicClerk): https://chesterfieldcova.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=2099,plainText=false)
Official minutes (CivicClerk): https://chesterfieldcova.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=2144,plainText=false)

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-25. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:02:19] Good evening. Welcome to the March 26th Board of Supervisors meeting. For the record, no comments were received through the online comment portal for the consideration of matters before us tonight. In addition, for those citizens who are here for the zoning portion of the meeting, we have one update.

[00:02:36] The applicant for case 24SN1278, Baez Recreational Vehicle Parking, has withdrawn their case from the Board of Supervisors for consideration. At this time, I'll ask Ms. Snyder to give the invocation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[00:02:55] Creator, walk with us this evening as we do the work of serving our community to our greatest and best ability. Allow our minds to be open. Allow us to listen to all the information and make the most impactful, informed decisions possible that serve our county justly and with respect and dignity.

[00:03:16] find the creator keep mr holland and his family close to your keeping and continue to support him with his strong with your strong and steady hand as he continues to fight for restored health and wellness and so it is amen we would like to call forward deputy county administrator matt harris to lead the pledge of allegiance pledge allegiance to the flag united states of america and to the

[00:03:49] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Chair, the first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes for the February 26th Board of Supervisors' Meeting, the March 11th Special Media Announcement regarding future plans for Southside Speedway, and the March 12th Board of Supervisors' Meeting.

[00:04:20] Can I get a motion? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Item four, request to postpone agenda items and additions, deletions, or changes in the order of presentation. Staff has no requests. Item five, county administration update, Dr. Casey.

[00:04:37] Good evening, members of the board and the public that's here and the public that's watching. I'm just going to keep my comments brief because this is a special mean tonight for the budget public hearings and then the zoning cases thereafter. But in the afternoon sessions, we generally reserve a brief time to kind of go through what is in the consent agenda, at least the highlights of it that may be of interest to the public.

[00:04:59] There's only one of the consent agenda highlights items that is worthy of that attention, and that's just our plans to participate in two cooperative opioid abatement authority grants. One, and they're both partnerships in the regions, but then we are the leader in both, and that is through our jail and partnering with Powhatan and Colonial Heights for, again, the medical support and treatment of some of our inmates and the therapeutic and case management that goes with that.

[00:05:26] It's a multi-year application. And then the second one is for our Chesterfield Recovery Academy, also known as Chesterfield Recovery High School, and that's together with Richmond and Henrico County. Both carry a nominal local match, but it's a substantial amount of monies we can leverage from that for costs that we otherwise may incur through local dollars.

[00:05:43] Both of those programs will be thoroughly assessed during their course and reported back to the board and to see if we can be renewing those through future opioid abatement authority monies or elsewhere but if they're not performing up to the metrics that you would want for us then then we will appropriately cease both of those that is my one consent agenda highlight just as a newsworthy item to share as well under my comments is in this week's paper we were recognized by the Richmond Times dispatch is a top workplace the only large local government in the region to be recognized as such and again there's a special ceremony in May we have recognized under USA's top workplace

[00:06:23] criteria what makes these workplace awards special and unique for Chesterfield County is that they're done through a national survey that's directly accessing all of our employees emails and it's a direct communication between them and the entity and it's based upon our own employees responses as far as the work environment that they're in and just the general quality of life of working with Chesterfield County so we're proud that our employees have responded to that.

[00:06:49] We're also proud of the Board of Supervisors for helping set the tone of a good work environment. We will keep you posted on what may be May's awards as far as the winner of what's called their mega category for mega employers. Again, we're amongst the who's who of those in the region in the private sector.

[00:07:07] That is all my comments for tonight. Item six, new business. A, consent items. Mr. Chair, there have been no requests to remove items from the consent agenda for public comment. members have any items they wish to remove. Can get a motion. No, I move approval, Mr. Chairman.

[00:07:26] All in favor? Aye. Item 7, 15-minute citizen comment period on unscheduled matters. This time is designated for citizens to talk to the Board of Supervisors. It is not a time for dialogue with board members, and it is not a question-answer period. Those conversations can easily occur with individual board members outside of the board meeting. As a reminder, the board's procedure state, no citizen shall speak on any matter of business that is a subject on the Board's agenda for that day, and each speaker shall have three minutes to address the Board.

[00:07:58] We have four speakers. If they'll please speak in this order: Doug Bradham, Thomas Curl, Greg Allen, and Tom McKnight. First speaker.

[00:08:19] Good evening. My name is Doug Bradham. I think most of you know who I am. I've been a resident of Chesafeil County for over 40 years. Tonight, I'd like to focus on my recommendation that county implement a formal cost reduction slash continuous improvement program.

[00:08:39] The chronology of this effort to get the county to implement this program is as follows. July 2nd, 24, a meeting with Mark Miller and Matt Harris, I made a verbal recommendation. September the 4th, and a follow-up meeting with Matt and Mark and Gerard Durkin. When I brought this subject up again, I received a stare that people didn't appear that they understood what I was talking about.

[00:09:04] On September the 12th, I wrote a report and sent it to the Board of Supervisors and copied county management on that. Part of this report also included a form to use for developing projects, evaluating cost savings, assigning responsibility, establishing a projected completion date, and following each project through to completion.

[00:09:29] The description of the proposed program is not a slash-and-burn program. It's an approach that's been successfully used by most competent management teams to reduce and or control costs. This concept is directly applicable to county management.

[00:09:45] This report was sent to county management and the board of supervisors, as I stated, and the importance of top-level support for this program is essential from county management and the board of supervisors. I also stated that monthly status updates of the projected project implementations must be reported to the board.

[00:10:06] that should be done monthly on january 6th having received no feedback from the county i followed up matt to determine the status that same day i received response from matt stating that in conjunction with the relaunch of our revised strategic plan we are on the eve of a focused campaign to promote and implement cost savings and service quality enhancement ideas for for from our workforce the learning and performance department is finishing the design of this new campaign and i would be happy to meet with you when it is done likely in late january uh on

[00:10:43] february 19th having received no feedback i followed up again and the same day matt responded back that the county has rolled out a program but no specifics were provided he did offer to meet with me and i will do that in the very near future next week if possible i hope that this program has strong support of county management board of supervisors questions is the board of supervisors is aware of this new program and will the board receive monthly updates on the status of cost reduction projects if this cost reduction program mentioned by matt harris is not a serious formal

[00:11:19] program with strong support of county management and the board of supervisors that would be a great cause for concern for taxpayers chesapeake county mr brad you're three minutes i have about 20 10 seconds given the uncertainty of federal and state funds available chesapeake county going forward implementation of this cost reduction continuous improvement program is critical to the future of Chesterfield County and county taxpayers. Today, whatever cost reduction efforts have been implemented by the county have not been effective as evidenced by the continuing county increases in spending and taxation over the past five years, which has been twice as high as the U.S. inflation

[00:11:59] rate. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. Like Mr. Bradham, I'm Tom Curl. I'm a member of the Chesterfield Citizens for Responsible Government, a community group committed to promoting transparency in government activities and ensuring the county and board of supervisors responsibly manage their taxpayer dollars. Mr. Bradham and I have conducted extensive fact-based analysis on county spending and taxes, of which many of you are aware. We've also offered

[00:12:34] our assistance to the board of supervisors. However, the current three-minute public comment period restricts meaningful citizen engagement and puts us at a disadvantage compared to our neighboring counties. Specifically, Chesterfield limits us to 15 minutes total, three minutes per person. Henrico, 30 minutes total, five minutes per person. Powhatan, 30 minute total, no per person cap. We're formally requesting extending the comment period to 30 minutes with five minutes per speaker. I believe this is a fairer, more taxpayer-respectful policy in line with our peers.

[00:13:10] Over the past year, we've watched the Board of Supervisors meetings allocate significant time to ceremonial reports, lengthy technical presentations, etc. Given that we are Virginia's fourth largest county and the largest in metro area, it's time to prioritize Citizen Voices, and I know we can all do better.

[00:13:29] My second topic relates to the county debt. The last debt service figure for 2024 was $101.6 million, but this year increased to $114.8 million for 2025. The average increase in this debt from 2020 to 2025 is 13.5% per year.

[00:13:50] Each one cent of $100 assessed value property generates $6 million in revenue. In 2024, the $114.6 million debt service equaled 19.1 cents of the 90 cents taxed on residential taxes, 21% of the total.

[00:14:09] In 2025, the $126.5 million debt service equals $0.21.1 of the $0.89 per $100 tax rate, or 23.7, almost 24% of the total. That's a lot of debt, guys. Now, three minutes isn't enough time, as we've talked about, but we need to closely monitor this debt, including the CETA debt, because 80% of the burden of that debt falls on the residential taxpayers.

[00:14:36] This will continue for the foreseeable future, since CETA projects don't generate enough tax revenue. Given we expect CETA and the county to ask for additional borrowing suit, debt service, in my opinion, is a growing problem, like a snowball rolling downhill.

[00:14:52] Even though this is within policy, it's going to fall on the back of the residential taxpayers, and there's no way around that. Simple math. I appreciate your time and the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Greg Allen.

[00:15:16] Skip to the next speaker. Tom McKnight. My name is Tom McKnight.

[00:15:32] I'm here to speak about the intersection of Ash Lake Commons and Ash Lake Parkway. And this intersection has greatly been, well, I say abused now due to the fact of the roundabout on Winter Park.

[00:15:47] Now, I live in Ash Lake Villas. I come out, I take a left, I go down, I take a right on the Ash Lake Commons. And then on this intersection, people go across on the Ash Lake Commons.

[00:16:03] Now, we've got people who live in Woodlake, people who live in Magnolia Gardens, people who live in Hancock, people who live even in Amelia that comes down 360 every morning.

[00:16:19] When they come down, there are four red lights. Each red light lasts two plus minutes. And what do they see? They see three cars across, bumper to bumper, as far as you can see. Now, there's a way that they can get by with this that people have now learned, in that when they come out of Woodlake, they come down, and they get in a turning lane.

[00:16:45] They turn right, and then they go to Ash Lake Commons. They turn left, and then they get up to Winterfalk. They go around and around about, and then they get up to Spring Run. They stop. First time they've stopped, they're lucky. They take a left on getting back on 360, and when they get to 360, They have a turning light, so they go this way and lower them a hole.

[00:17:10] Here they go, and my neighbor that started out behind me, he ain't even got through the second red light yet. Now, we're going up to the roundabout, going back to the intersection. When you leave the roundabout, you've got 111 condos on the right.

[00:17:31] You have 73 condos who are in construction, and you go on down to the intersection. You've got 11 condos that half of them or six of them are partially, they are on the roof.

[00:17:47] And lo and behold, you look right across the road, street, on the intersection, there are 67 rental units that are opening up or fixing to open. Okay, now, we've got traffic going here and there and everywhere and there, and there's a traffic hazard now.

[00:18:06] And then you go down to the end of Ass Lake Parkway. Now, when you get down there, people on the board, I know some of you were on it, you have approved building, don't hold me to these figures, 625 to 750 stand-alone and condos.

[00:18:31] And then, I'm sorry, Ryan. Mr. McNight, you're three minutes around. These condos, they have a salesman meeting. And they said, wait a minute, if we go from the condos, go from the standalone to condos, we can build another 100 units.

[00:18:54] So they go in and they'll follow you, and you go around and around, you'll approve it, and that's where you're, and it's approved. So they get ready to build it. And lo and behold, they can't even put a shovel in the dirt because Ash Lake does not end.

[00:19:14] Ash Lake is a dead end. So now they've got to report him to do anything. They've got to go through, and they've got to build a road. And how much traffic is that going to create? Now, I met with a DMV, and they said that they have had a study, and they can put a roundabout on that particular site.

[00:19:36] So I tried to pin him down and said, well, when can you start? He wouldn't do that. So I said, well, what can I do as a public citizen to maybe speed this up and put a priority on it? He said, go to the board of the supervisor's meeting and let them know what's going on.

[00:19:52] Maybe you don't know what's going on, but I said, if you're interested, just go on down there and look. So all I'm asking is that when you issue your money and when you issue your priority of where these roads are going to be, that due to everything going on here, that they will be up or at the top of what's requested.

[00:20:13] Because I can't imagine anything in the county that has as many variables as this one particular site. I appreciate your time. Thank you. I don't see Greg, so.

[00:20:31] Item 8. Sorry. Yes, sir. Item 8, deferred items from previous meetings. We have none. Item 9, public hearings. This date has been advertised for the board to hold five public hearings on the following.

[00:20:48] Proposed ordinance amendments relating to Department of Utilities fee changes advertised for 6 p.m. Proposed tax rates for calendar year 2025, advertised for 6.05 p.m. Proposed FY2026 Community Development Block Grant and Home Annual Partnership Plan, advertised for 6.10.

[00:21:07] Proposed FY2026 to FY2030 Capital Improvement Program, advertised for 6.15. And proposed FY2026 budget, advertised for 6.20. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

[00:21:23] The purpose of these public meetings is to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the items. In order to allow everyone a chance to speak, each speaker will be limited to three minutes. The clerk will advise you when your time is up. I ask that you keep your remarks focused and concise.

[00:21:39] It is not necessary to repeat previous speakers' remarks, but feel free to let us know if you agree with what others have said. If you have written comments and you're unable to finish them in the allotted time, Please provide them to the clerk, and she will provide copies to the board members.

[00:21:56] The board will not be taking action on these items tonight. Tonight is a time for the board to hear your comments on these proposals. Before we open the public meeting, Mr. Chip Hooley will provide remarks on behalf of the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee.

[00:22:14] Did I say his name right? Thank you, and come on up. Good evening. So thank you to the honorable members of the Board of Supervisors for the opportunity to be here with you tonight, to highlight this year's memorandum from the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee.

[00:22:38] And thank you to the budget and management team for their support this year. This wouldn't have been possible without their hard work. CBAC had the privilege of meeting with numerous department leaders over the past year, each of which were extremely generous with their time and passionate about serving our great community. CBAC submitted our official memo today.

[00:22:56] And, of course, if you have any questions or comments after reviewing it, we obviously welcome those at any time. But rather than walk through the entire document, I thought it might be helpful to simply highlight a few of the bigger themes from this year's memo. The biggest theme is thinking about this year's budget proposal through the lens of what we believe or assess is the most uncertain economic backdrop since the COVID-19 pandemic.

[00:23:20] In our view, the proposed budget does well to make targeted investments in the county's future while prudently reallocating some funds to help streamline operations and drive efficiencies. The committee also hopes that any budget adoption on April 9th will be viewed as but one step in an ongoing planning process that evolves with the county's performance as we progress through the fiscal year.

[00:23:42] This is an economic environment that we believe will require a nimble playbook. Inside the memo, you will see that CBAC supports the steps taken in the proposed budget to provide financial relief to citizens, including the reduction to the real estate tax by one cent to 89 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value.

[00:23:59] We hope the board continues to look for opportunities to deliver relief for those citizens most in need, particularly our senior, disabled, and veteran residents. However, CBAC suggests a cautious approach towards lowering the real attacks rate further from its current level. We also note our support of the board's commitment to funding major maintenance demands at a pace equal to 2.5% of replacement value.

[00:24:20] And additionally, we've seen an increased need for mental and physical health support for our students. And we are excited to see the launch of the telehealth pilot program that will increase access to those services. A few areas for your consideration this year include some staffing pressures that the committee noted among some of our volunteer rescue squads, to which we offer some proactive recruiting ideas, and we also discussed how continued investment in parks and recreation will hopefully remain a priority, particularly in facilities and complementary infrastructure that help drive sports tourism to Chesterfield, which we continue to see as a powerful diversifier

[00:24:55] and driver of county revenues and growth. So this is just skimming the surface of this year's memo, but we hope that you find our work helpful for this year, and obviously, if you have any questions, please let us know, but thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight. Thank you for your work on this.

[00:25:13] Thank you. Clerk, please call the first public hearings. A, to consider proposed ordinance amendments relating to Department of Utilities fee changes. Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Board, this kicks off, you have a series of five public hearings tonight.

[00:25:36] I'm going to run through, as we typically do, just very, very quickly, some summary information. We wrapped up last night in Matoica our series of seven budget town halls and these are just excerpts from the budget work sessions that you had earlier in the month. So no new information but just sort of reframing each one of these. So I will come up and introduce each public hearing but we will not have subsequent very brief presentations. The first presentation

[00:26:07] As the clerk mentioned, utility system, about 4.24% increase in proposed utility fees. But I think most importantly, as we've been out there this year, reminding folks that the utilities CIP includes funding for the water treatment plant for the fourth water source, which is vital to our continued water diversification efforts.

[00:26:34] Tax rates, pretty simple story. you have a one cent reduction in the real estate rate. That's proposed to be the fourth consecutive year that we have lowered that rate. This is the overall table. You will notice that four down arrows, those are all linked together. So when you lower the real estate rate, those other much smaller categories float down with that. Again, no change in the personal property rate. We did lower that 25% last year. No other changes are proposed for this particular table. That is your second public hearing. And there we go into the CDBG public hearing for number three. Total program

[00:27:12] just a here under $2.4 million. The bulk of these dollars continue to be focused in critical home repair and other housing type programs. Fourth public hearing is your capital improvement program for 26 through FY30. This chart that we used during the roadshows for the last week or so works pretty well. Where are the improvements that are being proposed across your CIP?

[00:27:40] The three largest categories, number one being transportation. No surprise there with the addition of the CBTA program. As you heard Mr. Huey mention, major maintenance continues to be a significant focus for us to maintain that financial policy and take care of the facilities we already have on the ground. And then our third biggest one you see up here in sort of the top right-hand corner referendum projects at $88.6 million. Though we'll note here, referendum approved in November of 2022. Everything in the middle block here are projects that we have already issued funding for and are underway in some fashion or form. Because we got out of the

[00:28:19] blocks very early on this, I took advantage of the rate environment on a few occasions. We have enough projects moving forward. Right now, we thought we would take the year off as one of those measures in this budget to give us some safeguards, give us a little bit of breathing room to be able to digest all the economic uncertainty that you've heard mentioned here a couple times already tonight. The final box on this chart references the projects that were approved by voters but are still yet to be funded. There are things going on with those projects very preliminarily, but we do not have the bulk of that funding. We are not including that for consideration in 26. We'll pick that sequence back up next year, and we have plenty of time

[00:28:59] within our eight year window to accomplish all of these items. Other CIP items worth of note, community facilities. This is really the topic that we have talked about for quite some time. Major maintenance in school grounds are outside of that main building.

[00:29:17] Main building is a school responsibility, but this picks up our community facilities in the afternoon to the evenings. Again, part of our growing partnership with the school division, but that is a new item, I think we'll, you know, something we're going to walk into slowly, you know, we're starting with some tennis court rehab in FY26, and then we have facility condition assessment that's been completed, and we will continue to fold in other aspects of that category into our major maintenance program. You see broader major maintenance program on number two, we touched on that already, and then transportation access, really a heavy focus in terms of our local dollars

[00:29:56] on less on congestion, more on safety, particularly in the pedestrian category, roundabouts, and just making sure that we're taking care of those matters. But again, we got almost $188 million in the CIP for transportation needs over the five-year term.

[00:30:15] And then lastly, your final public hearing tonight on the actual proposed budget, the operating budget for FY26, where are those dollars proposed to be spent? This is the total budget here, so $2.4 billion is the proposed amount that you are hearing about tonight and has been proposed to you by the county administrator.

[00:30:34] Again, schools continues to be the largest focus area there. General fund there in sort of the lavender square in the middle, that's where public safety, parks and rec, all of those items live. And then, again, this is the consolidated overview, which the public hearing covers all of these functions, including the utility piece up there, which is a combined operating and capital fund.

[00:30:54] again includes a lot of the improvements associated with that fourth water source and then you see the other much smaller funds including the debt service fund that just took over four percent of the the total consolidated budget for FY26. Specific highlights in here again we touched on these I think the the report you know mentions a lot of these items as well continued focus on tax relief five million dollars for our senior program there's additional reductions in here for small business taxes, the 89 cents on the real estate side, continued strategic investments in core

[00:31:30] services, 7% increase for our first responders. I think that is vitally important to make sure that we can continue to retract and retain those vital employees. And then lastly, sort of a more fluid part of this budget, you heard from the superintendent when we did the proposal on the 12th. It's a school budget that we're able to incorporate at the time all of the items that had been identified by the superintendent in collaboration with the school board you know there is some some back and forth let's say downtown at the state level some of that funding

[00:32:04] could be drawn into question we're working very closely with dr murray and his team miss spillman miss walker working to to monitor that don't have any specific updates for you tonight we as you are aware contacted our delegation to make them make sure they're in the loop on on that particular piece. We'll come back and provide updates as they become available through April the 9th, but this is unfortunately a story you've seen before last year, you know, where the state budget deliberations extended beyond our adoption window, which is locked in in order to be able to

[00:32:40] get those tax bills out. So we're monitoring this collaboratively with schools. We've pulled in the delegation. We will pass along any updates we have, but we do feel confident that we can move forward towards adoption even if we don't have those final answers and then we would come back and amend the budget as we did last year and ultimately it works.

[00:32:59] But as Mr. Engel is an outspoken proponent of, we'd like to have the process perhaps in reverse order. But we are watching that and a few other state items. But in general, before that, the school budget does accomplish all of their strategic initiatives, 3% raised for teachers and operating costs to open the new middle school in Western Hull Street.

[00:33:22] So with that, no questions just yet, but we will jump into the first public hearing, which will be utilities. I did just want to say one thing. I think you said $5 million for elderly, disabled, and veterans.

[00:33:38] And that's an additional $5 million, not $5 million total. It would be $24 million total. Yes, sir. That's an added layer. And again, in terms of timing, you don't have to make those decisions right now. You are just allocating the resources. The eligibility criteria tweaks that you would make would not go into effect until January of 2026, so we're working closely with the commissioner and would really kind of use the summer months perhaps to evaluate those options.

[00:34:05] That gives us some more time to see what the economy is going to do and then bring back a proposal perhaps through audit and finance. But, yes, sir, it's $5 million plus what is there today. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance amendments relating to the Department of Utilities fee change.

[00:34:25] Is there anyone who would like to speak to this issue? If so, please come forward and state your name. Seeing no speakers, this public hearing is now closed.

[00:34:43] Madam Clerk. Item B, to consider proposed 2025 tax rates, Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, as discussed, is a public hearing on the tax rates for this upcoming tax year for tax year 2025.

[00:35:02] The only significant change to that table on an ongoing basis is the real estate rate and then the other three rates that flowed down with it to 89 cents would be the fourth consecutive year that we have reduced the real estate rate. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing to consider the proposed 2025 tax rate. Is there anyone who'd like to speak to this issue? If so, please come forward and state your name. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Fred DeMay. I'm from the

[00:35:39] Matoka District. Chesterfield residents have long been the highest taxed county residents in Central Virginia. We've had the highest county real estate tax rates, the highest county car tax rates, although Powhatan County in recent years has matched our rate, and these rates have contributed substantially to the high cost of living here in Chesterfield. Last year, the board of supervisors authorized a one-cent reduction in the property tax rate from 91 cents to 90 cents. In addition, the board authorized a tax rate cut for the car tax from $3.60 per 100 of assessed value to $3.30

[00:36:16] per $100 of assessed value, which has helped many residents with a reduced tax on their vehicles. Both of these were very good decisions, ladies and gentlemen. This year, we see a very similar situation with the average increase in real estate assessments being about 5.1%. The effective tax rate increase will be approximately 4.4 cents. In this scenario, even with the one cent reduction in the real estate tax rate from 90 cents per 100 assessed value to 89 cents per 100 of assessed value. The over 5% increase in real estate assessments will push the real estate taxes

[00:36:54] higher. Again, this year, Chesterfield tax payers will see about a 4.4% increase in the rate equivalency, bringing the effective real estate tax rate to 93.4 cents per 100 of assessed value, higher than other surrounding counties. From attending several budget meetings and tax meetings, the proposed budget also includes a 5% tax rebate on the June real estate tax bill, about half of the surplus, resulting in a 2.5% overall rebate for the year or approximately 2 cent reduction in the total real estate tax people will be paying for the year. In addition,

[00:37:34] the drop in real estate tax rate from 90 cents per 100 of assessed value to 89 cents per 100 of assessed value will further reduce the tax burden by one cent, but will still result in an increase in cost to the taxpayers. Both of these efforts to reduce the taxes in Chesterfield that residents pay are a step in the right direction and should be the basis for further tax rate and rebate reductions going forward, especially in view of the uncertain economic condition ahead. Thank you.

[00:38:07] Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. I'm John Caslow. I live at Hopkins Road in Chester, and I'm represented by Mr. Holland. My thoughts are with you, sir. You know, I read the public releases about the tax rate, and I hear about the historical tax rate we're getting this year, One cent. I got to tell you, I ran my taxes. And to be honest with you, I mean, the comparison

[00:38:45] I use is Social Security since I'm retired. And it's gone up 2.7% this year. I look at my total tax bill, it's gone up much more than that. If I adjusted the tax rate to meet my Social Security raises, I'd need a tax rate of between 82 and 83 cents a hundred.

[00:39:05] and that's just to break even, okay? Every cent above that, you guys are digging into my pocket. I understand the concept of sacred cows. If you cut the budget here, somebody's going to get mad. If you cut it there, somebody else is going to get mad.

[00:39:21] I don't have a real big dog in that fight because I don't really use too many county services, but it doesn't mean that I'm not inclined to pitch in for it, okay? I just want to pay my fair share, which is 82 to 83 cents per hundred.

[00:39:37] Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers? Seeing none, this public hearing is now closed. Madam Clerk. See to consider FY2026 proposed community development block grant and the home investment partnership annual plan. Mr. Harris. The proposed program totals about $2.4 million and again focuses the majority of those resources in housing and home repair programs. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing to consider the FY2026 proposed community development block

[00:40:16] grant and home investment partnership annual plan. Is there anyone here would like to speak to this issue? If so, please come forward and state your name. Good evening. I'm Marion Cake. I'm vice president at Project Homes. Project Homes is a local not-for-profit organization focused on the preservation and production of affordable housing and we're celebrating our 32nd year. Project Homes

[00:40:51] in Chesterfield County have had a long and productive partnership operating programs that preserve affordable housing units that exist in the county and also completing development projects for new units in the county. Project Homes operates similar programs in nine other municipalities.

[00:41:12] And I have to tell you, the staff of the Chesterfield County Department of Community Enhancement stand out in their efficiency and effectiveness and creativity. They are problem solvers and reliable partners, and we consider ourselves fortunate to have the opportunity to work with them again. So I would like to just reiterate Project Homes' support of the Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnerships' proposed budget for FY26.

[00:41:41] Any other speakers? Seeing none, I'm going to close this public hearing. And Madam Clerk, next. Dee, to consider FY2026 to FY2030 proposed capital improvement program, Mr. Harris.

[00:42:01] As a public hearing on your proposed CIP for 26 through 30, with resources focused in three primary areas, major maintenance, transportation, and the 22 referendum. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing to consider FY 2026 to FY 2030 proposed capital improvement program.

[00:42:26] Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this issue? If so, please come forward and state your name. Seeing none, I'm going to close this public hearing. Madam Clerk. E, to consider FY2026 proposed budget, Mr. Harris.

[00:42:48] This public hearing is a consolidated budget, which totals, as proposed, $2.4 billion. This encapsulates the entirety of the school fund, the general fund operating budget, the house's public safety, as well as a combined utilities fund, which has their CIP and their operating budget.

[00:43:07] Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing to consider the FY2026 proposed budget. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this issue? If so, please come forward and state your name.

[00:43:30] Good evening again, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Fred DeMay. I'm from the Matoka District. Over the past several years, we've seen inflation jump to levels not seen in 40 years. Inflation peaked at a rate of over 9% in June of 2022, but now has dropped to a rate of 2.8% as of February of 2020.

[00:43:55] The inflation is now moderating. However, it is still doing great damage to people at every socioeconomic level. In Chesterfield, we have seen a pattern of steadily increasing budgets at about one and a half to two times the rate of inflation over the last several years. Now, the proposed total fiscal year 2026 countywide budget, including schools, is estimated to be over $2 billion, an increase of about 4.4% over last year's budget, making this budget similar to years past where we had budgets running at about one and a half times the rate of inflation, somewhat higher than should be considered reasonable. County budgets

[00:44:34] that are running substantially over the rate of inflation certainly have enough built-in excess taxation to account for fiscal safety cushion. And in reference to last year's budget that's demonstrated by Chesterfield County's almost $30 million budget surplus for fiscal year 2025.

[00:44:51] In attending several of the county budget meetings, it is apparent that there are some important needs in Chesterfield, but the county also has a long list of wants. And at this point in time, with inflation still running well above the Federal Reserve's target of 2%, those wants must be weighed against providing much-needed tax relief for Chesterfield citizens.

[00:45:11] The proposed 5% rebate on the June real estate tax bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but it's only about half of the total surplus and would offset only a portion of the increase from the approximately 5% rise in real estate tax assessments this year.

[00:45:27] In addition, the drop in the real estate tax rate from $0.90 per $100 of assessed value to $0.89 per $100 of assessed value will further reduce the tax burden, but still is an increase to cost to taxpayers.

[00:45:42] Overall, the fiscal year 2026 budget represents a considered approach to reducing costs at the county level. And that's certainly a move in the right direction. A continuing reduction of spending in the budget must be an integral part of budgets going forward to continue reducing the costs to the citizens of Chesterfield.

[00:46:01] Thank you. - Thank you, next speaker. - Hello, Chairman Ingle, members of the board. I'm Gustavo Espinosa, very nice to meet you. I'm a community organizer with the Legal Aid Justice Center, and I work very closely with low-income renters in Chesterfield, especially Spanish speakers in the Bermuda District.

[00:46:25] I'm also going to offer some of my testimony in Spanish afterwards, if times permitting. And I'm speaking today to the budget advocating for increased investment in affordable housing and manufactured home repair and in affordable housing preservation. Because as we know, preserving affordable housing that already exists is cheaper than investing in new housing.

[00:46:45] And as we know, safe, affordable, and stable housing is foundational for the well-being of all residents, as well as the success of the county as a whole. Housing helps better health, education, workforce, retirement, and economic development outcomes. As the chairman knows, residents at a particular manufactured home community named Shady Hill in the Bermuda District are worried about the future of their homes and their community.

[00:47:10] The county could invest funds to address safety concerns while preventing displacement. And I'd like to take this opportunity to also thank the county for everything they have already done to invest in affordable housing, to preserve affordable housing, and the amazing precedent that has already been set in the Bermuda District as well.

[00:47:27] And more generally, there is a serious shortage of affordable housing in our entire region. We've called around the manufactured home communities in the area, dozens, and they have little to no homes for sale and little to no lots for rent. And lot rents and apartment rents are continuing to go up.

[00:47:45] Rents for three- and four-bedroom apartments are $2,000 or $2,600, respectively, which is out of reach for anyone making less than $70,000 a year. Your constituents want to continue living and working and raising their families in Chesterfield, and sadly, we can't always count on federal funds or grants to close the gap on our affordable housing shortage.

[00:48:06] So that's why I'm asking the county to please invest in safe, affordable, and stable housing. Thank you for your time. And now I'll offer some comments in Spanish, if that's okay. Hola Presidente Ingle, miembros de la Junta. Soy Gustavo Espinosa, organizador comunitario del Centro de Justicia y Asistencia Legal.

[00:48:22] Trabajo en colaboración con inquilinos de bajos ingrejos en Chesterfield, especialmente en el distrito de Bermuda. Hoy me refiero al presupuesto abogando por un aumento de fondos para viviendas asequibles, para la reparación de casas prefabricadas y para la preservación de las casas que ya existen, porque sabemos que es más barato preservar lo que ya existe en vez de crear vivienda nueva.

[00:48:47] Y como sabemos, una vivienda segura, asequible y estable es fundamental para el bienestar de todos los residentes de Chesterfield, así como para el éxito del condado en general. La vivienda ayuda a mejorar la salud, la educación, la fuerza laboral y los resultados de desarrollo económico.

[00:49:05] Como sabe el presidente de la Junta, los residentes de una comunidad de casas prefabricadas que se llama Shady Hill, que quedan en el distrito de Bermuda están preocupados por el futuro de sus hogares y de su comunidad. El condado podría invertir fondos para abordar los problemas de seguridad y prevenir el desplazamiento. Y también queremos agradecer todo el esfuerzo que ha hecho el condado para

[00:49:27] invertir en vivienda asequible. Gracias por su tiempo. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Folks, My name is Dave Stritzinger. I think you all know me.

[00:49:52] I actually attended three budget meetings this last week. And I was told I was going to have people to work with me on questions I had. I was hoping they'd come here and give you a thumbs up or a thumbs down on the budget. But I cannot. I was told the finance team would work with me.

[00:50:12] I've been exchanging emails for the last week with Joe. It's a squad douche. I get back from anybody. I was told last Friday that Gerard was going to work with me. Dirk and his last name is right. I said I'll meet with you in your office. I'll meet at a library. I told the finance team and him I'll take them to a bar. Nothing. So I can't tell you yes. I can't tell you no. If you think you have

[00:50:49] enough information to what the heck is going on, go for it. Nancy Reagan said it's not okay. Just just say no. Just say no to this stuff. If you think you know what the heck's going on with the budget, vote on it. I know I don't. They don't want to stand up here tonight. Thank you. Next.

[00:51:18] speaker. I really wasn't planning on speaking to the budget tonight, but I'm not going to miss a chance to speak to it. I did look at the proposed budget briefing charts, and I read them. I didn't go to the proposed budget meeting in the Dale District, because everyone I've been to, it's really worthless, I'm honest, to be honest with you. I mean, it's a rah-rah session where you get told all the good things you're doing. Meanwhile, you know, nobody wants to talk about how you're

[00:51:53] taking it in the tax situation. When I talked to you all in December, I brought along a spreadsheet with some calculations and some notes that I had made. I made copies for all of you. I hope you all took them and I hope you all read them instead of just throwing them in the trash can. You know, when I look at the chart in the proposed budget brief, we talk about 3% impact on taxes going back to how many years? A dozen years? More years? In recent years, we're looking at 3% inflation.

[00:52:28] You know, we're talking about we don't know what's going to happen in the economy. I don't know what's going to happen in the economy, but I looked at those charts, too. You know, in an economic world, there are hard numbers, there are soft numbers. Our oil production in the country is up. Production of automobiles is up. Investment in businesses in the country is up. So I'm looking for a bright rosy future there, all right? I calculated back in December that in order to have a budget to stay within the current rate of inflation, you would need $1.7 billion, okay? Consistent with

[00:53:05] my earlier remarks about the 82 to 83% tax rate, okay, that's about a reduction of $36 million from what you want now or what's proposed now. I don't think that's unrealistic. I understand the fatted calf. I understand that one man's sacred cow. Guys, we can't keep carrying the county on

[00:53:27] the backs of the taxpayers. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers? Good evening. My name is Renee Eldred. For those of you who don't know me, I look at the budget as an ongoing process, which it is.

[00:54:03] Anybody can, any citizen can ask questions all year long, but they don't. I sat here tonight and watched one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, about 10 people speak. I went to, I forget how many meetings for the budget, at least four, I think, 10, 15 people maybe per meeting. I was looking at the population online for the county. There's at least 292,000, 18 and over in this

[00:54:43] county. And with all the people at all those meetings and the people here tonight, that is one thousandth of one percent of the people that get involved. I look online at Facebook and all they do is complain about every single thing, but nobody wants to listen to the answers. They don't want to get involved. All they want to do is complain. So I'm here to say, if you want things changed, I'm talking to the general public. If you want things changed, you've got to do something

[00:55:19] different you got to stop complaining and come and get involved participate I don't think there's one of y'all out there that has not listened to something I've said you don't always agree with me I don't always agree with you but you can't agree with everybody 100% of the time if you do you're talking to yourself people have got to get involved now there's there's some of these things in the budget that I'm like where's the money from my area and I think next meeting I will be

[00:55:52] asking for money from my area so just be prepared but I'm just I'm here to say that if you want anything changed it's not going to be done from the sidelines you've got to step up and you've got to get involved thank you thank you any other speakers seeing no more speakers this public hearing is now closed this ends the series of public hearings related to the proposed ordinance

[00:56:25] amendments relating to the Department of Utilities fee changes, proposed tax rates, proposed community development block grant and home partnership annual plan, the proposed capital improvement program, and the proposed FY 2026 budget. I want to thank the public for coming out tonight and participating in this process for your input through various community meetings that have been held and other comments that may have come forward which will help us this board as we

[00:56:58] continue to work on lead work on this budget leading up to adopting the budget planned that is planned for the evening session on april 9th madam clerk item 10 zoning requests mr chair you have one withdrawal case 24 sn1278 in clover hill magisterial district bias recreational vehicle parking is a request for conditional use to permit parking and storage of a recreational vehicle outside the rear yard in a residential r15 district on a 0.62 acre parcel known as 11720

[00:57:38] edenbury drive the applicant has withdrawn this request from the board of supervisors consideration and no further action is necessary. You have seven cases on your consent agenda this evening. For the benefit of the public, consent cases are those cases where the applicant accepts staff's recommendation and there is no previous opposition.

[00:57:59] For each case on the consent agenda, staff has received written confirmation from the applicants that they agree with the conditions being imposed and that all propers are offered in compliance with state law. First is 23SN0035 in Clover Hill Magisterial District, Rockwood Shopping Center is a request to rezone from Agricultural A and Community Business C3 to Community Business C3 plus conditional use plan development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements on 1.34 acres known as 9930 Hall Street Road. Exceptions to building and parking setbacks are requested to accommodate a new

[00:58:38] restaurant with associated drive-thru. Planning Commission and staff recommend approvals subject to the conditions in your staff report ladies and gentlemen this is a public hearing on case 23 sn 0035 rockwood shopping center is there anyone who would like to speak to this case if so please come forward and state your name hello renee edward again i just wanted to make

[00:59:13] one observation anytime i've ever seen plans where there's double stacks for cars it's usually a chick-fil-a and quite frankly that intersection is horrible getting in and out of that shopping center is simply horrible so i would just ask when it goes to site plan that y'all please if it's a chick-fil-a make sure that the it will fit it's just i'm seeing a lot of i don't know what it is about chick-fil-a they morning noon and night they're like lined up around the building so i'm

[00:59:52] Just heed my warning that if it's a Chick-fil-A, you're going to have issues with that without good planning. Thank you.

[01:00:07] Any other speakers? Seeing none, I'll close this public hearing, and it's back before the board. This is in the Clover Hill District. Thank you.

[01:00:24] We don't have a specific person right now, and I just wanted to answer to Renee's concerns. and I have the same one of the reasons I like this and I've talked with the developers because we are hoping and looking at the completion of putting the stoplight through into the park at Oxbridge as well as putting a side street coming all the way from sheets all the way through to this to increase the traffic flow and make it a little more efficient so that will help with some of that and so I'm just letting you know that we have thought about that

[01:01:01] ahead of time and I appreciate your insights Renee thank you so with that I would like to approve with the with staffs recommendations case number two and or two four s n one two seven eight mr. chair oh I'm sorry did I read the wrong one I'm sorry I'm sorry my fault I looked at I had two Clover Hills in a

[01:01:34] row that was the one that was canceled i will redact that sorry i would like okay so given that i would like to approve with the uh staff's recommendations 23 sn 0035 i'll second that all in favor aye aye i'll vote for that one yes next is 23 sn 0073 in bermuda magisterial district

[01:02:10] old Bermuda 100 road solar facility is a request for conditional use to permit a 2.52 megawatt large-scale solar energy facility plus conditional use plan development to permit exceptions to pavement standards to permit gravel to be used along the access drive in an agricultural a district on 48.63 acres fronting approximately 345 feet on the south side of old Bermuda 100 Road west of Lawing Drive. Planning Commission and staff recommend approval subject to the

[01:02:43] conditions in your staff report. Ladies and gentlemen this is a public hearing on case 23 SN 0073 Old Bermuda 100 Road solar facility. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this case?

[01:03:01] If so please come forward and state your name. Seeing no one I'm going to close this public hearing. It's back before the board. This case is in the Bermuda District and I make the motion to approve case 23 SN 0073 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Second. All in favor? Aye.

[01:03:23] Next is 24 SN 1060 in Matoka Magisterial District. The summit at Magnolia Green amendment is a request to amend zoning approval case 19 SN 0529 to modify development standards plus conditional use plan development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements on 99.18 acres in residential R9 district known as 1900 Hull Street Road. An active adult age-restricted community containing a total of 900 independent living units in a variety of housing types is

[01:04:02] planned. The planning commission and staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in your staff report. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing on case 24 SN 1060, the Summit at Magnolia Green Amendment. If there's anyone who'd like to speak to this case, please come forward and state your name. Seeing no one, I'm going to close this public hearing.

[01:04:34] It's back before the board, and this case is in the Matoka District. Mr. Chair, some people may remember that this case was originally passed back in 2019, and it was passed with a higher density.

[01:04:49] with a bigger purpose. This is actually a reduction. I know people find it hard to believe, but it's actually a reduction in units from over 1,300 units down to 900 units. And this development will also give needed improvements along Hull Street Road, as well as turn lanes in the third lane.

[01:05:08] So I think it's a good change. I think it's a good step forward by the developer. So I make a motion to approve case number 24SN 1060, subject to conditions in the staff report. And I do have a follow-up question for staff, if I get a second.

[01:05:25] I'll second. Mr. Minx, when this case was passed in 2019, Mr. Ellswick put a condition on it, which would make sure that any of the cash proffers that were created by the development would go into transportation shed to work with transportation needs in this part of the county.

[01:05:48] And we know there's a lot, especially the fact that we have to widen Hull Street, you know, all the way out to where Poweit ends up terminating. In the change that we're making, I didn't see anywhere in the case where that actually exists in writing in the case. So how did that work when Mr. Ellswick imposed that back then?

[01:06:07] I do recall it coming up. I don't recall what ended up in the minutes. Yes, sir. I think it was a discussion of the board and a direction to staff to try and track as best they could the revenues that would be generated with the intentionality of trying to reserve them for that transportation shed.

[01:06:27] Notably, again, what could possibly even help the Polite Parkway was, I believe, mentioned. Right. And I think that also at the time, it was also pointed out that that is the practice generally anyway, is to keep the money within the shed to the extent possible. Just want to make sure we're still doing it.

[01:06:44] It's to the degree that we were able to track the revenues. There are certain revenues, as you know, that we don't have the abilities to get underlined, but because it's not a defined issue. The concept's not being abandoned by this only. Okay. Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure of. Thank you. Any other discussion? All in favor?

[01:07:01] Aye. Next is 24SN 1139 in Matulka Magisterial District. Clover Hill Church rezoning is a request to rezone from Agricultural A and Neighborhood Business C2 to Neighborhood Business C2 plus conditional use to permit a fast food and drive-in restaurant, a private athletic field, an outdoor public address system plus conditional use plan development to permit exceptions to setback and building height requirements and allow a private school use on a portion of the 25-acre property located on the north side of Hull Street Road, west of Magnolia Green Parkway.

[01:07:41] Planning Commission and staff recommend approval subject to the conditions in your staff report. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing on case 24-SN 1139, Clover Hill Church Rezoning. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this case?

[01:07:57] If so, please come forward and state your name. Seeing no one, I'm going to close this public hearing. is back before the board and this case is in the Matoka district. Yes Mr. Chair I think it's a it's a nice concept and I know that the people that live out in that area of the county are still looking forward to additional commercial products to be able to serve them especially in the Magnolia Green area so I make a motion to approve case number 24 SN 1139 subject to conditions in the

[01:08:30] staff report. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Next is 24SN 1206 in Dale Magisterial District. Iron Bridge Baptist Church Private School is a request for conditional use to permit a private school in conjunction with a church in an agricultural A and neighborhood business C2 district on 13.53 acres known as 10900 Iron Bridge Road. The private school is proposed to operate on the upper floor of the existing church building with approximately 250 students.

[01:09:08] No new buildings are proposed and no expansion to existing buildings is proposed. Planning Commission and staff recommend approvals subject to the conditions in your staff report. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing on case 24SN 1206, Ironbridge Baptist Church Private School. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this case? If so, please come forward and state your name. Seeing no one, I'm going to close this public hearing. It's back before the board, and this is in the Dale District. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an excellent case

[01:09:44] with a church which is a friend of Chesterfield County. We've had events there, and so I'm very pleased to move approval of this case 24SN 1206 with the associated conditions as provided by staff and the planning commission second any discussion all in favor aye next is 24 sn one two seven one in matoka magisterial district mcnulty second dwelling is a request for conditional

[01:10:20] use to permit a second dwelling with conditional use plan development for exceptions to ordinance requirements in an agricultural aid district on 16.91 acres known as 7720 river road this request includes the construction of a detached second dwelling plus a reduction in the required front setback for an existing single-family dwelling on the property. Planning Commission and staff recommend approval subject to the conditions in your staff report. Ladies and gentlemen this is a public hearing on case 24 SN 1271 McNulty second dwelling. Is there anyone here who would like to

[01:10:58] speak to this case? If so please come forward and state your name. Seeing no one I'm going to close this public hearing and it's back before the board and this case is in the Matoka district. Mr. Chair, I know this is a unique case because we're talking about putting a second dwelling on the parcel land. There is 16 acres, almost 17 acres as part of this and the second dwelling will be utilized for, as stated in the case, for family to live there and I think it's an appropriate use and there's also stipulations in the case

[01:11:34] if there's anything that comes forward future from this of what they would be required to do if they wanted to subdivide the land anymore in relating to utilities. So I think it's a good case. I really think it's important when people can, quite frankly, provide housing for their families. So case number 24, I make a motion to approve case number 24, SN1271, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

[01:11:59] Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Next is 24 SN1352 in Midlothian Magisterial District, Town Place at Huguenot Shopping Center amendment is a request to amend zoning approval, Case 10-SN-0273, relative to proper conditions in the Community Business C-3 District on 2.89 acres, known as 1401 Huguenot Road.

[01:12:28] The applicant proposes to construct a 5,100-square-foot veterinary hospital on the site. Planning Commission and staff recommend approval subject to the conditions in your staff report. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing on case 24, SN1352, Town Place at Huguenot Shopping Center Amendment.

[01:12:50] Is there anyone that would like to speak to this case? If so, please come forward and state your name. Seeing no one, I'm going to close this public hearing, and this case is back before the board. This case is in the Midlothian District. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[01:13:07] This is one of those cases where it's just pure value added, an additional veterinary hospital. It'll be a 24-hour veterinary hospital because anyone who's a pet owner knows that things don't happen between 8 and 5. So very excited about this, and I feel very comfortable moving forward with the approval of case number 24-SN-1352 subject to the conditions in the staff report.

[01:13:30] Second. Any discussion? I would just say I think this is great. You know, this is one thing we don't have enough of in Chesterfield County is emergency care facilities. And having knocked on a lot of doors in my time, I think probably 75% of the households in Chester County have pets.

[01:13:46] So I'm glad that someone's bringing this forward. All right. All in favor? Aye. Mr. Chair, that concludes your consent cases for this evening. You have one discussion case, which is 24SN 1059, Farley 2-Lot Subdivision and Utility Exception.

[01:14:08] Mr. Saunders. Good evening, Dr. Casey, Chairman Engel, and members of the board. Case 24 SN 1059 in the Matoaka Magisterial District, Farley Two Lot Subdivision and Utility Exception, is a proposal to rezone from Agricultural A to Residential R88, plus conditional use plan development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements, and secondly, a request for an exception to Section 18-60 of the utility ordinance for connection to the public water system.

[01:14:39] The applicant would like to subdivide the 5.2 acres into two residential lots, which necessitates the rezoning and utility exception. The property contains 5.2 acres and is zoned agricultural. Adjoining properties to the north, east, and south are also zoned A, and adjoining properties to the west across Cattail Road are zoned R88.

[01:15:02] I'll note, however, the property across the street is in a conservation easement. The first image on the left shows the properties being occupied by one single-family resident. Area properties around this proposal are primarily developed with single-family residences on five-plus acres or are undeveloped.

[01:15:22] The second image on the right shows the Conference of Plans land use designation map. The plan designates the property for residential agricultural uses. In residential districts, subdivisions with lots of two acres or larger are appropriate only if served by the public water system.

[01:15:39] Lots not connected to the public water system should be five acres or larger. The applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel containing approximately 5.2 acres. When accounting for the needed right-of-way dedication, each new lot would contain approximately two and a half acres, as shown in this layout plan.

[01:15:58] To create lots with an area of less than five acres, a rezoning from agricultural to residential, R88, is proposed, which is request one. The applicant is also requesting an exception to the requirement to connect to the public water system, which is request two. The closest public water line is located approximately 2,800 feet north of the subject property, and the Utilities Department estimates that the cost to construct an 8-inch water line to serve the site is approximately $560,000.

[01:16:26] The existing house, which would be located on lot 1, as shown in this slide, is proposed to have a corner side yard setback of approximately 30 feet when accounting for the required right-of-way dedication and street buffer for Cattail Road. The residential R88 district requires a street side yard requirement of 75 feet exclusive of the street buffer, so an exception of around 45 feet is requested.

[01:16:55] The property, again, is located in the mandatory water connection area, and the utility ordinance requires connection to the public water system for lot subdivisions located within this area. The utilities department does not support the water connection exception request, as there are no physical conflicts or system capacity limitations that would make the extension unfeasible.

[01:17:17] Both Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of requests 1 and 2. Request 1 and 2 are not supported by the comprehensive plan. Subdivisions are not supported unless public water is extended to serve the new development. Additionally, the proposed lot sizes are not consistent with other properties within the surrounding area, which are predominantly 5 acres or larger.

[01:17:40] The Utilities Department does not support the water connection exception request. Again, as there are no physical conflicts or system capacity limitations that would make the extension unfeasible. That concludes my presentation. Any questions? How would they get to the lot that's landlocked behind the other lot?

[01:18:02] Access to lot two, you mean? It's a corner lot. It would be accessed off Cattail Road. So the existing lot has two furnages, 3D Branch and Cattail. I have a question, Mr. Chair. So they are not connected to water, which is standard policy for utilities.

[01:18:21] How about sewer? It's not in the mandatory sewer connection area. It's not mandatory? Okay, very good. Any other questions for staff? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing on case 24 SN 1059, Farley, two-lot subdivision and utility exceptions.

[01:18:43] Is the applicant present?

[01:19:01] Would you like to make any presentations or make any statements? I would. My name is Angela Kidd. I am the agent working with Mr. Farley, who actually started this rezoning inquiry with the county.

[01:19:18] quite a ways back and was advised that the land use plan does support this size acreage under the circumstances, the septic and an exception to the water connection, so we're meeting all the standards for the area and don't feel like it's a request that doesn't meet the requirements and standards for the county.

[01:19:57] board members have any questions of the applicant so you're asking to not be connected to water so I'm gonna suspect that the plan is to is there a well already on the property or how is that individual going to get access to water there will be septic individual septic and well just as the first parcel the existing home thank you yes sir sure they already sunk a well no no have they

[01:20:34] had the land perked we have had it looked at yes sir so it's so looked at and has it been certified to be perked we haven't no permits have been issued we have outsourced a soil specialist to inquire that yes sir okay they would have to get a well drilled that produces water before they'd be able to build if they're allowed to that's right any other questions of the applicant are

[01:21:10] there any other speakers that would like to speak to this case i'm gonna let them speak and then And if you would like to come back up after they're done speaking, you have that opportunity. Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening.

[01:21:30] Jerry Turner. I have come to y'all before about these older neighborhoods, protecting them from these developers or homeowners that are trying to change the neighborhood. All of those people out there bought on five-acre lots.

[01:21:49] They expected them to remain five-acre lots. Y'all don't need to start letting them start breaking them up because one person is convenient for that one person. The staff has already recommended denial. Y'all pay those guys a lot of money to recommend things to y'all.

[01:22:09] You need to listen to them. Thank you. Any other speakers? Good evening.

[01:22:25] I'm Tommy Bobbitt. I live at 8501 Cattail Road, and this property backs right up on mine. His runs this way, mine runs kind of vertical, I guess, you know, parallel to vertical.

[01:22:43] In the bylaws and the restrictions, it says you have to have at least 15 acres to even consider this. I'm not real happy with having another septic system and another well backed up right to my property.

[01:23:06] To me, this is a cash grab, and it's going to set a precedent. And if you let one do it, you're going to have to let everybody do it. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

[01:23:22] Any other speakers? Would the applicant like to make any statements based on what was said? Point out that the acreage, the two-acre minimum, it meets the precedence for the area.

[01:23:49] Lake Margaret, all of the other developments in the area meet the same precedence here. And we do have a clear access. There's no issues, you know, with regard to access. No flagging of the lot for a family subdivision.

[01:24:07] It's attractive in that sense as well. So any other questions? Any other questions for the applicant? I have a question for staff, if staff could come back up.

[01:24:22] Mr. Chair, can I confirm whether the public hearing is closed? Seeing no other speakers, I'm going to go ahead and close this public hearing. It's back before the board. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The current zoning is R-88, is that correct?

[01:24:42] No, it's agricultural currently. It's ag. They're requesting to rezone to R-88 to be able to subdivide. Oh, they're requesting to go from ag to R-88? Correct, yeah. And R-88, if we allowed them to do it, would actually allow for two acres?

[01:25:03] It's a minimum two-acre lot size, correct. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Chair. It sounds like to me the Planning Commission denied this, correct? They recommended denial, yes.

[01:25:19] So I'm curious to know, what was the vote? Was it a 5-0 vote to deny? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I want to thank Mr. Hayes for being here because it's my understanding that, and Mr. Hayes, George, you're welcome to come up with a comment if you like, is that solely due to the cost.

[01:25:44] I heard the cost of $588,000 to connect to water and sewer. Is that correct, George? So is that the only impediment? Is that the only impediment that maybe planning looked at, that cost? Because we certainly don't impose that costly of opportunity on people trying to, you know, inhabit a home.

[01:26:05] So are there other extenuating circumstances from your perspective that would prohibit this? Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Mr. Holland, to answer your question, Because they are proposing a lot subdivision, section 1860 of the county ordinance requires them to connect to water because they're in a mandatory connection area.

[01:26:26] There's a 16-inch water line about 2,800 feet north of them. There's nothing prohibiting them to connect as far as topography or any physical barriers to connect. The only concern I think they have is the cost of running that 2,800-foot line, which we estimate at $200 a foot would be about $560,000.

[01:26:48] So there's nothing prohibiting them to connect from a physical or engineering standpoint. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hayes. Thank you. So I'm assuming all the other lots around them have well and septic. Has anybody else?

[01:27:06] So that's the nearest person down the street that has connected. Yeah, 2,800 feet to the north, you have water. There is not sewer in the area. But most of the lots, as planning indicated, are large five-acre lots.

[01:27:23] And so that gets into the, I won't get into the planning realm, but the trigger for the mandatory connection is there, creating a subdivision, which in our ordinance requires them to connect to water. Got it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any other questions?

[01:27:42] This is in the Matoka District. What would you like to do? Mr. Chair, you know, it's an interesting case. I would tell you up until today I had not heard from the applicant on this case and I thought that was kind of odd that no one did come forward and my planning commissioner had not heard from the applicant. We've heard from a representative for the applicant but not the actual applicant themselves and that's not the ordinary but I look at this and I see all the lots around this

[01:28:20] are five acre plus lots. Across the street is a conservation easement that the state of Virginia owns now. It's actually hunting land owned by the state of Virginia. It was part of a larger parcel that was sold off in pieces. Much of it is a conservation easement on the other side. And then just north of this, you have Lake Margaret, which is, I think, R88. And it does have water there, which is where that water connection would be. But everybody around this property, including the gentleman that spoke, when they bought their land, they bought five-acre lots. The interesting thing

[01:28:58] about this is the applicant, if they chose not to do this, could have went through a family subdivision application and family subdivide it if they want to, without even having to go through all of this. And so I'm trying to respect all of the neighbors that live around there. Mr. Chair, I'm not in favor of this case. I make a motion to deny case number 24 SN 1059, subject to conditions in the staff report. I'll second. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion? Aye.

[01:29:30] That effectively takes care of the utilities request as well, so you don't have to separately vote them. Item 11, 15-minute citizen comment period on unscheduled matters. We have no speakers.

[01:29:45] We do have a speaker. We do, okay. Yes.

[01:30:01] Mr. Chair, thank you. Mr. Chair, thank you for acknowledging me to come up at this time since I missed the earlier time. And Board of Supervisors, Dr. Casey, again, thank you for letting me come up. My name is Greg Allen. than speak about some positive ways to move development forward in Chesterfield County, I need to take a detour on this planning road trip to talk about ZOMOD, which is the zoning ordinance modification project. My concern, one of the basic concerns I have, is that it seeks to eradicate most of our existing zoning districts and replace them with totally different zoning

[01:30:37] districts that are legally ambiguous with how these old districts convert into the new districts. Now, I know that staff has advised you that, you know, maybe we can phase ZOMOD in over five years. But that totally misconstrues what we accomplished back in 1989 to 1994 with the five-year phase-in of the new ordinance back then.

[01:30:59] That phase-in was to phase in the development standards, quality development standards that had never been experienced before. The zoning districts themselves converted cleanly and directly from one zoning ordinance to the other. No legal ambiguity. So I want to share with you a couple of examples.

[01:31:18] This is Starview, it's just on the south side of Stonehenge, zoned in 2019 to C4 with CUPD. Zomod would change this or convert this to CC, but the CC, and that's corridor commercial, and the CC district doesn't even begin to touch what this developer has through his C4 zoning case to suggest that he could somehow amend back to CC.

[01:31:45] You know, what's going to happen is he cannot amend C4 because in the future, There will be no C-4 district here. It will be eradicated. Another example, Westchester Commons. It was rezoned to I-2 with CUPD. It's had several amendments afterwards, but it's going to be changed to EC for Employment Center.

[01:32:07] And again, that EC Employment Center is not nearly as robust and dynamic as the case is for this I-2 case, for actually Watkins Center is what you know it is. And so what we're going to ask is for the developer to somehow figure out how to zone into EC and potentially expose them to all the changes to that zoning process because you can't amend if I-2 is no longer part of the ordinance.

[01:32:35] So I had two other examples, but I only have three minutes. And so what I really want to talk about is this legal ambiguity. You could tell the county attorneys to allow this C-4 district for Starview to somehow be used to amend, using CC, to amend the zoning case.

[01:32:57] But then the county attorney has to think about this. CC is meant to absorb zoning cases from C2, C3, C4, C5. And each of those staff has to figure out, well, which option in CC does this go to?

[01:33:14] Can you understand the start, the beginning of legal ambiguity? This is negotiation with developers and landowners. What, you know, where are you going to fit? And then- Mr. Allen, you're three minutes around. Okay, 20 seconds. The same thing.

[01:33:29] You know, besides CC, you've got options of TR, transitional residential or urban residential. So now you've got potentially six different, you know, options and options within options that are creating legal ambiguity. You cannot move forward with the zoning ordinance that has this kind of ambiguity through the zoning conversion process.

[01:33:53] Thank you very much. Madam Clerk. Mr. Chair, we need a motion to adjourn to the regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on April 9th, 2023. at 6:00 p.m. in the public meeting room. So moved.

[01:34:08] All in favor? Aye.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com