FAIRFAX COUNTY · 2019-01-23 · FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS January 22, 2019 ACTION ITEMS...

FAIRFAX COUNTYBOARD OF SUPERVISORS

January 22, 2019

AGENDA

9:30 Done Presentations

10:00 Done Presentation of the Don Smith Award

10:00 Adopted Report #1 Report on General Assembly Activities

10:10 Done Board Organization and Appointments of Board Members to Various Regional and Internal Boards and Committees

10:20 Done Board Appointments to Citizen Boards, Authorities, Commissions, and Advisory Groups

10:30 Done Items Presented by the County Executive

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

1 Approved Designation of Plans Examiner Status under the Expedited Land Development Review Program

2 Approved Streets into the Secondary System (Dranesville and Springfield Districts)

3 Approved Approval of Traffic Calming Measures as Part of the Residential Traffic Administration Program (Dranesville District)

4 Approved Authorization to Advertise a Public Hearing to Consider Adopting an Ordinance Expanding the Greenway Downs Residential Permit Parking District, District 13 (Providence District)

5 Approved Extension of Review Period for 2232 Applications (Mount Vernon, Mason, and Providence Districts)

6 Approved Authorization to Advertise Public Hearings on a Proposed Amendment to Update Appendix Q (Land Development Services Fee Schedule) of The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (Code) Regarding ePlans and Other Updates

ACTION ITEMS

1 Approved with Modification

Approval of the Board of Supervisors’ Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019 and Authorization for the Chairman to Postpone a Scheduled Meeting in the Event of Weather or Other Hazardous Conditions

1


January 22, 2019

ACTION ITEMS(Continued)

2 Approved Approval of a Vacation of a Parking Reduction for Fallfax Shopping Center (Providence District)

3 Approved Authorization for the Director of the Department of Transportation to Execute Future Bikeshare Station Sponsorship Standard Agreements

4 Approved Endorsement of and Authorization for the Department of Transportation to Apply for and Accept Grant Funding from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation FY 2020 Project Demonstration Program for the Fairfax County Connected Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Project

CONSIDERATION ITEMS

1 Approved Election Year Policies

10:40 Done Matters Presented by Board Members

11:30 Done Closed Session

3:00 Held Annual Meeting of the Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority

ACTION ITEMS (Continued)

3:00Action 5 Approved Board Approval of a Minor Variation Request for PCA 89-A-001-

2, Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to add a Public Use, Limited to a Health and Wellness Center which Provides Related Services for Older Adults, as a Permitted Use in Proffer 2 (Braddock District)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

3:30 Approved Public Hearing on RZ 2018-MV-012 (Fairfax County DPWES CAP BDCD) (Mount Vernon District)

2


January 22, 2019

PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)

3:30 Public Hearing deferred to 3/5/19 at

3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on RZ 2016-DR-027 (Pomeroy/Clark I, LLC)(Dranesville District)


3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on PCA-C-637-4 (Pomeroy/Clark I, LLC)(Dranesville District)

3:30 Approved Public Hearing on RZ 2018-SU-016 (PAG Chantilly P1, LLC) (Sully District)

3:30 Approved Public Hearing on SE 2018-SU-011 (PAG Chantilly P1, LLC)(Sully District)

3:30 Approved Public Hearing on AR 80-D-001-04 (Patowmack Farm, A Virginia Limited Partnership and Edith’s Log Cabin, A Virginia Limited Liability Company) (Dranesville District)

3:30 Approved Public Hearing on SE 2018-PR-018 (Reformed Theological Seminary) (Providence District)

3:30 Approved Public Hearing on SE 2017-PR-011 (Martin-Leppert-Sipes Post 9274, VFW & A/K/A Falls Church VFW Club & Fraternal Order of Police NOVA Lodge 35, Inc.) (Providence District)


4:00 p.m.

Public Hearing to Sell Board-Owned Property South of Spring Hill Road to Dominion Energy for an Electric Substation (Hunter Mill District)


3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on RZ 2017-MV-024 (Eastwood Properties, Inc.)(Mount Vernon District)

4:00 Approved Public Hearing on a Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Re: Articles 2 and 20 – Commonly Accepted Pets and a Proposed Amendment to Chapter 41.1 of the Fairfax County Code – Animal Control and Care


3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on Proposed Plan Amendments 2018-IV-BK1: Huntley Meadows Park Path from Telegraph Road to Harrison Lane; and 2018-IV-TR1: Huntley Meadows Park Trail from Telegraph Road to Lockheed Boulevard (Lee District)

3


January 22, 2019

PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)

4:00 Approved Public Hearing on a Proposed County Code Amendment Re: Minor Revisions to Chapter 108.1 (Noise Ordinance)

4:30 Approved Public Hearing to Reallocate Proffered Funds from the Springfield Cultural Center to the Springfield Branding Project (Lee District)

4:30 Approved Public Hearing on a Proposal to Abandon a Portion of Cinder Bed Road (Mount Vernon District)

4:30 Approved Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (Code) Chapter 101 (Subdivision Ordinance), Chapter 112 (Zoning Ordinance), Chapter 118 (Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance) and to the Public Facilities Manual (PFM) Regarding Codifying the Delineation of Buildable Areas on Plans of Development, Adding Running Bamboo to Noxious Weeds and Other Editorial Changes

4:30 Withdrawn Public Hearing on the Acquisition of Certain Land Rights Necessary for the Construction of Telegraph Road Walkway Phase I – Rose Hill to Pike (Lee District)

4

Fairfax County, Virginia

BOARD OF SUPERVISORSAGENDA

TuesdayJanuary 22, 2019

9:30 a.m.

PRESENTATIONS

DESIGNATIONS

∑ PROCLAMATION — To designate January 2019 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Fairfax County. Requested by Supervisor Herrity.

STAFF:Tony Castrilli, Director, Office of Public AffairsBill Miller, Office of Public AffairsLisa Connors, Office of Public Affairs

5

Board Agenda ItemJanuary 22, 2019

10:00 a.m.

Presentation of the Don Smith Award

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:None.

PRESENTED BY:Victoria L. Kammerude, Chairman, Employee Advisory Council (EAC)

6


10:00 a.m.

Report on General Assembly Activities

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:None. On January 22, 2019, materials were distributed to the Board of Supervisors,and a printed copy made available for review in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.These materials are available online at: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/legislation/sites/legislation/files/assets/documents/pdf/2019/ga-report-to-bos-01-22-2019.pdf

PRESENTED BY:Supervisor Jeff McKay, Chairman, Board of Supervisors’ Legislative CommitteeBryan J. Hill, County Executive

7

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/legislation/sites/legislation/files/assets/documents/pdf/2019/ga-report-to-bos-01-22-2019.pdf

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/legislation/sites/legislation/files/assets/documents/pdf/2019/ga-report-to-bos-01-22-2019.pdf


10:10 a.m.

Board Organization and Appointments of Board Members to Various Regional and Internal Boards and Committees

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1 - Listing of Interjurisdicational Committees and Inter- and Intra-Governmental Boards and Committees for Calendar Year 2019

STAFF:Catherine A. Chianese, Assistant County Executive and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors

8

Attachment 1

INTERJURISDICTIONAL COMMITTEES AND INTER- AND INTRA-GOVERNMENTAL BOARDS AND COMMITTEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019

INTERJURISDICTIONAL COMMITTEES

ALEXANDRIAJeffrey McKay, ChairmanSharon BulovaPenelope GrossDaniel Storck

ARLINGTONPenelope Gross, ChairmanSharon BulovaJohn FoustLinda Smyth

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIASharon Bulova, ChairmanJeffrey McKayLinda SmythDaniel Storck

FAIRFAX CITYJohn Cook, ChairmanSharon BulovaLinda Smyth

FALLS CHURCHPenelope Gross, ChairmanSharon BulovaJohn FoustLinda Smyth

FORT BELVOIR (Board of Advisors/Base Realignment and Closure)Sharon BulovaPatrick HerrityJeffrey McKayDaniel Storck

HERNDONJohn Foust, ChairmanSharon BulovaCatherine Hudgins

9

Board Committees for 2019Page 2 of 6

LOUDOUN COUNTYKathy Smith, ChairmanSharon BulovaJohn FoustCatherine Hudgins

PRINCE WILLIAM(includes UOSA, City of Manassas, and City of Manassas Park)Kathy Smith, ChairmanSharon BulovaPatrick HerrityDaniel Storck

VIENNACatherine Hudgins, ChairmanSharon BulovaJohn FoustLinda Smyth

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARDS AND COMMITTEES(including Federal and State)

COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARDJohn Foust

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (COG)

COG BOARD OF DIRECTORSSharon Bulova, PrincipalJohn Foust, PrincipalPenelope Gross, PrincipalPatrick Herrity, AlternateCatherine Hudgins, AlternateKathy Smith, Alternate

COG METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIR QUALITY COMMITTEESharon Bulova, PrincipalKathy Smith, PrincipalLinda Smyth, PrincipalKambiz Agazi (staff), Alternate (for any member)

COG CHESAPEAKE BAY AND WATER RESOURCES POLICY COMMITTEEPenelope Gross, PrincipalDaniel Storck, Principal

10


COG CLIMATE, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY COMMITTEEPenelope Gross, PrincipalKambiz Agazi (staff), Principal

COG EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COUNCILJohn Foust, Principal

COG HUMAN SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Penelope GrossCatherine Hudgins

COG REGION FORWARD COMMITTEESharon Bulova, PrincipalPenelope Gross, PrincipalKathy Smith, Principal

COG TASK FORCE ON REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ISSUESPenelope Gross

COG NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARDCatherine Hudgins, PrincipalLinda Smyth, PrincipalSharon Bulova, AlternatePatrick Herrity, Alternate

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FAIRFAX CAMPUS ADVISORY BOARDJohn CookPatrick HerrityJim Zook (Chairman’s designee)

INOVA HEALTH CARE SERVICES BOARDJohn Cook

INOVA HEALTH SYSTEMS BOARDPenelope Gross

NORTHERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL COMMISSION (NVRC)Sharon BulovaJohn CookPenelope GrossPatrick HerrityCatherine HudginsJeffrey McKayKathy Smith

11


NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (NVTC)(including WMATA and VRE Representatives)Sharon Bulova, Principal (VRE OPERATION)John Cook, Principal (VRE OPERATION)John FoustCatherine Hudgins, Alternate (WMATA)Jeffrey McKay, Alternate (VRE)

PHASE I DULLES RAIL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COMMISSIONSharon Bulova, ChairmanJohn FoustCatherine HudginsLinda Smyth

PHASE II DULLES RAIL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COMMISSIONSharon BulovaJohn FoustCatherine HudginsKathy Smith

POTOMAC WATERSHED ROUNDTABLEPenelope GrossRandy Bartlett, Alternate

ROUTE 28 HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COMMISSIONSharon BulovaJohn FoustCatherine HudginsKathy Smith

VACo BOARD OF DIRECTORS (REGIONAL DIRECTORS)(Recommendations. The Board of Supervisors makes recommendations to VACo for consideration.) Sharon BulovaPenelope GrossKathy SmithJeffrey McKayLinda SmythDaniel Storck

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (WMATA)(Appointed by NVTC. The Board of Supervisors makes recommendations for consideration.)

12


Catherine Hudgins, Alternate

INTRAGOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER COMMITTEES

50+ COMMITTEE (Committee of the Whole)Patrick Herrity, ChairmanJohn Cook, Vice-Chairman

AUDIT COMMITTEESharon Bulova, ChairmanDaniel Storck, Vice-ChairmanJohn FoustPatrick Herrity

BOARD PROCEDURES COMMITTEEPenelope Gross, ChairmanJohn Cook, Co-Chairman

BUDGET POLICY COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)Jeffrey McKay, ChairmanSharon Bulova, Vice-ChairmanJohn Foust, 2nd Vice-Chairman

COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION AND REINVESTMENT COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)Jeffrey McKay, Co-ChairmanDaniel Storck, Co-Chairman

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)Kathy Smith, ChairmanPenelope Gross, Vice-Chairman

ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)John Foust, ChairmanPatrick Herrity, Vice-Chairman

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)Penelope Gross, Chairman

HEALTH, HOUSING, AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)Catherine Hudgins, ChairmanPenelope Gross, Vice-Chairman

13


INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)John Foust, ChairmanCatherine Hudgins, Vice-Chairman

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)Jeffrey McKay, Chairman

PERSONNEL AND REORGANIZATION COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)Penelope Gross, ChairmanLinda Smyth, Vice-Chairman

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)John Cook, ChairmanPenelope Gross, Vice-Chairman

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE(Committee of the Whole)John Foust, ChairmanKathy Smith, Vice-Chairman

14


10:20 a.m.

Board Appointments to Citizen Boards, Authorities, Commissions, and Advisory Groups

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1: Appointments to be heard January 22, 2019(An updated list will be distributed at the Board meeting.)


15

January 22, 2019

FINAL COPY

APPOINTMENTS TO BE HEARD JANUARY 22, 2019(ENCOMPASSING VACANCIES PROJECTED THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2019)

(Unless otherwise noted, members are eligible for reappointment)

A. HEATH ONTHANK MEMORIAL AWARD SELECTION COMMITTEE (1 year)

Incumbent History Requirement Nominee Supervisor DistrictClifford L. Fields(Appointed 1/96-1/03 by Hanley; 1/04-1/08 by Connolly; 2/09-3/18 by Bulova)Term exp. 1/19

At-Large Chairman's Representative

Clifford L. Fields Bulova At-Large Chairman's

Jane Gwinn(Appointed 2/04-1/09 by Bulova; 1/10-1/18 by Cook)Term exp. 1/19

Braddock District Representative

Jane Gwinn Cook Braddock

Kerrie Wilson(appointed 1/10-1/18 by Foust)Term exp. 1/19

Dranesville District Representative

Foust Dranesville

VACANT(Formerly held by Ronald Copeland;appointed 1/05-1/17 by Hudgins)Term exp. 1/18Resigned

Hunter Mill District Representative

Hudgins Hunter Mill

Continued on next page

16

January 22, 2019 Appointments to Boards, Authorities, and Commissions Page 2

A. HEATH ONTHANK MEMORIAL AWARD SELECTION COMMITTEE (1 year)continued

Incumbent History Requirement Nominee Supervisor DistrictJoseph W. Blackwell(Appointed 1/06-1/08 by Kauffman; 1/09-1/18 by McKay)Term exp. 1/19

Lee District Representative

Joseph W. Blackwell

McKay Lee

Eileen J. Garnett(Appointed 1/03-2/17 by Gross)Term exp. 1/18

Mason District Representative

Gross Mason

Clarke V. Slaymaker(Appointed 7/17-1/18 by Storck)Term exp. 1/19

Mount Vernon District Representative

Clarke V. Slaymaker

Storck Mount Vernon

Philip E. Rosenthal(Appointed 1/92-2/08 by McConnell; 1/09-2/18 by Herrity)Term exp. 1/19

Springfield District Representative

Philip E. Rosenthal

Herrity Springfield

Michael Coyle(Appointed 2/17-1/18 by K. Smith)Term exp. 1/19

Sully District Representative

Michael Coyle K. Smith Sully

ADVISORY SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD(4 years – limited to 2 full consecutive terms)

Incumbent History Requirement Nominee Supervisor District

VACANT(Formerly held by Alisha Keirstead; appointed 6/17 by Storck)Term exp. 9/20Resigned


Storck Mount Vernon

17


AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT ADVISORY BOARD (4 years)


Mark Drake(Appointed 2/09-5/12 by McKay)Term exp. 5/16

Engineer/Architect/ Planner #2 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held by James Francis Carey; appointed 2/95-5/02 by Hanley; 5/06 by Connolly)Term exp. 5/10Resigned

Lending Institution Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

AIRPORTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (3 years)


Kenneth A. Kraus(Appointed 4/16 by Cook)Term exp. 1/19


Kenneth A. Kraus

Cook Braddock

James Phelps(Appointed 9/16 by Foust)Term exp. 1/19


James Phelps Foust Dranesville

VACANT(Formerly held by George Page;appointed 1/05-1/16by Hudgins)Term exp. 1/19Resigned

Hunter MillBusinessRepresentative

Hudgins Hunter Mill


18


AIRPORTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (3 years)continued


Samuel E. Thornton(Appointed 2/01-1/07 by Kauffman; 1/10-1/16 by McKay)Term exp. 1/19

Lee District Representative

Samuel E. Thornton

McKay Lee

Clifford Elow(Appointed 12/17 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 1/19

Providence District Representative

Clifford Elow L Smyth Providence

David Skiles(Appointed 9/10-1/16 by Herrity)Term exp. 1/19


David Skiles Herrity Springfield

Frank Leser(Appointed 3/16 by K. Smith)Term exp. 1/19


Frank Leser K. Smith Sully

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (3 years)


Susan Woodward Notkins(Appointed 11/96-9/03 by Hanley; 9/06 by Connolly; 10/09-6/16 by Bulova)Term exp. 9/18

Related Professional Group #3 Representative

Susan Woodward Notkins(Bulova)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held by John A. Carter; appointed 2/17 by Hudgins)Term exp. 9/18Resigned

Related Professional Group #4 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

19


ATHLETIC COUNCIL (2 years)


VACANT(Formerly held byRachel Huhn; appointed 1/15-10/17 by Cook)Term exp. 6/19Resigned

Braddock District Alternate Representative

Cook Braddock

VACANT(Formerly held byKarin Stamper; appointed 9/09-4/16 by McKay)Term exp. 4/18Resigned

Lee District Alternate Representative

McKay Lee

VACANT(Formerly held byTerry Adams; appointed 11/11-7/13 by Gross)Term exp. 6/15

Mason District Alternate Representative

Gross Mason

Jane Dawber(Appointed 3/13-9/16 by Hudgins)Term exp. 6/18

Women's Sports Alternate Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

BARBARA VARON VOLUNTEER AWARD SELECTION COMMITTEE (1 year)


VACANT(Formerly held by Judith Fogel;appointed 6/12-5/15 by Gross)Term exp. 6/16Resigned


Gross Mason


20


BARBARA VARON VOLUNTEER AWARD SELECTION COMMITTEE (1 year)continued


VACANT(Formerly held by Joshua D. Foley;appointed 9/13-6/16 by Herrity)Term exp. 6/17Resigned


Kim S. Farington Herrity Springfield

BOARD OF BUILDING AND FIRE PREVENTION CODE APPEALS (4 years)(No official, technical assistant, inspector or other employee of the DPWES, DPZ,

or FR shall serve as a member of the board.)


VACANT(Formerly held by Susan Kim Harris; appointed 5/09-2/11 by Hudgins)Term exp. 2/15Resigned

Alternate #4 Representative

Michael R. Sanio(Hudgins)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ORDINANCEEXCEPTION REVIEW COMMITTEE (4 years)


VACANT(Formerly held byGrant Sitta; appointed 9/10-9/15 by Gross)Term exp. 9/19Resigned


Gross Mason

21


CHILD CARE ADVISORY COUNCIL (2 years)


Valerie Inman(Appointed 1/18 by Foust)Term exp. 9/18

Dranesville DistrictRepresentative

Foust Dranesville

Mercedes O. Dash(Appointed 3/15 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 9/17


L. Smyth Providence

CITIZEN CORPS COUNCIL, FAIRFAX COUNTY (2 years)


Patrick J. Scott(Appointed 10/16 by Hudgins)Term exp. 5/18


Hudgins Hunter Mill

Nicholas Ludlum(Appointed 1/17 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 5/18


L. Smyth Providence

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (2 years)[NOTE: The Commission shall include at least 3 members who are male, 3 members who are female, and 3 members who are from a member of a minority group.]Current Membership: Males - 9 Females – 3 Minorities: - 5


VACANT(Formerly held by Ronald Copeland; appointed 9/04-1/17 by Hudgins)Term exp. 12/18Resigned

At-Large #2 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

Rosemarie Annunziata(Appointed 10/05-1/08 by Connolly; 12/09-1/16 by Bulova)Term exp. 12/17


Meena Bhinge(Bulova)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

22


COMMUNITY ACTION ADVISORY BOARD (CAAB) (3 years)

CONFIRMATION NEEDED:

∑ Mr. Gene Pettit as the Community Ministry Representative

∑ Ms. Shari Zamarra as the Faith Communities In Action Representative

∑ Mr. Michael Mahrer as the Literacy Council of Northern Virginia Representative

∑ Ms. (NFN) Elethia as the North Target Area #3 Representative

CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMISSION (3 years)


Mehmood S. Kazmi(Appointed 11/12-6/15 by Bulova)Term exp. 7/18

Fairfax County Resident #3 Representative

Jason J. Kratovil(Bulova)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

Umair Javed(Appointed 2/17 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 7/18

Fairfax County Resident #13 Representative

Umair Javed(L. Smyth)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADVISORY BOARD (CJAB) (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Robert Gehring;appointed 1/14-2/15 by Hudgins)Term exp. 2/18Resigned

Hunter Mill DistrictRepresentative

Hudgins Hunter Mill

23


DULLES RAIL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTDISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, PHASE I (4 years)


Thomas D. Fleury(Appointed 6/01-3/14 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 3/18


By Any Supervisor

At-Large

DULLES RAIL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTDISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, PHASE II (4 years)


VACANTFormerly held by Jeffrey T. Chod; appointed 1/14-1/16by Bulova)Term exp. 1/20Resigned

BOS At-Large #5 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Mark Silverwood;appointed 1/09-11/14 by Hudgins)Term exp. 12/17Resigned


Hudgins Hunter Mill

Robert Yuen-Pai Tsien (Appointed 4/16 by K. Smith)Term exp. 12/18


K. Smith Sully

24


ENGINEERING STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Maya Huber; appointed 12/09-1/14by Confirmation; 05/18 by Bulova)Term exp. 3/21

Citizen #4 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COUNCIL (EQAC) (3 years)


Renee GrebeAppointed 1/16 by McKay)Term exp. 1/19


Renee Grebe(McKay)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

George Lamb(Appointed 1/06-11/16 by Bulova)Term exp. 1/19


George Lamb(Bulova)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

Stella M. Koch(Appointed 10/96-12/00 by Hanley; 1/04 by Connolly; 1/07-1/16 by Bulova)Term exp. 1/19

At-Large Chairman’s Representative

Stella M. Koch Bulova At-Large Chairman’s

Larry J. Zaragoza(Appointed 2/08-1/16 by Hyland)Term exp. 1/19


Larry J. Zaragoza

Storck Mount Vernon

Robert A. Robbins(Appointed 12/13-4/16 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 1/19


L. Smyth Providence

25


FAIRFAX AREA DISABILITY SERVICES BOARD(3 years- limited to 2 full consecutive terms per MOU, after initial term)

[NOTE: Persons may be reappointed after being off for 3 years. State Code requires that membership in the local disabilities board include at least 30 percent representation by individuals with physical, visual or hearing disabilities or their family members. For this 15-member board, the minimum number of representation would be 5.


Timothy W. Lavelle(Appointed 4/09-12/14 by Bulova)Term exp. 11/17Not eligible forreappointment

At-Large #2 Business Community Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

Tapan Banerjee(Appointed 2/07-3/16 by Foust)Not eligible forreappointment


Foust Dranesville

Michele Hymer Blitz (Appointed 6/06-3/16 by Hudgins)Term exp. 11/18Not eligible forreappointment


Hudgins Hunter Mill

VACANT(Formerly held by Harriet Epstein; appointed 5/10-12/16 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 11/19Resigned


L. Smyth Providence

FAIRFAX COMMUNITY LONG TERM CARE COORDINATING COUNCIL(2 years)

CONFIRMATION NEEDED:

∑ Ms. Catherine S. Cole as the Commission on Aging Representative

∑ Mr. Ralph N. Cagle, Jr. as the Community/Religious Leaders #6 Representative

26


FAIRFAX-FALLS CHURCH COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD(3 years – limited to 3 full terms)

[NOTE: In accordance with Virginia Code Section 37.2-501, "prior to making appointments, the governing body shall disclose the names of those persons being considered for appointment.” Members can be reappointed after 1-year break from initial 3 full terms, VA Code 37.2-502.


VACANT(Formerly held by Paul Luisada; appointed 4/13-9/13 by Hyland; 10/16 by Storck)Term exp. 6/19Resigned


Storck Mount Vernon

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD (3 years)

CONFIRMATIONS NEEDED:

∑ Mr. Jules D. Reese as the Primary #3 Representative

HEALTH CARE ADVISORY BOARD (4 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Mary J. Porter; appointed 9/17 by Storck)Term exp. 6/21Resigned


Shikha Dixit Storck Mount Vernon

27


HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY BOARD(3 years - limited to 2 full terms, may be reappointed after 1-year lapse)


VACANT(Formerly held byDave Lucas;appointed 12/10-9/15 by Hyland)Term exp. 6/18Resigned

Provider #2 Representative

Magalie Emile-Backer(Storck)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held by Birgit M. Retson; appointed 2/16-6/17 by K. Smith)Term exp. 6/20Resigned

Consumer #6 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

HISTORY COMMISSION (3 years)[NOTE: The Commission shall include at least one member who is a resident from each supervisor district.] Current Membership:Braddock - 3 Lee - 2 Providence - 1Dranesville - 2 Mason - 1 Springfield - 2Hunter Mill - 3 Mt. Vernon - 2 Sully - 1


VACANT(Formerly held by Deborah Robison; appointed 5/07-11/12 by Frey; 1/06 by K. Smith)Term exp. 12/18Sully District ResidentResigned


Cheryl-Ann B. Repetti(K. Smith)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large


28


HISTORY COMMISSION (3 years)continued


Michael Irwin(Appointed 12/05-12/06 by Connolly; 1/10-4/15 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 12/18Providence District Resident


By Any Supervisor

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held by Naomi D. Zeavin;appointed 1/95 by Trapnell; 1/96-11/13 by Gross)Term exp. 12/16Mason District ResidentResigned

Historian #1 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held byStephanie Sedgwick; appointed 1/18 by Term exp. 12/20Dranesville District ResidentResigned

Historian #3 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Vanessa G. Paul; appointed 11/16 by McKay)Term exp. 9/19Resigned


By Any Supervisor

At-Large


29


HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (3 years)continued


Daoud Khairallah(Appointed 11/05-9/14 by Gross)Term exp. 9/17


By Any Supervisor

At-Large

HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL (4 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Adrienne M. Walters;appointed 3/14 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 7/17Resigned

Providence District #2 Representative

L. Smyth Providence

Audrey F. Morton(Appointed 2/16 by K. Smith)Term exp. 7/19Resigned

Sully District #2 Representative

K. Smith Sully

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ITPAC)(3 years)


Bhaskar Kuppusamy(Appointed 9/11-1/16 by Hudgins)Term exp. 12/18


Sadaqat Ahmad Hudgins Hunter Mill

30


JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL (2 years)


Patience H. Samson(Appointed 1/18 by Bulova)Term exp. 1/19

At-Large Chairman’s Representative

Patience H.Samson

Bulova At-Large Chairman’s

Mingzhi Chen(Appointed 6/16 by Cook)Term exp. 1/19


Cook Braddock

Patricia Smith-Solan(Appointed 1/08-2/17 by Hudgins)Term exp. 1/19


Patricia Smith-Solan

Hudgins Hunter Mill

Joleane Dutzman(Appointed 1/10-1/15 by Hyland; 2/17 by Storck)Term exp. 1/19


Joleane Dutzman Storck Mount Vernon

Caroline Kerns(Appointed 2/02-1/15 by Frey; 1/17 by K. Smith)Term exp. 1/19


Caroline Kerns K. Smith Sully

31


OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON DISTRACTED AND IMPAIRED DRIVING (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by William Uehling;appointed 3/10-7/12 by Bulova)Term exp. 6/15Resigned


Cook Braddock

VACANT(Formerly held by Amy K. Reif; appointed 8/09-6/12 by Foust)Term exp. 6/15Resigned


Foust Dranesville

VACANT(Formerly held by Adam Parnes; appointed 9/03-6/12 by Hudgins)Term exp. 6/15Resigned


Hudgins Hunter Mill

VACANT(Formerly held by Jeffrey Levy;Appointed 7/02-6/13 by Hyland)Term exp. 6/16Resigned

Mount Vernon DistrictRepresentative

Storck Mount Vernon

VACANT(Formerly held by Tina Montgomery;appointed 9/10-6/11 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 6/14Resigned


L. Smyth Providence

32


POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW PANEL (3 Years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Steve Descano; appointed 2/17)Term exp. 2/20Resigned

Seat #3 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

RESTON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARDThe Board of Supervisors established the advisory board on April 4, 2017

There will be 14 members on this advisory board. The appointees would serve for 4-year terms from April 4, 2017


VACANT(Formerly held by Deloris Bailey; appointed 9/17 by Hudgins)Term exp. 9/21Resigned

Hunter Mill District #2 Representative

Hudgins Hunter Mill

NEW POSITION Residential Owners and HOA/Civic Association #1 Representative

Foust orHudgins

At-Large


Foust orHudgins

At-Large


Foust orHudgins

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held by Tyler Aaron Hall; appointed 9/17 by Hudgins)Term exp. 9/21Resigned

Apartment or Rental Owner Associations Representative

Hudgins At-Large

33


ROAD VIEWERS BOARD (1 year)


VACANT(Formerly held by Joseph Bunnell; appointed 9/05-12/06 by McConnell; 2/08-11/13 by Herrity)Term exp. 12/14Resigned


By Any Supervisor

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held by Stephen E. Still; appointed 6/06-12/11 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 12/12Resigned


By Any Supervisor

At-Large

Micah D. Himmel(Appointed 12/11-1/18 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 12/18

At-Large #5Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSION, FAIRFAX COUNTY (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Claire L. Tse; appointed 9/16-12/17 by Hudgins)Term exp. 12/20Resigned

At-Large #2Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

Elizabeth Novak(Appointed 10/05-1/16 by Gross)Term exp. 12/18


Gross Mason


34


SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSION, FAIRFAX COUNTY (3 years)continued


VACANT(Formerly held by Eva Freund; appointed 11/14-12/17 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 12/20Resigned


Nalin Jain L. Smyth Providence

VACANT(Formerly held by Grace Chung Becker; appointed 6/18 by Herrity)Term exp. 12/20Resigned


Robert Kyle McDaniel

Herrity Springfield

SOUTHGATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COUNCIL (2 years)


Emily Huaroco(Appointed 10/16 by Hudgins)Term exp. 3/18

Fairfax County #5 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

TENANT LANDLORD COMMISSION (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Michael Congleton; appointed 7/13-2/17 by Herrity)Term exp. 1/20Resigned

Citizen Member #1 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large


35


TENANT LANDLORD COMMISSION (3 years)continued


Eric Fielding(Appointed 6/15-1/16 by Bulova)Term exp. 12/18

Citizen Member #3 Representative

Eric Fielding(Bulova)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held bySally D. Liff; appointed 8/04-1/11 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 1/14Deceased

Condo Owner Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

Karen Geier-Smith(Appointed 6/06-12/12 by Bulova; 2/16 by Gross)Term exp. 12/18

Landlord Member #1 Representative

Karen Geier-Smith(Gross)

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

Christopher Lee Kocsis (Appointed 3/99-11/00 by Hanley; 1/04-12/06 by Connolly; 12/09-1/16 by Bulova)Term exp. 12/18

Landlord Member #2 Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

VACANT(Formerly held by Angelina Panettieri; appointed 6/11-1/15 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 1/18

Tenant Member #1Representative

By Any Supervisor

At-Large

TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS COMMITTEE (2 years)

COFIRMATION NEEDED:

∑ Mr. Shawn Newman as the Washington Area Bicyclist Association Representative

36


TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION (2 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Micah Himmel;appointed 6/13-7/16 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 6/18Resigned


L. Smyth Providence

TREE COMMISSION (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Thomas D. Fleury;appointed 1/17 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 10/17Resigned


L. Smyth Providence

TYSONS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD(2 YEARS)


VACANT(Formerly held by Molly Peacock;appointed 2/13-1/15 by L. Smyth)Term exp. 2/17Resigned

Providence District Representative #2

L. Smyth Providence

37


WATER AUTHORITY (3 years)


VACANT(Formerly held by Linda Singer; appointed 7/04-6/16 by Hudgins)Term exp. 6/19Resigned


Hudgins Hunter Mill

38


10:30 a.m.

Items Presented by the County Executive

39


ADMINISTRATIVE – 1

Designation of Plans Examiner Status under the Expedited Land Development Review Program

ISSUE:Board of Supervisors’ action to designate two individuals as Plans Examiners to participate in the Expedited Land Development Review Program.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board of Supervisors (the Board) take the following action:

∑ Designate the following individuals identified with their registration numbers, asPlans Examiners:

Osvaldo Anival Ramos 331Frank H. Jett III 332

TIMING:Routine.

BACKGROUND:On August 7, 1989, the Board adopted Chapter 117 (Expedited Land Development Review) of The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (the Code), establishing a Plans Examiner Program under the auspices of an Advisory Plans Examiner Board (APEB). The purpose of the Plans Examiner Program is to expedite the review of site and subdivision plans submitted by certain specially qualified applicants, i.e., Plans Examiners, to Land Development Services.

The Code requires that the Board designate an individual’s status under the Expedited Land Development Review Program.

40


Plans Examiner Status: Candidates for status as Plans Examiners must meet the education and experience requirements contained in Chapter 117. After review of their applications and credentials, the APEB has found that the candidates listed above satisfy these requirements. This finding was documented in a letter dated November 8, 2018, from the Chairman of the APEB, James H. Scanlon, P.E., L.S., to Chairman Bulova.

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment I – Letter dated November 8, 2018, from the Chairman of the APEB to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveWilliam D. Hicks, P.E., Director, Land Development Services

41

Attachment 1

42



Streets into the Secondary System (Dranesville and Springfield Districts)

ISSUE:Board approval of streets to be accepted into the State Secondary System.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the streets listed below be added to the State Secondary System:

Subdivision District Street

Cardinal Estates

Mallory Square

Springfield

Dranesville

Reza Court

Mallory Estate DriveHarrison Garrett Court

TIMING:Routine.

BACKGROUND:Inspection has been made of these streets, and they are recommended for acceptance into the State Secondary System.

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1 – Street Acceptance Forms

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveWilliam D. Hicks, P.E., Director, Land Development Services

43

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - OFFICE OF THE ENGINEERING MANAGER, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA REQUEST TO THE ENGINEERING MANAGER, FOR INCLUSION OF CERTAIN SUBDIVISION STREETS INTO THE STATE OF VIRGINIA SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM.

SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME:

FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FAIRFAX, VA Pursuant to the request to inspect certain streets in the subdivisions as described, the Virginia Department of Transportation has made inspections, and recommends that same be included in the secondary system. COUNTY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:

ENGINEERING MANAGER: Imad A. Salous, P.E.

BY:_________________________________ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DATE OF VDOT INSPECTION APPROVAL:___________________

LOCATION STREET NAME

FROM TO LEN

GTH

M

ILE

TOTALS:NOTES:

Street Acceptance Form For Board Of Supervisors Resolution - June 2005

PLAN NUMBER:

Houda A. Ali, PMP

Nadia Alphonse 10/26/2018

Print Form

Reza Court CL Center Road (Route 777) - 284' SW CL Glen Oaks Court (Route 5968) 382' SE to End of Cul-de-Sac 0.07

0.07

5' Concrete Sidewalk on the South Side to be maintained by VDOT.

Cardinal Estates

Springfield

15444-SD-001

Attachment 1

44

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - OFFICE OF THE ENGINEERING MANAGER, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA REQUEST TO THE ENGINEERING MANAGER, FOR INCLUSION OF CERTAIN SUBDIVISION STREETS INTO THE STATE OF VIRGINIA SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM.

SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME:

FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FAIRFAX, VA Pursuant to the request to inspect certain streets in the subdivisions as described, the Virginia Department of Transportation has made inspections, and recommends that same be included in the secondary system. COUNTY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:

ENGINEERING MANAGER: Imad A. Salous, P.E.

BY:_________________________________ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DATE OF VDOT INSPECTION APPROVAL:___________________

LOCATION STREET NAME

FROM TO LEN

GTH

M

ILE

TOTALS:NOTES:

Street Acceptance Form For Board Of Supervisors Resolution - June 2005

PLAN NUMBER:

Houda A. Ali, PMP

Nadia Alphonse 11/14/2018

Print Form

Mallory Estate Drive CL Inglish Mill Drive (Route 6098) - 249' NE CL Dougal Court (Route 6099) 449' E to CL Harrison Garrett Court 0.09

0.13

Harrison Garrett Court CL Mallory Estate Drive 225' SE to End of Cul-de-Sac 0.04

All sidewalks are located outside the dedicated right-of-way and would be maintained by Fairfax County.

Mallory Square

Dranesville

6951-SD-01

45


ADMINISTRATIVE - 3

Approval of Traffic Calming Measures as Part of the Residential Traffic Administration Program (Dranesville District)

ISSUE:Board endorsement of Traffic Calming measures as part of the Residential Traffic Administration Program (RTAP).

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board endorse the traffic calming plans forIngleside Avenue (Attachment I) and Bellview Road (Attachment II), consisting of the following:

∑ One speed hump on Ingleside Avenue (Dranesville District)∑ Seven speed humps on Bellview Road (Dranesville District)

In addition, the County Executive recommends that the Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) be requested to schedule the installation of the approved traffic calming measure as soon as possible.

TIMING:Board action is requested on January 22, 2019.

BACKGROUND:As part of RTAP, roads are reviewed for traffic calming when requested by a Board member on behalf of a homeowners or civic association. Traffic calming employs the use of physical devices such as speed humps, speed tables, raised pedestriancrosswalks, chokers, median islands, or traffic circles to reduce the speed of traffic on a residential street. Staff performed engineering studies documenting the attainment of qualifying criteria. Staff worked with the local Supervisor’s office and community to determine the viability of the requested traffic calming measure to reduce the speed of traffic. Once the plan for the road under review is approved and adopted by staff, that plan is then submitted for approval to the residents within the ballot area in the adjacent community. FCDOT received verification from the Dranesville District Supervisor’s officeconfirming community support for the above-referenced traffic calming plan on Ingleside Avenue on November 6, 2018, and FCDOT received verification for the above-referenced plan on Bellview Road on November 28, 2018.

46


FISCAL IMPACT:Funding in the amount of $64,000 for the traffic calming measures associated with the projects on Ingleside Avenue and Bellview Road is available in Fund 2G25-076-000, General Fund, under Job Number 40TTCP.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment I: Traffic Calming Plan for Ingleside AvenueAttachment II: Traffic Calming Plan for Bellview Road

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveTom Biesiadny, Director, Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT)Eric Teitelman, Chief, Capital Projects and Traffic Engineering Division, FCDOTNeil Freschman, Chief, Traffic Engineering Section, FCDOTSteven K. Knudsen, Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Section, FCDOTDavid Loss, Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Section, FCDOT

47

Proposed speed hump adjacent to1228, 1231, and 1232 Ingleside Ave.

E LIZAB

ETH DR

DOLLEY MADISON BLVD

FLEETWOOD RDDOLLEY MADISON BLVD LAWSON LNBAKER

CREST CT

CHURCHILL RD

MARTHAJANE ST

ELM ST

BEVERLY RD

SUMMIT RD

RIGBY LN

SAINT ALBANS RD

CAROL RAYE ST

OLD DOMINION DR

ELM ST

HICKORY HILL AVE

CHELSEA RD

MELROSE DR

INGLE

SIDE A

VE

OAK

RIDGE

AVE

Fairfax County Department of TransportationResidential Traffic Administration Program

Proposed Traffic Calming PlanIngleside Avenue

Dranesville District

January 2019Tax Map: 30-2

Ü

0 500250Feet

Attachment I

48

93

Proposed Speed Hump1148, 1163 Bellview Road

Proposed Speed Hump1034 Union Church Roadand 1121 Bellview Road

Proposed Speed Hump1074, 1076 Bellview Road and1170 Windrock Drive

Proposed Speed Hump1175 Windrock Drive andFosters Run Homeowners Association parcel




TOWL

STON RD

CHEQUE RS WAY

OLDTO

LSON

MILL RDBELLVIEW RD

OLD DOMINION DRLEIGH MILL RD

CEDRUS LN

GALIUM CT

UNIO

N CHU

RCH RD

WIND

ROCK

DR

ROCKYRUNRD

BROOK VALLEY LN

Fairfax County Department of TransportationResidential Traffic Administration Program

Proposed Traffic Calming PlanBellview Road

Dranesville District

January 2019Tax Map: 19-2, 19-4, 20-1, 20-3

Ü

0 500 1,000250Feet

Attachment II

49


ADMINISTRATIVE - 4

Authorization to Advertise a Public Hearing to Consider Adopting an Ordinance Expanding the Greenway Downs Residential Permit Parking District, District 13(Providence District)

ISSUE:Board authorization to advertise a public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to Appendix G, of The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (Fairfax County Code), to expand the Greenway Downs Residential Permit Parking District (RPPD), District 13.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board authorize advertisement of a public hearing.

TIMING:The Board should act on January 22, 2019, to advertise a public hearing for February 19, 2019, at 4:00 p.m.

BACKGROUND:Section 82-5A-4(b) of the Fairfax County Code authorizes the Board to establish or expand an RPPD in any residential area of the County if: (1) the Board receives a petition requesting establishment or expansion of an RPPD that contains signatures representing at least 60 percent of the eligible addresses of the proposed District and representing more than 50 percent of the eligible addresses on each block of the proposed District, (2) the proposed District contains a minimum of 100 contiguous or nearly contiguous on-street parking spaces 20 linear feet in length per space, unless the subject area is to be added to an existing district, (3) 75 percent of the land abutting each block within the proposed District is developed residential, and (4) 75 percent of the total number of on-street parking spaces of the petitioning blocks are occupied, and at least 50 percent of those occupied spaces are occupied by nonresidents of the petitioning blocks, as authenticated by a peak-demand survey. In addition, an application fee of $10 per petitioning address is required for the establishment or expansion of an RPPD. In the case of an amendment expanding an existing District, the foregoing provisions apply only to the area to be added to the existing District.

50


On October 10, 2018, a peak parking demand survey was conducted for the requested area. The results of this survey verified that more than 75 percent of the total number of on-street parking spaces of the petitioning blocks were occupied by parked vehicles, and more than 50 percent of those occupied spaces were occupied by nonresidents of the petitioning blocks. All other requirements to expand the RPPD have been met.

FISCAL IMPACT:The cost of sign installation is estimated to be $1,300. It will be paid from Fairfax County Department of Transportation funds.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment I: Proposed Amendment to the Fairfax County CodeAttachment II: Map Depicting Proposed Limits of RPPD Expansion

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveTom Biesiadny, Director, Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT)Eric Teitelman, Chief, Capital Projects and Traffic Engineering Division, FCDOTNeil Freschman, Chief, Traffic Engineering Section, FCDOTHenri Stein McCartney, Senior Transportation Planner, FCDOTCharisse Padilla, Transportation Planner, FCDOT

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Marc E. Gori, Assistant County Attorney

51

Attachment I

Proposed Amendment Amend The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, by adding the following street in Appendix G-13, Section (b)(2), Greenway Downs Residential Permit Parking District, in accordance with Article 5A of Chapter 82: Cameron Road (Route 1714): From the northern property boundaries of 2758 Cameron Road, west side,

and 2757 Cameron Road, east side, to Cavalier Trail Custis Parkway

52

LEE HWY

CAMERON RD

CUSTIS PKWY

SUMMERFIELD RD

GREENWAY BLVD

GEORGE MASON RD

MARSHALL ST

WINCHESTER WAYWASHINGTON ST

CAVALIER TRL

BOLLING RD

CUSTIS PKWY

C-8 C-8

C-5

C-3

Tax Map: 50-2

Tax Map: 50-4

Attachment II

¹

0 250 500125 Feet

FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONRESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT

GREENWAY DOWNS (13)PROVIDENCE DISTRICT

WINCHESTER WAY

CAVA

LIER T

RL

Proposed RPPD Restriction

Existing Greenway Downs RPPD Restriction

53



Extension of Review Period for 2232 Applications (Mount Vernon, Mason, and Providence Districts)

ISSUE:Extension of review period for 2232 applications to ensure compliance with review requirements of Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board extend the review period for the following applications: 2232-V18-23, 2232-M18-22, and 2232-P18-24.

TIMING:Board action is required on January 22, 2019, to extend the review period of the applications noted above before their expiration date.

BACKGROUND:Subsection F of Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia states: “Failure of the commission to act on any such application for a telecommunications facility under subsection A submitted on or after July 1, 1998, within 90 days of such submission shall be deemed approval of the application by the commission unless the governing body has authorized an extension of time for consideration or the applicant has agreed to an extension of time. The governing body may extend the time required for action by the local commission by no more than 60 additional days. If the commission has not acted on the application by the end of the extension, or by the end of such longer period as may be agreed to by the applicant, the application is deemed approved by the commission.” The need for the full time of an extension may not be necessary, and is not intended to set a date for final action.

The review period for the following applications should be extended:

2232-V18-23 T-Mobile8120 McCauley WayLorton, VAMount Vernon DistrictAccepted October 24, 2018Extend to March 23, 2019

54


2232-M18-22 T-Mobile7023 Little River TurnpikeAnnandale, VAMason DistrictAccepted October 26, 2018Extend to March 25, 2019

2232-P18-24 T-Mobile2726 Gallows RoadVienna, VAProvidence DistrictAccepted November 28, 2018Extend to April 27, 2019

FISCAL IMPACT:None

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:None

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveFred R. Selden, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Michelle K. Stahlhut, Chief, Facilities Planning Branch, DPZDouglas W. Hansen, Senior Planner, Facilities Planning Branch, Planning Division, DPZ

55


ADMINISTRATIVE - 6

Authorization to Advertise Public Hearings on a Proposed Amendment to Update Appendix Q (Land Development Services Fee Schedule) of The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (Code) Regarding ePlans and Other Updates

ISSUE:Board of Supervisors (Board) authorization to advertise public hearings on a proposed amendment to Appendix Q of the Code regarding ePlans and other updates. The proposed amendment updates the fee structure, enabling Land Development Services (LDS) to review certain plans electronically, and proposes a technology and digitizationfee, with other minor fee revisions.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board authorize the advertisement of the proposed amendments as set forth in the Staff Report dated January 22, 2019.

The proposed amendments have been prepared by LDS and coordinated with theOffice of the Fire Marshal, the Department of Management and Budget (DMB), and the Office of the County Attorney (OCA).

TIMING:Board action is requested on January 22, 2019, to provide sufficient time to advertise the Planning Commission public hearing on February 20, 2019, at 7:30 p.m., and the Board public hearing on March 19, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. for the proposed amendment to become effective upon adoption.

BACKGROUND:LDS is beginning a new paperless plan (ePlan) review process, which will allowdesignated plan types to be submitted and reviewed electronically. The initial plan types designated for paperless submission are Site Plans (SPs), Site Plan Revisions(SPVs), Minor Site Plans (MSPs), Minor Site Plan Revisions (MSPVs), Commercial Tenant Alteration Building Plans and New Commercial Building Plans.

Over time, all plan reviews will be electronic, which will require different workflows and plan review cycles, ultimately allowing for a more economical, modern, and environmentally-conscious plan review process. The fee structure for building plan

56


reviews already supports this transition to ePlan reviews, however, LDS needs to update the fee structure for site-related plans to enable ePlan reviews. LDS proposes other fee revisions as described below.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT:The proposed amendment updates the LDS fee structure for site-related plans andproposes a new technology fee and a digitization fee related to ePlans and other minor fee revisions. The proposed revisions are as follows:

Updates to the LDS fee structure for site-related plans:

1. The current fee structure for site-related plans is based upon a series of plan submissions and updates being submitted as plan “inserts.” With paper plans, customers pay a fee for each plan submission (i.e., 1st submission, 2nd submission, 3rd submission, and beyond) and $108 per inserted sheet when a full resubmission is not needed. However, for version control, ePlans systems do not allow for insertion of individual sheets, and whole plan sets must be submitted. To account for this, LDS will adjust fees for each plan submission orfor any insert sheets. These fees will be replaced by fees for review cycles, beginning with the Initial Review Cycle Fee. LDS will continue to charge fees in addition to cycle fees, such as those charged for each disturbed acre and each linear foot of public improvement. Assuming the 1st submission requires additional reviews and updates (as is the case with 94% of site plans), then a fee will be charged for the Second Review Cycle (now 55% of the fees assessed at the initial plan submission). All plan comments and issues will then be finalized in the Signature Set Review Cycle, which will require no additional fee. If issues and errors persist beyond Signature Set Review Cycle, then LDS will assess a new fee for every additional review cycle needed to correct major applicant errors and omissions or major applicant changes. An overview of the proposed site plan fee changes is included as Attachment 1 to the Staff Report.

New technology and digitization fees related to ePlans, new landscape deferral application fee and other minor fee revisions:

1. LDS proposes a 4% technology surcharge on all land development applications.This revenue will be deposited into a dedicated project in the Information Technology Fund for the specific purpose of funding future technology improvements for customer access to the County’s land development information systems. LDS benchmarked this fee with neighboring jurisdictions, who charge technology fees averaging 8%. When first implemented, the fee will be applied to all LDS and Fire Marshal fees, but there is potential to expand to other land development permit and inspection fees (i.e., zoning). An estimated $1.8 million

57


is expected to be generated annually by this fee initially. The funds will be directed to a dedicated project in the Information Technology Fund and used to support and/or replace land development technology.

2. LDS proposes charging a digitization fee when customers submit paper plans for plan types in the ePlans system. If a customer chooses to submit a paper plan, LDS will charge the new digitization fee ($0.75 per square foot of paper) to scan and electronically index each plan into the ePlans system. This fee will be assessed on every sheet each time plans (or parts thereof that may be amended) must be resubmitted. No other fees related to inserts or page uploads will be charged. This fee offsets staff time to scan and index each sheet. An estimated $0.1 million is expected to be generated annually by this fee.

3. LDS proposes a new fee for processing landscape deferral applications as shown in Attachment A. This fee offsets staff time to process the landscape deferral and encourages customers to submit complete deferral applications to avoid multiple fees. An estimated $6,000 is expected to be generated annually by this fee.

4. LDS proposes editorial changes to Appendix Q to adjust some inspection fees.

Attachment A (the Staff Report) includes the proposed fee changes to Appendix Q.

REGULATORY IMPACT:The proposed amendment updates Appendix Q of the Code to restructure the site-related fees, enabling LDS to review certain plans electronically. The initial plan types designated for paperless submission are SPs, SPVs, MSPs, MSPVs, Commercial Tenant Alteration Building Plans and New Commercial Building Plans. The building plan fee structure already supports this transition, but the site-related plans fees need restructuring. Overall, the proposed restructuring encourages site-related plan approval in two review cycles with no insert fees as follows:

∑ Initial Review Cycle – Adjusted Base Fee – Fee varies per plan type∑ Second Review Cycle – Now 55% of the Fees Assessed at the Initial

Submission of Plan∑ Third Review Cycle – Signature Set of Plans – $0∑ Additional Review Cycles if Needed – Flat Fee

In addition, this amendment proposes a new fee for landscape deferral applications, a new digitization fee charged when paper plans are submitted for an LDS-specified

58


electronic plan submission, and a technology surcharge for all LDS and Fire Marshal transactions. The amendment also makes minor changes in Appendix Q.This amendment will allow for the eventual transition to ePlans for all plans submitted to LDS. The ePlans system promotes better communication and collaboration among stakeholders, offering real-time status updates and increased transparency. Using ePlans ends the time-consuming and costly practice of printing and distributing heavy plans to multiple reviewing agencies—distribution happens simultaneously in the cloud. It will save review time, because multiple agencies can review plans simultaneously.Customers will have 24/7 access to the ePlans review process. Finally, use of ePlans will eliminate the need for scanning final plans for long-term records retention.

FISCAL IMPACT:The shift towards ePlans supports the overall plan submission and approval process, keeping focus on a reasonable and predictable time to market. As such, the fees associated with some submissions and inserts are being eliminated and replaced with fees based on review cycles, with every effort being made to ensure that there will be no additional financial impact on customers and no negative revenue impact on the County.

The site-related plan fee changes present no fiscal impact to the county as fees have been calculated to ensure that the changes are revenue-neutral. The proposed amendments will not require any additional staff to implement. Staff processing time will generally be reduced. Extensive analysis has been performed to ensure that the overall financial impact on customers submitting plans is negligible. LDS will monitor the ePlans fees each year to ensure neutral revenue.

In terms of the new fees, additional annual revenue of $1.9 million is projected and summarized below:

Fee Amount UseDigitization Fee $100,000 General FundTechnology Surcharge $1,800,000 Information

Technology FundLandscape Application Fee $6,000 General Fund

TOTAL $1,906,000

The digitization fee has been calculated to cover the staff and technology costs associated with scanning, uploading and indexing paper plans for entry into the electronic plan review system. Approximately $100,000 is projected to be generated annually by this fee.

59


The technology surcharge of 4% is projected to generate approximately $1.8 million annually, which will be directed to a dedicated project in the Information Technology Fund. This fund will be accessed only to fund future improvements to the land development customer-facing technology.The landscape application fee will have a minimal financial impact on the County and will generally cover the costs associated with staff processing, reviewing and approving these applications. Approximately $6,000 is projected to be generated annually by this fee. The minor editorial fee changes will have minimal financial impact on customers and the County.

Upon Board approval, staff will work with the Department of Management and Budget to make the appropriate budgetary adjustments.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment A – Staff Report dated January 22, 2019

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveWilliam D. Hicks, P.E., Director, LDS Eleanor K. Codding, Director, Code Development and Compliance Division, LDSMichael R. Peter, Finance Director, LDSJohn S. Butler, Fire Chief, Fire and Rescue Department

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Marc Gori, Assistant County Attorney, OCA

60

ATTACHMENT A

Page 1 of 5

LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 22, 2019

STAFF REPORT PREPARED BY CODE DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLIANCE

PROPOSED COUNTY CODE AMENDMENT

PROPOSED PFM AMENDMENT

PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE

AMENDMENT

APPEAL OF DECISION

WAIVER REQUEST

Proposed Amendment to Update Appendix Q (Land Development Services Fee Schedule) of The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia Regarding ePlans and Other Updates

PUBLIC HEARING DATES

Authorization to Advertise: January, 22, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing: February, 20, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. Board of Supervisors Hearing: March, 19, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. Prepared By: Thakur Dhakal, Engineer IV Site Code Research and Development

(703) 324-2992 Michael Peter, Finance Director Financial Management Branch (703) 324-1848

61

ATTACHMENT A

Page 2 of 5

STAFF REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors (Board) adopt the proposed amendment to Appendix Q (Land Development Fee Schedule) of the Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (Code) regarding ePlans and other updates. DISCUSSION Land Development Services (LDS) is beginning a new paperless plan (ePlan) review process, which will allow designated plan types to be submitted and reviewed electronically. The initial plan types designated for paperless submission are Site Plans (SPs), Site Plan Revisions (SPVs), Minor Site Plans (MSPs), Minor Site Plan Revisions (MSPVs), Commercial Tenant Alteration Building Plans and New Commercial Building Plans. Over time, all plan reviews will be electronic, which will require different workflows and plan review cycles, ultimately allowing for a more economical, modern, and environmentally-conscious plan review process. The fee structure for building plan reviews already supports this transition to ePlan reviews, however, LDS needs to update the fee structure for site-related plans to enable ePlan reviews. LDS proposes other fee revisions as described below. Updates to the LDS fee structure for site-related plans:

• The current fee structure for site-related plans is based upon a series of plan submissions and updates being submitted as plan “inserts.” With paper plans, customers pay a fee for each plan submission (i.e., 1st submission, 2nd submission, 3rd submission, and beyond) and $108 per inserted sheet when a full resubmission is not needed. However, for version control, ePlans systems do not allow for insertion of individual sheets, and whole plan sets must be submitted. To account for this, LDS will adjust fees for each plan submission or for any insert sheets. These fees will be replaced by fees for review cycles, beginning with the Initial Review Cycle Fee. LDS will continue to charge fees in addition to cycle fees, such as those charged for each disturbed acre and each linear foot of public improvement. Assuming the 1st submission requires additional reviews and updates (as is the case with 94% of site plans), then a fee will be charged for the Second Review Cycle (now 55% of the fees assessed at the initial plan submission). All plan comments and issues will then be finalized in the Signature Set Review Cycle, which will require no additional fee. If issues and errors persist beyond Signature Set Review Cycle, then LDS will assess a new fee for every additional review cycle needed to correct major applicant errors and omissions or major applicant changes. An overview of the proposed site plan fee changes is included as Attachment 1.

62

ATTACHMENT A

Page 3 of 5

New technology and digitization fees related to ePlans, new landscape deferral application fee and other minor fee revisions:

• LDS proposes a 4% technology surcharge on all land development applications. This revenue will be deposited into a dedicated project in the Information Technology Fund for the specific purpose of funding future technology improvements for customer access to the County’s land development information systems. LDS benchmarked this fee with neighboring jurisdictions, who charge technology fees averaging 8%. When first implemented, the fee will be applied to all LDS and Fire Marshal fees, but there is potential to expand to other land development permit and inspection fees (i.e., zoning). An estimated $1.8 million is expected to be generated annually by this fee initially. The funds will be directed to a dedicated project in the Information Technology Fund and used to support and/or replace land development technology.

• LDS proposes charging a digitization fee when customers submit paper plans for

plan types in the ePlans system. If a customer chooses to submit a paper plan, LDS will charge the new digitization fee ($0.75 per square foot of paper) to scan and electronically index each plan into the ePlans system. This fee will be assessed on every sheet each time plans (or parts thereof that may be amended) must be resubmitted. No other fees related to inserts or page uploads will be charged. This fee offsets staff time to scan and index each sheet. An estimated $0.1 million is expected to be generated annually by this fee.

• LDS proposes a new fee for processing landscape deferral applications. This fee offsets staff time to process the landscape deferral and encourages customers to submit complete deferral applications to avoid multiple fees. An estimated $6,000 is expected to be generated annually by this fee.

• LDS proposes editorial changes to Appendix Q to adjust some inspection fees. Attachment 2 includes the proposed fee changes to Appendix Q. REGULATORY IMPACT The proposed amendment updates Appendix Q of the Code to restructure the site-related fees, enabling LDS to review certain plans electronically. The initial plan types designated for paperless submission are SPs, SPVs, MSPs, MSPVs, Commercial Tenant Alteration Building Plans and New Commercial Building Plans. The building plan fee structure already supports this transition, but the site-related plans fees need restructuring. Overall, the proposed restructuring encourages site-related plan approval in two review cycles with no insert fees as follows:

63

ATTACHMENT A

Page 4 of 5

o Initial Review Cycle – Adjusted Base Fee – Fee varies per plan type o Second Review Cycle – Now 55% of the Fees Assessed at the Initial

Submission of Plan o Third Review Cycle – Signature Set of Plans – $0 o Additional Review Cycles if Needed – Flat Fee

In addition, this amendment proposes a new fee for landscape deferral applications, a new digitization fee charged when paper plans are submitted for an LDS-specified electronic plan submission and a technology surcharge for all LDS and Fire Marshal transactions. The amendment also makes minor changes in Appendix Q. This amendment will allow for the eventual transition to ePlans for all plans submitted to LDS. The ePlans system promotes better communication and collaboration among stakeholders, offering real-time status updates and increased transparency. Using ePlans ends the time-consuming and costly practice of printing and distributing heavy plans to multiple reviewing agencies—distribution happens instantaneously in the cloud. It will save time, because multiple agencies can review plans simultaneously. Customers will have 24/7 access to the ePlans review process. Finally, use of ePlans eliminates the need for scanning final plans for long-term records retention. FISCAL IMPACT The shift towards ePlans supports the overall plan submission and approval process, keeping focus on a reasonable and predictable time to market. As such, the fees associated with some submissions and inserts are being eliminated and replaced with fees based on review cycles, with every effort being made to ensure that there will be no additional financial impact on customers and no negative revenue impact on the County. The site-related plan fee changes present no fiscal impact to the county as fees have been calculated to ensure that the changes are revenue-neutral. The proposed amendments will not require any additional staff to implement. Staff processing time will generally be reduced. Extensive analysis has been performed to ensure that the overall financial impact on customers submitting plans is negligible. LDS will monitor the ePlans fees each year to ensure neutral revenue. In terms of the new fees, additional annual revenue of $1.9 million is projected and summarized below:

Fee Amount Use Digitization Fee $100,000 General Fund Technology Surcharge $1,800,000 Information

Technology Fund Landscape Application Fee $6,000 General Fund

TOTAL $1,906,000

64

ATTACHMENT A

Page 5 of 5

The digitization fee has been calculated to cover the staff and technology costs associated with scanning, uploading and indexing paper plans for entry into the electronic plan review system. Approximately $100,000 is projected to be generated annually by this fee. The technology surcharge of 4% is projected to generate approximately $1.8 million annually, which will be directed to a dedicated project in the Information Technology Fund. This fund will be accessed only to fund future improvements to the land development customer-facing technology. The landscape application fee will have a minimal financial impact on the County and will generally cover the costs associated with staff processing, reviewing and approving these applications. Approximately $6,000 is projected to be generated annually by this fee. The minor editorial fee changes will have minimal financial impact on customers and the County. Upon Board approval, staff will work with the Department of Management and Budget to make the appropriate budgetary adjustments. ATTACHED DOCUMENTS Attachment 1 – Overview of the Proposed Site Plan Fee Changes Attachment 2 – Amendment to Appendix Q (Land Development Services Fee Schedule)

65

Attachment 1 - Overview of Proposed Site Plan Fee Changes

Current Fees

Proposed

Fees (ePlan

and Paper)

Proposed

Change

% Difference

for Base Fee

1st Submission 8,755$ $9,806 $1,050 12%

Inserts 108$ $0 ($108)

Revisions 1,270$ $1,346 $76 6%

2nd Submission 50% of First 55% of First

3rd Submission 5,604$ $0 ($5,604)

4th Submission & Beyond 5,604$ $6,000 $396 7%

Minor Site Plans

First Submission 3,422$ $3,901 $479 14%

Inserts 108$ $0 ($108)

Revisions 678$ $719 $41 6%

2nd Submission 3,422$ 55% of First ($1,276) -37%

3rd Submission 3,422$ $0 ($3,422)


Subdivision Plans

First Submission 5,796$ $6,955 $1,159 20%

Inserts 108$ $0 ($108)

Revisions 1,270$ $1,346 $76 6%

2nd Submission 50% of First 55% of First

3rd Submission 5,604$ $0 ($5,604)


Grading Plans (Non-Bonded) - 1st Lot INF

First Submission 1,685$ $1,921 $236 14%

Inserts 108$ $0 ($108)

Revisions 678$ $712 $34 5%

2nd Submission 678$ 55% of First $379 56%

3rd Submission 678$ $0 ($678)

4th Submission & Beyond 678$ $700 $22 3%

Site Plan Type

Site Plans

LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

ePlan Recommendation for Fees

Site Plans and Minor Site Plans

Proposed Fee Changes

Average $1,434/17%

Average $1,357/19%

Page 1 of 2

66

Attachment 1 - Overview of Proposed Site Plan Fee Changes

Current Fees

Proposed

Fees (ePlan

and Paper)

Proposed

Change

% Difference

for Base FeeSite Plan Type

Proposed Fee Changes

Rough Grading Plans - Per Division or Disturbed Acre

First Submission 792$ $903 $111 14%

Inserts 108$ $0 ($108)

Revisions 25% of First $500 $0

2nd Submission 25% of First 55% of First $299 151%

3rd Submission 25% of First $0 ($1,087)

4th Submission & Beyond 25% of First $900 $0

PI Plans

First Submission 4,223$ $3,843 ($380) -9%

Inserts 108$ $0 ($108)

Revisions 1,270$ $1,346 $76 6%

2nd Submission -$ 55% of First

3rd Submission 50% of First $0

4th Submission & Beyond $2,500 $2,500

Average ($4,067)

Average $2,310

Page 1 of 2

67

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1 of 8

Proposed Amendment to

Appendix Q (Land Development Services Fee Schedule) of

The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia

Amend the Table of Contents, where insertions are underlined, to read as follows:

This fee schedule establishes the fees charged, by Land Development Services and the Fire Marshal, for building and site development activities pursuant to the authority granted by §§ 15.2-2241(A)(9), 15.2-2286(A)(6), 62.1-44.15:54(J), 36-98.3, 36-105, 62.1-44.15:28(A) and 62.1-44.15:29 of the Code of Virginia and Chapters 2 (Property Under County Control), 61 (Building Provisions), 64 (Mechanical Provisions), 65 (Plumbing and Gas Provisions), 66 (Electrical Provisions), 101 (Subdivision Ordinance), 104 (Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance), 112 (Zoning Ordinance), and 124 (Stormwater Management Ordinance) of the Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (the Code). (34-17-Q)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Building Development Fees Page

A. Standard Fees 2

B. Building Permit and Other Fees 3

C. Mechanical Permit Fees 5

D. Electrical Permit Fees 8

E. Plumbing Permit Fees 12

F. Household Appliance Permit Fees 12

G. Vertical Transportation Permit Fees 12

H. Fire Prevention Division (Fire Marshal) Fees 14

I. Amusement Device Permit Fee 15

J. Building and Fire Prevention Code Modifications and Local Board of

Building Code Appeals Fees

15

II. Site Development Fees

A. Plan and Document Review Fees 15

B. Bonding and Agreement Fees 20

C. Site Inspection Fees 20

68

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 2 of 8

D. Fire Prevention Division (Fire Marshal) Fees 22

E. Site Permit Fees 22

F. Waiver, Exception, Modification and Exemption Fees 23

G. Permits for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activity Fees 27

III. Miscellaneous Fees 29

Amend Part II (Site Development Fees), Section A (Plan and Document Review Fees), Subsection B (Subdivision Plans, Site Plans, and Site Plans for Public Improvements Only), Paragraphs 1- 5, where insertions are underlined and deletions are struck, to read as follows:

(B) Subdivision Plans, Site Plans, and Site Plans for Public Improvements Only:

The following schedule shall be used to tabulate the fees for review of subdivision and site plans, and site plans for public improvements only.

1. Base Fee:

Subdivision Plans

1st submission Review Cycle $5,796.00 $6,955.00

Site Plans


Site Plans and Subdivision Plans Additional fee per disturbed acre or any fraction thereof

$1,061.00

The maximum base fee (as part of the initial review cycle) is as follows:

For Subdivision Plans $17,862.00

For Site Plans $59,526.00

Site pPlans for public improvements only including sanitary sewer, trail, sidewalk, storm sewer, channel improvements, waterline, and/or road construction pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Code.


69

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 3 of 8

2. Fees in addition to base fees (Due only with First Review Cycle):

Site Plan and Subdivision Plan Additional fee per disturbed acre or any fraction thereof

1,060.80

Site Plans for the following public improvements only including sanitary sewer, trail, sidewalk, storm sewer, channel improvements, waterline, and/or road construction pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Code.

Additional fee per linear foot or fraction thereof, of each improvement

$1.45

Additional plan review, as a result of an approved zoning action associated with the proposed construction to include the following,

with a maximum cumulative fee of

$4,158.00

Sites subject to rezoning $2,442.00

Sites subject to special exception $1,713.60

Sites subject to special permit $1,713.60

Sites subject to variance $1,269.60

Review resulting from site conditions and proposed improvements

SWM/BMP facility, for each facility serving the site (on or off-site), except as noted,

with a maximum cumulative fee of

$7,500.00

♦ Constructed Wetland or Ponds $3,200.00

♦ Bioretention Basin or Filter, Infiltration Facility, Filtering Practice1, Innovative BMP2, or Detention-Only Facility3

$1,900.00

♦ Dry Swale, Wet Swale, or Grass Channel (per linear foot),

with a minimum of

$5.00

$1,500.00

♦ Rainwater Harvesting System, per square foot of collection area,

with a minimum of

$0.12

$1,900.00

♦ Permeable Pavement, Vegetated Roof, per square foot of surface

with a minimum of

$0.12

$1,500.00

♦ Manufactured BMP4, Micro- or Urban Bioretention5 $1,200.00

♦ Rooftop Disconnection, for each building served $500.00

70

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 4 of 8

♦ Sheet Flow to Vegetated Filter Strip or Conserved Open Space, Soil Amendments, Reforestation, flat fee per plan

$500.00

Floodplain area (existing and proposed) $856.80

Natural drainage way (non-floodplain watersheds) $856.80

Problem soils (area with soil types A or B, per the official map adopted by the Board or as deemed by the Director)

$1,269.60

Footnotes;

1. Filtering practices include facilities such as sand filters. 2. BMPs not on the Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse approved list or listed with a Pilot Use Designation or Conditional Use Designation.

3. Vaults or other underground storage systems providing detention only. No ponds. 4. Includes proprietary devices. 5. Includes residential rain gardens, urban stormwater planters, expanded tree pits, and stormwater curb extensions.

3. Resubmissions Additional Review Cycles:

2nd submission Review Cycle Ffee: fee tabulated at as a percentage of all fees due at initial

submission the first submission (Base Ffee + all other associated fees assessed in accordance with (B1) and (B2)

above).

Percentage of the Original all F

fees

50.00%

55.00%

Plus, additional fees charged in accordance (B1) and (B2) above for changes in the amount of disturbed area, zoning action, site conditions, and/or proposed improvements from that indicated on the first submission review cycle.

Tabulated Fee

The maximum combined first and second submission base fees:

For subdivision plans $15,907.20

For site plans $56,772.00

Signature Set Review Cycle (formerly 3rd Submission): Site Plans, Subdivision Plans, and Site Plans with public improvements only

$0.00

71

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 5 of 8

Resubmission site and subdivision plan after 2nd submission, per submission Additional review cycles if Signature Set Review Cycle is not approved; per review cycle (does not apply to site plans with public improvements only)

$5,604.00 $6,000.00

2nd submission fee for site plans with public improvements only, per submission

$0.00

Resubmissions after 2nd submission Additional review cycles for site plans with public improvements only, if Signature Set Review Cycle is not approved; per review cycle, per submission: fee tabulated at a percentage of the first submission fee in accordance with (B1) and (B2) above.

Percentage of the Original Fee

50.00% $2,500.00

4. Revisions:

Fee, per submission $1,269.60 $1,346.00

Plus, additional fees charged in accordance with (B1) and (B2) above for changes in the disturbed area, zoning action, site conditions, and/or proposed improvements from that indicated on the original approved plan.

Tabulated Fee

5. Plan extensions (redate), per request $1,713.60

Amend Part II (Site Development Fees), Section A (Plan and Document Review Fees), Subsection C (Minor Site Plans and Grading Plans), Paragraphs 1- 5, where insertions are underlined and deletions are struck, to read as follows:

(C) Minor Site Plans and Grading Plans:

1. Minor Site Plans, per submission $3,422.40

1st Review Cycle $3,901.00

2nd Review Cycle Percentage of the 1st Review Cycle Fee

55.00%

Signature Set Review Cycle (Formerly 3rd Submission) $0.00

Additional review cycles if Signature Set Review Cycle is not approved; per review cycle

$3,750.00

72

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 6 of 8

Revisions; per submission $719.00

2. Grading plans for building permits on existing lots within a subdivision currently bonded with the County:

1st submission, first lot $1,269.60

Each additional lot within the same subdivision submitted within the same plan set

$1,054.80

Resubmissions and revisions, first lot $432.00

Each additional lot within the same subdivision submitted within the same plan set

$222.00

3. Grading plans for building permits on existing lots that are not within a subdivision currently bonded with the County and parcels with lots of 5 acres or more, per infill lot:

1st submission, per infill lot Review Cycle $1,685.00 $1,921.00

2nd Review Cycle Percentage of the 1st Review Cycle Fee

55.00%



$700.00

Resubmissions and rRevisions, per submission infill lot $678.00 $712.00

4. Rough grading plan (RGP) and filling parcels:

1st submission Review Cycle, per division of land or disturbed acre, or fraction thereof, whichever amount is greater

Not to Exceed

$792.00 $903.00

$14,622.00 $16,671.00

2nd Review Cycle Percentage of the 1st Review Cycle

Fee

55.00%


73

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 7 of 8


$900.00

Resubmissions and rRevisions, per submission Percentage of the Original Fee

25.00% $500.00

5. Conservation plan without a grading plan, per submission $1,208.40

Amend Part II (Site Development Fees), Section A (Plan and Document Review Fees), Subsection E (Miscellaneous Fees), where insertions are underlined and deletions are struck, to read as follows:

(E) Miscellaneous fees:

Sheet substitution (insert): fee paid prior to plan approval of any insert sheet to a study, report, plan or waiver.

$108.00

Lot Validation Application $444.00

Landscape Deferral Application $108.00

Amend Part II (Site Development Fees), Section C (Site Inspection Fees), Subsection B (Fees in Addition to the Base Fee), Paragraph 1 (Public Utility Fees), where insertions are underlined and deletions are struck, to read as follows:

(B) Fees in Addition to the Base Fee:

1. Public Utility Fees:

Storm drainage

Base fee for the first 100 linear feet $1,862.40

For each additional linear foot or fraction thereof $4.02

Stormwater management ponds

Embankment less than or equal to 6 feet high $1,856.40

Embankment greater than 6 feet high $3,699.60

Dedicated streets

For the first 556 350 square yards $2,601.60

For each additional square yard or fraction thereof $1.94 $3.04

Private streets

74

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 8 of 8

For the first 556 350 square yards $2,110.80

For each additional square yard or fraction thereof $1.57 $2.46

Other paved area, per square yard or fraction thereof $1.92

Driveway entrances, for each entrance $194.40

Pedestrian walkways/trails

♦ For the first 56 50 square yards $446.40

♦ For each additional square yard or fraction thereof $4.00

Sanitary sewer systems

Base fee for the first 100 linear feet of main $2,594.40

For each additional linear foot or fraction thereof $8.40

Add Part III (Miscellaneous Fees), to read as follows:

III. MISCELLANEOUS FEES

The following fees must be paid to the County incidental to the Building and Site Development Fees identified in Parts I and II above. Fees must be paid in conjunction with the submission of the related plan, permit or application for processing.

Digitization Fee per square foot of paper plan for each paper submission for an ePlan designated plan type

$0.75

Technology Surcharge Percentage of each transaction

4.00%

Sheet substitution (insert): fee paid before plan approval of any insert sheet to a study, report, plan, or waiver.

$108.00

75


ACTION – 1

Approval of the Board of Supervisors’ Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019 and Authorization for the Chairman to Postpone a Scheduled Meeting in the Event of Weather or Other Hazardous Conditions

ISSUE:Board approval of its meeting schedule for January through December 2019.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board (1) approve the Board meeting schedule for January through December 2019 and (2) authorize the Chairman to defer any scheduled meeting to the Tuesday following a scheduled Board meeting if the Chairman, or the Vice Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, finds and declares that the weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for members to attend.

TIMING:Immediate. Virginia law requires the Board to adopt its regular schedule of meetings for calendar year 2019 at the first meeting in January.

BACKGROUND:Previously, on July 10, 2018, staff presented the Board with a preliminary meeting schedule for calendar year 2019 for planning purposes, but Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416 requires the governing body of each county to establish the days, times, and places of its regular meetings at the annual meeting, which is the first meeting of the year. For that reason, the meeting schedule for calendar year 2019 is being presented to the Board again for formal approval. Scheduled meetings may be adjourned and reconvened as the Board may deem necessary, and the Board may schedule additional meetings or adjust the schedule of meetings approved at the annual meeting, after notice required by Virginia law, as the need may rise.

In addition, Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416 authorizes the Board to fix the day or days to which a regular meeting shall be continued if the Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for members to attend a regularly scheduled meeting. If those provisions are made, then all hearings and other matters previously advertised for that date shall be conducted at the continued meeting. In order to take advantage of that authority in such an emergency, staff recommends that the Board

76


also authorize the Chairman to continue any scheduled meeting to the following Tuesday when weather or other conditions make attendance hazardous. In that circumstance, the Board then would consider the agenda for that rescheduled meeting on that following Tuesday without further advertisement.

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENT:Attachment 1 – Proposed Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2019Attachment 2 – Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416Attachment 3 – Proposed Resolution Adopting Meeting Schedule and Authorizing the

Chairman to Reschedule a Meeting in an Emergency


77

ATTACHMENT 1

2019 Board of Supervisors Meeting Schedule

____________________________________________________

2019 Tuesday Dates for Board Committee Meetings(Listed below are Tuesday dates that would be available for scheduling

of Board Committee meetings in 2019)

January 15 June 18 January 29 July 9 February 12 July 23 February 26 September 10 March 12 September 17 March 26 October 8 April 2 October 22 May 14 November 26 June 4 December 10

The Legislative Committee of the Board meets on Fridays at 4 p.m. during the General Assembly session. Those dates for 2019 are: January 18, January 25, February 1, February 8, February 15, and March 1. The Budget pre mark-up meeting is scheduled on Friday, April 26.

January 22, 2019 June 11, 2019 February 5, 2019 June 25, 2019 February 19, 2019 July 16, 2019 March 5, 2019 July 30, 2019 March 19, 2019 September 24, 2019 April 9, 2019

• 9:30 to 4:00 p.m. Board Meeting• 4:00 p.m. Budget Public Hearing

October 15, 2019

April 10 – April 11, 2019 • 1:00 p.m. – Budget Public Hearings

October 29, 2019

April 30, 2019 (Budget Markup) November 19, 2019

May 7, 2019 December 3, 2019

May 21, 2019

78

Code of VirginiaTitle 15.2. Counties, Cities and TownsChapter 14. Governing Bodies of Localities

§ 15.2-1416. Regular meetingsThe governing body shall assemble at a public place as the governing body may prescribe, inregular session in January for counties and in July for cities and towns. Future meetings shall beheld on such days as may be prescribed by resolution of the governing body but in no event shallless than six meetings be held in each fiscal year.

The days, times and places of regular meetings to be held during the ensuing months shall beestablished at the first meeting which meeting may be referred to as the annual or organizationalmeeting; however, if the governing body subsequently prescribes any public place other than theinitial public meeting place, or any day or time other than that initially established, as a meetingday, place or time, the governing body shall pass a resolution as to such future meeting day,place or time. The governing body shall cause a copy of such resolution to be posted on the doorof the courthouse or the initial public meeting place and inserted in a newspaper having generalcirculation in the county or municipality at least seven days prior to the first such meeting atsuch other day, place or time. Should the day established by the governing body as the regularmeeting day fall on any legal holiday, the meeting shall be held on the next following regularbusiness day, without action of any kind by the governing body.

At its annual meeting the governing body may fix the day or days to which a regular meetingshall be continued if the chairman or mayor, or vice-chairman or vice-mayor if the chairman ormayor is unable to act, finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it ishazardous for members to attend the regular meeting. Such finding shall be communicated to themembers and the press as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previouslyadvertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement is required.

Regular meetings may be adjourned from day to day or from time to time or from place to place,not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting, until the business before the governingbody is completed. Notice of any regular meeting continued under this section shall bereasonable under the circumstances and be given as provided in subsection D of § 2.2-3707.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, any city or town that holds an organizationalmeeting in compliance with its charter or code shall be deemed to be in compliance with thissection.

Code 1950, § 15-241; 1950, p. 8; 1954, c. 286; 1958, c. 291; 1960, c. 33; 1962, cc. 218, 623, § 15.1-536; 1964, c. 403; 1980, c. 420; 1994, cc. 371, 591;1997, c. 587;2004, c. 549;2017, c. 616.

The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this sectionmay not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whoseprovisions have expired.

1 12/17/2018

ATTACHMENT 2

79

http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/2.2-3707/

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?941+ful+CHAP0371








ATTACHMENT 3

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019 AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO RESCHEDULE

A MEETING IN THE EVENT OF WEATHER OR OTHER HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS

At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, held in the Board Auditorium of the Government Center at Fairfax, Virginia, on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, at which meeting a quorum was present and voting, the following resolution was adopted:

WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416 requires the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, to assemble at its first meeting in January to adopt a schedule of the days, times, and places of its regular meetings in calendar year 2019; and

WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416 authorizes the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, to fix the day or days to which a regularly scheduled meeting shall be continued if the Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for members to attend the regular meeting;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County:

1. During Calendar Year 2019, the Board of Supervisors will meet in the BoardAuditorium at 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia, on January 22, February 5, February 19, March 5, March 19, April 9, April 10, April 11, April 30, May 7, May 21, June 11, June 25, July 16, July 30, September 24, October 15, October 29, November 19, and December 3;

2. All such meetings shall generally begin at 9:30 a.m. except that the Boardmeetings on April 10 and 11 begin at 1 p.m.; and

3. If the Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, findsand declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for members to attend a regularly scheduled meeting, then that meeting shall be postponed and conducted on the following Tuesday and all hearings and other matters shall be conducted at that time without further advertisement of hearings and other matters previously advertised. Notice of the rescheduled meeting must be given to the public in a manner reasonable under the circumstances, and contemporaneous with notice given to Board members.

A Copy - Teste:

___________________________ Catherine A. Chianese Clerk to the Board of Supervisors

80


ACTION - 2

Approval of a Vacation of a Parking Reduction for Fallfax Shopping Center (ProvidenceDistrict)

ISSUE:Board approval to vacate a previously-approved parking reduction and terminate the associated agreement for Fallfax Shopping Center located on Tax Map 49-2-((09))-1B, 1C, 2, 2A, 2B, 3.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board vacate the previously-approved parking reduction for the Fallfax Shopping Center and approve the termination of the associated parking reduction agreement.

TIMING:Board action is requested on January 22, 2019.

BACKGROUND:A parking reduction for Fallfax Shopping Center (#5761-PKS-003-1), located at Lee Highway (Route 29) and Fallfax Drive, was approved by the Board on March 15, 2016. This reduction was approved pursuant to Paragraph 4B, Section 11-102, Chapter 112 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, which allows shared parking based on the peaking characteristics of the site uses. The County and the shopping center owner executed a parking agreement memorializing the Board-approved reduction on May 5, 2016.

On January 24, 2018, the Board amended the Zoning Ordinance to modify the parking requirements for restaurant uses in shopping centers. These changes allow restaurant uses that are less than 5,000 gross square feet in shopping centers to provide parking in conformance with the rates associated with the entire shopping center.

On May 3, 2018, the Fallfax Shopping Center owner requested an amendment to the parking reduction to allow a craft beverage production establishment to occupy retail space in the shopping center. In evaluating this proposal, County staff determined that the proposed establishment requires less parking supply than the previous use occupying the space, and less parking is required for the two existing restaurants located in the shopping center consistent with the new parking rates for restaurants. The shopping center and the office use located in the center require 145 spaces instead of the 160 parking spaces that are currently required under the existing parking

81


reduction and agreement. Therefore, the previously approved parking reduction is no longer required, it should be vacated and the associated parking reduction agreement should be terminated. The owner of the shopping center provided a letter dated November 28, 2018, (Attachment A) acknowledging and agreeing to the termination of the agreement. The amount of parking provided and required is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Provided and Required Parking

Land Use Rate Number of Parking Spaces to be Provided

Previous Minimum Required Number of

Spaces(Based on 2016

Approved Reduction)

Current Minimum Required Number

of Spaces

Shopping Center

26,466 Square Feet of Gross

Floor Area (SF of GFA)

4.3 spaces per 1000

SF of GFA160 160

114

Office

8,500 SF of GFA

3.6 spacesper 1000

SF of GFA31

Total 160 160 145

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment A – Letter from Property Owner Acknowledging and Agreeing to

Termination of the Parking Reduction AgreementAttachment B – Approved and Recorded Parking Reduction

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveWilliam D. Hicks, P.E., Director, Land Development Services (LDS)Eleanor Ku Codding, Director, Code Development and Compliance, LDSMichael Davis, Parking Program Manager, Site Code Research and Development, LDS

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Marc Gori, Assistant County Attorney

82

ATTACHMENT A

ATTORNEYS

2311 WILSON BOULEVARD SUITE 500

ARLINGTON. VA 22201

PHONE 703.525.4000 FAX 703 525.2207

Zachary G. Williams, Esq. Admitted: VA, MD, and DC [email protected]

November 28, 2018

VIA E-MAIL ONLY Michael Davis Parking Program Manager Site Code Research & Development Branch Land Development Services 12055 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax. Fairfax, Virginia 22035 [email protected]

Re: Authorization to Vacate Parking Reduction Agreement 7630-7648 Lee Highway, 2822-28308 Fallfax Drive, Falls Church, VA 22042 Tax Map #: 49-2-((09))-0001B, 0001C, 0002, 0002A, 0002B, 0003

Dear Mr. Davis:

On behalf of our client, Fallfax Center Associates, LLC, I am writing to authorize Fairfax County staff to request that the Board of Supervisors vacate the recently-approved parking reduction agreement for the above-referenced property located at 7630-7648 Lee Highway and 2822-2830B Fallfax Drive, Falls Church, VA 22042 (the "Property"). The approved parking reduction agreement is attached as Exhibit I. Following vacation of the parking reduction agreement, the Property will then be subject to the by-right parking requirements in the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance.

Please let us know if you have any questions or require any further information. You may reach me at 703-525-4000 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Zachary G. Williams

01255517-1 WWW.BEANKINNEY.COM

83

ATTACHMENT B 2016025193.001 BK 24561 1707 05/1P/2016 11:33:25

asiannnan

THIS AGREEMENT Is made this 24)4K day of A pr; I zoti by FALLFAX CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC (the "Owner), and THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAHtFAX COUNTY, VERGINIA. a body corporate and politic (the "County") (Grantee).

WHEREAS, by virtue of a deed recorded in Deed Book 8195 at Page 744 the Owner is the owner of certain parcels of land described as Fairfax County Tax Map Not 49-24(09))-0001B, 0001C, 0002, 0002A, 0002B and 0003 (collectively, the "Properly") located in the Fallfax Shopping Center; and

WHEREAS, upon the application oft. Owner, the County on March 15,2016, granted a twenty-two (22) percent reduction (44 fewer parking spaces) of the required on-site pairing for the Properly subject to certain terms and conthdons listed below; and

WHEREAS, while, by clerical omission, only parcels 49-2-((9))-0002, 0002B, and 0003 were specifically listed by number in the County's approved Action Item for the Pallfax Shopping Center parking reduction, all oft. six parcels listed above for the Property (Tax Map Not 49-2-((09))-0001B, 000IC, 0002, 00024, 00028 and 0003) were shown in the Owner's Parking Study and its Parking Exhibit, which were both attached to the Action Item, and therefore all of the six parcels in the Property are included in the County's approval and in this Agreement and

WHEREAS, the County approval required that the terms and conditions be recorded among the land records in a fonn acceptable to the County Attorney; and

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to comply with such requirement by executing this Agreement and

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

The Property, consisting of Tax Map Nos. 49-2409D-0001B, 0001C, 0002,00024,-00028 and 0003, is the subject of the County's approved parking reduction and this Agreement, and a minimum of 160 parking spaces shall be maintained on the Property at all times.

The uses permitted per this parting reduction are: Up to 8,500 Gross Square Foot (OW) office uses Up to 8,004 GS? eating establishment with a maximum of 341 seats and 18 total employees Up to 18,462 °SF shopping center

1 EXHIBIT

00758804

II 84

BK 24561 1708

Any additional uses not listed above shall provide parking at rates required by the Zoning Ordinance

No more than 8 students shall be permitted at the private school of special education (Karate) at any one time.

No other parking spaces required to meet the parking requirements for this parking reduction shall be restricted or reserved except for those required to meet the accessible parking requirements of the Virginia Unifimn Statewide Building Code (USBC).

The current owners, their successors, or assigns of the parcels identified as Tax Map 49-2409D-0001B, 0001C, 0002, 0002A, 0002B and 0003, shall submit a parking space utilization study for review and approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) at any time in the Allure that the Zoning Administrator or the DPWES Director so requests. Following review of that study, or if a study is not submitted within 90 days after being requested, the Board may rescind this parking reduction and/or the DPWES Director may require alternative measures to satisfy parking needs, which may include requiring all uses to comply with the full parking space requirements as specified in Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance.

All perking utilization studies prepared in response to a request by the Zoning Administrator or the DPWES Director shall be based on applicable requirements of The Code of the County of Fairies; Vbxbda, and the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of said parking utilizatkon study submission.

No parking spaces shall be used for storage of items such as personal property, materials and supplies, commercial vehicles, inoperable vehicles, and trailers.

Shared parking with any additional use(s) shall not be permitted without the submission of a new or amended parking study prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be subject to the Board of Supervisor's approval.

All parking provided shall be in accordance with all other applicable requirements of Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Fairfax County Public Facilitks Manual Including the provisions referencing the USBC.

The conditions of approval of this paddng reduction shall be recorded in the Fairfax County lend records in a form acceptable to the County Attorney. Unless an extension has been approved by the DWPES Director, this parking reduction than expire without notice 6 months from the date of Board approval if Condition ff10 has not been sawed.

00751181$4 2

85

007581154 3

BK 24561 1709

11. This agreement is binding upon the parties, their successors, and assigns. It shall be recorded among the Land Records of Feist County, Virginia, and the terms, conditions, and covenants stated herein shall not be deemed to be personal but shall

• rim with the land. WITNESS the fbllowing signatures and seals:

i( STATE OF V541A COUNTY OF Arlw51-0"

The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this 2-C) day of (name), Apit 2014 • by &vassal C. Se sarp

M Pit) Mends*, (fide) on behalf of such ofpnistslion.

Witness my hand and official seal, this the 20 day of A fill 016 .

_aZted•-- Notary Public ,11k4 &14y /Usts,

Notary Registration #: Ai 3 Y33 My Commission Expires:05 - So so

86

BK 24561 1710

COUNTY:

Accepted on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Fait County, Virginia, by authority granted by the said Board.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

btA014 William D. Hicks Director, Land Development Services Department of Public Works & Enviromnental Services

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FAMFAX, to-wit

6- The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisS day of , &12)1/c. , by William D. Elias, Director, Land Development Services.

DTelrtine/ of Public Works and Environmental Services.

001-LOLOCa frerl2Af cotarC\I Pub •

Notary Registration & I I My Commission Expires: -14 '3 an

t •

00758815-1 4

05110/2016 TEN; -4

87


ACTION - 3

Authorization for the Director of the Department of Transportation to Execute Future Bikeshare Station Sponsorship Standard Agreements

ISSUE:Board authorization for the Director of the Department of Transportation to execute future Bikeshare Station sponsorship agreements (“Sponsorship Agreements”) and renewals of Sponsorship Agreements (“Renewals”). Each sponsorship agreement would allow private developers to pay money to the County for the purpose of installing, maintaining, and/or operating Capital Bikeshare stations outside their property boundaries. Renewals would permit the County to renew existing and futureSponsorship Agreements as their terms expire and make other appropriate modifications for such agreements as determined by the Director of the Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Office of the County Attorney.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Director of the Department of Transportation to enter into Sponsorship Agreements and Renewals consistent with the financial approvals of the Board of Supervisors,substantially in the form of Attachment 1.

TIMING:Board action is requested on January 22, 2019, to allow the Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) to establish and administer Sponsorship agreements, and further expand the Capital Bikeshare system.

DISCUSSION:Capital Bikeshare is a transportation system that allows individuals to check out a bike and ride short to moderate distances from station to station. A system of bikesharestations and bicycles are set up in an area to allow participants to travel between destinations that are generally further than walking, without driving. As a result, roadway congestion is reduced.

Capital Bikeshare operates in the District of Columbia, Arlington County, Alexandria, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s County. There are currently over 500 stations in the Capital Bikeshare system in these jurisdictions. Fairfax County officially joined the Capital Bikeshare system in October 2016, after the Board approved the necessary funding and Sponsorship agreements to initiate the system.

Many of the County’s Capital Bikeshare stations are located on private property. To secure permission to operate these stations, the County entered into license

88


agreements with individual property owners to locate a station on their property. Negotiations for these license agreements enabled FCDOT to address private property owners’ concerns regarding the bikeshare stations.

The current standard licensing agreement assumes that the station will be placed on the sponsor’s property. However, in some situations, a private developer seeks to sponsor the placement of a station without having an ownership interest in the property where the station will be located. The attached sample Sponsorship Agreement (Attachment I) will be used for cases in which the sponsored station would need to be located outside the sponsor’s property, from which negotiations would proceed. Authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to enter into future SponsorshipAgreements will enable FCDOT to efficiently expand the Capital Bikeshare system in Fairfax County, so that more of the County’s citizens can take advantage of this transportation option. In addition, this authorization will shorten the time expended between identifying a new bikeshare station site and installing the station. With this authority, the Director of the Department of Transportation may also take action to extend the terms and modify Sponsorship Agreements as may be needed to address individual locations, in conjunction with the Office of the County Attorney.

FISCAL IMPACT:The County has previously participated in two separate cooperative procurements led by the City of Alexandria to purchase the equipment and services necessary for the installation, maintenance, and operation of Capital Bikeshare. Entering into future sponsorship agreements with developers will provide additional funding to expand the Capital Bikeshare system in Fairfax County. Each sponsor will agree to provide $50,000, which is equivalent to the equipment and installation cost of a new bikeshare station.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment I: Sample Sponsorship Agreement

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveTom Biesiadny, Director, Fairfax County Department of Transportation FCDOTEric Teitelman, Chief, Capital Projects and Traffic Engineering Division, FCDOTChris Wells, Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs, Capital Projects and Traffic Engineering FCDOTNicole Wynands, Bicycle Program Manager, Capital Projects and Traffic Engineering, FCDOT

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Joanna Faust, Assistant County Attorney, OCA

89

ATTACHMENT 1

BIKE SHARE DOCKING STATION SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT

This Sponsorship Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this _____ day of ___________________, 20___ (“Effective Date”) between ___________________, a <STATE> <BUSINESS TYPE> (“Sponsor”), located at <ADDRESS> and the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County (the “County”), located at 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia 22035. The Sponsor and the County are sometimes hereinafter separately referred to as “Party” and jointly referred to herein as the “Parties.”

WHEREAS, the County participates in a regional bikesharing system in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. region, and establishes, operates, and maintains elements of a self-service bicycle rental system (“Services”) within the County;

WHEREAS, Sponsor desires to sponsor a bicycle rental docking station on certain real property located within the County (collectively, “Property”);

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth herein, as well as other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree:

1. LOCATION: The proposed Docking Station will be located at <ADDRESS> as depicted on Exhibit A (“Station Area”).

2. SPECIFIC GRANTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE SPONSOR: Within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement, Sponsor shall pay to the County the sum of $50,000 to sponsor the Docking Station.

3. USE AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY:

The County shall:

a. Install the Docking Station at its sole cost and expense within twelve months of the execution of this Agreement.

b. Maintain the Docking Station in good condition.

c. Communicate with all users and other third parties, including responding to all inquiries made by any user. Sponsor has no authority to communicate with anyone on the County’s behalf.

d. If necessary, move the Docking Station to a mutually agreed upon location at its sole cost and expense.

90

ATTACHMENT 1

4. DEFAULT:

a. The Sponsor shall be in default, if the Sponsor breaches any material term or condition of this Agreement.

b. The County shall be in default, if the County breaches any material term or condition of this Agreement.

c. In the event of default, the non-defaulting party shall give written notice to the defaulting party identifying the alleged breach of this Agreement, and the defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days from the date of notice to cure the breach to the reasonable satisfaction of the non-defaulting party. If the defaulting party fails to cure such breach within the thirty (30) days period set forth herein, the Parties will meet and confer in a timely manner in a good-faith attempt to resolve their dispute. If the defaulting party still fails to cure such breach following the Parties’ meeting, this Agreement may be terminated by the non-defaulting party by giving an additional thirty (30) days’ written notice to the breaching party. Any such termination shall not otherwise limit the non-defaulting party frompursuing its remedies at law and in equity.

5. TERM AND TERMINATION:

a. The period of this Agreement (“Term”) shall be for a term of five (5) years commencing on the Effective Date and ending on _________________________ (“Termination Date”).

b. In the event of a default, this Agreement may terminate as provided in paragraph 4(c) above.

c. In the event of a sale of the Property, or of the portion thereof on which the Station Areais located, or the inability of the County to continue to operate the Docking Station on the Property, either party may terminate this Agreement within sixty (60) days after written notice to the non-terminating party.

6. INSURANCE: The County is a self-insured governmental body. The County is prohibitedby law from extending its self-insurance to outside parties. Sponsor hereby agrees that the County’s self-insurance resolution shall satisfy any insurance requirement of the Sponsor.

7. NO WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: Nothing herein shall be considered as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the County.

8. NO PERSONAL LIABILITY: Nothing herein shall be considered to create any personal liability on behalf of any official, employee, agent, or representative of the County.

91

ATTACHMENT 1

9. INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to create anything other than a sponsorship and shall specifically not create any right, title or interest in property nor shall it create an easement.

10. NO RIGHTS IN THIRD PARTIES: The Parties agree that no provision of this Agreement shall create in the public, or in any person or entity other than the Parties, any right as a third party beneficiary hereunder, or authorize any person or entity, not a party hereto, to maintain any action for personal injury, property damage, or breach of contract pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or otherwise.

11. ASSIGNMENT: Except as provided in this Section 9, Sponsor shall not transfer or assign this Agreement without the written consent of the County, first had and obtained. The County’s consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event Sponsor desires to assign this Agreement, Sponsor shall provide written notice to the County of Sponsor’s intent to transfer or assign this Agreement to another party. The County shall provide written consent or rejection of the transfer or assignment within thirty (30) days of receipt of any such notice. Should the County fail to respond within such thirty (30) day period, the Sponsor may, without the consent of the County, transfer or assign the Agreement to the party identified in the Sponsor’s notice. Any further transfer or assignment shall require the written consent of the County as provided in this Section 9.

12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws (including without limitation those relating to nondiscrimination) of the United States; the Commonwealth of Virginia; Fairfax County, and appropriate Board Regulations; and both Parties agree to abide by these provisions.

13. COUNTY’S FINANCIAL OBLIGATION: To the extent that there are any financial obligations incurred by the County under the terms of this Agreement, such financial obligations shall be subject to appropriations by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to satisfy payment of such obligations.

14. NO PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE: Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to create a partnership or joint venture of or between the County and the Sponsor, or to create any other relationship between the parties hereto other than that of a sponsorship.

15. NOTICES: Any notice which the Parties may desire or be required to give under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given or rendered, if in writing, and delivered by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested:

If to Sponsor: ___________________________

___________________________

____________________________

92

ATTACHMENT 1

[ATTN: NAME OF OFFICER/REP]

If to the County: Nicole WynandsBicycle Program ManagerFairfax County Department of Transportation4050 Legato Road, 4th Floor Fairfax, VA 22033-2867

With a copy to: Fairfax County Attorney’s Office12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 549Fairfax, VA 22035

Any notice given hereunder shall be deemed delivered when the return receipt is signed or refusal to accept the notice is noted thereon.

16. TIME OF ESSENCE: Time is of the essence with respect to the performance of each of the covenants and agreements under this Agreement.

17. SEVERABILITY: If any clause or provision of this Agreement is illegal, invalid or unenforceable under present or future laws in effect during the term of this Agreement, it is the intention of the parties that the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby.

18. COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement may be executed in multiple original counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which will constitute one and the same instrument.

19. REPRESENTATIONS: Each Party represents to the other Party that: it has the legal power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to undertake and perform all of its duties and obligations hereunder and that there is no contract or other legal obligation that prevents it from entering into this Agreement or from undertaking or performing all of its duties and obligations hereunder.

20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the County and the Sponsor regarding the matters set forth herein. Oral statements, representations, and prior agreements not contained or referenced in this Agreement, shall have no force or effect. This Agreement may be modified only in writing executed by both parties.

SIGNATURE PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW

93

ATTACHMENT 1

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have affixed their signatures all as of the date first above written.

SPONSOR:

<BUSINESS NAME>

<BUSINESS ADDRESS>

THE COUNTY:

The Board of Supervisors for Fairfax County12000 Government Center ParkwayFairfax, Virginia 22035

_________________________By: <NAME>

<TITLE>

_____________________________By: Tom Biesiadny

Director, Fairfax CountyDepartment of Transportation

94

ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT A

THE STATION AREA

95


ACTION - 4

Endorsement of and Authorization for the Department of Transportation to Apply for and Accept Grant Funding from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation FY 2020 Project Demonstration Program for the Fairfax County Connected Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Project

ISSUE:Board authorization is requested for the Department of Transportation to apply for and accept funding, if received, from the FY 2020 Project Demonstration Program grant funds from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). Funding in the amount of $250,000, including $50,000 in Local Cash Match, is being requested for concept development and operations of a Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Project. The 20 percent Local Cash Match requirement will be met through the Economic Success Strategic Plan programming budget from the Economic Development Support Fund. No new General Fund resources are required. If the actual award received is significantly different from the application amount, another item will be submitted to the Board requesting appropriation of grant funds. Otherwise, staff will process the award administratively per Board policy. Board authorization is also requested for the Director of the Department of Transportation to enter into the grant agreement and any related agreements, including but not limited to Federal sub-award agreements, on behalf of the County.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Department of Transportation to apply for and accept grant funding, if received, from DRPT in the amount of $250,000, including $50,000 in Local Cash Match and to adopt the project endorsement resolution (Attachment 1). Funding will be used for concept development and operations of a Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Project. The County Executive also recommends that the Director of the Department of Transportation enter into the grant agreement and any related agreements, including but not limited to Federal sub-award agreements, on behalf of the County.

TIMING:Board of Supervisors’ authorization is requested on January 22, 2019. Applications are due to DRPT on February 1, 2019.

96


BACKGROUND:Given the vast amount and quality of technology-focused resources and assets available in Fairfax County, the County is uniquely-positioned to leverage these resources and assets in the fast-emerging field of Smart Communities. Broadly defined, Smart Communities are geographic areas that use information and communication technologies (ICT) to increase operational efficiency, share information with the public and improve both the quality of government services and citizen welfare. Services typically addressed in Smart Communities include public safety, energy, transportation and utilities, with ICT being utilized to improve efficiency and reduce resource consumption, waste and overall costs of these services.

Although the development of Smart Communities is in its early stages, smart utility and transportation services are the first areas that have gained traction. They represent the “low-hanging fruit” where the application of ICT to these sectors are high-value uses that can produce tangible benefits relatively quickly. In the transportation sector, emerging technologies in the area of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAV), in particular, have gained significant attention.

Over the past year, the County has drawn on its robust technology resources and convened a series of community events aimed at exploring this issue with thought leaders from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC), the Office of Innovation at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Department of Rail and Public Transportation as well as private industry. Much of this effort has been focused on the policy ramifications these new transportation technologies will have on local responsibilities, such as urban design, public infrastructure, mobility, and land use regulations.

As the host community of VDOT’s CAV test bed (see Virginia Connected Corridors description below), the County would like to further explore these issues by pursuing a pilot project to evaluate the potential impacts and opportunities associated with these technologies. The Office of Innovation at VDOT and the DRPT are currently seeking a local government partner to deploy CAV technology in a real-world laboratory.Specifically, VDOT has indicated its desire to examine an autonomous shuttle operating in a campus (medical, office or academic) setting. In an ideal situation, the vehicle might also serve some specific transit need such as first mile - last mile connection, connecting residents to transit hubs and from those hubs to their final destination.Fairfax County has multiple sites that potentially serve both objectives.

DRPT provides Demonstration Project Assistance as part of their FY2020 Public Transportation Grant cycle. The Demonstration Assistance program is a competitive

97


grant program with the goal of supporting local efforts to improve transit reliability, improving access, and connection to activity centers, and improving transit mobility options. The program is to incentivize calculated risk by focusing on innovative and non-traditional transportation solutions that can directly or indirectly improve public transportation in the Commonwealth. Eligible projects include research, development, demonstration, and deployment of innovative and non-traditional projects, and evaluation of new technology. DRPT and VDOT have encouraged the county to submitthis project as the demonstration project directly supports the deployment of emerging technologies as it relates to public transportation.

FISCAL IMPACT:Grant funding in the amount of $250,000, including $50,000 in Local Cash Match, is being requested for concept development and operations of a Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Project. The 20 percent Local Cash Matchrequirement will be met through the Economic Success Strategic Plan programming budget from the Economic Development Support Fund. No new General Fund resources are required. This action does not increase the expenditure level of theFederal-State Grant Fund, as funds are held in reserve for unanticipated awards. This grant does not allow for the recovery of indirect costs.

CREATION OF NEW POSITIONS:No positions will be created.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1: Resolution of Endorsement of Fairfax County Connected Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Project Grant Application Being Submitted for DRPT FY 2020 Project Demonstration Program Funds

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveEta Nahapetian, Economic Initiatives Coordinator, Office of the County ExecutiveDale Castellow, Special Assistant for Strategic Planning, Office of the County ExecutiveTom Biesiadny, Director, Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT)Todd Wigglesworth, Chief, Coordination and Funding Division, FCDOTBrent Riddle, Sr. Transportation Planner, Coordination and Funding FCDOT

98

Attachment 1

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Resolution

At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, held in the Board Auditorium in the Fairfax County Government Center of Fairfax, Virginia, on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, at which meeting a quorum was present and voting, the following resolution was adopted.

RESOLUTION

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, hereby approves and authorizes the Department of Transportation to apply for and accept grant funding from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation’s FY 2020 Project Demonstration Program for the Fairfax County Connected Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Project

Adopted this 22nd day of January 2019, Fairfax, Virginia

ATTEST ______________________Catherine A. Chianese

Clerk to the Board of Supervisors

99


CONSIDERATION – 1

Election Year Policies

ISSUE:Adoption of Election Year Policies for the 2019 Board of Supervisors Elections.

BACKGROUND:The Board has adopted election year policies since at least 1975. The election year policies remained basically unchanged until election year 1995 when policy provisions were added to address the distribution of County documents, moratoriums regarding land use cases and appointments, and the use of County print shop and mail services to distribute district-wide mailings. In 2015, Election Year Policies dropped references to the distribution of materials as they were no longer relevant due to current practices of posting materials on-line (such as the Board Package, Clerk’s Summary, and Public Meetings Calendar) and the fact that some newsletters are distributed electronically without use of the County Print Shop or Mail Services.

Since 2002, election year policies have addressed Board members’ use of web sites, and more recently use of social media sites.

∑ The current prohibition on links from a magisterial district’s web page on fairfaxcounty.gov to Board incumbent’s personal and campaign websites or social media sites (i.e., Facebook, YouTube) at any time, continues in effect.

∑ Board incumbent’s social media sites (such as Facebook) that use Fairfax County resources, such as sites that are linked to fairfaxcounty.gov email addresses or the fairfaxcounty.gov website (or that are administered by Fairfax County staff on Fairfax County-owned devices) must not include campaign-related information/updates, nor should any questions or comments the public may ask about the campaign be answered on such sites. Board incumbents may refer those campaign questions received on social media sites that use Fairfax County resources to their campaign social media sites by using this language (but do not include a direct link to the campaign web site): “I do not use this account for campaign matters; please visit my campaign social media site to leave this comment/question.” To be clear, this policy pertains to Board incumbent’s use of social media sites that use Fairfax County resources, not to posts, comments, or messages from members of the public on such sites.

100


A prior election year policy that has not been addressed by current County practice, is the moratorium on land-use public hearings and the appointment of persons to Boards, Authorities, and Commissions (BACs). Therefore, to address these matters:

∑ From November 5, 2019, until the new Board takes office on January 1, 2020, a moratorium will be observed on the scheduling of land-use cases.

∑ Appointments of persons to BACs will not be scheduled during the November and December 2019 Board Meetings.

FISCAL IMPACT:None



101


10:40 a.m.

Matters Presented by Board Members

102


11:30 a.m.

CLOSED SESSION:

(a) Discussion or consideration of personnel matters pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A) (1).

(b) Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A) (3).

(c) Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, and consultation with legal counsel regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A) (7).

1. Claim of Joseph A. Glean, Department of Public Works and Environmental Services

2. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia v. Douglas A. Cohn and Kathryn J. Cohn; Record No. 171483 (Va. Sup. Ct.) (Dranesville District)

3. Kingstowne M&N LP v. Fairfax County, Case No. CL-2017-0012241 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

4. Laboratory Corporation of America v. County of Fairfax, Virginia, Case No. CL-2017-0018222 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

5. Kenneth Henderson v. Fairfax-Falls Church Community Service Board and Fairfax County, Case No. 1:18-cv-825 (E.D. Va.)

6. Justin Reed v. Fairfax County, Civil Action No.1:18-cv-1454 (E.D. Va.)

7. Viola Laird v. County of Fairfax, Virginia, Case No. 1:17-cv-1408 (E.D. Va.)

8. Harrison Neal v. Fairfax County Police Department and Colonel Edwin C. Roessler Jr., Case No. CL-2015-005902 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

9. Matthew Skarlatos v. Patricia Trott Skarlatos, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul Skarlatos, and Fairfax County Police Department, Case No. 2018-0016120 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

10. Glen M. Sylvester v. Brian C. Geschke, Case No. CL-2018-0008045 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

11. Louella F. Benson v. Penelope A. Gross, et al., Case No.: CL-2018-0000333 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

103

Board Agenda ItemJanuary 22, 2018Page 2

12. Glenn Myer v. Ralph Northam, Sharon Bulova, Michael I. Elliott, Sheila K.W. Elliott, Rafael Saenz, Cynthia Warriner, Jody H. Allen, Melvin L. Boone, Sr., James L. Jenkins, Jr., Rebecca Thornbury, Allen R. Jones, Jr., Sarah Schmidt, Susan Szasz Palmer, Elizabeth Locke, Arena L. Dailey, Tracey Alder, Mira Mariano, Jay Douglas, Huong Vu, Brenda Krohn, Jodi Power, Robin Hills, Paula Saxby, Stephanie Willinger, Linda Kleiner, Charlotte Ridout, Fairfax County, Prosperity Pharmacy, Pharmacist of Prosperity Pharmacy, John Does Pharmacist and Technicians at Prosperity Pharmacy, Inova Pharmacy, Jane Doe (Pharmacy Director), Several Pharmacist [sic] at Inova, Walgreen Pharmacies, Bodies in Motion, Michael Mastrostefano, Aetna Insurance, Fairfax Adult Detention Center Employees, Jane and Joe Does Nurses, Haas Doe Medical Records at ADC, Stacie Kincaid, Omar “The Butch Mercedes” [sic], Case No. 1:18-cv-723 (E.D. Va.)

13. David Park and Susan Park v. Constance Morris, Case No. CL-2017-0011280 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

14. Erica M. Allen Winslow v. Ramona Simmons, Case No. GV18-020050 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.)

15. Mary Lark Lovering v. Mickey Smith and County of Fairfax, Case No. CL-2018-0012629 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

16. Lisa Therese Barnes v. Armando Cruz Hernandez, Case No. 2018-0009279 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

17. Sally McCrory v. Enrique A. Ruiz, Case No. CL-2018-0003152 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

18. Andrea Infante v. James Harvey Doswell, Case No. CL-2018-0009968. (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

19. Zhihua He v. George Robbins, Case No. CL-2018-0011920 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.)

20. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator, and Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Lillian F. Graf and Steven F. Graf, Case No. CL-2017-0015518 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Braddock District)

21. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Yung C. Yung, Case No. CL-2018-0017331 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Braddock District)

22. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Benjamin K. Canty and Judith M. Canty, Case No. CL-2017-0012652 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Braddock District)

23. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Jiyao Wang and Hong Chai, Case No. CL-2018-010034 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Braddock District)

104


24. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia, and Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. John Jongki Lee and Eun Hee Lee, Case No. CL-2017-0015187 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Braddock District)

25. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Guiti Gheybi, Case No. GV18-020294 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Braddock District)

26. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Rangsinee Junloy, Case No. GV18-014509 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Braddock District)

27. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Lucy W. Berkebile, Case No. CL-2018-0000961 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Dranesville District)

28. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County and Bill Hicks, Director of Land Development Services v. Nirmaladevi Jayanthan and Jayanthan Balasubram, a/k/a Balasubram Jayanthan, Jayanthan Bala, Bala Jayanthan, and Jay Bala, Case No. CL-2015-0008179 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Dranesville District)

29. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Abu Kamara, Case No. CL-2018-0012493 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Dranesville District)

30. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Carlos Sergio Alarcorn, Case No. GV18-027204 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Dranesville District)

31. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Charles R. Stackhouse Trust and Carol Ann Polkinghorne, Trustee, Case No. Case No. GV18-028733 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Dranesville District)

32. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Luminous Star LLC, Case No. GV18-027621 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Dranesville District

33. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Aslam Ali Syed and Yameen Fatima Ali, Case No. CL-2018-0016892 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

34. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Brian Allen Clark, Case No. CL-2018-0016828 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

35. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator, and Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County v. Martina Simpkins and Anthony Simpkins, Case No. CL-2018-0002496 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

36. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Juan Carlos Aranibar Chinchilla, Rossemary Jeanneth Arnez Villarroel, and A&A Investment, LLC, Case No. CL-2016-0006961 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

105


37. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Kai Vutipawat and Lynn Vutipawat, Case No. CL-2018-0017118 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

38. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Michael L. Lewis and Sonja B. Lewis, Case No. CL-2017-0013219, and William E. Shoup, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Michael L. Lewis and Sonja B. Lewis, Case, No. CL-2018-0015823 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

39. Jane W. Gwinn, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. James L. Price, Case No. CL-2018-0017871 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

40. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Mary C. O’Brien, Case No. CL-2019-0000067 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Lee District)

41. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Beverly J. Facchina, Case No. GV18025948-00 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Lee District)

42. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Lahoussaine Amajoud and Fatima Amajoud, Case No. GV18-024825 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Lee District)

43. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Jonathan Clark and Carolyn Clark, Case No. CL-2017-0016073 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

44. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Matthew O. Neyland, Case No. CL-2018-0017117 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

45. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator, and Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Kenneth E. Reppart and Edna M. Reppart, Case No. CL-2015-0000262 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

46. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Mohammed J. Abdlazez and Inshirah Ali, Case No. CL-2018-017405 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

47. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Rockley L. Miller and Susan B. Miller, Case No. CL-2017-0010524 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

48. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Robert G. Matson, Case No. CL-2018-0012444 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

49. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Elsa Campos, Case No. CL-2018-0015005 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

50. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. John A. Williams, Case No. CL-2018-0015006 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

106


51. Eileen M. McLane, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator, and Michael R. Congleton, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Melba B. Clarke, Case No. CL-2009-0016978 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

52. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. George M. Yaworsky and Zenia M. Yaworsky, Case No. CL-2018-0014854 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mason District)

53. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator, and Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Sherry L. Frazier, Case No. CL-2018-0007655 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mount Vernon District)

54. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. William E. Simms, Sr., and Dolores J. Simms; Case No. CL-2018-0012683 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Mount Vernon District)

55. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Robena Reid, Case No. GV18-018167 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Mount Vernon District)

56. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Cathy Bishop and Thomas W. Bishop, Case No. GV18-023444 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Mount Vernon District)

57. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Cynthia Etkin, Case No. GV18-027882 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Mount Vernon District)

58. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Michael Hausenfleck and Susan Brassfield-Hausenfleck, Case No. GV18-029106 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Mount Vernon District)

59. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Akram Rastegari, Case No. CL-2018-0012804 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Providence District)

60. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. G.H.D. International, Bolmarket Corporation, Lozada Corporation, AASCO Paving Corporation, and Terra Landscape, Inc., Case No. CL-2018-0017926 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Providence District)

61. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Amy Junhong Long, Case No. CL-2013-0005065 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Providence District)

62. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Julio M. Dominguez and Rina J. Espinoza, Case No. GV18-023159 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Providence District)

107


63. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. James A. Giddings, Trustee of the James A. Giddings Trust and the Brandy D. Giddings Trust and Brandy D. Giddings, Trustee of the James A. Giddings Trust and the Brandy D. Giddings Trust, Case No. GV18-027205 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Providence District)

64. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Paul Michael Knott, Case No. GV18-027420 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Providence District)

65. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Aminullah Abbasi, Case No. GV18-024827 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Providence District)

66. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Donna Griffiths, Laszlo Pentek, and Kathleen Pentek, Case No. GV18-012151 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Providence District)

67. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Bao Q. Tran and Tina Q. Le, Case No. CL-2018-0016485 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Springfield District)

68. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, and Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Fairfax County, Virginia, Case No. CL-2017-0015190 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Springfield District)

69. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator, and Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Yung Chi Yung, Case No. CL-2017-0004961 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Springfield District)

70. Leslie B. Johnson, Fairfax County Zoning Administrator v. Barry K. Bedford and Kathleen A. W. Bedford, Case Nos. GV18-029107, and Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Barry K. Bedford and Kathleen A. W. Bedford, Case No. GV18-029108 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Springfield District)

71. Elizabeth Perry, Property Maintenance Code Official for Fairfax County, Virginia v. Milton V. Alcazar, Case No. CL-2018-0016777 (Fx. Co. Cir. Ct.) (Sully District)

72. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Artaville Oriental Rugs & Antiques, Inc., Case No. GV18-027700 (Fx. Co. Gen. Dist. Ct.) (Dranesville and Mount Vernon Districts)

108


3:00 p.m.

Annual Meeting of the Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority

ISSUE:Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority annual meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority hold its annual meeting in accordance with the Bylaws for the Authority; appoint officers; approve the minutes of the last annual meeting on January 23, 2018; and review the financial statements.

TIMING:Immediate. The Bylaws of the Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority require the annual meeting to coincide with the time for the last regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors set in January.

BACKGROUND:According to the Bylaws of the Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority, the regular annual meeting of the Authority shall coincide with the time for the last regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors set in January. The proposed agenda of the Authority meeting is included as Attachment 1. The Bylaws further require a review and approval of the minutes of the previous year’s meetings (Attachment 2) and that officers of the authority be appointed to serve for a one-year term.

On February 2, 2016, the relationship between the Solid Waste Authority, Fairfax County and Covanta Fairfax, Inc. changed significantly with the end of the Service Agreement and the award of the Waste Disposal Agreement. The 25-year Service Agreement ended and a new contract for five years was executed with Covanta Fairfax, Inc. Fairfax County provides an annual waste amount up to 682,500 tons and the remaining waste processed at the Covanta Fairfax plant is merchant waste. Fairfax waste includes some waste from Prince William County, Ft. Belvior and other entities outside Fairfax County.

In FY 2018, Fairfax County met all of its contractual obligations.Additional financial information is contained in the Financial Statements (Attachment 3).

109


FISCAL IMPACT:Minimal

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1 – Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority Meeting Agenda, January 22, 2019Attachment 2 – Minutes of the January 23, 2018, Solid Waste Authority Annual MeetingAttachment 3 – Financial Statements

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveRandolph W. Bartlett, Director, Department of Public Works and Environmental Services(DPWES)John W. Kellas, Deputy Director, Department of Public Works and Environmental Services, Solid Waste Management Program

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Joanna Faust, Assistant County Attorney, Office of County Attorney

110

Attachment 1

FAIRFAX COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY

Annual Meeting Agenda

January 22, 2019

1. Call-to-Order

2. Appointment of Officers.

- Chairman - Sharon Bulova, Chairman,

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors

- Vice-Chairman Penelope A. Gross, Vice-Chairman,


- Secretary Catherine A. Chianese, Clerk to the


- Treasurer - Christopher Pietsch, Director,

Department of Finance

- Attorney Elizabeth Teare, County Attorney

- Executive Director Bryan Hill, County Executive

- Authority Representative - John W. Kellas, Deputy Director,

Department of Public Works and Environmental

Services, Solid Waste Management Program

3. Approval of the minutes from the January 23, 2018 meeting.

4. Approval of the financial statement for the Authority.

111

Meeting Minutes

The Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority January 23, 2018

Attachment 2

MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY

January 23, 2018

At the Annual Meeting of the Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority held in accordance

with Article ill, Section I of the bylaws, in the Board Auditorium of the Government Center in

Fairfax, Virginia, on Tuesday, January 23, 2018, at 3:55 p.m., there were present:

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS:

Chairman Sharon Bulova, presiding

Supervisor John C. Cook, of Braddock District

Supervisor John W. Foust, ofDranesville District

Supervisor Penelope A. Gross, of Mason District

Supervisor Catherine M. Hudgins, of Hunter Mill District

Supervisor Jeffrey C. McKay, of Lee District

Supervisor Patrick S. Herrity, of Springfield District

Supervisor Kathy L. Smith, of Sully District

Supervisor Linda Q. Smyth, of Providence District

Supervisor Daniel G. Storck, of Mount Vernon District

Bryan Hill., County Executive; Authority Executive Director

Catherine A. Chianese, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors; Authority Secretary

Christopher Pietsch, Director, Department of Finance; Treasurer

Elizabeth Teare, County Attorney; Authority Attorney

John Kellas, Director, Solid Waste Management Program Operations Division, Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES); Authority Representative

-1-

112

Meetiµg Minutes

The Fairfax County, Solid Waste Authority

January 23, 2018

Supervisor Gross moved that the Board appoint the following officers and officials to the

Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority:

OFFICERS

Sharon Bulova Chairman, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors

Penelope A. Gross Vice-Chairman, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors

.Catherine A. Chianese Clerk to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors

Christopher Pietsch Director, Department of Finance

Elizabeth Teare County Attorney

Bryan Hill Comity Executive

-Chairman

- Vice-Chairman

-Secretary

-Treasurer

-Attorney

-Executive Director

John Kellas -Authority RepresentativeDeputy Director, Solid Waste Management Program Operations Division Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES)

Chairman Bulova seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous vote.

Supervisor Gross moved approval of the minutes from the January 24, 2017, meeting

of the Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority. Chairman Bulova seconded the motion and it

carried by unanimous vote.

-2-

113

Meeting Minutes

The Fairfax County SoJid Waste Authority January 23, 2018

Supervisor Gross moved approval of the financial statements for the Authority. Chairman

Bulova seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous vote.

Supervisor Gross moved to adjourn the Annual Meeting of the Fairfax County Solid Waste

Authority. Chairman Bulova seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous vote.

At 3:59 p.m., the Annual Meeting of the Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority was

adjourned.

-3-

114

The foregoing minutes record the actions taken by the Fairfax County Solid Waste

Authority at its meeting held on Tuesday, January 23, 2018, and reflects matters discussed by the

Authority. Audio or video recordings of all proceedings are available in the Office of the Clerk to

the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia.

Respectfully submitted,

064 44tok. Catherine A. Chianese Secretary, Solid Waste Authority

115

Attachment 3


Fiduciary Report

June 30,2018 and 2017

116


Table of Contents

Page

Statements of Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities

Notes to Fiduciary Report 2

117


Notes to Fiduciary Report

June 30, 2018 and 2017

FAIRFAX COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Statements of Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities

June 30, 2018 and 2017

2018 2017 Assets: Investments $ $

Liabilities: Liability under reimbursement agreement $ $

See accompanying notes to fiduciary report

1

118



June 30, 2018 and 2017

1. Organization The Fairfax County Solid Waste Authority (the Authority) was formed by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (the County), on July 27, 1987. The Authority's board consists of the County's Board of Supervisors.

The Authority was formed for the purpose of constructing and overseeing the operations of a resource recovery facility (the Facility) in Lorton, Virginia, on a site that was purchased in July 2002 by the County from the United States. Prior thereto, legal title to the site was vested in the United States to the benefit of the District of Columbia; the site was leased by the District to the County, and the County assigned the leased site to the Authority. The Assignment of Site Lease to the Authority, dated as of February 1, 1988, has not been amended, terminated, rescinded, or revoked, and remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

The construction of the Facility was partially financed by $237,180,000 and $14,900,000 of Series 1988A tax-exempt and Series 1988B taxable industrial revenue bonds, respectively, issued by the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority (EDA) during 1988. The Series 1988B Bonds were retired in February 1996. The Authority invested all bond proceeds through a trust account with a major bank. The Authority was responsible for making all investment decisions and authorizing all disbursements from the trust.

On February 1, 1988, an Installment Sales Agreement between the EDA and the Authority was executed whereby the Facility and the bond proceeds were sold to the Authority. Concurrent with this Installment Sales Agreement, the Authority entered into a Conditional Sale Agreement whereby the Facility, the bond proceeds and the Authority's leasehold interest in the site were sold to Covanta Fairfax, Inc. Under a related service agreement, between the Authority, Fairfax County and Covanta, Covanta designed, constructed, and operated the Facility. The Facility was completed and began commercial operations in June 1990. The County and the Authority had agreed to provide guaranteed minimum annual amounts of waste and annual tipping fees to the Facility. Under the terms of the Conditional Sale Agreement, debt service on the bonds was paid by Covanta through the Authority solely from solid waste system revenues generated by the Facility. The bonds were not general obligations of the Authority, the County, or the EDA.

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 1995, the EDA sold, at the request of the Authority for the benefit of the Facility, a call option on the Series 1988A Bonds to a financial institution for $10,250,000. The option, which was exercised in November 1998, required the EDA to issue new bonds to the institution at certain agreed—upon interest rates. The proceeds of the new Series 1998A Resource Recovery Revenue Refunding Bonds together with certain proceeds remaining from the Series 1988A Bonds and certain other available funds were used to refund the remaining outstanding Series 1988A Bonds in February 1999. The fmal principal and interest payments on the Series 1998A Resource Recovery Revenue Refunding Bonds were made on February 1, 2011 and the full ownership of the facility reverted to Covanta Fairfax. The bank accounts held with the fiscal agent,

2

119



June 30, 2018 and 2017

US Bank, to service the debt payments and invest the debt service reserve were closed in FY2011.As a result, there were no fiduciary assets, obligations, or transactions to record or report in FY2018.

3

120

Board Action ItemJanuary 22, 2019

AFFIDAVIT REQUIRED

3:00 p.m.

ACTION - 5

Board Approval of a Minor Variation Request for PCA 89-A-001-2, Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to add a Public Use, Limited to a Health and Wellness Center which Provides Related Services for Older Adults, as a Permitted Use in Proffer 2 (Braddock District)

ISSUE:Board approval of a minor variation to add a Public Use, limited to a health and wellness center which provides related services for older adults, as a permitted use in Proffer 2 forPCA 89-A-001-2, under the provisions of Sect. 18-204 of the Zoning Ordinance.

RECOMMENDATION:In accordance with Zoning Ordinance Sect. 18-204(5) and Virginia Code Sect. 15.2-2302, the County Executive recommends that the Board waive the requirement of a public hearing and approve the addition of a Public Use, limited to a health and wellness center which provides related services for older adults as a permitted use in Proffer 2 for PCA 89-A-001-2.

TIMING:Routine.

BACKGROUND:Under Par. 5 of Sect. 18-204 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board may approve certain minor variations to proffered conditions and the associated conceptual development plan and final development plan without a public hearing when such requests do not materially affect proffered conditions of use, density, or intensity. Specifically, Par. (5)(A)(1) permits the addition or modification of a use, if the existing proffered conditions do not specifically preclude the use and the new use would have no materially greater land use impacts than the approved uses, based on factors such as parking, trip generation, vehicular circulation, or hours of operation.

The Subject property is zoned R-2, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Little River Turnpike and Olley Lane, Tax Map 58-4 ((1)) 47A1 (see Locator Map in Attachment 1). The property, known as Braddock Glen, has been the subject of, or immediately adjacent to property that was the subject of, a series of zoning actions as follows:

121


∑ RZ 89-A-001 (on the subject property, Braddock Glen) the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on September 18, 1989, to rezone the site from R-1 to R-2 to permit single-family detached homes.

∑ RZ 87-A-011 (on Little River Glen, immediately to the north of the subject property) was approved by the BOS on May 4, 1987, to rezone 7.81 acres from R-1 to R-3.

∑ Concurrent applications PCA 89-A-001, PCA 87-A-011, RZ 96-B-021 and SEA 87-A-017 were approved by the BOS in November of 1997. PCA 89-A-001 applies to Braddock Glen while the other three apply to Little River Glen. These cases rezoned Little River Glen from R-1 to R-2 and incorporated Braddock Glen and Little River Glen into a single development through joint proffers. The PCA cases established the site as Braddock Glen and allowed the development of an additional 150 elderly housing units; 60 assisted living units; and an adult day care center for a maximum of 50 persons.

∑ PCA 89-A-001-02 was approved by the BOS on September 25, 2012, to amend the previously accepted proffers to permit additional participates in the adult day care programs and associated modifications to proffers.

The accepted proffers governing the subject property, PCA 89-A-001-2 are availablethrough the Zoning Evaluation Division or at: http://ldsnet.fairfaxcounty.gov/ldsnet/ZAPSMain.aspx?cde=PCA&seq=4161058

On November 20, 2018, the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) received a letter dated November 19, 2018, from the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority, requesting a minor variation to add a public use, limited to a health and wellness center which provides related services for older adults, as a permitted use under Proffer 2 of PCA 89-001-02 (see Attachments 2 and 4). The Adult Day Care space at the subject property was previously leased to Inova Health Care Services, but no one is currently operating any adult day care services on site. The applicant now proposes to provide health and wellness services for older adults, such as health prevention activities, caregiver support groups, fitness activities, and access to ancillary health services including medical screenings and specialized medical provider appointments such as podiatrists, chiropractors, and physical and occupational therapists. Proffer 2states:

The subject property shall be developed as an expansion of the existing development which includes a Senior Center and one hundred twenty (120) elderly housing units, and shall consist of an additional one hundred fifty (150) elderly housing units, sixty (60) assisted living units and an adult day care center. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR)

122

http://ldsnet.fairfaxcounty.gov/ldsnet/ZAPSMain.aspx?cde=PCA&seq=4161058


for the adult day care/assisted living component shall be limited to 0.18. The density for the additional elderly housing units shall be limited to no more than 20.19 du/ac.

Public uses are permitted in the R-2 District by the Zoning Ordinance; however, they arenot listed specifically in the approved proffers. As stated by the applicant, the public useproposed here will be limited to a health and wellness center and related services for older adults. The use will be located only within existing, approved buildings shown on the GDP, and will not result in any physical change to the site, including building setbacks or changes to vehicular circulation.

Staff has reviewed PCA 89-A-001-2 and the request to add a health and wellness center which provides related services for older adults as a Public Use, and has determined that the proposal would have no materially greater land use impacts than the approved uses, based on factors such as parking, trip generation, vehicular circulation, and hours of operation. Given that conclusion, staff believes that approval of this minor variation request meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends its approval.

FISCAL IMPACT:None

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1: Locator MapAttachment 2: Excerpt of Approved Proffers for PCA 89-A-001-2Attachment 3: Minor Variation StatementAttachment 4: Letter dated November 19, 2018, to Zoning Evaluation DivisionAttachment 5: Floor PlanAttachment 6: Affidavit available online at: (https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-zoning/zoning/minor-variations)

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveFred R. Selden, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Tracy D. Strunk, Director, Zoning Evaluation Division (ZED), DPZ Suzanne Wright, Chief, Special Projects/Applications/Management Branch, ZED, DPZJerrell Timberlake, Staff Coordinator, ZED, DPZ

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Laura Gori, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney

123

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-zoning/zoning/minor-variations

((

((

((

(

((

(

((

(())

((

))

((

((

((

((((

))

((

Rd.

C.E.

C.E.

20' Outlet

22

12

1

33

1

1

SPRINGBROOK SUBD

HAYWOOD

1

BAILEY PROP

3

WESTCHESTER

SUBD

STARLIT PONDS

31

LITTLE RIVERGLEN

13

HALL

ACRE

S

SEC. 1

WESTCHESTER

SEC. 2

35

SUSSEX

LEE M

EADO

WS

AT

Nester

Shari

Hall Dr.

Dr.

Barker

Briary

Goss

Ct.

Way

Olley

Ct.

Ln. Briar

bush

Rd.

Rd.

Taylo

r

White

Clov

er

Mirror Pond Dr.

Ln.

Hall Dr.

OklaDr.

Hadley

Little

Rd.

Briar

y Way

[Not Thru]

Ln.

Rt. 4699

Rt. 4699

Rt. 3548

Rt. 7

87

Rt.

Rt. 4920

Rt. 4698

787

Rt. 1

203

221

LEASE

38C

33

2

33A

18B

9

1

9

7

156

12

29

2

14A

18

12

19

15

3

E1

2438D

1B

4

1

24

3

25

8

2

52

38

29

17

31

19B

47A2

11

17

20

20A

22A

28A

38

D1

85

34

84A

28

5

4

3

4

23

18

47L

6

30

H

27

30 20

4

19

15

12

10

6

5

32

6

5

24

11

8

5

21

14A1

35

1A

25

24A

5

25 38B

3

23

21

5

17

7

11

10

8

16 1

19A

16

9

2 22

16

4

15

14

22A

3840

83

3536

26

2

25

226

16

14

63

2 9

8

18

26

14

19

12 15

19

31

16 17

36

23A35A

21

37

C1 33

32

29

1A

13

7

30

13

10

7

4

14C

11A18A

37

27A

2

A

20

22

23

31

34

24

18A

47A1

26

1

41A

13A

3

25

17

3

14D

13

32 33 34

1

21B

39

26A

15

16

09

06

4040

4940

45 93019300

4034

2640

33

9306

9301

3961

199215

4100

12

90

90

04

93

9204

07

02

4052

48

4053

9309

9224

32

3959

4001

3997

9225

4035

4101

4021

3632

20

08

06

30

4032

2440

20

3954

92

4036

9219

17

4104

4109

45

4046

31

4023

2008

3127

05

4007

07

91

9401

10

47

28

2229

27

9393 9321

9320

95

9224

9211

4005

34

4019

44

23

92179249

17

3992

92

4001

09

18

0302

4018

3996

35

4009

15

3993

09

3994

03

12

9308

95

9328

23

2240

33

3952

4048

05

32

40

4124

19

23

9222

19

4000

3995

14

9400

04

0641

00

9305

04

922725

24

4021

4027

A-B

3950 39

57

94

21

15

9216

4049

13

21

13 1105

9201

3908

17

9400

9403 05

02

97

31

25

28

04

3956

3963

90

4003

93

23

17

4110

30

33

2816

9218

91

9212

9200

C-610

75-1-019

B-185

B-199

C-468

79-A-102

B-185

(1.94 D/U)

C-610

B-85

B-813

(1.74 D/U)

B-100

C-534

96-B-021

1534

87-A-011*

99-BR-008*

837A-161

1134

89-A-001*

A-934

R-2

R-2

R-2

R-2

R-3

R-3

R-1

R-2

R-1

R-2

58-4

0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet

Request for Minor Variation

Olley Ln.

Little River Tpke.

Attachement 1

124

LITTLE RIVER GLEN I and II

PROFFERS

PCA 87-A-011-2 and PCA 89-A-001-2

May 4,2012

Pursuant to Section 15.2-2303(A) of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) and Section 18-204 of the Zoning Ordinance of Fairfax County (1978, as amended), the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY VIRGINIA, for themselves, the property_awners and their successors and/or assigns (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Applicant"), hereby proffer that the development of the parcels shown on the Fairfax County Tax Map 58-4 ((01)) 41A, 47A1, 47L and 47A2 (the "Application Property") shall be in accordance with the following conditions:.

Reaffirmation of Existing Proffers:

The Appiicant hereby reaffirms the proffers set forth in that certain "Proffer Statement Little River Glen I and n PCA 87-A-011, PCA 89-A-001 and R7, 96-13-021 Rev. January 6, 1998", a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A except as "General" Proffers 2 and 8 are hereby amended as follows:

Amendment to General Proffer 2:

The subject property shall be developed as an expansion of the existing development which includes a Senior Center and one hundred twenty (120) elderly housing units, and shall consist of an additional one hundred fifty (150) elderly housing units, sixty (60) assisted living units and an adult day care center--fof-ei-mfotimtiffi-ef-ak-4-50)-perS9ii.5. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the adult day care/assisted living component shall be limited to 0.18. The density for the additional elderly housing units shall be limited to no more than 20.19 &dn.

Amendment to General Proffer 8:

The Adult Day Care Center shall provide care for the frail and elderly and shall be limited to a maximum occupancy as may be permitted by applicable building codes and/or program certification(s) for the use of the space-ef-5(4-teeple-peFday. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 am to 6.30 pm, Monday through Friday. A full service kitchen facility may be provided within the adult day care center building.

(SIGNATURES BEGIN ON THE NEXT PAGE)

Attachment 2

125

MINOR VARIATION STATEMENT

LITTLE RIVER GLEN

PCA 89A0012

December 19, 2018

Pursuant to Paragraph 5 of Section 18204 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority, hereby requests a minor variation of the proffers and Generalized Development Plan (GDP) approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 25, 2012, to add public use, limited to a health and wellness center which provides related services for older adults, as a permitted use in Proffer 2 of PCA 89A00102, and commits that any such use will be located within the approved buildings as shown on the GDP and will be developed in substantial conformance with the governing proffers.

Fairfax Couqt RAd,elopment and Housing Authority

By: Thomas E. Fleetwood Assistant Secretary

Attachment 3

126

FAIRFAX COUNTY

FAIRFAX COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING

AUTHORITY

3700 Pender Drive, Suite 300 Fairfax, Virginia 22030-7444

VIRGINIA

November 19, 2018

BY HAND

Telephone: (703) 246-5000 • Fax: (703) 653-7130 TTY: 711

Ms. Tracy Strunk Zoning Evaluation Division Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning 12055 Government Center Parkway Suite 800 Fairfax, Virginia 22035

Braddock Glen Campus — 4027B 011ey Lane Request for Minor Variation

PCA 89A0012 Fairfax County Tax Map Parcel 584 ((1)) 47A1

Dear Ms. Strunk:

Please accept this letter requesting approval of a Minor Variation of the Proffer and Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 25, 2012 in conjunction with PCA 89A0012 ("PCA") to permit a public use limited to a health and wellness center and related services for older adults on the property identified as Fairfax County Tax Map Parcel 584 ((1)) 47A1 (the "Property"), in the Braddock District situated to the south the interchange at Little River Turnpike/011ey Lane.

The GDP permits elderly housing, medical care facilities (assisted living units), and an adult day care center. The purpose of this minor variation request is to add public use as a permitted use on this site in order to provide health and wellness services for older adults. Generally, health and wellness services include activities such as health prevention activities, caregiver support groups, fitness activities, access to ancillary health services including medical screenings and specialized medical provider appointments such as podiatrists, chiropractors, physical and occupational therapists.

The public use would be located only within approved building footprints shown on the GDP. Therefore, the use will not result in any impacts to building setbacks or changes in the vehicular circulation shown on the GDP. The vehicular trips associated with the health and wellness center will be consistent in terms of the characteristics already established.

Given all of the above, the addition of public use to those uses permitted on the property will not result in any greater land use impacts than the now approved uses and will only further enhance the mix of uses at Braddock Glen.

Attachment 4

127

Since

Ms. Tracy Strunk November 16,2018 Page 2

Enclosed please find the following submission documents: 1. Minor Variation Statement; 2. Approved Proffer and Generalized Development Plan dated September 25, 2012; 3. Tax Map; 4. Floor Plan; and 5. Special Exception Affidavit.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at NUMBER.

We wou • appreciate your favorable consideration of this request.

Th leetw o Assistant Secretary

Enclosures

Cc: Supervisor John C. Cook Tisha Deeghan Christopher A. Leonard

128

ZZ72277.1,7MWZY17,2747271227717.1117.12ZZN77177Z

P-TOILET C2a1:1

STOPAW EW)

aio -TOILET 1210

EX TINS COPIER/ PRINTER

LEM STAFF I CiAlfiF (101..

0323

MJLTI PURPOSE ROC.I CRC

Krao-cou.wa

r 1

0414 PIRECTOQ EOM

O.T. ACTIVITIES

Miff FM FAmILY CO

Attachment 5

129


3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on RZ 2018-MV-012 (Fairfax County DPWES CAP BDCD) to Rezone from R-2, R-20 and HC to R-20 and HC to Permit Public Use with an Overall Floor Area Ratio of 0.39, Located on Approximately 1.5 Acres of Land (Mount Vernon District)

This property is located on the East side of Lukens Lane approximately 600 feet South of its intersection with Richmond Highway. Tax Map 75-1 ((1)) 8Z.

The Board of Supervisors deferred this public hearing from October 16, 2018 to December 4, 2018, at 3:30 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:On December 5, 2018, the Planning Commission voted 12-0 to recommend the following actions to the Board of Supervisors:

∑ Approval of RZ 2018-MV-012;

∑ Approval of a modification of Sect. 2-417 of the Zoning Ordinance for a 20-foot minimum front yard setback to permit 17 feet for a proposed fire station;

∑ Approval of a modification of Sect. 13-303 of the Zoning Ordinance for the transitional screening requirements and Sect. 13-304 for the barrier requirements to that as shown on the Generalized Development Plan; and

∑ Approval of a waiver of the Bicycle Master Plan recommendation for the delineation of a shared bike lane.

In a related action, on December 5, 2018, the Planning Commission voted 12-0 to find that 2232-V18-1 is substantially in accord with the provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and satisfies the criteria of character, location, and extent ofSection 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, as amended.

130


ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Planning Commission Verbatim Excerpt and Staff Report available online at:https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-zoning/zoning-application-board-packages-fairfax-county-board-supervisors

STAFF:Tracy Strunk, Director, Zoning Evaluation Division, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Jay Rodenbeck, Planner, DPZ

131

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-zoning/zoning-application-board-packages-fairfax-county-board-supervisors


Public hearing to be deferred to 3/5/19 at 3:30 p.m.


3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on RZ 2016-DR-027 (Pomeroy/Clark I, LLC) to Rezone from I-5 and PDC to PDH-20 to Permit Mixed-Use Development with an Overall Floor Area Ratio of 1.09 and a Density of 25.62 Dwelling Units Per Acre Including Bonus Density Associated with ADU/WDU and Approval of the Conceptual Development Plan, Located on Approximately 43.76 Acres of Land (Dranesville District) (Concurrent with PCA-C-637-4)

and

Public Hearing on PCA-C-637-4 (Pomeroy/Clark I, LLC) to Delete Land Area from RZ-C-637, Located on Approximately 37.70 Acres of Land (Dranesville District) (Concurrent with RZ 2016-DR-027)

This property is located in the N.W. quadrant of the intersection of Sunrise Valley Drive and Frying Pan Road, Tax Map 15-4 ((1)) 25 and 26A.

This property is located in the N.W. quadrant of the intersection of Sunrise Valley Drive and Frying Pan Road, Tax Map 15-4 ((1)) 26A.

The Board of Supervisors deferred this public hearing at the November 20, 2018 meeting until January 22, 2019 at 3:30 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:On November 1, 2018 the Planning Commission voted 11-0 (Commissioner Hart was absent from the meeting) to recommend the following actions to the Board of Supervisors:

∑ Approval of RZ 2016-DR-027 and the associated Conceptual Development Plan, subject to the execution of proffered conditions dated October 12, 2018;

∑ Approval of PCA-C-637-04;

∑ Modification of Par. 2 of Sect. 6-407 of the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) to allow a privacy yard less than 200 square feet for single family attached dwellings in favor of that shown on the Conceptual/Final Development Plan (CDP/FDP);

132



∑ Modification of Par. 4 of Sect. 11-202 of the ZO to permit a reduction in the minimum required distance of 40-feet for a loading space in proximity to a drive aisle for multi-family dwellings in favor of that shown on the CDP/FDP;

∑ Modification of Par. 4 of Section 11-203 of the ZO of the required multi-family dwelling loading space requirement to that shown on the CDP/FDP;

∑ Modification of Par. 2 of Sect. 11-302 of the ZO to allow private streets to exceed 600-foot maximum length in favor of that shown on the CDP/FDP;

∑ Modification of Par. 10 of Sect. 11-102 of the Fairfax County ZO to permit driveway parking in front of garage parking (i.e, tandem parking) for multifamily 2-over-2 stacked dwellings as shown on the CDP/FDP;

∑ Modification of Par. 1 of Sect. 13-305 of the ZO to waive internal transitional yard screening and barrier requirements within PDH District in favor of that shown on the CDP/FDP;

∑ Waiver of Par. 3B of Sect. 17-201 of the ZO requiring inter-parcel access to adjacent parcels in favor of that shown on the CDP/FDP;

∑ Modification of Par. 4 of Sect. 17-201 of the ZO requiring further dedication, construction or widening of existing roads in favor of that shown on the CDP/FDP; and

∑ Modification of Par. 2 of Sect. 17-201 of the ZO to modify the requirement of on-road Bicycle Lane on Sunrise Valley Drive and Frying Pan Road in favor of the 10-foot wide shared use path as shown on the CDP/FDP.

In a related action, the Planning Commission voted 11-0 (Commissioner Hart was absent from the meeting) to approve FDP 2016-DR-027, subject to the development conditions dated October 17, 2018 and subject to the approval of RZ 2016-DR-027 by the Board of Supervisors.

133




STAFF:Tracy Strunk, Director, Zoning Evaluation Division, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Kelly Atkinson, Planner, DPZ

134



Board Agenda Item REVISEDJanuary 22, 2019

3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on RZ 2018-SU-016 (PAG Chantilly P1, LLC) to Rezone from I-5, AN, HC and WS to C-8, AN, HC and WS to Permit Commercial Development with an Overall Floor Area Ratio of 0.35 and a Waiver of the Minimum Lot Size Requirement, Located on Approximately 4.15 Acres of Land (Sully District) (Concurrent with SE 2018-SU-011)

and

Public Hearing on SE 2018-SU-011 (PAG Chantilly P1, LLC) to Permit a Vehicle Sale, Rental and Ancillary Service Establishment and Waiver of the Minimum Lot Size Requirement, Located on Approximately 4.15 Acres of Land Zoned C-8, AN, HC and WS (Sully District) (Concurrent with RZ 2018-SU-016)

This property is located on the E. side of Stonecroft Boulevard, South side of Lee Jackson Memorial Highway and North side of Pepsi Place. Tax Map 34-1 ((1)) 2C

This property is located on the E. side of Stonecroft Boulevard, South side of Lee Jackson Memorial Highway and North side of Pepsi Place. Tax Map 34-1 ((1)) 2C

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On January 16, 2019, the Planning Commission voted 12-0 to recommend the following actions to the Board of Supervisors:

∑ Approval of RZ 2018-SU-016, subject to the execution of proffered conditions consistent with those dated December 18, 2018;

∑ Approval of SE 2018-SU-011, subject to the development conditions dated January 11, 2019; and

∑ Approval of a modification of Paragraph 2 of Section 17-201 of the Zoning Ordinance to waive the construction of the major paved trail requirement along Stonecroft Boulevard in favor of the existing trail on the west side of Stonecroft Boulevard.


STAFF:Tracy Strunk, Director, Zoning Evaluation Division, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Zach Fountain, Planner, DPZ

135




3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on AR 80-D-001-04 (Patowmack Farm, A Virginia Limited Partnership and Edith’s Log Cabin, A Virginia Limited Liability Company) to Permit the Renewal of a Previously Approved Agricultural and Forestal District, Located on Approximately 469.98 Acres of Land Zoned R-E, A&F District (Dranesville District)

This property is located at 215 Seneca Road, Great Falls, 22066. Tax Map 3-4 ((1)) 2Z, 3Z; 2-2 ((1)) 6Z; 3-3 ((1)) 1Z and 3-1 ((1)) 3Z, 4Z and 5Z.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On January 16, 2019, the Planning Commission voted 12-0 to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of AR 80-D-001-04 to amend Appendix E of the Fairfax County Code to renew the Potowmack Farm Statewide Agricultural and Forestal District, subject to proposed ordinance provisions consistent with those dated January 16, 2019.


STAFF:Tracy Strunk, Director, Zoning Evaluation Division, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Harvey Clark, Planner, DPZ

136




3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on SE 2018-PR-018 (Reformed Theological Seminary) to Permit a College/University, Located on Approximately 1.54 Acres of Land Zoned C-2 (Providence District)

This property is located at 8227 Old Courthouse Road, Tysons, 22182. Tax Map 39-1((9)) 1A.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On January 16, 2019, the Planning Commission voted 12-0 to recommend the following actions to the Board of Supervisors:

∑ Approval of SE 2018-PR-018, subject to the development conditions dated January 16, 2019; and

∑ Approval of a modification of Paragraph 2 of Section 17-201 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires the provision of a major trail along the subject property's Old Courthouse Road frontage, to permit the existing four-foot concrete sidewalk in lieu of the required major trail.


STAFF:Tracy Strunk, Director, Zoning Evaluation Division, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Daniel Creed, Planner, DPZ

137




3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on SE 2017-PR-011 (Martin-Leppert-Sipes Post 9274, VFW & A/K/A Falls Church VFW Club & Fraternal Order of Police NOVA Lodge 35, Inc.) to Permit a Private Club/Public Benefit Association, Located on Approximately 1.03 Acres of LandZoned R-4, C-3 and HC (Providence District)

This property is located at 7118 Shreve Road and 2343 Chestnut Street, Falls Church, 22043. Tax Map 40-3 ((1)) 107A and 114.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On November 29, 2018, the Planning Commission voted 10-1-1 (Commissioner Ulfelder voted in opposition and Commissioner Strandlie abstained from the vote) to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of SE 2017-PR-011, subject to the proposed development conditions dated November 26, 2018 as amended by the following motion.

The Planning Commission voted 9-2-1 (Commissioners Ulfelder and Niedzielski-Eichner voted in opposition and Commissioner Strandlie abstained from the vote) to amend the main motion to modify the development conditions as follows:

∑ Revise Development Condition Number 7 to read:

7. Limitation on non-member events.a. No more than 52 events where tickets are sold, or a cover

charge is imposed may be held per year. b. There shall be no limitation on meetings or events by other

public benefit associations, non-profit groups, other groups such as school groups, scouting groups, civic associations, clubs, or persons holding wedding receptions, or substantially similar meetings or events.

c. All of the above users and uses shall be subject to all requirements of these Development Conditions and all laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and County of Fairfax.

∑ Revise the first sentence of Development Condition Number 9 to read:

The hours of operation for all uses, including private parties/events, will be restricted to 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday and on a Sunday before a federal holiday.

138


Concurrently, the Planning Commission voted 11-0-1 (Commissioner Strandlie abstained from the vote) to recommend the following actions to the Board of Supervisors:

∑ Approval of a modification of the transitional screening and barrier requirements along the western property boundary to that shown on the Special Exception Plat;

∑ Approval of a waiver of the transitional screening and barrier requirements along the southern property boundary;

∑ Approval of a waiver of the peripheral parking lot landscape requirements;

∑ Approval of a modification of Section 17-201(2) of the Zoning Ordinance for a major paved trail to that depicted on the Special Exception Plat; and

∑ Approval of a waiver from the Bicycle Master Plan of the Comprehensive Plan for the on-road bike lane along Shreve Road.


STAFF:Tracy Strunk, Director, Zoning Evaluation Division, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Jay Rodenbeck, Planner, DPZ

139




3:30 p.m.

Public Hearing to Sell Board-Owned Property South of Spring Hill Road to Dominion Energy for an Electric Substation (Hunter Mill District)

ISSUE:Public hearing to sell Board-owned property located south of Spring Hill Road within and along an existing utility easement to Dominion Energy.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board authorize staff to sell Board-owned property to Dominion Energy.

TIMING:On November 20, 2018, Board authorized the advertisement of a public hearing on December 4, 2018, to sell Board-owned property to Dominion Energy. At the December 4, 2018 Board meeting, the public hearing was deferred to January 22, 2019 at 3:30 p.m.

BACKGROUND:The Board of Supervisors is the recipient of two proffered parcels of land associated with two rezoning applications by CARS (RZ 2011-HM-013) and Sunburst (RZ 2011-HM-027); Tax Map Nos. 29-3 ((1)) 3B, and 29-3 ((1)) 2G, respectively. The two proffered parcels are dedicated for the construction of a Dominion Energy electric substation adjacent to an existing Dominion transmission line right-of-way. The Board of Supervisors is also the owner of the land under the existing transmission line. Virginia Dominion Energy has applied and received approval for the proposed substation (FDP 2011-HM-013 and FDP 2011-HM-027).

The parcels are currently vacant with an overhead utility improvement.

Per the proffer requirements, the County made written requests for the subject properties, in June 2018. CARS DB1, LLC, was notified that Proffer 64 of RZ 2011-HM-013 obligates the owner of the property to dedicate, in fee simple, an approximate 15,718 square foot area of the property for public use as a Dominion Energy substation. Likewise, 1587 Springhill Holdings, Inc., was notified that Proffer 65 of RZ 2011-HM-027 obligates the owner of the property to dedicate, in fee simple, an approximate 12,286 square foot area on the southern portion of the property for public use as a Dominion Energy substation.

140


A deed of dedication and a Boundary Line Adjustment submission was made to the County and approved, creating a new subject parcel of approximately 0.95 acres, and to be shown as Tax Map No. 293 ((1)) 5A. Fairfax County staff and Virginia Dominion Energy have previously agreed to obtain a third-party appraisal that determined the value of the subject parcel to be $3,875,520.00.

Because the parcel is not needed for right-of-way purposes, and since the small size of the parcel and its isolation from other public land make it unsuitable for any other public use, the County will serve the greater public benefit by conveying the parcel to Dominion Energy for redevelopment.

Virginia Code Ann. § 15.2-1800 requires a locality to hold a public hearing before it may dispose of any real property. Staff recommends that the Board convey the Spring Hill substation property to Virginia Dominion Energy at a price established by the third-party appraisal of $3,875,520.00.

FISCAL IMPACT:Proceeds from the sale to Dominion Energy of $3,875,520 will be deposited into Fund 30010, General Construction and Contributions, and allocated to a project designated for public facilities in Tysons Corner.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1 – Location MapAttachment 2 – Resolution

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveJoseph M. Mondoro, Chief Financial OfficerChris Caperton, Office of Community Revitalization

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Alan Weiss, Assistant County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney

141

ATTACHMENT 1

142

ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION

At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, held in the Board Auditorium in the Fairfax County Government Center at Fairfax, Virginia, on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, at which a quorum was present and voting, the following resolution was adopted:

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors owns approximately 0.95 acres of land south of Spring Hill Road and west of Route 7, to be identified as Tax Map Parcel 293 ((1)) 5A, in Hunter Mill District,

WHEREAS, the County-owned property is not usable for County public use, and the County has no current or planned use for this parcel,

WHEREAS, the County and Purchaser have previously agreed to obtain a third-party appraisal that determined the value of the subject parcel to be $3,875,520.00,

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it would be in the best interest of the residents of Fairfax County to convey in consideration of the appraised value the real property as described above to Purchaser.

NOW,THEREFORE, upon public hearing duly advertised according to law, it is RESOLVED that, in consideration of the agreed-upon third-party appraisal of the subject parcel of $3,875,520.00, the County Executive is hereby authorized to execute all necessary documents to convey the real property described above to Purchaser.

A Copy Teste:

__________________________ Catherine A. Chianese Clerk to the Board of Supervisors

143


4:00 p.m.

Public Hearing on RZ 2017-MV-024 (Eastwood Properties, Inc.) to Rezone from R-2 and HC to PDH-16 and HC to Permit Residential Development with an Overall Density of 12.6 Dwelling Units Per Acre, Approval of the Conceptual Development Plan and Waiver of Minimum District Size and Open Space Requirements, Located on Approximately 38,134 Square Feet of Land (Mount Vernon District)

This property is located on the E. side of Skyview Drive, approximately 600 feet North of its intersection with Richmond Highway. Tax Map 101-3 ((10)) 6A and 7A.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On November 29, 2018, the Planning Commission voted 12-0 to recommend the following actions to the Board of Supervisors:

∑ Approval of RZ 2017-MV-024, subject to the execution of proffered conditions consistent with those dated November 8, 2018;

∑ Approval of a waiver of the minimum district size requirement pursuant to Section 9-610 of the Zoning Ordinance; and

∑ Approval of a waiver of the open space requirement pursuant to Section 9-612 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Concurrently, the Planning Commission voted 12-0 to approve FDP 2017-MV-024, subject to the development conditions dated November 14, 2018, and subject to the Board of Supervisors’ approval of RZ 2017-MV-024.


STAFF:Tracy Strunk, Director, Zoning Evaluation Division, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Harold Ellis, Planner, DPZ

144




4:00 p.m.

Public Hearing on a Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Re: Articles 2 and 20 –Commonly Accepted Pets and a Proposed Amendment to Chapter 41.1 of the Fairfax County Code – Animal Control and Care

ISSUE:The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will 1) allow hedgehogs, chinchillas, and hermit crabs to be considered commonly accepted pets in Fairfax County, and 2) will make minor edits to the Limitations on the Keeping of Animals in Section 2-512 of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the age of fowl and the maximum number that can be kept on a lot. This proposed amendment is in conjunction with an amendment to Chapter 41.1 of the Fairfax County Code, Animal Control and Care, which will add hedgehogs and chinchillas to the list of exceptions to the definition of wild and exotic animals. Together, these amendments will allow hedgehogs, chinchillas, and hermit crabs to be kept in the County without a Special Permit.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:On December 6, 2018, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment, to be effective at 12:01 a.m. on the day following adoption.

The Planning Commission also made two follow-on motions to direct staff to include a statement encouraging people to learn more about care requirements and safe handling in the press release announcing adoption of the amendment, and for the Animal Shelter staff to provide an update on the numbers of these types of animals received by the shelter within one year of adoption of the amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board have a public hearing on these proposed amendments on January 22, 2019.

TIMING:Board authorization to advertise public hearings on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment –October 16, 2018; Planning Commission public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment – November 29, 2018, decision deferred to December 6, 2018; Board authorization to advertise public hearing on the County Code Amendment –December 4, 2018; Board of Supervisors public hearing – January 22, 2019, at 4:00 p.m.

145


BACKGROUND:The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment is on the 2018 Priority 1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Work Program and proposes changes to the definition of commonly accepted pets. These proposed changes are in response to a Board request directing County staff to review and update existing zoning regulations, as well as regulations regarding wild and exotic animals found in Chapter 41.1 of the Code. Specifically, the amendment includes the following revisions to the definition of “commonly accepted pets” found in Part 3 of Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance:

∑ Add hedgehogs, chinchillas, and hermit crabs to the list of commonly accepted pets; and

∑ Replace the term “non-poisonous” with “not venomous to people” in reference to spiders and snakes.

The amendment also includes a revision to Section 2-512 of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

∑ Revise the age of domestic chickens, ducks, and geese that are included in the maximum number of fowl permitted to be kept on a lot from six months old to two months old.

A more detailed discussion of the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance, including input from the Animal Services Division, the Department of Animal Sheltering, and the Health Department, is presented in the Staff Report enclosed as Attachment 1.

Under the existing definition of wild or exotic animal in Fairfax County Code Chapter 41.1, Animal Control and Care, chinchillas have been determined not to be wild or exotic, despite not being listed as an exception. The proposed amendment to Chapter 41.1 explicitly adds chinchillas to the list of exceptions to this definition, thus clarifying that they are not wild or exotic and may be lawfully kept in the County. In contrast, hedgehogs have been determined to be wild or exotic under the existing definition and thus illegal to own. This amendment adds hedgehogs to the list of exceptions to thisdefinition, thus allowing them to be lawfully kept in the County.

The Animal Services Advisory Commission (“ASAC”) declined to endorse both theZoning Ordinance amendment and the Chapter 41.1 amendment. ASAC’s comments are included as Attachment 4. ASAC has raised concerns regarding animal welfare and the potential for poor animal husbandry. Staff from the Department of Animal Sheltering have raised similar concerns. These issues, as well as staff’s analysis, have been outlined in the Staff Report of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Staff is continuing to obtain information regarding the care of these animals in an effort to address the concerns that have been raised.

146


REGULATORY IMPACT:The proposed amendments to Part 3 of Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance and to Chapter 41.1 of the Fairfax County Code will specifically allow residents of Fairfax County to keep hedgehogs, chinchillas, and hermit crabs as commonly accepted pets.

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1 – Staff Report on Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment available at:

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-zoning/sites/planning-zoning/files/assets/documents/zoning%20ordinance/proposed%20amendments/commonlyacceptedpets.pdf

Attachment 2 – Proposed Amendments to Chapter 41.1, Animal Control and Care (markup)

Attachment 3 – Planning Commission Verbatim Excerpt available at: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/sites/planningcommission/files/assets/documents/pdf/2018%20verbatims/verbatim120618zoarticles2and20petsdeconly.pdf

Attachment 4 – Animal Services Advisory Commission Report

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveFred Selden, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Leslie B. Johnson, Zoning Administrator (DPZ)Casey V. Judge, Senior Assistant to the Zoning Administrator (DPZ)Karen Diviney, Director, Department of Animal ShelteringCaptain Paul Norton, Commander, Animal Services DivisionKatherine Edwards, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Management SpecialistBenjamin Klekamp, Communicable Disease Epidemiology Manager, Health Department

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:John Burton, Assistant County Attorney

147




https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/sites/planningcommission/files/assets/documents/pdf/2018%20verbatims/verbatim120618zoarticles2and20petsdeconly.pdf



Attachment 2

1

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 1 CHAPTER 41.1 OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO 2

ANIMAL CONTROL AND CARE 3 4

Draft of November 26, 2018 5 6 7

AN ORDINANCE to amend the Fairfax County Code by amending and 8 readopting Section 41.1-1-1, relating to wild and exotic animals. 9

10 Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County: 11

12 1. That Section 41.1-1-1 of the Fairfax County Code is amended and reenacted13

as follows:14 15

Section 41.1-1-1. - Definitions. 16 17

For the purpose of this Chapter, the following words and phrases have the following 18 meanings unless otherwise defined within this Chapter: 19

20 Adequate feed means access to and the provision of food that is of sufficient quantity and 21 nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is 22 prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and 23 type of each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to 24 minimize contamination by excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for 25 the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily, except as prescribed 26 by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting 27 normal for the species. 28 Adequate shelter means provision of and access to shelter that is suitable for the species, 29 age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for each animal; 30 is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the 31 adverse effects of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly 32 lighted; is properly cleaned; enables each animal to be clean and dry, except when 33 detrimental to the species; and, for dogs and cats, provides a solid surface, resting 34 platform, pad, floormat, or similar device that is large enough for the animal to lie on in a 35 normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner. Shelters whose wire, grid, 36 or slat floors permit the animals' feet to pass through the openings, sag under the animals' 37 weight or otherwise do not protect the animals' feet or toes from injury are not adequate 38 shelter. 39 Adequate space means sufficient space to allow each animal to (i) easily stand, sit, lie, 40 turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position 41

148

Attachment 2

2

for the animal and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. When an animal 1 is tethered, adequate space means a tether that permits the above actions and is 2 appropriate to the age and size of the animal; is attached to the animal by a properly 3 applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the animal from injury and 4 prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or animals, or 5 from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation or injury of the 6 animal; and is at least three times the length of the animal, as measured from the tip of 7 its nose to the base of its tail, except when the animal is being walked on a leash or is 8 attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of movement would endanger the 9 animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the animal according to 10 professionally accepted standards for the species is considered provision of adequate 11 space. 12 Adequate water means provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable water of a 13 drinkable temperature that is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at 14 suitable intervals, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species, condition, size and 15 type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally 16 occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, 17 durable receptacles that are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize 18 contamination of the water by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration 19 consistent with generally accepted husbandry practices. 20 Animal means any nonhuman vertebrate species except fish. 21 Animal control officer means a person appointed as the animal control officer or a deputy 22 animal control officer pursuant to Virginia law to enforce the Virginia Comprehensive 23 Animal Laws, this Chapter, and all laws for the protection of domestic animals. 24 Animal Shelter means the Fairfax County Animal Shelter which is operated by as a pound 25 as is defined in Virginia Code § 3.2-6500. 26 Animal Services Division means the Animal Services Division of the Fairfax County Police 27 Department. References to the Commander of the Animal Services Division mean the 28 Commander or his or her agent. 29 Certified service animal means a monkey that is used or is in training to be used solely to 30 assist disabled persons and which use is certified by officials of a generally recognized 31 scientific or educational institution, provided that such certified service animal has been 32 bred in a closed breeding environment located in the United States. 33 Circus means any commercial variety show featuring animal acts for public entertainment. 34 Companion animal means any domestic or feral dog, domestic or feral cat, non-human 35 primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit not raised for human food or fiber, exotic or native 36 animal, reptile, exotic or native bird, or any feral animal or any animal under the care, 37 custody, or ownership of a person or any animal that is bought, sold, traded, or bartered 38 by any person. Agricultural animals, game species, or any animals regulated under 39

149

Attachment 2

3

federal law as research animals shall not be considered companion animals for the 1 purpose of this chapter. 2 Director of Health means the Director of the Fairfax County Health Department or his or 3 her designee. 4 Director of Tax Administration means the Director of the Department of Tax 5 Administration or his or her designee. For purposes of issuing dog licenses, the Animal 6 Services Division is a designee of the Director of Tax Administration. 7 Horse means and includes horse, mule, donkey, and ass. 8 Kennel means any place in or at which five or more dogs or cats or hybrids of either are 9 kept for the purpose of breeding, hunting, training, renting, buying, boarding, selling, or 10 showing. 11 Livestock includes all domestic or domesticated: bovine animals; equine animals; ovine 12 animals; porcine animals; cervidae animals; capradae animals; animals of the genus 13 Lama; ratites; fish or shellfish in aquaculture facilities, as defined in state law; enclosed 14 domesticated rabbits or hares raised for human food or fiber; or any other individual 15 animal specifically raised for food or fiber, except companion animals. 16 Owner means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, 17 who has a right of property in an animal, keeps or harbors an animal, has an animal in 18 his, her or its care, or acts as a custodian of an animal, including operators or managers 19 of stables, kennels, pet shops, or other animal establishments. 20 Primary enclosure means any structure used to immediately restrict an animal to a limited 21 amount of space, such as a room, tank, pen, cage, compartment or hutch. For tethered 22 animals, the term includes the shelter and the area within reach of the tether. 23 Releasing agency means a pound, animal shelter, humane society, animal welfare 24 organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other similar entity or 25 home-based rescue that releases a companion animal for adoption, including the Fairfax 26 County Animal Shelter. 27 Rightful owner means a person with a right of property in the animal. 28 Service animal means any dog or miniature horse that is individually trained to do work 29 or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, 30 sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, 31 whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes 32 of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related 33 to the handler's disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, 34 assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, 35 alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, 36 providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an 37 individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving 38 items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with 39 balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with 40

150

Attachment 2

4

psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or 1 destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the 2 provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute 3 work or tasks for the purposes of this definition. 4 Traveling animal exhibition means any spectacle, display, act or event, including circuses 5 and carnivals, where animals are maintained, whether or not the animals actually perform, 6 the owners or operators of which do not have their principal place of business in Fairfax 7 County, Virginia, and that are required to obtain a temporary special permit pursuant to 8 the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a horse or pony ride is not a 9 traveling animal exhibition. 10 Unrestricted means not under the control of the owner or his agent either by leash, cord, 11 chain, or primary enclosure when off the property or premises of the owner or custodian. 12 An electronic device does not qualify as a leash, cord or chain. 13 Vicious animal means any animal or animals that constitute a physical threat to human 14 beings or other animals, not to include vicious dogs, which are addressed separately 15 within this Chapter. 16 Wild or exotic animal means any live monkey (non-human primate), raccoon, skunk, wolf, 17 squirrel, fox, leopard, panther, tiger, lion, lynx or any other warm-blooded animal, 18 poisonous snake or tarantula that can normally be found in the wild state or any other 19 member of a crocodilian, including but not limited to alligators, crocodiles, caimans, and 20 gavials. Ferrets, hedgehogs, chinchillas, non-poisonous snakes, rabbits, and laboratory 21 rats that have been bred in captivity and that have never known the wild are excluded 22 from this definition. 23

24 2. That the provisions of this ordinance are severable, and if any provision of25

this ordinance or any application thereof is held invalid, that invalidity shall26 not affect the other provisions or applications of this ordinance that can be27 given effect without the invalid provision or application.28

29 3. That the provisions of this ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.30

31

GIVEN under my hand this 22nd day of January, 2019. 32 33 34

_______________________________ 35 Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 36

37 38

151

Point Paper, Animal Services Advisory Commission

Subject: Fairfax County Regulations on Exotic Animals: Hedgehogs/Chinchillas/Hermit Crabs

Background

- Hedgehogs are not now permitted in Fairfax; chinchillas and hermit crabs are allowedwith approval of a special permit application requiring a substantial fee.

- Some have lobbied to own such animals. There’s a proposal to amend zoning to defineall three as “commonly accepted pets” and exclude hedgehogs as “wild or exotic.”

- Fairfax City, Falls Church, and Prince William don’t permit hedgehogs; chinchillas arepermitted in Prince William.

- Per Planning and Zoning, Arlington and Loudoun allow these animals and have receivedfew complaints. Hedgehogs and chinchillas tend to be adopted.

- The HSUS strongly favors prohibiting the ownership of exotic animals.

Discussion

- The County Wildlife Biologist has concerns because they are trendy which may result inoutside releases, but doubts wild populations would be established. The HealthDepartment doesn’t object to exotics as pets.

- The Shelter Director is not in favor of permitting them and believes some are likely toend up in the Shelter since their care is more complicated than domestic pets. Ferretswere “trendy” 5-8 years ago and frequently ended up at the shelter, often ill, butthey’ve seen few in recent years. Hedgehogs currently seem to be “trendy.”

- The Chief of Animal Protection Police does not favor permitting.- One local exotics veterinarian favors permitting since this increases the likelihood of

owners seeing vets for care of such animals.- We have limited data on the number of citizens who wish to keep these exotics as pets.

County legal staff have received a few calls, but actual numbers have not beencollected, either recently or in the past. Without data indicating a strong demand forchanges in the ordinances, we cannot support this proposal.

- The HSUS points out hedgehogs, in particular, need special physical environments, canspread infections to humans, and may live 10 years. They’re nocturnal while humansaren’t, and are timid around people. They curl into spiky balls when frightened and areprone to “wobbly hedgehog syndrome” the first case of which the Shelter recently saw.

- Exotic animal wholesalers experience mortality rates as high as 70%, per HSUS.- The Humane Society of Fairfax County opposes hedgehogs as pets.- The Hedgehog Welfare Society issued a four page care sheet detailing housing, food,

water, socialization, light/temperature, diet, and veterinary needs. Purchasing theseanimals is easy; proper care is difficult.

- Discussions with two local veterinarians revealed similar concerns, particularlyappropriate husbandry. Animals lacking the correct physical environments and nutritionbecome ill; only a small percentage of veterinarians can treat them.

Attachment 4

152

- When proper care for exotics becomes difficult, as it often does, they frequently turn up at shelters or are abandoned.

- Hermit crabs live 20+ years in the wild. Per several pet care websites and an animal welfare group, they often live less than a year in captivity. Unknown to most owners, appropriate care is complex. Thousands are collected in foreign countries (along with replacement shells) severely impacting populations.

- Animal Services Advisory Commission members are concerned about exotics showing up at the Shelter, if permitted.

Conclusions

- The ASAC has no objective basis for determining the “trendiness” of such animals or the actual number of citizens who wish to own them.

- Exotics are difficult to care for properly, even for dedicated owners. - Many suppliers provide exotics severely deficient care leading to high mortality rates. - It’s probable some number will end up at the Animal Shelter if widely allowed,

depending on how attractive social and other media make them seem. - There are no clear advantages to permitting such animals as pets. - The Commission feels non-domesticated, i.e, wild animals, should be left in the wild.

Recommendation: - The Board of Supervisors decline to permit such animals in Fairfax County - Staff review the detailed fact and care sheets on hedgehogs.

Approval:

This document was approved by the ASAC on November 28, 2018

Sources: Humane Society of the U.S.; PetHelpful; Hedgehog Welfare Society; County Legal Staff; Stacey Teixeira, DVM, Montrose Animal Hospital; Humane Society of Fairfax County.

Prepared by Church/10-7-18/rev. 10-12/r. 10-18-18/rev. 11-18-18/rev.11-28-18

153

To be Deferred to February 5, 2019 at

3:30 p.m.Board Agenda ItemJanuary 22, 2019

4:00 p.m.

Public Hearing on Proposed Plan Amendments 2018-IV-BK1: Huntley Meadows Park Path from Telegraph Road to Harrison Lane; and 2018-IV-TR1: Huntley Meadows Park Trail from Telegraph Road to Lockheed Boulevard (Lee District)

ISSUE:Plan Amendment (PA) 2018-IV-TR1 considers the removal of a planned minor paved trail through Huntley Meadows Park from Telegraph Road to Lockheed Boulevard (Tax Maps 100-2, 101-1, 101-2, and 92-4) from the Comprehensive Plan. PA 2018-IV-BK1considers the removal of a planned shared use path through Huntley Meadows Park from Telegraph Road to Harrison Lane (Tax Maps 92-1, 92-3, and 92-4) from the Comprehensive Plan. Concerns about the impacts of these planned facilities on natural and heritage resources were identified during the Embark Richmond Highway planning process.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:On January 16, 2019, the Planning Commission voted 12-0 to defer decision only on these plan amendments to a date certain of January 30, 2019. The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded subsequent to that date.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve these amendments.

TIMING:Planning Commission public hearing – January 30, 2018Board of Supervisors’ public hearing – January 22, 2019

BACKGROUND:On March 20, 2018, following adoption of PA 2015-IV-MV1 (Embark Richmond Highway), the Board of Supervisors authorized consideration of PAs 2018-IV-TR1 and 2018-IV-BK1 for the removal of two planned trail connections through Huntley Meadows Park, both in the Rose Hill Planning District. The Countywide Trails Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, currently recommends a minor paved trail along the southern and eastern edges of Huntley Meadows Park and along Hayfield Road. The

154

To be Deferred to February 5, 2019 at

3:30 p.m.Board Agenda ItemJanuary 22, 2019

Bicycle Master Plan, also a component of the Comprehensive Plan, currently recommends a shared use path in the northern part of Huntley Meadows Park.

There are also Comprehensive Plan recommendations pertaining to the minor trail facility planned along the southern and eastern edges of Huntley Meadows Park in the Parks and Recreation section of the Rose Hill Planning District. On October 16, 2018, the Board amended the original authorization of PA 2018-IV-TR1 to include consideration of revisions to the Area IV volume of the Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Recreation section of the Rose Hill Planning District.

The Board directed that staff initiate and expedite the PAs to evaluate deleting theseplanned trails from the Comprehensive Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT:There is no fiscal impact resulting from this action.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1: Planning Commission Verbatim Excerpt – to be provided after the January 9, 2019 PC meeting for PA 2018-IV-TR1 and PA 2018-IV-BK1

The Staff Report for PA 2018-IV-TR1 and PA-IV-BK1 has been previously furnished and is available online at:https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-zoning/sites/planning-zoning/files/assets/documents/compplanamend/huntleytrail1/2018-iv-bk1-tr1-staffreport.pdf

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveTom Biesiadny, Director, Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT)Gregg Steverson, Chief, Site Analysis and Transportation Planning Division, FCDOTLeonard Wolfenstein, Chief, Transportation Planning Section, FCDOTThomas Burke, Transportation Planner, FCDOTRobert Pikora, Transportation Planner, FCDOTZachary Krohmal, Transportation Planner, FCDOTMeghan Van Dam, Chief, Policy and Plan Development Branch, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Sophia Fisher, Planner, DPZAndrea Dorlester, Manager, Park Planning Branch, Fairfax County Park Authority (FCPA)Ryan Stewart, Park Planner, FCPA

155

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-zoning/sites/planning-zoning/files/assets/documents/compplanamend/huntleytrail1/2018-iv-bk1-tr1-staffreport.pdf




4:00 p.m. -

Public Hearing on a Proposed County Code Amendment Re: Minor Revisions to Chapter 108.1 (Noise Ordinance)

ISSUE:The proposed Noise Ordinance amendment is on the 2018 Priority 1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Work Program and is in response to Senate Bill 926 which was adopted by the 2017 Virginia General Assembly and allows Police Departments to enforce the Noise Ordinance through the use of civil penalties. The proposed amendment implements Senate Bill 926 and would also allow staff to revoke noise waivers as a result of non-compliance with noise waiver conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Noise Ordinance amendment as advertised.

TIMING:Board of Supervisors’ authorization to advertise on November 20, 2018, and Board public hearing on January 22, 2019 at 4:00 p.m.

BACKGROUND:The current Noise Ordinance (Chapter 108.1 of the County Code) was adopted on November 15, 2015, with an effective date of February 17, 2016. The delayed effective date was to provide time for staff training, update relevant County websites, and prepare information items to assist the public and staff in understanding the new regulations. In addition, the Board directed staff to monitor the effectiveness and impact of the new Noise Ordinance for an 18-month period after its enactment and report whether any adjustments to the Ordinance were needed. In a memorandum dated September 18, 2017, staff provided a Noise Ordinance update which included a discussion on staff training and outreach activities, enforcement statistics and noise waiver requests. The memorandum concluded that overall the Noise Ordinance appeared to be effective, but recommended several amendments to aid in enforcement. Specifically, staff recommended that the Noise Ordinance be amended to exempt animal noise during the day, to allow the Police Department to impose civil penalties, and to allow staff to revoke noise waivers for failure to comply with noise waiver conditions. The staff recommendations were included as a Priority 1 item on the 2018 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Work Program which was adopted by the Board on July 10, 2018. After further consideration, staff is recommending that animal noise continue to be monitored and to make no changes to amend the animal noise provisions in the

156


Noise Ordinance at this time. Specifically, the proposed amendments to the Noise Ordinance would:

(1) Allow the Police Department to enforce the Noise Ordinance through the use of civil penalties; and

(2) Allow staff to revoke noise waivers if the applicant fails to comply with all conditions of the noise waiver.

A more detailed discussion of the proposed changes is presented in the Staff Report enclosed as Attachment 1.

REGULATORY IMPACT:The proposed amendment will facilitate the enforcement and implementation of the Noise Ordinance by allowing the Police Department to use civil penalties in the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance, and allowing staff to revoke noise waivers for failure to comply with all conditions of the Noise Ordinance waiver.

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENT:Attachment 1 – Staff Report

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveFred Selden, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Leslie B. Johnson, Zoning Administrator, DPZRyan Johnson, Assistant to the Zoning Administrator, DPZ

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Cherie Halyard, Assistant County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney

157

ATTACHMENT 1

STAFF REPORT

V I R G I N I A

PROPOSED COUNTY CODE AMENDMENT

Chapter 108.1 (Noise Ordinance) of the Fairfax County Code

Re: Minor Revisions

PUBLIC HEARING DATE Board of Supervisors January 22, 2019 at 4:00 p.m.

PREPARED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 703-324-1314

November 20, 2018 RJ

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Reasonable accommodation is available upon 7 days advance notice. For additional information on ADA call 703-324-1334 or TTY 711 (Virginia Relay Center).

FAIRFAX COUNTY

158

2

STAFF COMMENT

Issue The proposed Noise Ordinance Amendment is on the 2018 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Work Program and is response to Senate Bill 926 which was adopted by the 2017 Virginia General Assembly and allows Police Departments to enforce the Noise Ordinance through the use of civil penalties. The proposed amendment implements Senate Bill 926 and would also allow staff to revoke noise waivers as a result of non-compliance with noise waiver conditions. Background The current Noise Ordinance (Chapter 108.1 of the County Code) was adopted on November 15, 2015, with an effective date of February 17, 2016. The delayed effective date was to provide time for staff training, update relevant County websites, and prepare information items to assist the public and staff in understanding the new regulations. In addition, the Board directed staff to monitor the effectiveness and impact of the new Noise Ordinance for an 18-month period after its enactment and report whether any adjustments to the Ordinance were needed. In a memorandum dated September 18, 2017, staff provided a Noise Ordinance update which included a discussion on staff training and outreach activities, enforcement statistics and noise waiver requests. The memorandum concluded that overall the Noise Ordinance appeared to be effective, but recommended several amendments to aid in enforcement. Specifically, staff recommended that the Noise Ordinance be amended to exempt animal noise during the day, to allow the Police Department to impose civil penalties, and to allow staff to revoke noise waivers for failure to comply with noise waiver conditions. The staff recommendations were included as a Priority 1 item on the 2018 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Work Program which was adopted by the Board on July 10, 2018. Each of the recommendations are discussed below:

Imposition of Civil Penalties by the Police Department Under Sect. 108.1-3-1, the Noise Ordinance is administered and enforced by the Director of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) and/or his duly authorized agents, including the Zoning Administrator, the Department of Code Compliance, and the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services. Under Section 108.1-302, violations of the Noise Ordinance can be enforced through the use of civil penalties, criminal misdemeanors, or prosecuted in Circuit Court by requests for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief. The primary goal of any enforcement action is to gain compliance and the use of a certain enforcement method may be more effective in certain situations. Under Sect. 108.1-3-1(b) of the Noise Ordinance, the Police Department can only enforce violations of the Noise Ordinance as misdemeanors. In 2017, the Virginia General Assembly adopted Senate Bill 926 which allows police departments to enforce noise violations through the use of civil penalties. A copy of Senate Bill 926 is enclosed as Attachment A. It is believed that the Police Department’s use of civil penalties could be an effective and reasonable means of gaining compliance in certain situations. In response, the proposed Noise Ordinance would

159

3

allow the Police to use civil penalties to enforce the Noise Ordinance. Specifically, the amendment would delete Sect. 108.1-3-1(b) and would amend Sect. 108.1-3-1(a) to add the Police Department to the list of authorized agents who can administer and enforce the Noise Ordinance through the use of civil penalties.

Revocation of Noise Waivers for Failure to Comply with Noise Waiver Conditions Under Sect. 108.1-6-1, a person responsible for a noise source can apply to the Director of DPZ for a waiver or partial waiver from any of the provisions of the Noise Ordinance. The Director may grant the waiver provided that the noise does not endanger the public, health, safety or welfare; or compliance with the Noise Ordinance from which the waiver is sought would produce serious hardship without producing equal or greater benefit to the public; and reasonable efforts are made to minimize the adverse impacts of the nose on adjacent properties. The Zoning Inspections Branch processes such waiver requests. In determining whether to grant the waiver, staff considers the following: the time of day when noise will occur, duration of the noise, its loudness relative to the limits of the Noise Ordinance, whether the noise is intermittent or continuous, its extensiveness, ambient noise levels, the technical and economic feasibility of bringing the noise into conformance with the Noise Ordinance, and such other matters as are reasonably related to the impact of the noise on the health, safety and welfare of the community and the degree of hardship which may result from the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance allows a waiver to be approved for up to one year. All noise waiver requests are coordinated with the Board member’s office of the Magisterial District in which the site is located. A noise waiver typically includes conditions that help mitigate the noise on nearby residences. For example, the use of jack hammers and other types of construction equipment may be prohibited during nighttime hours. There is no provision in the Noise Ordinance that specifically allows the County to revoke a noise waiver for failure to comply with the noise waiver conditions. This additional enforcement tool is recommended by staff to ensure compliance with the Noise Ordinance, mitigate the potential adverse impacts that noise sources may have on the community, and to allow staff to more effectively enforce the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed amendment would add a new (f) to Sect. 108.1-6-1 that would allow the Director to revoke a noise waiver due to failure of the applicant to comply with all conditions of the waiver.

Animal Noise Exemption Under Sect. 108.1-4-1, animal noise is prohibited between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. when it is plainly audible and discernible in any other person’s residence. Animal noise is also prohibited between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. when plainly audible and discernible in any other person’s residence as described above, and can be heard for more than 5 consecutive or nonconsecutive minutes in any 10-minute period. The daytime animal noise standard has been difficult for staff to enforce given that the inspector must hear the noise violation during the course of multiple inspections, and the animal noise cannot be the result of the animal responding to pain or injury or is protecting itself, its kennels, its offspring, or a person from a real threat. In order to facilitate enforcement, staff noted that the Noise Ordinance could be amended to exempt animal noise from the Noise Ordinance between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and maintaining the plainly audile

160

4

standard at night when most people are sleeping. However, after further consideration, staff is recommending that animal noise continue to be monitored and to make no changes to the animal noise provision in the Noise Ordinance at this time. However, it should be noted that the issue of rooster crowing is being addressed in conjunction with a Zoning Ordinance amendment which is scheduled for a Board public hearing in December, 2018. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would prohibit the keeping of roosters on any lot, except when the rooster is located on lots of five acres or more and is part of a bonafide agricultural use.

Conclusion The proposed amendment would allow the use of civil penalties by the Police Department in the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance and would also allow staff to revoke noise waivers as a result of non-compliance with noise waiver conditions. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed amendment would facilitate the enforcement and implementation of the Noise Ordinance and would help mitigate adverse impacts of noise on adjacent properties. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments with an effective date of 12:01 a.m. on the day following adoption.

161

5

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CHAPTER 108.1 (NOISE ORDINANCE)

OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY CODE Amend Article 3. Administration, Penalties and Authority and Duties, Section 108.1-3-1. 1 Administration and Enforcement, by revising Par. (a) to read as follows, deleting Par. (b), 2 and relettering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: 3 4 (a) The provisions of this Chapter shall will be administered and enforced by the Director 5 and/or his/her duly authorized agents, including the Zoning Administrator, the Department of Code 6 Compliance, the Police Department, and the Department of Public Works and Environmental 7 Services, and shall will be assisted by other County departments as applicable. 8 9 (b) In addition, the provisions of the Chapter may also be enforced by the Police Department. 10 If so enforced by the Police Department, the civil remedies referenced below shall not be 11 applicable. 12

13 14 Amend Article 6. Waivers, Section 108.1-6-1. Waivers, by adding a new Par. (e) to read as 15 follows and relettering the subsequent paragraph accordingly: 16

17 (e) A noise waiver may be revoked by the Director if the applicant fails to comply with all 18 conditions of the waiver. 19

162

1 8/20/2018

ATTACHMENT A

Code of VirginiaTitle 15.2. Counties, Cities and TownsChapter 9. General Powers of Local Governments

§ 15.2-980. Civil penalties for violations of noise ordinancesAny locality may, by ordinance, adopt a uniform schedule of civil penalties for violations of that locality's noise ordinance. This provision shall not apply to noise generated in connection with the business being performed on industrial property. Civil fines will not exceed $250 for the first offense and $500 for each subsequent offense. The locality may authorize the chief law- enforcement officer to enforce any civil penalties adopted pursuant to the provisions of this section. The provisions of this section shall not apply to railroads. No ordinance of any locality shall apply to sound emanating from any area permitted by the Virginia Department of Mines,Minerals and Energy or any division thereof.

2010, cc. 501, 788;2017, c. 649.

The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired.

163






4:30 p.m.

Public Hearing to Reallocate Proffered Funds from the Springfield Cultural Center to theSpringfield Branding Project (Lee District)

ISSUE:The proffers accepted with RZ-2005-LE-022, (Residence Inn by Marriot Inc.), included acash contribution of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to the Springfield CulturalCenter. That contribution was made to the County. However, no such cultural centerexists today or existed at the time of the rezoning, and there are no plans identified todevelop such a facility.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board authorize the reallocation of theproffered contribution from the Springfield Cultural Center to the Springfield BrandingProject.

TIMING:Board action is requested on January 22, 2019, as the funds proffered for theSpringfield Cultural Center will expire on October 20, 2019.

BACKGROUND:The Springfield Branding Project aims to improve the image and identity of theSpringfield area through the development of branding applications to include signs,banners and other streetscape improvements. Currently funded at $100,000.00 throughthe Economic Development Success Fund, the original scope of the project will beenhanced with additional funds.

Virginia Code § 15.22303.2(C) allows a locality to use cash payments proffered forcapital improvements that are for alternative improvements of the same category andare within the vicinity of the improvements for which the cash payments were originallymade.

Before using the cash contributions for the alternate improvements, thirty days writtennotice of the proposed alternative improvements must be given to the entities that madethe cash payment and the Board must conduct a public hearing on the proposal.Following the public hearing, the Board can use the cash contributions for alternativeimprovements if it finds that: (a) the improvements for which the cash contributions wereproffered cannot occur in a timely manner or the functional purpose for which thecontributions were made no longer exists; (b) the alternative improvements are within

164


the vicinity of the proposed improvements for which the cash payments were proffered;and, (c) the alternative improvements are in the public interest.

The Proffer Statement for RZ-2005-LE-022, dated June 4, 2006, stated the following:

“5. Cash contributions. The following cash contributions shall be made prior to theissuance of the “Non-Rup” (or occupancy permit) for the Hotel:

b. Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to the Springfield Cultural Center”.

Staff has concluded that the proposed re-allocation of this cash contribution to theSpringfield Branding Project would meet the requirements of Virginia Code§ 15.22303.2(C) for proffer reallocation, as outlined above.

FISCAL IMPACT:The reallocation of this proffer will supplement currently authorized funding for theSpringfield Branding Project, (in Project CR-000008, OCR-Springfield RevitalizationFund 30010, General Construction and Contribution). Should the Board not approve thereallocation, the funds proffered for the Springfield Cultural Center will expire onOctober 20, 2019, and become unavailable to be used for other improvements.


STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveBarbara A. Byron, Director, Office of Community RevitalizationDouglas A. Loescher, Revitalization Manager, Office of Community Revitalization

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:F. Hayden Codding, Assistant County Attorney

165


4:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on a Proposal to Abandon a Portion of Cinder Bed Road (Mount Vernon District)

ISSUE:Public hearing on a proposal to abandon a portion of Cinder Bed Road.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board adopt the attached order(Attachment III) for abandonment of the subject right-of-way.

TIMING:On December 4, 2018, the Board authorized the public hearing to consider the proposed abandonment for January 22, 2019, at 4:30 p.m.

BACKGROUND:The Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) requests that a portion of Cinder Bed Road be abandoned under Virginia Code § 33.2-909, in order to pursue the completion of Project Number 5G25-054-000, the realignment of Cinder Bed Road at its intersection with Newington Road. The subject right-of-way is located east of the Newington Road railroad underpass and adjacent to the overlap of Cinder Bed Road and Newington Road. This right-of-way is part of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) State Secondary System (Route 637).

FCDOT is making this request for abandonment as part of the County’s project to realign the northern intersection of Cinder Bed Road and Newington Road. The previous acute-angle intersection has been replaced with a new right-angle intersection to the north. Abandonment of the disused right-of-way will assist in the acceptance of the new intersection into the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Secondary System of State Highways.

All of the land subject to this abandonment will be owned by the Board of Supervisors. Although sections “B” and “C” on the abandonment plat (Attachment IV) are prescriptive right-of-way, the Board owns the property to which the prescriptive right-of-way will attach.

166


Traffic Circulation and AccessThe abandonment will have no long-term impact on pedestrian, transit, or vehicle circulation and access. The new alignment of Cinder Bed Road is in service and performs all functions of the previous alignment.

EasementsThe project manager has certified that all easement requirements for the project have been met (Attachment VI).

During design and construction of this project, the proposal to abandon this right-of-way was circulated to the following public agencies and utility companies for review: Office of the County Attorney, Department of Public Works and Environmental Services, Fairfax County Department of Transportation, Department of Planning and Zoning, Fairfax County Park Authority, Fairfax County Water Authority, Fairfax County School Board, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department, Virginia Department of Transportation, Dominion Virginia Power, Washington Gas Light Company, and Verizon. None of these indicated any opposition to the proposal.

FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment I: Application MemoAttachment II: Notice of Intent Attachment III: Order of AbandonmentAttachment IV: Abandonment PlatAttachment V: Metes and Bounds DescriptionAttachment VI: Utility CertificationAttachment VII: Vicinity Map

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveTom Biesiadny, Director, Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT)Gregg Steverson, Chief, Site Analysis and Transportation Planning Division, FCDOTDonald Stephens, FCDOT

167

ATTACHMENT I

168

ATTACHMENT I

169

ATTACHMENT II

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ABANDON CINDER BED ROAD (Route 637) MOUNT VERNON DISTRICT, Fairfax County, Virginia

Notice is hereby given that the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, will hold a

public hearing on January 22, 2019, at 4:30 PM during its regular meeting in the Board Auditorium

of the Fairfax County Government Center, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, VA,

pursuant to Virginia Code Ann. § 15.2-2204 on the proposed abandonment of public road known as

Cinder Bed Road, comprising a total area of 33,782 square feet, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.2-

909 The road is located on Tax Maps 99-2 and 99-4, and is described and shown on the metes and

bounds schedule dated October 29, 2018, and plat dated March 6, 2018, both prepared by Fairfax

County Land Surveys Branch, and both of which are on file with the Fairfax County Department of

Transportation, 4050 Legato Road, Suite 400, Fairfax, Virginia 22033, Telephone Number (703)

877-5600.

MOUNT VERNON DISTRICT.

§ 33.2-909

170

ATTACHMENT III

ORDER OF ABANDONMENT

CINDER BED ROAD

(Route 637)

MOUNT VERNON DISTRICT Fairfax County, Virginia

At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, held

this 22nd day of January, 2019, it was duly moved and seconded that:

WHEREAS, after conducting a public hearing pursuant to notice as required by Virginia Code §33.2-909, and after giving due consideration to the historic value, if any, of such road, the Board has determined that no public necessity exists for continuance of this road as a public road, and that the safety and welfare of the public will be served best by an abandonment,

WHEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED:

That Cinder Bed Road, comprising a total area of 33,782 square feet, located on Tax Maps 99-2 and 99-4, and described on the plat dated March 6, 2018, and metes and bounds schedule dated October 29, 2018, both prepared by Fairfax County Land Survey Branch dated March 6, 2018, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein, be and the same is hereby abandoned as a public road pursuant to Virginia Code §33.2-909.

This abandonment is subject to any right, privilege, permit, license, easement in favor of any public service company, utility, or other person or entity, including any political subdivision, whether located above, upon, or under the surface, either currently in use or of record, including the right to operate, maintain, replace, alter, extend, increase or decrease in size any facilities in the abandoned roadway, without any permission of the landowner(s).

A Copy Teste:

Catherine Chianese Clerk to the Board

§33.2-909

171

ATTACHMENT IV

172

ATTACHMENT V

173

ATTACHMENT V

174

ATTACHMENT V

175

1

Stephens, Donald E.

From: Nguyen, TanSent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 3:58 PMTo: Stephens, Donald E.Cc: Ayers, Robert R.; Dodge, Christina Y.; Khorashadi, FereshtehSubject: Cinder Bed Road - Utility & Easement Certification

Hi Donald, The utility coordination for Project 5G25-054-000, Cinder Bed Road Improvement has been completed, requiring no further action. All utility and permanent easements within the areas to be abandoned have been accounted for and easement needs have been identified and provided for recordation. Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information. Tan Nguyen, Utility Team Leader Utilities Engineering & Coordination Transportation Design Division Fairfax County Department of Transportation (703) 877-5734 Direct (703) 877-5776 Fax [email protected]

ATTACHMENT VI

176

±

0 310 620FeetParcel Boundaries

Public Road

Vicinity Map - Tax Map 99-4ATTACHMENT VII

Cinder Bed Road:Area of Abandonment

Newington Road

Cinde

r Bed

Road

Newington Road

School Bus Garage

Cinder Bed Road:New Alignment

177


4:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to The Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia (Code) Chapter 101 (Subdivision Ordinance), Chapter 112 (Zoning Ordinance), Chapter 118 (Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance) and to the Public Facilities Manual (PFM) Regarding Codifying the Delineation of Buildable Areas on Plans of Development, Adding Running Bamboo to Noxious Weeds and Other Editorial Changes

ISSUE:Board of Supervisors (Board) adoption of proposed amendments to the Code and PFM to require that development plans delineate the buildable areas on each lot, adding running bamboo to the list of noxious weeds and other edits.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:On December 5, 2018, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Board adoption of the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, and the Public Facilities Manual, as set forth in the staff report dated October 30, 2018.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board adopt the proposed amendments as set forth in the Staff Report dated October 30, 2018. The proposed amendments havebeen prepared by Land Development Services (LDS) and coordinated with the Department of Planning and Zoning and the Office of the County Attorney.

TIMING:Board action is requested on January 22, 2019. On October 30, 2018, the Board authorized the advertising of the public hearings. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 5, 2018. If adopted, the proposed amendments will become effective on January 23, 2019, at 12:01 a.m.

178


BACKGROUND:In 2017, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted a Compliance Review of the County’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance and Program in accordance with § 62.1-44.15:69 and § 62.1-44.15:71 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and 9VAC25-830-260 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (Regulations). DEQ staff recommended one condition regarding the County’s implementation of our program. Consequently, staff proposes that the County amend its local ordinances to include requirements for the delineation on development-related plans of the buildable areas on each lot as required by 9VAC25-830-190(a)(5) of the Regulations. The package of amendments includesother minor changes and editorial corrections.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT:The proposed amendments to Chapters 101, 112, and 118 and the PFM revise the submission requirements for the following plans of development: Site Plans (SPs), Minor Site Plans (MSPs), Preliminary Plans (PLs), Subdivision Plans (SDs), Infill Lot Grading Plans (INFs), Conservation Plans (CONs), Rough Grading Plans (RGPs) andPublic Improvement Plans (PIs) to require a delineation of the buildable areas on each lot, based on the performance criteria in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, minimum required yards in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, and any other relevant easements and limitations on lot coverage.

Additional amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance include: §118-1-6(r) to add running bamboo to the list of noxious weeds, correct §118-1-9(d)(1) by deleting an extraneous sentence, edit §118-3-2 and §118-3-3 to update the references to the National Soil Survey Handbook and Virginia Administrative Code, and edit §118-5-3(c) to update the reference to the Virginia Department of Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality Technical Manual. Finally, the term “shall” is changed to “must” in those sections included in the amendment.

REGULATORY IMPACT:The impact of the proposed amendments will be minimal, as submitted plans currently comply with the intent of the codes and regulations governing buildable area. The proposed amendments codify the requirement for SPs, MSPs, PLs, SDs, INFs, RGPs, CONs, and PIs. The proposed amendment to add running bamboo to the list of noxious weeds will qualify the removal of running bamboo from the RPA for a simpler administrative approval process.

179


FISCAL IMPACT:None.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Verbatim Excerpt available online at: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/sites/planningcommission/files/assets/documents/pdf/2018%20verbatims/verbatim120518zoa-pfmcodechapters101-112-118.pdfAttachment 2 - Staff Report available online at:https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/sites/landdevelopment/files/assets/documents/pdf/pfm/staff_report_delineation_buildable_area.pdf

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveWilliam D. Hicks, P.E., Director, Land Development ServicesLeslie B. Johnson, Zoning Administrator, Department of Planning and Zoning

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Paul Emerick, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney

180

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planningcommission/sites/planningcommission/files/assets/documents/pdf/2018%20verbatims/verbatim120518zoa-pfmcodechapters101-112-118.pdf



https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/sites/landdevelopment/files/assets/documents/pdf/pfm/staff_report_delineation_buildable_area.pdf

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/sites/landdevelopment/files/assets/documents/pdf/pfm/staff_report_delineation_buildable_area.pdf

WITHDRAWN


4:30 p.m.

Public Hearing on the Acquisition of Certain Land Rights Necessary for the Construction of Telegraph Road Walkway Phase I – Rose Hill to Pike (Lee District)

ISSUE:Public hearing on the acquisition of certain land rights necessary for the construction of Project ST-000036, County-Maintained Pedestrian Imp-2014, Fund 30050, Transportation Improvements.

RECOMMENDATION:The County Executive recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acquisition of the necessary land rights.

TIMING:On December 4, 2018, the Board authorized Advertisement of a public hearing to be held on January 22, 2019, at 4:30 p.m.

BACKGROUND:This project consists of 1,235 linear feet of concrete sidewalks, American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian curb ramps, curb and gutter, storm drainage improvements, and crosswalks from Rose Hill Drive to Pike Drive.

Land rights for these improvements are required on 25 properties, 23 of which have been acquired by the Land Acquisition Division (LAD). The construction of this project requires the acquisition of Dedication, Storm Drainage Easements, and Grading Agreement and Temporary Construction Easements.

Negotiations are in progress with the affected property owners; however, because resolution of these acquisitions is not imminent, it may be necessary for the Board to utilize quick-take eminent domain powers to commence construction of this project on schedule. These powers are conferred upon the Board by statute, namely, Va. Code Ann. Sections 15.2-1903 through 15.2-1905 (as amended). Pursuant to these

181

WITHDRAWN

Board Agenda ItemJanuary 22, 2019provisions, a public hearing is required before property interests can be acquired in such an accelerated manner.

FISCAL IMPACT:Funding is available in Project ST-000036, County-Maintained Pedestrian Imp 2014, Fund 30050, Transportation Improvements. This project is included in the Adopted FY2019 - FY2023 Capital Improvement Program (with future Fiscal Years to FY2028). No additional funding is being requested from the Board.

ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS:Attachment A - Project Location MapAttachment B - Resolution with Fact Sheets on the affected parcels with plats showing interests to be acquired (Attachments 1 through 2A).

STAFF:Bryan J. Hill, County ExecutiveRandolph W. Bartlett, Director, Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES)Ronald N. Kirkpatrick, Deputy Director, DPWES, Capital Facilities

ASSIGNED COUNSEL:Pamela K. Pelto, Assistant County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney

182

23

7

8

16

105

125

128 47

22

48A

10

52A

1716

4038

30

28

24

21

25 24

1019

40

26

8

65

3

32

3132

23

18

36

27

21

15

26

80

74

3

29

26

1

23

14

12

16

71

12

3

33

39

51

44

41

10

8

1

4

15

9

12

42

9

10

41

57

52

8

48

2728

31

5

2

1219

17

19

6

2

23

10

51

30

26

24

22

44

48

7

48

31

14

27

20 21

36

38

11

34

9

33

9

50

11

42

6

3

80

46

77

66

67

76

14

5

75

508

509

45

35

33

10

5

15

16

2

4

2B

15

52

1095

46

9

2

26

36A

C

14

12

98

6

27

36

38

9

6

7 25

20

35

28

30

23

19A 10

78

76

33

27

48

18

15A2

17

25

A

12

7

9

16

173 8

6

3

10

49

53

8

9

6

62

16

60

7

22

3

12

68

6

5351

9

47

39

25

4

16

17

1514

5

14

45A

8

932

55A

29

3541

63

38

49

12

43

3

29

52

1

12

46

42

15

43

14 13

31

32

5E 5D

10

49

8

7

64

57

11

42

14

1

10

4

5

29

186187

17

52A

A

1410

9

29

18

18A

14

14

30

19

1124

25

26

20

10

8

9

7

31

7

4

2

3025

26

2 1

2830

75

8

45

44

25

24

16

21

20

70

22 19

14A

D

11

11

47

45

6

1

1

13

11

7

5

21

5

24

57

60

69

8

7

56

50

11

3629

109

7

16

14A

43

53

5

1

9

53A

54A

46

50

5152 A

62

65

19

35

52

41 42

28

7

36

3504

520

505 506

54

18

44

40

25

2627

4

A

1A

19

44

5

48

A

501A

58

70

507

524

10

504

2

1413

11

17

17

16

52B

20

12

21

18

29

24

481A

11

47

19A

43A

17A

3

17

37B

31

19

11

12

23

35

1

23

21

34

24

22

20A

8

6

72

73

40A37

46

30

22

23

9

17

6

54

2

1

46

52

510

3

61

6

59

A

44

58

59

10

66

6

54

3530

85

13

3

44A

5

21

47

34

23

21

20

6

20

37

18

39

32

13

2

51

47

2

45

5

6

15

52

46

7 500

34

59

68

8A

82

522525

4

6

9

12

3

13

5

56

1A

28

19

28

185

124

10

8

25

4

49

12

39

37A

15

20

29

13

5

18

14

32

40

1

42

24

24

31

1613

25

27

6

34

28

5051

22A 24

10

1

14

3

12

27

8

14

43

32

18

12

1

4

19

43

3

45

10

4

11

5

6

1115

15

17

1312

11 13A

6

56B

3

11

20

25

42

45

49

21

36

33

16

40

47

44

45

3738

518

521

55

49

16

4

22

39

13

5F

5B

43

45

7

35

65

69

514

32

44

34

27

41

36

1615

5

12

10

B

1

129

11

3130

22

50

7

6

3

23

26

16

45A

32

43

B

13

11 38 39

5

2928

3334

2221

17

14

219

11

27

1

9

2

78

36

35

38

47

43A

32

23

19

13A

26

20

13

13A 2

1A 8

7 4

15

12

38

42

4

9

55

4

63

17

58

57

10

7

67

6555

49

33

912

14

3

1

6

7

1542

18

10

22

28

40

36

8

26

8

519

2

30

5310

5

9

7

14

16

2 3

11

B81

24

37

38

61

78

B

513

43

76

3

8

7

188

3433

17

9

25

15

123

127

20

21

24

6

27

7A

48

20A

34A

15A

13

1

42

35A

22

28

21A

7

26

37

27

34

A

37

22

41

19

53A

25

18 12

3

4

1312

10

29

4

31

39

57 17

6

71

11

2

21

A

1615

13

28

5

10

37

13

32

50

7

19

17

16

5

9A

77

64

18 20

11

2

4 11

9

A

10

7

4

10

8

15

13

16

18

17

78

49

46

33

52A

A

43

47

54

34

17

24 25

30 29

1

17

28

16

32

50

17

19

35

37 29

28

12

17

18 6

4D

A

4147

88

23A

33

60

79

47

31

1

523

12

8

7

9

18

6 4

7

3

16

35

13

32

23

106

107

126

108

8

49

4

2 1

50A

19

4442

41A

11

41A

29

13

18

12

D

32

30

23

27

28

3520

39

33

10

36

4

22

27 17

16

26

2

11

5

779

33

29

10

49

11

31

15

12A1

18 1615

18

11

2A

9

6

5

48

40

11

15

14

2 3

2

14

8

13 613

23

56

61

A1

4

46

40

38

37

34

26

5G

8

3

1

2

2

4

9

48

50

27

64

53

22

51

23

50

15

46

39

515

48

3

41

6

12

23 24

30

8

1

A

8

4

51

539

6362

13

526

503502

A

11

2

4

24

9

D

16

23

9

26

7

J

13

25

1

27

D

C

10

2

25

1

11

23

10

14

19

27

23

24

C

20

27

11

6

25

26

17

15

E

4((

(

((

(

((

((

(

((

((

(

))

ðð

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

((

(

(

(

((

((

((

((

ð

((

(

ð

(

((

(

(

(( (

((

(( (

ð

(

((

( (

((

(())

((

((

(

(

((

((

(

(

((

((

((

((

((

((

((

(

ð

(

ð

((

ð

((

(

((

(( ((

(

(

(

))

(

(

MISSION HEIGHTS 15

VIRGINIA HILLS

VILLAGE SEC. 4

1

WILTON 29

SEC. 17

SEC. 5

5

4

37

WOODS EST

SEC. 15

GRENADIERS ADDN

SEC. 2

WILTON WOODS

WILTON WOODS

WILTON

20

WILTON WOODS

14

WILTON RIDGE SEC. 1

1

PINEBROOK

VIRGINIA HILLS

SEC. 10

1

SEC. 4

SEC.1

A

WILTON WOODS

VIEW

FOREST1

MT.ERIN SEC. 2

VIRGINIA HILLS

39

KINGS L

ANDIN

G

1

SEC. 8

ADDN TOPINEBROOK

VIRGINIA HILLS

1

1

17

SEC. 14

13

14

SEC. 6

1

31SEC. M

1

HAWTHORNE MANOR3

HILLS

WILTON

IEW

SEC. L

SEC.

14

42

25

10

5

SEC. 16

SEC. 12

VIRGINIA

27

28

J

23

3

27

32

1

RIDGE

SEC. 2

ADDN TO

WOODS

21

SEC. 11

TELEGRAPH

ROAD

DORSET DRIVE

RONSON DR

HILLVIEW AV

ALGONA CT

PIKE RD

³

0 0.1 0.20.05Miles

183

dfortn

Snapshot

dfortn

Snapshot

dfortn

Typewritten Text

TELEGRAPH RD WALKWAY PH 1-ROSE HILL TO PIKE

dfortn

Snapshot

dfortn

Snapshot

dfortn

Snapshot

dfortn

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A

184

rstray

Typewriter

Attachment 1-A

185

rstray

Typewriter

Attachment 2-A

ATTACHMENT B

RESOLUTION

At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, held in the Board Auditorium in the Government Center at 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia, on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, at which meeting a quorum was present and voting, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, certain Project ST-000036-014, Telegraph Road Walkway

Phase I – Rose Hill to Pike had been approved; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing pursuant to advertisement of notice was held

on this matter, as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the property interests that are necessary have been

identified; and

WHEREAS, in order to keep this project on schedule, it is necessary that

the required property interests be acquired not later than February 28, 2019.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Director, Land

Acquisition Division, in cooperation with the County Attorney, is directed to acquire the

property interests listed in Attachments 1 through 2-A by gift, purchase, exchange, or

eminent domain; and be it further

RESOLVED, that following the public hearing, this Board hereby declares

it necessary to acquire the said property and property interests and that this Board

intends to enter and take the said property interests for the purpose of installing 1,235

LF of 5-foot sidewalk to fill in missing links, including crosswalks and curb ramps as

shown and described in the plans of Project ST-000036-014, Telegraph Road Walkway

Phase I – Rose Hill to Pike

186

on file in the Land Acquisition Division of the Department of Public Works and

Environmental Services, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 449, Fairfax,

Virginia; and be it further

RESOLVED, that this Board does hereby exercise those powers granted

to it by the Code of Virginia and does hereby authorize and direct the Director, Land

Acquisition Division, on or after February 28, 2019, unless the required interests are

sooner acquired, to execute and cause to be recorded and indexed among the land

records of this County, on behalf of this Board, the appropriate certificates in

accordance with the requirements of the Code of Virginia as to the property owners, the

indicated estimate of fair market value of the property and property interests and/or

damages, if any, to the residue of the affected parcels relating to the certificates; and be

it further

RESOLVED, that the County Attorney is hereby directed to institute the

necessary legal proceedings to acquire indefeasible title to the property and property

interests identified in the said certificates by condemnation proceedings, if necessary.

LISTING OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES

187

Project ST-000036-014 Telegraph Road Walkway Phase I – Rose Hill to Pike

(Lee District)

PROPERTY OWNER(S)

1. Trustees of the Church of God of Prophecy 082-3-01-0052 Address: 6409 Telegraph Road Alexandria, Virginia 22310

2. Lighthouse Worship Center Church of God 082-3-01-0052A of Prophecy, Inc.

Address: 6413 Telegraph Road Alexandria, Virginia 22310

A Copy – Teste: _______________________________ Catherine A. Chianese Clerk to the Board of Supervisors

188

ATTACHMENT 1

AFFECTED PROPERTY Tax Map Number: 082-3-01-0052

Street Address: 6409 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22310 OWNER(S): Trustees of the Church of God of Prophecy INTEREST(S) REQUIRED: (As shown on attached plat/plan) Dedication for Public Street Purposes – 1,657 sq. ft. Grading Agreement and Temporary Construction Easement – 1,104 sq. ft. VALUE

Estimated value of interests and damages: THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLARS ($13,480)

ATTACHMENT 2 AFFECTED PROPERTY

Tax Map Number: 082-3-01-0052A Street Address: 6413 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22310

OWNER(S): Lighthouse Worship Center Church of God of Prophecy INTEREST(S) REQUIRED: (As shown on attached plat/plan) Dedication for Public Street Purposes –707 sq. ft. Grading Agreement and Temporary Construction Easement – 790 sq. ft. VALUE

Estimated value of interests and damages: SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY DOLLARS ($6,370.00)

189

Date post:	25-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

FAIRFAX COUNTY · 2019-01-23 · FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS January 22, 2019 ACTION ITEMS...

Documents