Established 1692 E Pnvsms Richmond County Board of Supervisors 101 Court Circle P.O. Box 1000 Warsaw, Virginia 22572 (804) 333-3415 FAX (804) 333-3408 wwwco.richmondva.us TO: Richmond County Board of Supervisors FROM: Hope D. Mothershead, County Administrator PDMy DATE: April 4, 2025 RE: April 10th Board of Supervisors Meeting Dear Board Members: Please find enclosed the information needed for the April 10th Board of Supervisors Meeting, set to begin at 9:00 A.M. in the County Public Meeting Room. There is a public hearing scheduled for 6:00 p.m. Information necessary for the public hearing is included in your packet behind the applicable tab. Richmond County is fortunate to have volunteers in place who truly care about the County and each other. In an effort to encourage high performance, increase engagement and retain top talent, a Department Recognition Program is in place. During the month of April, the Richmond County Volunteer Fire Department will be our highlight. Individuals from the department will be invited to the meeting to receive our thanks and appreciation. AGENDA ITEMS Solar Description and Path of Approval With the current developments of solar in Richmond County, many have expressed concern about how solar works, how it was permitted in Richmond County and how is it monitored once construction begins. To educate the public and hopefully answer some questions, I have included in your packet a Path of Approval. In addition, citizens have asked about the possibility of limiting the total amount of solar, either by overall percentage or acreage across the County. During the time period of February of 2022 through March of 2023, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors met multiple times to discuss how to improve the current solar ordinance. Following the Path of Approval, excerpts from the minutes are attached in your packet for review of those conversations/cons/considerations. 1 Richard E. Thomas J.J Davidi Parr John R. Fidler, Jr. Robert B. Pemberton Lee Sanders Hope D. Mothershead Election District I Election District 2 Election District 3 Election District 4 Election District 5 County Administrator Collectively, we all want the solar developments in Richmond County to benefit all of the citizens. With funds obtained from the siting agreements, the following projects are being considered: New Radio Infrastructure for all Emergency Services (Sheriff's Office, Town Police, EMS and Fire) Completion of the remodel of the Coggin building for Treasurer's Office and Commissioner's Office Contribution to the Richmond County Public School CIP Construction of Farnham EMS station County Match for Commerce Parkway Expansion Allowance for RCVFD Co. 3 Improvements Allowance for RCVFD Co. 2 Improvements County Match for Pedestrian Trails Economic Development Efforts, Recreation Projects and more Projects oft this size would not be possible in a small locality like Richmond County without a large increase in taxes. Cerulean and Moon Corner Solar updates from Dominion/Strata Dominion and Strata representatives will be present to share an update on the Cerulean and Moon Corner Solar projects. Revenue Anticipation Note for FY26 Please find attached the information for our FY26 Revenue Anticipation Note. For FY26, we are asking for financing on $2,000,000 or $2,250,000. With large projects in our future (EMS Station, Commerce Park Expansion and DHCD Block Grant) I recommend a Revenue Anticipation Loan of $2,250,000, which will benefit the County prior to the return of tax payments in the late fall months. Davenport will issue the RFP to prospective lenders during the week of April 28, 2025, with proposals due back May 29, 2025. The Board of Supervisors will consider proposals on June 12, 2025, approve the best proposal, and close on the money on July 1, 2025. I will be asking the Board to approve this proposal by formal motion at an upcoming Board Meeting. VDOT - Secondary Six Year Plan It is time for a review of the Secondary Six Year Plan. A portion of Edge Hill Road was the last stretch to be paved through this Rural Rustic Roads program. It will take several years for funds to accumulate for the next roadway to be completed. Even though new roads are not being added to the program, we will need to hold a public hearing to complete the required VDOT review. In the past, this public hearing has been scheduled for the morning session of our monthly meeting. Information on the SSYP is included in your packet for review. 2 Northern Neck and Essex Adult Drug Court We have discussed the Drug Court at former meetings and received the Memorandum of Agreement pertaining to the program. I asked Major Jonathan English, Deputy Superintendent of Northern Neck Regional Jail ifhe would provide some information on exactly how this program works and to share some success stories. In your packet is information provided by Major English that will educate you on the program. Ordinance to Allow Payment of Bonuses In the review of the FY26 budget, discussion was had about a one-time bonus to employees, as proposed by the Comp Board. It has been brought to my attention that Virginia Code Section 15.2-1508 requires a governing body to authorize the payment ofa bonus by adoption of an ordinance. This ordinance adoption would require a public hearing and once adopted would cover any such bonuses proposed. I recommend that this public hearing be scheduled for the morning session of the May gth regular monthly meeting, prior to budget adoption. FY26 Budget Since our last regular monthly meeting, a Budget presentation was held on March 24th and a worksession was completed on April 2nd At this point, the FY26 recommended budget is prepared, modified and ready for advertisement. A public hearing will be held on April 24, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. with a proposed adoption on May 8, 2025 during the regularly scheduled meeting. ONGOING PROJECTS VDOT Recreational Trail Project An application for additional funding is being prepared for submission to the VDOT Tap program. Coggin Building - Renovation The contractors and County staff continue to plug along on the To-Do list prepared by the Commissioner and Treasurer. EMS Station #2 No new update Commerce Park EDA Grant The next step on this project is bid submission which should take place soon. Upon receipt ofthe bid prices, we will make certain that local match funds are available prior to starting construction. 3 Emergency Radio Infrastructure No new update DHCD - Community Development Block Grant (Scott Town) A Management Team Meeting was held on this project, attended by PDC staff, Rehab Housing Specialist, Board representative and County staff. Be on the lookout for a project sign - next steps will be worksessions to sort through title deficiencies. Courthouse Remodel On Monday, a sketch oft the courthouse will be forwarded to the Clerks oft the Circuit Court/District Court, Sheriff's S Office, District Court/Circuit CourtJ Judge and the Supreme Court. We'll gather all comments and forward to the architect as he prepares a proposed layout addressing all concerns. Miscellaneous Information $1,713.05 - Cigarette tax received for the month of February, 2025 As a reminder, the Northern Neck Jail Board Governing Bodies Recognition Dinner will be held on April 16, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. Ifyou have not RSVP'd and wish to attend, please let me know as soon as possible. Board Appointments Robert Franklin, Wetland Board, At-Large Alternate Member, existing term expires on 6-30-25 (eligible for reappointment) As always, please contact us ifyou have additional questions regarding the agenda. 4 Established 1692 A envins Richmond County Board of Supervisors 101 Court Circle P.O. Box 1000 Warsaw, Virginia 22572 (804) 333-3415 FAX (804) 333-3408 wwwco.richmondya.us April 10, 2025 RICHMOND COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA 9:00 A.M. 1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance 2. County Department Recognition 3. Monthly Staff Reports Richmond County Public Schools VDOT Sheriff/Animal Shelter/NNRJ Chief of] Emergency Services Richmond County Volunteer Fire Department Treasurer Commissioner of the Revenue Bulding/Planning/ZoningLand Use Solid Waste Report 4. Public Comment AGENDA ITEMS 5. Solar Description and Path of Approval (1) 6. Cerulean and Moon Corner Solar updates from Dominion/Strata 7. Revenue Anticipation Note for FY26 (2) 8. VDOT - Secondary Six Year Plan (3) 9. Northern Neck and Essex Adult Drug Court (4) 10. Ordinance to Allow Payment of Bonuses Richard E. Thomas J. David Parr John R. Fidler, Jr. Robert B. Pemberton Lee Sanders Hope D. Mothershead Election District 1 Election District 2 Election District 3 Election District 4 Election District 5 County Administrator 11. FY26 Budget ONGOING PROJECTS 12. VDOT Recreational Trail Project 13. Coggin Building = Renovation 14. EMS Station #2 15. Commerce Park EDA Grant 16. Emergency Radio Intrastructure 17. DHCD - Community Development Block Grant (Scott Town) 18. Courthouse Remodel 19. Miscellaneous Information 20. Board Appointments 21. Monthly Appropriations- Richmond County Department of Social Services 22. Monthly Appropriations- Richmond County School Board 23. Monthly Supplemental Appropriations 24. Approval of Minutes March 13, 2025 / March 24, 2025 / April 2, 2025 (combined into one) 25. Board Member Comments / Other Business 26. Closed Session - As permitted by Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(), a personnel matter involving salary or other compensation of a specific employee. 27. Recess to 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing - In accordance with Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended and pursuant to Section 15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, the Richmond County Board of Supervisors hereby gives notice that a Public Hearing will be held starting at 6:00 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2025 in the Richmond County Public Meeting Room, 101 Court Circle, Warsaw, Virginia 22572 to receive public comment on consideration of the proposed sale of Tax Map No. 16-42 (13.297 acres) and Tax Map No. 24-6 (30.031 acres) to Emerson Companies, LLC for the purpose of residential development. 28. 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing Next REGULAR Monthly Meeting: May 8, 2025 AGENDA DOCUMENTS Solar Description and Path of Approval Solar Description and Path of Approval 1. Introduction to Planning Commission 2. Worksession with Planning Commission to review application and work through conditions, setbacks, buffers, etc. (2232 Accordance Hearing, if required) 3. Public Hearing for Special Exception application 4. Vote from Planning Commission 5. Introduction to Board of Supervisors 6. Worksession with Board of Supervisors to review application and work through conditions, setbacks, buffers, etc. 7. Public Hearing for Special Exception application (siting agreement, if required) 8. Vote from Board of Supervisors 9. Following approval, the review of site plans, E&s/Stormwater plans, Decommissioning Plan, Emergency Response Plan, Soil Tests, Water Samples and Construction Traffic Management Plans are completed. The E&s/Stormwater plans have multiple layers of approval, including DEQ, County and VDOT. 10. Surety bonds for roadway repairs, decommissioning and erosion and sediment control measures are reviewed and obtained. 11. A preconstruction meeting is held with contractors, project managers, VDOT, inspectors, DEQ and County staff to make certain that all understand the sequence of construction and timing efforts. 12. Construction begins and inspections are conducted regularly upon the required schedule. All inspection reports are included in a manual on site for all to see. DEQ schedules inspections on the projects and also will from time to time do surprise visits to check progress. Richmond County Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 2022 Mrs. Mothershead stated she would continue to work on the conditions and provide them before next meeting. REVIEW OF BYLAWS Chairman Smith urged everyone to attend the meetings and offered Zoom as an option if unable to attend. Mr. Smith stated there are really commissioners in place and wants everyone'sinput. OTHER BUSINESS Mrs. Mothershead stated the Board of Supervisors has requested the Planning Commission look into the balance of Solar in Richmond County. Mrs. Mothershead mentioned the Board of Supervisors did alter the recommendation for the Planning Commission and voted to restrict future projects to parcel size of a minimum of 40 acres, allowing contiguous parcels. Mrs. Mothershead noted this is a topic that she would like for the commissioners to think about over the next month and perhaps come back in March prepared to discuss some options moving forward. The questions to be considered were: How should the County plan and approve solar sites to the economic benefit of the County, while preserving our rural character, and creating minimal impact to the local communities, and the environment? Do we set a MW or acreage limits of solar that will be considered for approval in Richmond County? Are adjustments to the solar ordinance such as tightening setbacks, buffers, detinitions, etc. aj preferred approach to control solar activity in the County? Mr. Motley requested a breakdown ofthe percentage of acreage that has already been approved to the total amount of acres in Richmond County. Mr. Packett also requested a revenue analysis for the solar project. Mr. Fidler asked ifthe Board of Supervisors had a deadline for their request. Mr. Quicke stated he mentioned to the board it would take a couple months to brainstorm and would have a Comprehensive Plan to present to the Board approximately May. 5 Richmond County Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 2022 Mr. Lewis requested a carbon free facility map of Richmond County to get a better understanding of where the facilities would be. Mr. Packett stated a point to consider when converting our land from recreational use to solar, the recreational use is gone for thirty years. Mr. Packett mentioned there is a lot of sentimental real estate in Richmond County that people hunt on and do multiple things on. Mr. Quicke stated there is a timber/solar analysis in legislation to provide the state as a whole how much land is being converted to solar. Mr. Packett noted losing heritage and things they've done their whole lives is the only things that he is against when it comes to solar. ADJOURNMENT After no further business, Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Tammy Desai Commission Secretary 6 Maxch 7 2022 PC MULBERRY STORAGE, LLC-REVIEW OF CONDITIONS AND SITE PLAN Mrs. Mothershead presented similar conditions for the Mulberry Storage conditions and presented the site plan. (SEE EXHIBIT II) JR Fidler expressed concern related to the 90 day remediation for contamination, mentioning that was a long time to contain it. Mr. Michaud stated the language is being looked at and conditions are being worked through but as soon as a situation arises they would respond in a timely manner. Mr. Michaud mentioned adding diligence remediation to the language of the conditions and may return with some edits. Chairman Smith asked if there was going to be a barrier around the property to ensure leakage does not go off site. Mr. Michaud stated the transformers sit inside a large concrete container to ensure no leakage goes into the transforming line. Joel Vyduna, Via Zoom stated the batteries have nothing to leak but the transformers will have containers of sufficient size to contain any leakage, but nothing else on site can leak. Mr. Motley requested language for contamination versus remediation and would like to see a much shorter time for containment. Mr. Niemann stated they do have storm water control measures through DEQA that are followed and there is the ability to catch all water that is on site and the water sheet flows into the storm water basin where it is then removed from there. Chairman Smith requested the water and soil that is removed from site be tested for contamination. Mr. Vyduna stated there is a filter around the perimeter to filter the trace amounts of metal and would make provisions stating they would test and take care of any problems in a timely manner. Chairman Smith stated with recommendation from the staff, the decision will be held off until the April meeting. SOLAR BALANCE DISCUSSION Mr. Quicke stated Mr. Mothershead brought up a good point about the significant amount of property that is going to be taken up and that has brought up reason for the County to study it in more detail. Mr. Quicke stated a few months ago the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors to set an acreage limit. Mr. Quicke stated Richmond County has 111,594 taxable acres throughout the county. Solar projects approved for Richmond County accounts for 1.6% of that land. Mr. Lewis asked if that was solar panel acreage or project acreage. Mr. Quicke stated it was complete project acreage. Mr. Quicke stated if approved the two solar projects would account for 4603 acres throughout the county, that's S 4.13%. Mr. Quicke stated when talking about solar, there is utility scale and small scale. Mr. Quicke mentioned greater than 50 acres and 5 megawatts is considered utility scale and that is what is Mack7, 2022 being talked about tonight. Mr. Quicke stated the county has more opportunity to site smaller projects because they don't need high voltage and could go directly into a 3 phase line, there is more 3 phase lines than transmission. Mr. Lewis asked does the county or Dominion have a map of the 3 phase lines. Mr. Quicke stated the county does not, he would have to work with both Dominion and the Co-op and that is on his list of things to do. Mr. Lewis mentioned it would be helpful for planning purposes. Mr. Quicke noted that revenue share was approved about 2 years ago by the General Assembly. This is for projects greater than 5 megawatts and it allows the county to charge $1400 per megawatt indexed 10% every five years. Mr. Quicke stated there are two ways a county can get money from a solar facility, general real estate method or revenue share. Through ordinance, Richmond County has elected to go through the $1400 per megawatt/per year indexed 10% every five years. Mr. Quicke stated in his opinion revenue share is the best option for the county. With revenue share you know what your revenue is. Mr. Quicke mentioned with the Booker' S Mill project, $1400 per megawatt is bringing the County $177,000 annual revenue. Mr. Motley asked if anything under five megawatt would be taxed through the county and not through revenue share. Mr. Quicke stated that is true through the code. However, the General Assembly has legislation going this year that is going to bring that down to one. Mr. Quicke stated that anything less than five megawatt would only bring the county about $20,000. Mr. Motley asked what if all the megawatts were not used, would the revenue still be for the full capacity of the facility. Mr. Quicke stated yes for the full capacity ofthe facility. Mr. Quicke noted Virginia Schools are funded through what is called the Composite Index, the local ability to pay. There's a formula that is put into a hopper, it spits out a CPI for every county and it is based on three things; the value of the property in the county, the taxable sales, and the taxable income in the county. Mr. Quicke stated that Richmond County's CPI is .30%, which means that Richmond County pays for about 30% of the cost and the State of Virginia picks up the other 70% of our education cost. The higher the assessed value the higher the Composite Index. Mr. Quicke stated revenue share does not affect CPI but if they went the other route it would get factored into the CPI and potentially cost the county more the $200,000 in education cost. Chairman Smith mentioned with the way technology is, ifthey go out here and get more megawatts is the county being paid for original megawatt approved. Mr. Quicke stated if they wanted more megawatts, they would have to come back before the Planning Commission for that request. Mr. Quicke stated the Virginia code allows the county to negotiate a siting agreement with the solar company that may include a voluntary payment to the locality for the purpose of addressing capital needs, current fiscal budget, placing the money into the county's saving account. Mr. 2022 Mouch, Quicke stated the county currently has one siting agreement, The Booker's Mill project. The Booker's Mill project is in agreeance to pay the county $1,656,000 within ninety days post completion. Mr. Quicke stated the Board has elected to use this money for Public Safety, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, and Capital Improvement Planning. Mr. Quicke stated he wants these funds to deploy back into the community. Mr. Quicke mentioned the third upside to revenue share is the increase in property value. Mr. Quicke stated the increase ofp property value that houses solar panel would be an estimated 10,000-12,000 dollars. Mr. Lewis asked how he determined that number. Mr. Quicke stated the Commissioner of Revenue as well as himself worked with a third party accessor and they provided the estimate. Mr. Lewis asked if a homeowner can expect taxes to go up it they put solar panels on the roof. Mr. Quicke stated currently yes, residential solar is taxable. Mr. Lewis expressed concern about the homeowner's taxes going sky high due to trying to eliminate their electric bill. Mr. Quicke ensured taxes would not go sky high due to residential solar. Mr. Fidler mentioned with the increase in property value, could the county see a negative affect within the state funding for education funds. Mr. Quicke stated the $2,000,000 would not be seen nor would the one-time payment be seen by the state or affect the CPI. Mr. Motley thanked Mr. Quicke for laying that all out there. Mr. Fidler asked how the battery facilities would be looked at as far as revenue. Mr. Quicke stated they would be factored the same way by megawatts and you still have the ability to do the siting agreement. Mr. Quicke stated he believes the way we've embedded and screened projects over the past two and a halfyears, Richmond County is not the strongest in the state as far as requirements but not far behind. Mr. Quicke stated the Planning Commission, as well as the Board of Supervisors has done a really great job as far as buffers, setbacks, screening, RPAs, decommission and that is the biggest concern when developing in that part ofthe county. Storm water management and Erosion and Sediment are the biggest focus that the county, the engineers, and the developers need to pay attention to. Mr. Quicke stated Richmond County does not want the same thing to happen that happened in Louisa County. Mr. Quicke stated that leads him to the options to consider: Do nothing. Continue to do what Richmond County is currently doing. Determine other perimeters, such as maximum allowance of megawatts considered in the county and once that number is reach, discontinue solar. Create more strict requirements in order to be approved by Richmond County. The county could pre-determine land that is suitable for solar development Mach 7, 2022 Mr. Lewis stated he can understand the maximum allowance on acreage, but we shouldn't even consider putting a maximum on megawatts. Mr. Lewis stated with the way technology is vastly growing, there could be the potential for the capacity of megawatts to increase. Chairman Smith stated in his opinion, option two is a no go in any which way shape or form. Mr. Smith stated you can't restrict people's property rights. Mr. Quicke also stated another option would be a requirement for financial insurance SO the county has the knowledge that the project is going to be built once proposed. Mr. Quicke stated there is the option to hold a public hearing to amend the solar ordinances as well. Mr. Packett stated each project is unique in its own way and needs to be dealt with in its own way. Mr. Packett felt as though the county is already doing a fine job and doing well and feels A is the best option. Mr. Quicke stated a decision does not need to be reached tonight. Mr. Motley stated with what has been mentioned, what else is coming down the pipe. Mr. Quicke mentioned the county does not have any applications pending or aware of any pending soon. Mr. Motley stated he likes option three but option one does work too. Mr. Motley asked if the Commission adopted option three would that save any time or would they still have to present every time. Mr. Quicke stated each project would still have to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowen asked if option three was chosen and they got a variance, and the Commission didn't agree with the variance, could the Commission deny it. Mr. Quicke stated you could make the restrictions stricter. Chairman Smith noted that with option three, the variance allows for the developer to bring it forth and there is going to be a lot of discussion on option three but feels the Planning Commission will be doing their due diligence ifthey went with option three. Mr. Lewis stated it would be nice to have a project to walk through to see what we are talking about. Mr. Lewis stated we are looking to make changes for the third time and we don'teven have any projects to look at. Mr. Lewis mentioned that as of right now it's just speculating and if anything is going to be done, in his opinion to just table it for a while. It's a good idea but wait until there is a project up and running to get better insight on what harms are done or what benefit it has done. Mr. Lewis stated he doesn't like option three at all due to property rights and it's a bit extreme. Mr. Lewis would like to see a project up and running before making any more changes. Mr. Packett asked is there any idea when Strata will break ground. Mr. Quicke stated Strata is still waiting on things from DEQ but they are very close as well as Hemmings. Mr. Packett stated since the county already has 4000 acres ofland already tied up, could any further solar projects be Mauc 7,2022 tabled until the current ones are up and running. Mr. Quicke stated the Code of Virginia requires when an application is submitted to process it in a time period of 90 days. Mr. Bowen asked if that could set the county up for a lawsuit. Mr. Quicke stated it could be possible if someone submits an application and the county refuses. Mr. Lewis mentioned the county wants to promote tourism as much as possible and the county is also a forestry county. Mr. Lewis stated that a large piece of land on Rt. 3 near Bunker Hill was recently timbered and the view is not the prettiest and would much rather see the buffers put into place on solar projects. Mr. Lewis stated tourists would not even know the solar farm is there. Chairman Smith spoke about the point Mr. Lewis made about the not SO pleasant view of the construction process and mentioned the Planning Commission could go throughout the Northern Neck and get a better idea of what is being dealt with. Mr. Smith didn't think it should be tabled and mentioned he and a few others visited a very nice solar facility. Mr. Lewis asked if any other counties have buffers like Richmond County requires. Mr. Quicke stated that Richmond County has definitely set some trends. Chairman Smith stated this is not a decision that needs to be made right away and will visit it again next month. Mr. Packett asked Chairman Smith is keeping the adjacent landowners happy the: main objective. Mr. Smith stated the main objective is to do what's best for Richmond County as a whole. Mr. Smith stated he does not want to limit landowners that want to diversify their land. Chairman Smith stated to him solar is like the barbed wire of the old west it's going to forever change the landscape. OTHER BUSINESS Mrs. Mothershead proposed a set of new flood maps that governs any waterfront properties in the county. Mrs. Mothershead stated the maps have been updated by FEMA but to finalize the process and adopt the new maps it needs to be approved by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Mrs. Mothershead stated she has submitted the modifications for review. Mrs. Mothershead stated the new maps go in effect on July 5th, 2 2022 SO the ordinance needs to be adopted by the locality and further approved by FEMA. Mrs. Mothershead requested permission to schedule an April Public Hearing for the ordinance change. Mr. Bowen asked if a decision wasn'tmade until May, would that still meet the deadline. Mrs. Mothershead encouraged a sooner decision SO she could move forward to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowen asked if there was anything the County wants the Planning Commission to consider to look with the changes. Mrs. Mothershead stated it is very consistent with what Richmond County is already doing and nothing glaring to be concerned about at this time. J.R. Fidler made a motion to set a public hearing. for the ordinance offlood maps, April 4th, 2022 at 7 p.m. Harry Smith seconded the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 10-0 (Harry Smith, Jr. - aye; John W. Lewis- aye; Glenn Bowen - aye; Peyton Motley-aye; J.R. Richmond County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 11, 2022 SOLAR BALANCE DISCUSSION Mr. Quicke noted that he didn't! have anything additional to add to the conversation from the March meeting on solar balance. For information, the following options were discussed in March: OPTIONS TO CONSIDER: 1. Continue processing and acting on Solar applications as they are received on a case-by- case basis as currently. 2. Determine other parameters such as maximum allowable acreage or megawatts the County is willing to consider for solar development in Richmond County, and once that number is reached, discontinue the allowance offuture solar in Richmond County. 3. Create more strict and stringent requirements, through Zoning Ordinance amendments, that would create a process in which solar applications would have to meet stricter standards in order to be approved in Richmond County. 4. County to pre-determine lands that we. feel are suitable for solar development, and only permit solar projects proposed on those properties Chairman Smith noted that he understands that some ofthe planning commission members believe that the solar regulations should remain the same with no changes but he feels the need to thoroughly review each condition as requested by the Board of Supervisors. Even after a review, it may be that the group decides to go back to the current conditions but due diligence could be accomplished by reviewing. Mr. Fidler noted that after being involved with the Comprehensive Plan rewrite, while planning for the future, he wanted to make a suggestion that there be an annual revisit of the solar regulations. This annual revisit would keep a check on the projects in place and allow a time for discussion of possible changes to the ordinance. Mr. Bowen added that he agrees with Mr. Fidler in leaving the current ordinance in place because as Mr. Sydnor noted in public comment, it would not be advantageous for the County to change an ordinance and cause beneficial projects to be omitted. Mr. Bowen agrees that some oft the solar balance will self-regulate. Mr. Motley noted that he agrees that keeping the current regulations in place is his preferred method. Mr. Fidler made the argument that the planning commission has helped to regulate solar in some cases, including conditions and acreage requirements. Mr. Packett noted that he agrees that the planning commission has done a great job going through the conditions and putting into place requirements to keep the projects on track. 4 Richmond County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 11, 2022 Mr. John W. Lewis reviewed the options and noted that in 2016, the County approved solar to come to the area. When the topic of fracking was discussed, the County decided to put a stop to it immediately and end any forthcoming applications. Since 2016, the planning commission has learned a great deal about solar projects and have instilled a large number of requirements. He agrees that option 1 should be followed and no further restrictions placed on the facilities. Mr. Lewis noted that the facilities approved SO far have been shielded from the public and should have aj positive outcome on the area. Mr. Quicke informed the planning commission members ofr multiple legislative changes and DEQ regulation changes that are being discussed, ultimately changing the look and approval process of solar facilities. He noted that County staff would send information to the members to review the changes forthcoming. Chairman Smith noted that he wanted to mention for the record that he: is still very concerned about setbacks due to the knowledge ofhow fires are handled in a facility. He does think that the extra setbacks would benefit the citizens of Richmond County and also prefers to review the items below to express either how they could be improved or agree on how they are currently being handled: Additional requirements could include items such as: Location - Solar proposals within half a mile from the Town of Warsaw corporate limits should be heavily vetted. These lands are future growth areas for both the Town and the County that could support enhanced commercial or residential opportunities. Relation to transmisionsubstation for utility scale projects or three phase power lines for smaller projects, should be direct. Requirement of financial assurance and documentation from solar developers, to ensure the County has the knowledge that should the process be initiated, itis likely to be built. Many projects are speculative these days, and put the County through a long and difficult process. We should have assurance that if proposed, the project is very likely to be built. Requirement to provide topo analysis on proposed property to avoid areas of major slopes. Define what the topo analysis must show in relations to slope of the property. Requirement that E/S and Stormwater Management Plans be designed to morestrict standards to adequately protect surface water and adjacent properties from potential runoff. 500' setback from adjacent property lines and public roadways. Notjust structures, property lines. Parcels without natural timber screening, shall be set back not less than 500' from ai road with implemented screening plan County has approved. Minimum setback off of RPA's shall be 200' as opposed to the CBPA mandated 100'. Parcels with natural timber screening shall leave 150' of standing timber for buffer. Chairman Smith added that the planning commission has gained a great amount ofknowledge and experience on the solar facilities thus far. Chairman Smith asked the commissioners their opinions 5 Richmond County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 11, 2022 on how to proceed = should further discussions be facilitated on the items noted or should a response be sent back to the Board that no changes are to be added? Mr. Quicke noted that the bullet points were strictly examples to be included. There could be other items to include for conditions/estrictions: Mr. Quicke commented that many times a site plan is submitted prior to actual application and County staff tries to discuss preferred setbacks and buffers with prospective companies. Mr. Bowen noted that a summary of existing projects setbacksyconditions) would be helpful to remind commissioners, staff and new companies what is expected. Mr. John W. Lewis commented that he appreciated the map that was provided. He asked if it accounts for the actual area of panels. Mrs. Mothershead added that the map demonstrated the total parcels under lease. Mr. Lewis asked about a percentage of actual solar paneled property since he would like to use that number to figure a percentage of land covered. Other commissioners agreed that using the whole parcel would be more advantageous since it would still be under lease and possibly not able to be used for other applications. After a consensus of the members, each bullet point will be discussed at the May meeting and a report will be constructed for the. Board of Supervisors. Mr. Quicke noted that a public hearing could be held on the topic if requested. Mrs. Mothershead offered to put together a list ofthe items and note how they have been handled in the past. Chairman Smith asked to allow time on the agenda for May, 2022 to further discuss possible changes/additions. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. John W. Lewis asked to share a letter with the planning commissioners. Due to health reasons, Mr. Lewis, resigned his position, effective immediately, from the planning commission (see letter attached as Exhibit II). Chairman Smith thanked Mr. Lewis for all he accomplished with the planning commission. The group will miss him. Mr. Quicke and the other commissioners thanked Mr. Lewis for his time with the planning commission. ADJOURNMENT After no further business, Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Tammy Desai Commission Secretary 6 Richmond County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 9, 2022 ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN Chairman Smith appointed J.R. Fidler as Vice-Chairman for year 2022. SOLAR BALANCE DISCUSSION Mr. Quicke reviewed a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the information discussed in prior meetings on solar balance within the County (See Exhibit I). The options for consideration of new requirements were discussed. For information, the following options were discussed in March: OPTIONS TO CONSIDER: 1. Continue processing and acting on solar applications as they are received on a case-by- case basis as currently. 2. Determine other parameters such as maximum allowable acreage or megawatts the County is willing to consider for solar development in Richmond County, and once that number is reached, discontinue the allowance offuture solar in Richmond County. 3. Create more strict and stringent requirements, through Zoning Ordinance amendments, that would create a process in which solar applications would have to meet stricter standards in order to be approved in Richmond County. 4. County to pre-determine lands that we feel are suitable for solar development, and only permit solar projects proposed on those properties. Chairman Smith stated all members needed to be present before a decision could be made. Mr. Jackson noted he felt confident in the decisions the Planning Commission have made up to this point. Mr. Mothershead stated he is in favor of option three mostly as it would set a base for future solar application prospects. Mr. Bowen, Mrs. West, and Mrs. Croxton were all in agreement. OTHER BUSINESS No other business. ADJOURNMENT After no further business, Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Tammy Desai Commission Secretary 2 Richmond County Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2022 APPROVAL OF MINUTES- May 9th, 2022 Chairman Smith asked ift there were any additions or corrections to the minutes from the May 9th, 2022 meeting. Peyton Motley made a motion to approve the minutes. J.R. Fidler seconded the motion and they were approved unanimously. SOLAR BALANCE DISCUSSION Mrs. Mothershead gaged on thoughts from the Planning Commission for better solar balance. Mrs. Mothershead presented diagrams from the Comprehensive Planning Committee's initial language proposal and showed how they are creating a simpler language. Mrs. Mothershead stated a change that would be made to changing Villages to outside of Warsaw and the consideration to proximity to all residences and utility solar scale projects greater than 20 megawatts may only be considered acceptable in agricultural districts and a decommissioning plan needs to be provided. Mrs. Mothershead opened it up for comments, questions, or concerns. Mrs. Mothershead stated the setbacks for solar are the same as standard setbacks for a single family dwelling A-1 zoned. suggestionsyComments were made for setbacks as follow: Chairman Smith stated from his experience with his electrical background he believes all work should be underground utilities pass the screening and panels should at least set 500 feet from the center oft the road and residences. Mr. Smith expressed his concern for fire safety and feels that a base minimum needs to be set for all solar projects. Mr. Bowen requested a oreakdown ofhow Chairman Smith reached the 500 feet requirement that was suggested. Mr. Bowen also expressed his concern about the requirement of the setback from residence due to possible future development on adjacent properties. Mr. Motley feels as though every project should be dealt with case by case. Mr. Motley stated that hard fastened numbers could potentially put more work on the Planning Commission. Mr. Motley and Mr. Bowen were in agreeance with protecting property owner's rights as well as their neighbor's rights. Mr. Bowen stated however there are minimum things that are required that should be bumped up and that would create a base for projects but still go case by case. Mr. Fidler suggested narrowing down just a few important points and create some Best Practices for future projects. Mrs. Mothershead stated the Best Practices should be documented for zoning purposes but every case is going to have different characteristics and suggested each case should be reviewed individually. Mr. Bowen asked does an ordinance have to be put in place or can it just be documented for history purposes. Mrs. Mothershead stated it does not necessarily need to 2 Richmond County Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2022 be put in the ordinances for it to be in the conditions. Mrs. Mothershead mentioned it was really what the commissioners were comfortable with doing moving forward. Mr. Bowen stated he would like to see a project post construction and then he can determine what changes could be made. Mr. Fidler stated for him the screening is important SO instead of looking at setbacks maybe focus on a minimum of un-impacted screening. Mrs. Mothershead mentioned that she didn'tknow how much they could sharpen the soil and water testing guideline due the DEQ changing SO frequently. Mrs. Mothershead touched on financial assurance stating if the contractor was anyone but Dominion or Northern Neck Electric a bond would be needed to insure if a project halts construction there would be funds to decommission. Chairman Smith stated he would definitely like to see financial assurance in the ordinance. Mrs. Mothershead stated she would piece together some information and update the ordinance. Mrs. Mothershead mentioned locations close to town have not been considered in the past and wondered how the commission felt about developing a bubble around the town and other corridors for a closer look at projects. Mr. Fidler stated he feels like it would hard to create a bubble due the potential discrimination against landowners. The Planning Commission agreed for Mrs. Mothershead to put together a Best Practices list and include the financial assurance to the language in the ordinance. Mr. Bowen expressed concern that by including everything in the ordinance is making more work for the Planning Commission. Mrs. Mothershead stated she is going to piece together a best practice list and tweak the ordinance and bring it back for review. Chairman Smith feels everyone needs to be present before a decision can be fully made. OTHER BUSINESS No other business. ADJOURNMENT After no further business, Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Tammy Desai Commission Secretary 3 zumkr 5,2022 Cummission Planing PUBLIC HEARING In Accordance with Section 15.2-2204 oft the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended and pursuant to Section 15.2-2285 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, the Richmond County Planning Commission hereby gives notice that a Public Hearing will be held starting at 7:00 p.m., December 5th, 2022 in the Richmond County Public Meeting Room, 101 Court Circle, Warsaw, Virginia 22572 for the following: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Richmond County Code of Ordinances (Section 157.110: Solar Power Facility, Large Photovoltaic). Mrs. Mothershead reviewed and discussed the proposed amendments to the Ordinances. (SEE EXHIBIT I) PUBLIC COMMENT Cliff Mullin, 8351 Historyland Highway, reviewed Solar Power Facility's history in the United States and shared some concerns about decommissioning. Vice-Chairman Fidler closed the Public Comment. Peyton Motley made a motion to recommend the proposed amendments as presented to the Board ofSupervisors. Timika Croxton seconded the motion, and the motion carried a vote of8- 0 (Marion James Packett-aye; Peyton Motley-aye; J.R. Fidler- aye; Cindy West- aye; Stan Terhune- aye; Timika Croxton-aye; Brian Jackson-aye; Glenn Bowen-aye). OTHER BUSINESS Mrs. Mothershead expressed gratitude and appreciation to the entire Planning Commission for another productive year. Mr. Fidler wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a safe holiday season. ADJOURNMENT After no further business, Vice-Chairman Fidler adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Tammy Desai Commission Secretary Jonuay 12,2023 Bsard ntg. inmates pertaining to living conditions, food concerns, and safety. Tom Jefferies from Village, VA.. (SEE EXHIBIT III) Renee Shockley, 770 Smith Lane Warsaw VA, also expressed concerns for Northern Neck Regional Jail inmates. OLD BUSINESS SOLAR ORDINANCE REVISIONS-DIS-DISCUSSION Mr. Quicke stated pursuant to a request from the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission has reviewed the current Solar Power Facility, Large Photovoltaic Ordinance and made suggestions for adjustments. Over the last couple years, many applications have been reviewed based upon the current ordinance and all Planning Commission members agree that this ordinance provides the ability to create specific conditions based on each project's needs. However, during the discussion ofthe ordinance were set for clarification, as defined below: 1. Language defining setbacks based on particular projects-this will specifically advise applicants that the required setbacks will be defined with each project based off of the surrounding residential areas, roadways, and conditions. 2. Guidance on requirements for electrical connections to facility-throughout the discussions with the Planning Commission, members expressed concern of the need to clear a large portion of the screening area for the exit of above-ground transmission line from a facility. This excessive clearing creates a view of the facility that is not preferable. A suggestion was made to require electrical connections exiting the solar facility to be placed underground through the screening are until the overhead point is reached for connection. 3. Decommissioning clarifications-currenty, a decommissioning plan and decommissioning bond are required components of overall plan approval. However, in ordert to clarify, language was suggested to note that any amounts spent for decommissioning in excess of the bonded funds would be the responsibility of the project owner/property owner. The proposed adjustments mirrors the siting agreements approved with prior projects. 4. Financial assurance-a new requirement suggested was requiring each applicant of a solar facility project to provide evidence of financial assurance securing the performance of the requirements set out in the final siting agreementlconditions. The Planning Commission members understand that satisfaction of this requirement will be different from applicant to applicant but wish for County staff to have the ability to request such information. Mrs. Mothershead noted the above adjustments were recommended unanimously, 8-0, by the 6 Snuguy 121 2023 Planning Commission at the December 5th, 2 2022 meeting and these changes would require a public hearing. "On a motion made by William C. Herbert, II, the Board voted: F. Lee Sanders aye; Robert B. Pemberton aye; J. David Parr aye; Richard E. Thomas-aye; William C. Herbert, Il-aye; to set a public hearing. for February gth at 7:00, p.m. 99 NEW BUSINESS FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 BUDGET SCHEDULE FY24 BUDGET ADOPTION SCHEDULE Friday, December 9, 2022-Budget Request Letters submitted to Departments Friday, January 27, 2023-Department Budget Requests due to County Administrator Friday, February 24, 2023-FY24 Budget Requests and proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) given to Board of Supervisors Thursday, March 9, 2023-FY24 Budget Presentations from Departments (12:30-4:30 PM) Monday, March 13, 2023-FY24 Budget/CIP Work session (6:00 PM) Monday, March 20, 2023-FY24 Budget/CIP Work session (6:00 PM) Monday, March 27, 2023-FY24 Budget/CIP Work session (6:00 PM) Monday, April 10, 2023-FY24 Budget/CIP Work session (6:00 PM) Thursday, April 27, 2023-FY24 Budget/CIP/Tax Rate Public Hearing (7:00 PM) Thursday, May 11, 2023-FY24 Budget/CIP/Tax Rate Adoption (7:00 PM) FOREST SUSTAINABILITY FUND-AWARD Mr. Quicke stated Richmond County is in receipt $2,695.56 from the Forest Sustainability Fund. The fund was a result of legislation introduced in the 2022 Virginia General Assembly. Mr. Quicke stated the money is currently sitting in the general fund however, per the Code of Virginia, the monies from the Fund must be used solely for public education generally or for projects related to outdoor recreation or forest conservation. 7 Maxcky 9, 2023 Board OP Supenisos RECONVENE -PUBLIC HEARING-7:00 PM Present: F. Lee Sanders, Chairman Richard E. Thomas, Vice-Chairman Robert B. Pemberton, Member William C. Herbert, II, Member J. David Parr, Member Also Present: Morgan Quicke, County Administrator Hope Mothershead, Planning and Zoning Administrator Tammy Desai, Administrative Assistant Chairman Sanders called the meeting back to order. PUBLIC NOTICE-BOARD OF SUPERVISORS In accordance with Section 15.2-2204 oft the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended and pursuant to Section 15.2-2285 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, the Richmond County Board of Supervisors hereby gives notice that a Public Hearing will be held starting at 7:00 p.m., Thursday, March gt, 2023 for public comment on the following: Proposed amendments to $ 157.110/ Solar Power Facility, Large Photovoltaic, oft the Richmond County Code of Ordinances. The amendments may be viewed in person at the Richmond County Administrator's Office at 101 Court Circle, Warsaw, Virginia 22572 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Mothershead presented the proposed amendments and noted the adjustments were recommended unanimously, 8-0 by the Planning Commission at the December 5th, 2022 meeting. (SEE EXHIBIT V) The Board members discussed buffers & setbacks, electrical connections, and a language change to the bond, stating it should be re-evaluated every five years to determine. Mrs. Mothershead stated she could bring forth the amendments in April for voting. The following change was noted and agreed: A decommissioning bond in a form and amount suitable to County shall be required prior to final site plan approval, and shall be reviewed no less than everyfive years. from permit approval, to account for changing market conditions. Scrap and/or resale or recycle value ofsolar equipment shall not be considered in the bonding valuation. 13 Muck9,2003 PUBLIC COMMENT Cliff] Mullin, Emmerton, took the stand and spoke on the powerline connections and feels as though minimum changes need to be made to the language and Mr. Mullin stated he is fully satisfied with it. Chairman Sanders closed public comment. "On a motion made by Robert B. Pemberton, the Board voted: F. Lee Sanders aye; William C. Herbert, I - aye; J. David. Parr - aye; Richard E. Thomas-aye; Robert B. Pemberton-qye; to approve the changes as amended. 39 Chairman Sanders mentioned the solar facilities has stressed to the fire department, in the event of a fire, do not go inside the fence. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Thomas expressed to Mr. Quicke what a pleasure it has been walking beside him throughout the years. Mr. Quicke highlighted his past eleven years stating he not only feels as though he was good for the county, the county was good for him. Mr. Quicke stated he has no doubt Mrs. Mothershead will do a fine job as Interim County Administrator. Chairman Sanders stated he doesn't believe you can go back in Richmond County history and find the growth the county has experienced in such a short period of time. RECESS Chairman Sanders recessed the meeting until March 13th at 6:00 P.M. RECONVENE -BUDGET WORKSISSION.MARCE 13th, 2023 Present: F. Lee Sanders, Chairman Richard E. Thomas, Vice-Chairman Robert B. Pemberton, Member William C. Herbert, II, Member J. David Parr, Member 14 Exniloit V S 157.110 SOLAR POWER FACILITY, LARGE PHOTOVOLTAIC. (A) Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. MEGAWATT TO KILOWATT CONVERSION. One megawatt equals 1,000 kilowatts. PHOTOVOLTAIC PROCESS. A technological process that converts light directly into electricity. SOLAR POWER PLANT, LARGE PHOTOVOLTAIC. A utility-style commercial facility with a rated nameplate capacity greater than 100 kilowatts (DC), which uses solar energy specifically for the conversion of sunlight into electricity by photovoltaics. (B) General standards. The following regulations establish minimum requirements and standards for the placement, construction, and modification of large photovoltaic solar power plants, while promoting the safe, effective, and efficient use of such energy systems. (1) Lot size requirement. No such solar power facility shall be erected on any one lot less than forty (40) acres. (2) Setbacks. All aboveground facilities associated with such plant (excluding including perimeter security fencing) shall be considered a structure for the purposes of determining required setbacks. (Required setbacks will be defined in conditions upon review of project.) (3) Safetylacçess. A security fence (height and material to be established through the special exception process) shall be placed around the perimeter of the solar power plant and electrical equipment shall be locked. Knox boxes and keys shall be provided at locked entrances for emergency personnel access. Warning signage shall be placed on electrical equipment and plant entrances. (4) Noise. No such plant shall exceed 65 dBA as measured at the property line or 50 dBA as measured at the nearest neighboring inhabitable building. (5) Plan of development. Any such facility must follow the conditions set forth in S. 157.047. (6) Surety bond. The facility will be subject to all proper surety bonds deemed necessary by local, state, and federal officials, per this chapter. (7) Local, state, and federal permits. Such a plant shall be required to obtain all necessary permits from the U.S. Government, state, and county, and comply with standards of the major code and safety organizations that apply to generation projects (the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)). (8) Electrical interconnections. All electrical interconnection or distribution lines shall comply with all applicable codes and standard commercial large-scale utility requirements. Use of aboveground transmission lines shall be minimized. Electrical connections exiting the solar facility shall be underground through the screening area until the overhead point is reached, without impacting the screening of the facility. (9) Additional special exception criteria. The following topics shall be addressed in a special exception application for such plant in addition to the special exception uses review criteria in S 157.073. (a) Project description and rationale. Identify the type, size, rated power output, performance, safety, and noise characteristics of the system, including the name and address ofthe manufacturer, model. Identify time frame, project life, development phases, likely markets for the generated energy, and possible future expansions. (b) Economic analysis. Provide economic cost/benefit analysis describing generated property taxes, sales taxes, other taxes, construction dollars spent locally, estimated construction jobs and construction payroll, estimated permanent jobs and continuing payroll, and costs associated with impact on roads and other county infrastructure in the area. (c) Wildlife habitat areas and migration patterns. Address potential impact on wildlife especially endangered or threatened species, on the site and in a biologically significant area surrounding the site. (d) Environmental analysis. Identify impact analysis on historic, cultural, and archaeological resources, soil erosion, flora in the project area, water quality, and water supply in the area, dust from project activities, and cumulative impacts of other adjacent power plant projects. (e) Waste. Identify solid waste or hazardous waste generated by the project and methods of disposal. (f) Lighting. Provide lighting plan showing impacts on adjacent properties. (g) Transportation plan. Provide access plan during construction and operation phases. Show proposed project service road ingress and egress access onto primary and secondary routes, layout of the plant service road system and degree of upgrade plan to new and existing roads, anticipated volume and route for traffic, including oversized and heavy equipment needed for construction, maintenance and repairs, methodology of repairs and maintenance of roads and bridges used for the project, and related public pedestrian and vehicular access and associated fencing. (h) Public safety. Identify emergency and normal shutdown procedures. Identify potential hazards to adjacent properties, public roadways, communities, aviation, and the like that may be created and address response to such hazards. (1) Noise imitations. Identify noise levels at the property line of the project boundary. () Telecommunications interference. Identify electromagnetic fields and communications interference generated by the project. (k) Life of the project and final reclamation. 1. Describe the decommissioning and final land reclamation plan after anticipated useful life or abandonment or termination of the project, including an agreement with the property owner that ensures proper final removal of power generating equipment. Decommissioning and final land reclamation shall be completed no later than 1 year from the date the facility ceases to generate electricity.) 2. A decommissioning bond in a form and amount suitable to County shall be required prior to final site plan approval. The County shall only expend bonded funds for decommissioning activities. Should the funds guaranteed for the decommissioning activities not be sufficient for the County to complete steps as set forth in the decommissioning plan, the property owner/project owner shall remain liable to the County for the difference between the guaranteed funds and the amounts required to Decommission the Solar Facility and shall pay the difference to the County upon demand. 3. If an entity purchases the property, an agreement must be signed with county officials that ensures proper decommissioning and removal of all equipment. (I) Reversion. 1. Permitted transfers of the special exception shall include the following: a. Any transfer to a subsidiary, parent or other affiliate of the applicant or a successor to the applicant by merger or consolidation; b. Any transfer to a public utility company or member owned electrical cooperative regulated by the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Public Utility Regulation; and C. Any transfer to a new entity, or its affiliates, with a cumulative total of 35 megawatts of electrical generation and/or storage assets that such entity currently operates(ed) or has constructed. 2. The permittee shall notify the county of any intent to sell or transfer ownership or operation of the facility. The original special exception shall transfer to the new ownerloperator contingent upon the new ownerloperator filing a letter of intent with the county to continue operation as a solar power facility. (m) Financial Assurance. The permittee shall provide the County evidence of financial assurance securing the performance of the requirements set outi ini the final siting agreement / conditions. Revenue Anticipation Note for FY26 Richmond County, VA Financing Calendar General Obligation (Short-term) RFP Distribution I Week of April 28 Revenue Anticipation Note, Series 2025 RFP Due Date I May 29 Direct Bank Loan Closing I July 1st or 2nd (Tentative) Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 County Board Meetings 9:00am /: 2nd Thursday each Month, / Agenda Deadline 1 week before meeting Holldays are denoted In red/ Other Key Dates denoted In blue Working Group ("WG") Role Entity Defined Issuer Richmond County, VA County Financial Advisor Davenport & Company LLC FA Bond Counsel Sands Anderson PC BC Lender TBD Lender Lender's Counsel TBD LC Date Task Responsibility Week of April 21 Davenport circulates Draft RFP to Working Group for review. FA/WG Week of April 28 Davenport distributes RFP to local, regional, and national banking FA (NLT5/2) institutions. May 26 Holiday May 29 Proposals due from Banks. FA/Bank May 29 to. June 4 Review RFP responses and develop recommendation. FA/WG June 5 Agenda deadline. WG June 12 Board of Supervisors Meeting. County/FA 9am Davenport presents RFP results. Board considers selecting winning proposer. Board considers approving (parameters) resolution and form of financing documents. June 19 Holiday July 1st or 2nd Close on the financing. WG Tentative July 4 Holiday DAVENPORT 1863 PUBLIC FINANCE 1 Richmond County, VA Distribution List General Obligation (Short-term) Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Revenue Anticipation Note, Series 2025 Issuer Lender (RAN) Richmond County, Virginia TBD 101 Court Circle P.O. Box 1000 Warsaw, VA: 22572 a Hope Mothershead a (804) 333-5652 % County Administrator E hmothersheadeco.fichmondva.us Financial Advisor Davenport & Company LLC One. James Center 901 East Cary Street, Suite 1100 Richmond, VA 23219 Ted Cole a 804) 697-2907 Senior' Vice President/ E coleinvesidvenpot.com Co-Manager Public Finance Mitch Brigulio 6 (704) 644-5414 Senior' Vice President & uglcenetdnempetom Sam Stewart a 804) 697-2938 Associate Vice. President E siarenedwempoton Bond Counsel Sands Anderson PC 919 East Main Street, Ste 2300 Richmond, VA 23219 Daniel M. Siegel a (804) 783-7219 Attorney E segeltsandsanoesoncom Jesse Bausch a (804) 783-7242 Attorney E Dauscnesansanoeroncon Camille S. Dean 6 (804) 783-7251 Paralegal cdean@sandsandsanderson.com DAVENPORT 1863 PUBLIC FINANCE 1 VDOT = Secondary Six Year Plan o - L 5 9 - e - - a > 9 9 3 f f : S 9 1 5 5 5 of% a > U - à 8 5 e C Northern Neck and Essex Adult Drug Court Treatment courts are one of the most successful interventions in our nation's history for guiding individuals living with substance use and mental health disorders away from the justice system and into lives of recovery and stability. The Drug Recovery Court model has proven to be effective in reducing recidivism, promoting long-term recovery, and strengthening our communities. The Purpose and Structure of Drug Recovery Courts Drug Recovery Courts are designed based on a critical partnership between the criminal justice system and the treatment community. This collaborative effort results in a team that includes key figures from law enforcement, legal representation, and treatment professionals who work togethert to support individuals in breaking the cycle of substance abuse and associated criminal behavior. These courts were established in response to the alarming rise in overdoses and the increasing recognition that many criminal offenses are driven by substance abuse. They also address the scarcity ofintensive treatment resources in rural areas, offering an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent felony offenders. In our community, the Northern Neck and Essex Recovery Court exemplifies the spirit of cooperation and teamwork. Our Recovery Court Team works closely, often meeting weekly, to develop the best strategies for each participant's S treatment and recovery. These strategies are personalized to meet the specific needs of each individual, with the overarching goal of supporting successful rehabilitation. The team consists of various professionals, including a Recovery Court Judge, Commonwealth Attorney, Defense Attorney, Recovery Court Probation Officer, members from the Community Service Board treatment team, and a Law Enforcement Liaison Officer. The Recovery Court Judge, as the leader of the team, plays a central role in guiding and directing the court's efforts. Structure and Goals of the Recovery Court Program The Recovery Court creates an environment that is defined by clear, understandable rules, with an emphasis on personal responsibility. Compliance with the rules is within the participant's control, and the system is designed to reward progress and penalize noncompliance swiftly. This structure helps participants take charge of their recovery and navigate their way through the five phases of the program, each representing a critical milestone in their journey. The court's approach includes regular assessments and a clear communication system where the participant's progress is shared directly with the team and the judge. This results in timely interventions that promote personal responsibility and encourage positive behavior changes. Individualized Treatment and Support The Northern Neck and Essex Adult Recovery Court has been designed to maximize the chances of successful program completion, reduce recidivism, and help individuals achieve long-term recovery. The program's structure is tailored to each participant's unique needs, ensuring that interventions are relevant and effective. Through early screening, intervention, and individualized treatment planning, participants are provided the support necessary to rebuild their lives and achieve stability. The program serves high-risk, high-need individuals who are referred by the Commonwealth's Attorney as close to arraignment as possible. They are then assessed and screened by the Recovery Court Probation Officer or Coordinator using the RANT assessment, alongside evaluations from the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck Community Service Board using the ASAM (American Society of Addiction Medicine) criteria. This thorough screening process ensures that only individuals with moderate to severe substance abuse dependency are accepted into the program. Success Stories and Impact on the Community The Northern Neck and Essex Recovery Court has seen significant success in helping individuals overcome addiction and reintegrate into their communities. Since its establishment, the program has had 67 total participants, with 24 referrals from Richmond County alone. Out of these, five individuals successfully graduated from the program. While some participants were unable to meet the program's criteria or failed to comply with its rules, the majority showed substantial improvement, with many demonstrating a complete transformation. One participant from Richmond County, who initially entered the program with a substance use disorder involving heroin, synthetic drugs (Molly), cocaine, alcohol, and marijuana, is a prime example of the program's success. This individual had previously been unemployed, disengaged from family life, and involved in criminal activity. Through hard work and dedication, this participant not only stopped using all substances but also rebuilt their life. Over two years, the focus shifted from drug use to recovery, employment, and re-establishing relationships with loved ones, especially their daughter. By the time of graduation, this individual had secured stable employment and a home for their family. They had embraced the lessons taught in the program, successfully navigating all phases of recovery, and are now a law-abiding, sober, and contributing member of the community. Conclusion The Northern Neck and Essex Adult Recovery Court provides a critical alternative to incarceration, offering individuals the chance to break the cycle of addiction and criminal behavior. Our mission is to deliver individualized substance abuse treatment and frequent supervision to help offenders regain control of their lives, improve their quality of life, and reduce recidivism. The positive outcomes for participants demonstrate the power of this approach to not only transform lives but also enhance the safety and well-being of the community as a whole. As we continue to support and grow this program, we: remain committed to helping individuals successfully reintegrate into society, reduce the burden on the justice system, and foster stronger, healthier communities. STAFF REPORTS BUILDING / PLANNING / ZONING / LAND USE Monthly Report - March 2025 Building: Total Fees Collected $ 6,713 Total Construction Cost $9,720,391 (this amount includes the RCC Health Sciences Building project) Zoning Permits: 17 Land Disturbing Permits: 3 Planning Commission The Planning Commission will meet on Monday, April 7, 2025. There is a scheduled public hearing as noted below: Excellent Homes, LLC proposes to rezone approximately 51.93 acres, Tax Map No. 24I(1)3, located on Richmond Hill Road, Warsaw, VA, from Agricultural, General (A-1) to Residential, Limited (R-1) to allow for a new water access community. (current owner of parcel - Glenn K. Ziegler) Solar Projects to Note Booker', S Mill - Stabilization efforts continue, increasing grass growth in some of the more areas prone to erosion. Moon and Cerulean - Dominion will be present to give an update on both ofthese sites. SelfI - The crews onsite continue construction while compliance measures are inspected weekly. SelfIV - Site work on this project has begun. The first steps are always the placement of silt fence and measures around the perimeter. DG Revolution Solar (Davis) - Final touches on the E & S plan are expected to address comments from ARM group and VDOT. 1 3 1 1 3 4 2 6 4 16 9 6 3 4 L 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 0 4 5 2 3 B 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 7 6 2 2 1 a Virginia Department VDOT of Transportation Richmond County Board of Supervisors April 2025 VDOT Report Maintenance Activity Highlights Completed: Shoulder Repair (Rt 1014 East Monroe Ave) Beaver dam removal (Rt 634 Naylors Beach Rd & Rt 603 Quinton Oak Rd) Brush cutting (Rt 606 Simonson Rd) Pothole patching countywide Work orders countywide Upcoming: Brush cutting (Rt 637 Piney Grove Rd, Rt 624 Newland Rd, Rt 608 Farnham Creek Rd) Beaver dam removal (Rt 634 Naylors Beach Rd, Rt 603 Quinton Oak Rd) Patching (Rt 608 Farnham Creek Rd, Rt 613 Calvary Church Rd) Shoulder repair (Rt 360 Richmond Rd, Rt 600 Ridge Rd) Litter removal countywide Grade gravel roads countywide Pothole patching countywide Work orders countywide Pavement Schedule Plant Mix: Rt 3 WB History Land Hwy (East End Totuskey Creek Bridge to Folly Neck) Cape Seal: Under Construction Rt 1016 Oak Ridge Ave Rt 1004 Court Cir Rt 1035 College Ave Rt 1036 Campus Dr Surface Treatment: Under Construction Rt 607 Canal Rd Rt 608 Farnham Creek Rd Rt 613 Calvary Church Rd Rt 614 Beaver Dam Rd Rt 655 Riverdale Rd Rt 670 Scott Town Rd Rt 675 Elliotts Dr Rt 1000 Harris Ave Rt 1002 Belle Ville Ln Rt 1003 St. Johns St Rt 1005 Lakeside Dr Rt 1006 Ridgeway Rd Rt 1008 Pine St Rt 1009 Washington Ave Rt 1010 E. Jefferson Ave Rt 1010 W. Jefferson Ave Rt 1011 Madison Ave Rt 1012 Sunset Ln Rt 1013 Jones Ln Rt 1014 W. Monroe Ave Rt 1015 Wallace St Rt 1016 Morgan Ln Rt 1017 Morgan Ln Rt 1017 W Morgan Ln Rt 1018 Memorial Dr Rt 1019 Gordan Ln Rt 1020 Ivy Rd Rt 1021 Maple St Rt 1022 Walnut St Rt 1023 Quail Trl Rt 1027 Sturman Ln Rt 1028 Level Blvd Rt 1029 Georgia Ave Rt 1033 Lee Ave Rt 1034 Jackson Ct Rt 1035 College Ave Rt 1037 Atkinson Dr Rt 1038 Freedom Wy Rt 9350 Mackey-Thompson Learning Center Construction Projects LAP: UPC 123026 Commerce Park Rd - Economic Development UPC 117945 Multi-Use Trail Phase I Bridge: UPC 123070 Rt 636 Havelock Rd over Scatesmill Stream - Culvert replacement; February 2025 Ad SmartScale: UPC 119111 Rt 360/624 modified R-CUT and turn lanes; 2025 Construction UPC 124265 Rt 3/Rt 642 & Rt 360/Rt 620 intersection improvements; 2027 Construction HSIP: Rt 3 EB paved shoulder (Creekview Ln to Folly Neck Rd); 2025 Construction Contacts: VDOT Customer Service Center: 1-800-FOR-ROAD David L. Beale, P.E Carter White Resident Engineer Assistant Residency Administrator (804) 333-7941 (804) 333-7942 david.beale@vdot.virginia.gov carter. whte@vdolvrhnla.coy Michael Parker Richmond County Area Headquarters Superintendent (804) 761-9248 csatepsVsnaseA FINANCIAL INFORMATION Established 1692 ML enisn Richmond County Board of Supervisors 101 Court Circle P.O. Box 1000 Warsaw, Virginia 22572 (804) 333-3415 FAX (804) 333-3408 www.co.richmondya.us Monthly Financial Report - March 2025 Cash Balance (03-31-2025) $ 9,135,054 Previous Year (03-31-2024) $ 7,144,049 General Fund Balance (03-31-2025) $ 5,471,207 Previous Year (03-31-2024) $ 3,862,361 Monthly Sales Tax $ 146,000 YTD Sales Tax $1,302,560 Monthly Ambulance Billing $ 45,828 YTD Ambulance Billing $ 377,103 Monthly Building Permit Value $ 9,720,391 YTD Building Permit Value $29,249,355 Monthly Building Permit Fees $ 6,713 YTD Permit Fees $ 109,201 General Property Taxes Collected YTD FY25 $11,158,456 General Property Taxes Collected YTD FY24 $ 9,639,217 Outstanding 2024 Taxes $ 534,298 Outstanding 2023 Taxes $ 120,493 Outstanding 2022 Taxes - 49,981 Richard E. Thomas J. David) Parr John R. Fidler, Jr. Robert B. Pemberton Lee Sanders Hope D. Mothershead Election District 1 Election District 2 Election District 3 Election District 4 Election District 5 County Administrator RICHMOND COUNTY, WARSAW, VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE TREASURER KRISTIE S. BRANN, TREASURER TREASURER'S TRIAL BALANCE March 31, 2025 CASH IN OFFICE: 700.00 Cash in Richmond County Checking Account 710,435.20 Richmond County HiFi Account 8,394,324.29 LGIP Fund 24,578.34 VIP Fund 5,717.29 Rich. Co. Special Welfare Fund Account 32,592.78 Commonwealth Attorney Asset Forfeiture Federal 0.00 Commonwealth Attorney Asset Forfeiture State 16.20 Richmond County Public Library Account 37,933.79 N.N. Technical Center Acct. Checking 105,481.44 N.N. Technical Center HiFi 265,182.47 N.N. Regional Special Education Program Checking 31,339.39 N.N. Regional Special Education Program HiFi 2,007,892.42 GENERAL FUND: 5,471,207.07 ASSIGNED FUND BALANCES: Reassessment Fund 46,570.36 Capital Improvement Fund 280,405.40 Capital Improvement Fund - Central Accounting System 21,708.25 Bond Holding 63,623.00 Ambulance Fund 120,000.00 RCPS CIP 497,068.92 Animal Shelter Fund 48,586.35 RAN FY2024 2,000,000.00 EMS Donations Fund 5,644.19 Opioid Abatement Fund 61,825.86 Cigarette Tax Fund 30,347.10 Booker's Mill Siting Funds 415,358.05 DEQ Litter Grant 11,033.00 Prepaid Taxes 2025 29,375.72 Over & Short Account 45.76 Courthouse Maintenance Fund 20,740.59 E-Summons Fund 12,215.50 Richmond Co. Special Welfare Fund 32,592.78 Commonwealth Attorney Asset Forfeiture Federal 0.00 Commonwealth Attorney Asset Forfeiture State 16.20 Richmond County Public Library Account 37,933.79 N.N. Technical Center Trust 370,663.91 N.N. Regional Special Education Program Accounts 2,039,231.81 COUNTY TAXES: Uncollected Taxes 2024 534,298.48 Uncollected Taxes 2023 120,493.11 Uncollected Taxes 2022 49,981.51 Uncollected Taxes 2021 27,949.53 Uncollected Taxes 2020 18,622.12 Prior 14,773.12 Reserve for Uncoll 2024 534,298.48 Reserve for Uncoll 2023 120,493.11 Reserve for Uncoll 2022 49,981.51 Reserve for Uncoll 2021 27,949.53 Reserve for Uncoll 2020 18,622.12 Reserve Prior 14,773.12 12,382,311.48 12,382,311.48 % % % % % 9 % @ % % % % % % 2 2 2 2 2 % 2 2 2 2 % 2 2 % 2 2 2 % 2 2 2 2 2 % 2 2 : % % % % % 2 % % % % % % % % 2 % % % % % % % % % 2 % 2 % % % 2 2 % % 2 % % % % % % % % % % % % 9 2 2 % % % % of 9 % % % % % 2 2 % % f % 2 % 2 % % 2 2 % % f 2 % 2 % % % % % 2 2 % 2 % % % % : % % % % 2 2 a 2 2 % % 2 2 % % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 % 2 2 % % % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 % 2 % 2 2 % % % 2 % 2 % % % % % 2 % 2 2 % % 2 2 2 % 2 2 2 % 2 2 % % % 2 % % 2 2 2 % % 2 2 2 % 2 2 2 2 % 2 % % % f % % 2 % 2 2 2 % 2 % 2 2 2 % 2 2 % % % 2 2 % % 2 2 2 % % 2 2 2 2 2 2 % % f % % % 2 % % % % % % 2 % 2 % 2 % % % % % % 2 % 2 2 2 2 % 2 2 2 % 2 2 2 % % % % % % % 2 % % % % 9 % % - X 4 le 4 le M % % o N 4 % De 4 % 4 4 o X % 4 % % - le o N le N Z le % 2 % % % % PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Established 1692 envwsm Richmond County Board of Supervisors 101 Court Circle P.O. Box 1000 Warsaw, Virginia 22572 (804) 333-3415 FAX (804) 333-3408 wwwco,richmondya.us PUBLIC NOTICE - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS In accordance with Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended and pursuant to Section 15.2-1800 oft the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, the Richmond County Board of Supervisors hereby gives notice that a Public Hearing will be held starting at 6:00 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2025 in the Richmond County Public Meeting Room, 101 Court Circle, Warsaw, Virginia 22572 to receive public comment on consideration of the proposed sale of Tax Map No. 16-42 (13.297 acres) and Tax Map No. 24-6 (30.031 acres) to Emerson Companies, LLC for the purpose of residential development. Proposed sketch of acreage may be viewed in person at the Richmond County Administrator's Office at 101 Court Circle, Warsaw, Virginia 22572 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Hope D. Mothershead, County Administrator Richard E. Thomas J.J David) Parr John R. Fidler, Jr. Robert B. Pemberton Lee Sanders Hope D. Mothershead Election District 1 Election District 2 Election District 3 Election District 4 Election District 5 County Administrator 4/3/25, 10:56 AM S 15.2-1800. Purchase, sale, use, etc., of real property 4/3/2025 Code of Virginia Title 15.2. Counties, Cities and Towns Chapter 18. Buildings, Monuments and Lands Generally S 15.2-1800. Purchase, sale, use, etc., of real property. A. A locality may acquire by purchase, gift, devise, bequest, exchange, lease as lessee, or otherwise, title to, or any interests in, any real property, whether improved or unimproved, within its jurisdiction, for any public use. Acquisition of any interest in real property by condemnation is governed by Chapter 19 (S 15.2-1901 et seq.). The acquisition of a leasehold or other interest in a telecommunications tower, owned by a nongovernmental source, for the operation of a locality's wireless radio communications systems shall be governed by this chapter. B. Subject to any applicable requirements of Article VII, Section 9 oft the Constitution, any locality may sell, at public or private sale, exchange, lease as lessor, mortgage, pledge, subordinate interest in or otherwise dispose ofits real property, which includes the superjacent airspace (except airspace provided for in $ 15.2-2030) which may be subdivided and conveyed separate from the subjacent land surface, provided that no such real property, whether improved or unimproved, shall be disposed of until the governing body has held a public hearing concerning such disposal. However, the holding ofa public hearing shall not apply to (i) the leasing of real property to another public body, political subdivision or authority ofthe Commonwealth or (ii) conveyance of site development easements, or utility easements related to transportation projects, across public property, including, but not limited to, easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm water management, and other similar conveyances, that are consistent with the local capital improvement program, involving improvement of property owned by the locality. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the vacation of public interests in real property under the provisions of Articles 6 (S 15.2-2240 et seq.) and 7 (S 15.2-2280 et seq.) of Chapter 22. C.A city or town may, also acquire real property for a public use outside its boundaries; a county may acquire real property for a public use outside its boundaries when expressly authorized by law. D. A locality may construct, insure, and equip buildings, structures and other improvements on real property owned or leased by it. E. A locality may operate, maintain, and regulate the use of its real property or may contract with other persons to do SO. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, general or special, no locality providing access and opportunity to use its real property, whether improved or unimproved, may deny equal access or a fair opportunity to use such real property to, or otherwise discriminate against, the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts oft the USA. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require any locality to sponsor the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of the USA, or to exempt any such groups from local policies governing access to and use of a locality's real property. The provisions of this paragraph applicable to a locality shall also apply equally to any local governmental entity, including a department, agency, or authority. F. This section shall not be construed to deprive the resident judge or judges of the right to control the use of the courthouse. G. "Public use" as used in this section shall have the same meaning as in $ 1-219.1. Code 1950, $ 15-692; 1962, C. 623, S 15.1-262; 1968, C. 418; 1974, C. 282; 1977, C. 269; 1979, C. 431; 1980, CC. 212, 559; 1984, C. 241; 1986, CC. 477, 573; 1990, C. 813; 1997, C. 587; 1998, C. 696; 2005, C. 822; 2006, C. 57; 2007, CC. 882, 901, 926; 2017, C. 401. mtpsllewiswignlagovkaoadaiis2dhpereril8bsectiont524800 1/1 EA URAFT Established 1692 & PIS Richmond County Board of Supervisors 101 Court Circle P.O. Box 1000 Warsaw, Virginia 22572 (804) 333-3415 FAX (804) 333-3408 wwwco,richmondyaus RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALE OF COUNTY PROPERTY WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on Thursday, April 10, 2025 at 6:00 P.M. in the Richmond County Public Meeting Room, and was advertised in accord to $15.2-1800, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for the purpose ofreceiving public comment on the sale ofTax Map No. 16-42 (13.297 acres) and Tax Map No. 24-6 (30.031 acres) to Emerson Companies, LLC: for the purpose of residential development; WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has found it in the best interest of Richmond County to dispose of this property through a sale for $840,000.00; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Richmond County, that the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator are authorized to execute the sale of this property to Emerson Companies, LLC, in the amount of $840,000.00. Date: April 10, 2025 F. Lee Sanders, Chairman Richmond County Board of Supervisors Hope D. Mothershead, County Administrator Richmond County Richard] E. Thomas J.1 David) Parr John R. Fidler, Jr. Robert B. Pemberton Lee Sanders Hope D. Mothershead Election District 1 Election District 2 Election District 3 Election District 4 Election District 5 County Administrator SIDELN- 5 o 3 > - a 9, a A 0g A - a MORETVOS 3 A 0 / 9 3 AC ASEDmS ? 3 A 6 Bg 5 t a e 3 - a B - o - 8 L a a 1 a 5 B y e la 9 4 9 1 xepot 5 - 3 ELL Od ZOE 'a OLL 'Od Z0E 8'0 d000 DIHIOE XDEN NHEHIHON vav-9T H38WAN dVw OHVd .40'89 M.22,94.08S 0 - - - 2 5 of - I - - - - - 31 5 5 a W m B 3 2 pi - a S y 9 - E E 3 o 3 e 8 8 319 a y /0 37 B 6 3/0 w 2 - 5 8 3 3 4 o L. € 3 3 8 € E7 DE C1 WIDTH 3 5 8 5 OF E WAIN ESTS 86 - AGITT Sane C5D3 E 5 m R2Da. 8 VDOT S a a a M a 1 8 8 E a € Bu 0 2 a a a 6 3 S $ a - OpE)( - o a 9 - A L 3 3 3 - 9 a B# NOILdaOXE E - 62E Od 'yer 'a - AVM JO IH9IE ONIISIXE - - I I 5 - - - WAY, E 5 3 AIGHT OF C501) L WIDTH A201, yo 8 079-VA5 E E E 1 3 5 5 9 E 0003- dVo/M HI 9 N A ? 2 5 3 € to 2 o a N 9 O/E- L& - 2 t ni 11 C a 8 ROAD 4 a E 6 360 WAY) 4 - OF EREES 6 L9 ROUTE C501 - O71 AIGHT E & - WIDTL - a a D a : E € s dou Se 37-03 .81 37NI o VARTELS I RDVROJE LL dOua (VDOT & PROJECT ENV a (T090 'Oy E-6L0-FOOT 1DEroHd LOGA EVIS ) 8 : AVM JO IHSIH .99) EB OVN - 5 6 LOOT ELNOH Re om OHVAETNO8 NOTIWVH