Loading...
02-10-1982 MinutesFebruary 10, Mr. E. Merlin O'Neillj Sr., Chairman Mrs. Joan Girene, Vice Chairma~ Mr. C. L. Bookman Mr. R. Garland Dodd ~r. Richard L, ~edrick County Administrator ~taff in Atuendance: Mr, ~tanle¥ ~alderson~ Director of Planning Mr. William Correll, Construction Mr. Phil ~ester, Dir. of Parks end Recreation Mr. Elmer ~dge, Asst. Co. Administrator Mr. Richard McEl~i~h, Enu. ~ngineer ~. Steve ~icaa~ Co. Attorney Mr. Jeffrey MUZev~ Dir. of Co--unity Develop. Col. Joseph Chief of P©llca Budget & Accounting Dz. Eoward O. Sullins, Supt. of schools k~r. David W~lchons~ Asst, Dir. of U~ilities Chief of Transp. Plan. ~r. O'Neill called the meeting tu order at the Courthouse at l~:0O a.m. {EST}, Mr. Dodd gave the i~vocation. Mr. Eedrick state~ the first item of business was the approval of minuEea. There was some dlscusaien rs§arding the approval and authorization of sewer £nstallation for Paul ~ill and Kandolph Road in Falling Creek Farms and Central Park. ~r. Dsdd did not bulieve that the intent of the Board was that 70% of ~he ewners of available ]otn ha~ to agree to connect to ee~er in thes~ area~, Mr. Boc~t~an stated that the resulut~on sheul~ also include that the sewer would be provided at the existing ra~e. ~r. ~icas s~ated that if the rate is guarantee8 prier to survey being aCcomplished, the Beard will be departing from the past policy. Be stated pazt policy grandfathered thos~ areas which had been authorized for desiUn er construction for which these areas have not. Mr. HedriGk sta~sd he felt the Board might reconsider th~ entire issue later in the ~av. After further discussion, it ~as generally agreed %o defe~ consideration of appro~al of the mlnut~s until later in the day. Er. stanley Balder~on stated that chesttrfield County and nine other communities had been selected by th~ InternatiOnal City ~anagement A~socia~ien from Over 308 communities nationwide ~o participat~ in IC}~'~ Affordable Communities Dre4ect, Be etated the ICt~ program is designed to identify ways for cor~nuni~ies t~ help simplify their develepnental regulatioas and to promote affordable housing and community develomment. He stated the first phase of ~he program is the estabkishmen~ of a technical committee, comprised of County and local d~velopmen~ interest representatives who will attend a workshop March I0-12, 1982. ~e stated IC~ wilt fund all workshop co,ts. ~ stated ~he workshop is a ~elf-help program to assees the County's development and regulatory process and to identify k~y areas where regulatory changes would mutually benefit those concerned. He ~ated following the workshop, technical resource r~pre~entative~ ~etectsd by IC~ ~rom other communities will visit and work with the County in the review program. ~e stated at the Conclusion of the program, a "how-to" guide for local governments who are interested in development regulations review will be published. H~ stated the other areas ~elected to participate in the program are: Gainsville, FL Sa~ Antonio~ T~ Seotts Bluff, NE Bellingha~, WI Wichita, ES Spartansburg, SC ~ast Wind.or Township, NJ Casper, WY ~r. Daniel inquired wh~ would be representing th~ County at work~hop. Mr. Baldsrson stated representative~ from Community Development and local builders/developer~. The Board expressed their pleasure ah having been one of the communities selected. Mr. Richard McEl~ish crated that the ~oard may recatl that during the f~ll floods in 1979, the County was a~roacked by a group of County citizens a~king when the County would be elevated to th~ Regular Fedzral Flood Insurance Program. He stated they were concerned that the Emergeucy Program the County wa~ under did not allow them to obtain adequate ~loed insurance coverage for their dwellings and possessions. The County informed the citi~en~ that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had hired the Corps of engineers to do an in-depth study of all watercourses in the County and upon comple~ion and adoption of the study, the County could move into the regular program. ~e stated that the thrsm year ~tudy has been completer by the Corpg of ~ngineers and the adoption procedures have b~gun, ~e stated in the next 4-5 weeks the Federal ~mergen~y Management Agency will adv=rtise in County papers a ninety-day appeal period a~suming no valid appeals, the County will then have up to six month~ to adopt appropriate zoning regulations enforcing the designated flood plain areas. He ~tated after zoning amendments, the County will be able to enter into the Re~ular Plood Insuranc~ Program. He ~tated the County ~fimates this will be comuleted by December, 1982, Mr. Daniel reqneste~ that the residents involved along B~ach Road be informed of this proce~. Mr. McElfish sta=e~ this would be done~ Mr. ~edrick inquired how thio would u£fect the areas where development hae yef to occur. Mr. Mc~lf~sh stated it Nould be determined by the manner in which the COunty adopted the plan and regulations. Mr,~ ~odge sta~ed that the County has been contacted by WiIliam Georg~ of the YMCA_ ~e stated that they would again like to:have a gtudent Government Day for students t~ learn a~out the operation of their ~ov~rnment. ~e stated that positive feedback had been receive~ from the s~udents wko had participated in the program_ It was generally agreed that Student Government Day would be May 6, 1982. 82-047 }~r. ~edrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to con~ider an ordinance relatinq to sidevald ~etbaek requirements in R-iS zones+ There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion Of ~Ir. Dodd~ $ecended by Mrs, Giron~, the ~Qard adopted the follo~ing ordinance~ An Ordinance to Amend S~c~ion 21-92 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197~, As Amended, Relating to Sidepard Setback ~ecuirements in ~-t5 Zene~ Be It Ordained by the Boa~d of Supervisors o~ the County of Chesterfield: (1] That S~stion 21-92 of the COda of the County of Chesterfield, 1978~ is amended and reenacted as follo~zs: See. 21.92. Required conditions. (d} Side yard. Each let shall have two sid~ yard~, each having a width of net less than fifteen feet~ provided, that on any lot which was under one ownership as cf December I1, 1945, when the owner thereof owns no adjoining land, the %~idth of each side yard may be reduced to not less than fifteen percent of the ~dth o~ such tot~ but in ne event shall the width o~ either ~ide yar~ on any lot having a width of sixt~ feet or more be reduced tO less than a width equal to one-half'the height of ~he ~ain building on the lot~ nor shall the width of any side yard b~ less Vote; Unanimous Mr. ~driek s~ated that this time and da~e had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating ~o erssion and sediment control. There was no one present to discuss this matte~. Mr. McElflsh stated that State law requires ~ha~ the County adopt by March 1~ 19S~, a County Erosion and Sediment Contr~l Ordina~e~ which contains de~el~um~nt criteria censis~ent with State guidelines. Mr. Daniel suggested that the word "a~eqnate" be eliminat~d. Mr. Micas explained tha~ what Mr. Daniel was referring to was strictly a summary of the ordinance hut the ordinance ~id specifically outlin~ wh~t Was necessary. Mr. Dodo inquired i~ th~ engineerkng firms had been contac%ed and if they ware aware of %he ~rupo~ed ordinance. Mr. ~IcElfish ~%ateO that this has be~n discussed for approximately 1~ months and that there had been numerous me,flags involving the Stat~ requirements, ~r. ~icaa state~ that it is no longer enough to th~ channel so that the runoff will not have an adverse effect 82-048 was required by all localSti~. Mr. Dcdd inquired if Chesterfield were one of the first to adopt this ordinance. Mr. Hedrick stated that it was actually almost the last locality a~ it must be adopted by March 1, Mr. John Smith stated that tk~ Ordinanc~ required to obtain necesssry easements downstream. He stated he felt there should be ~c~e a~istanoe from th~ County in the event there was a problem and easements dew,stream ~sre aeceSsary in order for proper dev~!opment and operation Of the County. He etched without assistance, this ordinance could place an enormous burdGn on a developer ~hich he felt wron~. ~e sCa:ed the use of eminent domain by the County in this type of situation should be approved. Mr. Bookman ~tated that in 1976 the Supreme Court ruled out the County aiding developers in this manner. Mr. Smith stated it would be h~lping the County by aiding the development o~ the County, not the developer, There was no one else to addremm this matter. Th~ Bo~r~ indicated its concern that developers were not present to discuss this matter. ~Ir. Dodd sta~ed there are state laws periodically which are mandated as this is but not all localities adhere to s~ated if the County i~ ~an~ated and there is no other choice, it was on his motion, ~econ~ed by Mrz. Girone, resolved that the following ordinance be An O~dlnance to ~mend an~ Reenact Suctions 7.2-t, 7.9-2, ~.2-9~ 7.2-10 and 7.2-13 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~mended, Relating to ErosiOn and Sediment Control Be I% Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: i'1) That Section 7.2-1 of the Code of ~he County of Chesterfield, 197~, i~ amended and reenacted as follows: Chest~rfleld County Erosion and Sediment Control ~andbook. A handbook consisting of procedures for Preparation o~ erosion and sediment control plans and which for the outpost of thi~ Chapter is the current Virginia Erosion and s~dlment Control Kandboek. Conservation standards, criteria or ~D~cification~. The criteria, guidelines~ techniques and me~ho~s for control of erosion and sedimentation whether promulg&t~d by the Chesterfield County Envirorm~ental Engineer or contained in C~apter 3 of the currant edition cf the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Environmental Engineer. The director of the Chesterfield C~unty Department o~ Environmental Engineering or his designee. / Erosion and ~ediment control plan or plan and specifications. A document containing material for the co~ee~vati©n of soil and water romoure~$ of a unit er group cf u~ite of land. It may include appropriate maD~, a~ appropriate s011 an~ water plan inventory and ~anaqement information with needed interpretations and a record of ~ecisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit er units of land will be ~o treated to achieve the conservation objectives 82-049 mud pre~ar~d in accordance with Chapter 6 of the current e~iti~ of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Msndbock. Land Dimturbiug Activity. Amy land ohan~e which may r~mu] in sell erosion from water or wind and the movement of se~iment~ into waters or Onto lands in the county o~ adjacent jurisdictions, including, bet not limitmd to clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, other than federal lands, and ~he i~stalling cC ~&ter, m~w~r, gas or oil tinem~ drainage pipe~ and storm sewers, unless occurring on a har~ surfaced road, street or si~walk; e×c~pt, tha~ the term shall not include: {a) Such minor land disturbing activities as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work; (b) Individual service conn~ctlons; (l) Construction, installatlcn or maintenance cf electric and telephone utility lines; (2) Installation, maintenance or repair of any underground public utility lines when such activity OCCurs on an existing hard surfaced rca~, street or si~ewatk provided such land ~isturbing acti~itV is confined to the area of the road, ~treet or ~i~ewalk which is hard surfaced. (c) Septic tank lines or drainag~ fields unless included i an overall plan fur land disturbing ~ctivlt? ~ela~ing to construction of a building to be served by ~ septlc tank system: (d) Surface or deep mining; (e) Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops~ clearlnq and transporting on privately owned, eucupied or operated agricultural, horticulture {f) Construction, repair or r~buil~ing of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridge$, communication facilities and other 'relate~ structures and facilities of a railroad company; [g) Pr~p~ratlon fQr single-family residences separately built, unless in conjunction with multiple construction in subdivision development~ Ih) Disturbed land areas for commercial or nonconLmarcial uses Qf less than ten thousand square f~st in size: (i) Installation Of fence and sign pomes or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of po~ts sr poles; (j) Emergency work to protec~ life, limb or ~rcDertv an~ em=rgency repairs; provided, tha~ if the lard disturbiug ~ctivit, would hav~ required an approved erosion and sediment control pla{ if the activity w~re not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaded and established in accordance ~ith the requirements of the Chesterfield County Erosion and Sediment (k) E×mloration ur drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads add off=sit~ disposal areas which s~rv~ the wel~ site. (1) Shore erosion control projects or tidal waters o o 0 82-050 (2) That Section 7.2-2 of the Code of the County Ch~sterfi~ld~ 1978, is am~nde~ and reenacted ax Sec. 7.2-2. Ap~rovaI for land disturhin~ activities. ~xsap% as provided in Sections 7.2-~ and 7,2 7, it shall be unlawful for any per,on ~C e~gage in any land disturbing activity until he has submitted to the environmental enoineer an erosion and sediment control plan for such land dlstur~ing activity in the format detailed in ~he Chesterfield Countv Erosion end Sediment Control ~andbook on file in the office of th~ Chesterfield County Department of Environmental Znqlneerinq and until that plea has been reviewed and approved by environmental engineer pursuant to section (3} That Section 7,2-9 of the Cede of the County of Ch~terfleld, 1978, is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 7,2-9, Fees k plan review ~ee of fifty dollars for sites and one hundred dollars for ~ubdivi~ions ~hall be paid to the County of Chesterfield at the time of filing of each erosion and s~dlment control pYan. (4) ~ha~ Section 7.2-I0 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, is amended and reenacted as follows: S~¢. 7.2-10, Approval Of plans and specifications. (o) Tf no action is taken by the envlronmen~al mngineer within forty-five days after receipt of the plan, the plan sha~l be deemed approved and the applicant ~hall be authorized to proceed with th9 land disturbing activity if the applicant has complied with sections 7.2 9 and (5) That Section 7.2-13 of the Cede of cbs County of Chssterfiel~ 197~, is amended and reenacted as follow~: S~c. 7-2.13. Refund. Within slxtv days after the completion of the land disturbing activity and when th~ stabilixatiun of th~ land is complete in th~ discretion of the environmental engineer, any une×pended or unobligatud funds d~po$ited with the environmental engineer pursuant tQ section 7.2-12 shall be re~unded. Pos the purposes of this section completion of land disturbing activity (a) Sites - ~ull Occupancy Certificate' (b) SubdivisiOn - Passage of a nesolutio~ by the Board of Supervisors requesting acceptance of the subdivision roads into the state system of secondary roads. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick ~tated this date and time had been advertised for s ~ublic heario~ to consider the establishment of a central ~bsentee voter district. Me stated this had been adopted on an emsrgency basis on January 13, lgd~. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Circus, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following ozdinanc~ An Ordinance to ~mend gectlon 7.I-1 cf the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197B, as Amende~ Relating to Establishin~ a Central Absentee Voter District Be It Ordained bV the Board of Supervi~©r$ of the Ceuntv of Chestezfield~ 82-051 (1) That Section 7~I-1 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield iS amended and reenacted as Sec. 7_t-t. Csn%rel absentee voter di~trlct. There is hereby established a central absentee voter election district in the conference room of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office on the first floor of the Chesterfield County Courthous~ Duilding for the purpose of receiving, counting recording all absen{ee ballot~ in all ~l~cticns cast within the county. Such central absentee voter election district ~hgll receive, count and record all absentee ballots in accordance with the requirements of Section 24.1-233.1 of the Cods of virginia and all other applicable provisions of effective February 1, 1982 for a period ef twelv~ ~Qnths. Mr. Ramsay statsd the School Boar~ h~ received $1~8,1~4.34 of Title !Vb funds for the purchase of mitre-computers, musical instruments and library books. M~s. Girone inquired if the micro-computers were for instructional purposes. Dr, Sullins stated they ~vere. H~ stated the school A~/~inistration i~ trying to establish a computer system ih each senior high school at thi~ ti~e, that they ~ill try to establish a computer system in each middle s~h©ol in the future, He stuted that there currently exists en ouCstanding computer program at Meadow;brook High School b~caa~e of a teacher who was interested in the program an~ the student in,ernst, He stated ~hat this program was the best in the State. He stated that other senior highs, much as Midlothian~ are becoming interest in s~ch ~rogra~s as well. Ke s~ated they anticipaoe placing 5~6 computers in each senior high school and eventually going to 10 in each which will give each studeDt needed time on the machines. ~r. O'Neill inouired if this equipment would increase the school budget next year. Dr. ~ullln~ stated only $ small increase pcasibly for electricity. :Mr. ~edrick stated that st%zdents are speakinq& different llanguage in the schools and that he was conviuced cemputer~ will After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Boo~an, ~ecend~d by ~rs. Girone, resolved that th9 ~oar~ increased Planned Budget R~venue account l~1-1-00012-1052 Title IVb-p.5. 9~-561 by ~108,104.34 and increased Planned Budget Expenditure account i4t-l-R~450-3412 Library Books by S12,577.~4 and 141-1-22450-4513 Other Equipment by $~5,527.00. Vote: On motion ei Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the COunty Attorney tO institute legal proceedings pursuant to Section 58-1181 of th~ Code of Virginia, 195Q, a~ a~ended~ to seek to recover business license ta~ and unpaid taxes as well as a 100% penalty from American Sterilizex Company for the pxecedin~ six years for licenses they had failed to obtain On motion of Mrs. CirQue, seconded by Nr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to e×ecute necessary documents for P. E. Eubank and Company who ~abmitted the Iow bid in the amount of $61,750 for sitework construction for Phas~ T! at ~{ugaen~t Park ~hioh includes th~ base bid plus alternative one for the extension of the entrance drive. On ~%otio~ of Mrs. Girone, seconded b~ Mr. Dodd, the approve~ and authorized the COunty A~mlni~Srator tQ execute any necessary documents for Landes Cons~r~otien Company who submitted the /Ow bid ic the amount of $9,S39.97 for fenclng'installatlons for Pha~e II at ~ugueno~ Park, Vste~ Unanimous Mrs, Gi~ene n©t~d ~h~ ~his park land wa~ donated to the County by Eeri=age Development COrporation of Richmond, It is else noted that funds for %his project are ~o be expended through the Mr. william Correll stated that bids ha~ been received for bid was received in the amount of $119,000 and that two alternatives for r~ns end a kitchen ~acility had als0 been bid. incrmsme in the past 10 years in dogs contained ak ~he facility ~oul~ consaruct 84 runs (wiLhout fencing) and that with funds that this could be added later if so d~nired, but it was felt /no. in th~ amount of $126,650 for ~he bass inclu~inq alternate 1 (addition~% runs) and a~ternate 2 (kitchen). Fund~ fQ~ this project havieq been previously budgeted. immediately and will ~×pire on October tl, I9~. appointed the followiug people as youth members on the Youth will expire on June 30, 1983: 1. Marie Linda Park, ~idluthian 82-053 appointed'Dr. ~efl Mumphreys to the Ri~h~Ond Regional Planning District Commission Citizens Advisory Committee whose term is effective i~ediately and will expire on March i, I9S4. Ih is noted that Dr. Hmmphreys currently serves on the Richmond area MPa Citi±sns Transportation kdvlsory Committee and will continue to serve until a replacement is appointed. approved installation costs for street lights at the following locations with any costs to be expended f~om the Street Light 1. Sturbrid~e Drive and Natick Court, Clover Hill, $768.72 - one light Sturgi$ DriVe and Sturbridge Drive, Clover gill, $1,386.44 - two lights Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd requested that th~ mercury vapor light at the in~ersecti©n of Kingsdale and Jefferson Davis Highway be replaced with a sodium vapor liuht. On notion of Mrs. Circus, seconded by Mr. Bookman, ~he ~oard adopted the following r~selution: Whereas, there exists within the ~etereburg-Colonial H¢ights-~opawell Standard ~etropolitae Statistical A~ea a pre~3.e~ of duplicated arrest names: and Whereas, Chesterfield County, because certain erea~ of the County boIder ~he rtl-Cities Area, has been asked to oartieipate in 5he Tri-Cities Area ~treet na~e duplication preqra~ to enhance police and fire emergency implementation, postal ~nd business cor~munications and general p~blic determination of locations throughout %he Tri-Cities Area. NOW, Therefore, Be It Resolved'by th~ Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors tha~ the County will partioipat% in the program %hrou~h the Richmond Regional PDC coo=dination with the street sams clearing house Tri-Citieg Area to avoid using in ~ertain portions of Cheaterfi~ld County ~treet names that ~uplicate er are likely to be confused ~ith the sams of streets in the rtl-cities Area. ~r. Dexter Williams presented the Board with a stub xoad pazricade procedure rather than the curren~ policy of individu~i ~onsidmratlon by ~he ~oard with the use of 3~ Road Funds %o pay for the barricades. Mrs~ Girone inquired what the ~ysbem would ~e. if an ~arth berm were advisable rather bhan a barricade. Mr. ~illiams mhated it would b~ the sa~e mrocednre~ Mr. Bookman [nqeire~ why the Poli~e Department wo~ld make determination. Mr, ~illiam~ ~tat~d that most requests are due to community 3igturbances and this would involve the h~alth, safety and -~elfare of County residents. Mrs. Girone requested that ~erth harms be included. On motion cf Mrs. Girone, seconded by {r. ~ookman, th~ goar~ adopted the follo~ing procedure for stub feed barricades and/or earth harms: 82-054 9.A~2 Stub Road Barricade and/or Earth Berm Procedur~ All requests Sot installation or removal of stub road barricades and/or earth berms shall he directed to the When two adjacent propert~ owners had requested the i~stallation or removal of a stub road or dead end street barricade and/ct earth be~m in writing, the Police DeDartment ~hall report to the Environmetnal Engineering Department in writing a~ to whether public health an~ safer. warrant in~alling or removing the barricad~ and/or earth berm. If warranted, the Environmental Dnginearing Department will request that the County Administrator authorize funding from 3¢ Read Funds and install a barricade ~r barricades consisting of 4" x 4" posts oB four fce~ centers with a continuous double ~trand of ca~e with plastic flagging attacked and/or an earth berm and a posted sign $~ating "Olosed te All Vehicles," or re~ove an existing barricade and/or earth bexi~. On motion of Mr. O'Neill, s=conded by Mr. Daniel, tho Board approved and authorized ~he County A~inis[rator to ex,cute any n~cessary documents for I.P.K. Excavating Co., Inc. based on bid Echedule "C" who submitted the tow bid ef $14,&~5.40 for water Contract W82-©6C/6(~)2061 for tko r~p!acement ef water lin~s on Walker Avenue and Dupuy Road. The Board further transferred $15',~45.~0 from 380-I-69064-~393 to 3~0-1-62061-4393 ~hich include~ a 10% contingency. 0u motion of Hr. Bookman~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the C~unty Administrator te execute any necessary documents for S~aboard Contractors~ Inc, based On bid schedule "B" who submitted the low bid ef $3,901.50 for Water Contract W82-5C/6{8)2051 for installation e£ water lines on Cottonwood Road and further the Board a~proQriated $~,~92.65 ~rcm 563 ~urplus to 380~1-62051-439~ which includes 10~ contingency. Vote: Unanimou~ It was g~nerally agreed to de,er consideration of condemnation proceedings for r~sidents along Providence Read for the rea4 widening project until later in the day. Mr. Hedrick ~tated this date and time was scheduled for a public hearing tu consider an ordinance vacating a portion ef Aldarsmead Road. There was no one present to discus~ this matter. On motion cf Mr~ Bookman, seconded by Mrs~ Gir0ne, the Board adopted the following Ordinance: An Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of Al~rsmead Road within Shenandoah,' Sec~io~ E, Clex,er ~ill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia aa shown en plRt theruof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of =he Circuit Court of ChesterfJ.~ld Countv in Pla~ Book 19 at page 93. ~2-055 petitioned the Board Of Supervisor~ of Chesterfi~l~ County, Shenandoah, Section E, Clov~r Fill Magisterial District, record in the Cl~rk'$ Office of the Circu%t Court of said County in Plat Book 19, at page 93, made by J. K. Timmon~ and A portion of Aldersmead Road 50 ft. and variable in width beginning On the north line of To,ford Road and running in a outlined in red on a plat made by J.K. Timmens and Associates, dated Noverober 27, 1972, a copy of which will not abridge the righ~ of any c~tizen. of Chesterfield County, Virginia~ That pursuant to Section I5.1-4~2 {b) of ehe Co~e of Virginia, 1950, a~ amended, the above de~cribe~ portion of public use. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-~82{b) of the Code of Virginia, Circuit Court of Chesterfield, virginia pursuant to Section 15.1~485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, a~ amended. =c destroy the force and effect of th~ recording of ~he portion of the plat vacate~. Barbara D. ~Oward, husband and wife, an~ Hollis L. Loyd ~nd Alice ~rantee~, sewer projects: 1. Genito Road Water Line - A~uropr~ated 51,370 from 559-1-00640-800D (Advanc~ by Developers) to 3~0-t-61051-4393. Exxon ComDanv deposited $1,37Q.S0 with the County on January 12, 1982, ~nder contract w~l-87D 9.D.~. extension is going to be installed under County Contract W~i-SC. Thia appropriation will provide the money for Contract 2. SSl-2CD - Mi~lQthian ~runk Se~e~ - Unap~ropriate from 380-1-71032-72i2 to 574 Fund balance. Per contract agreement, if the con,true%ion cost of the above p~oject ha exceeded $155,00Q.0~, %h~ CQ~nty %'oul~ have paid up $25,00Q.00 on the amount over the $155,000.Q0 in cash refunds. The actual construction cost was $I52,~75.~6 wh~c resulted in this appropriation not being On motiQu of Mr. Bookman, aeoonded by Mrs. Qirone~ the Beard authorized the County Admlnistrato~ to sxe~ute and accept on b~half Qf the County ~ ~eed of dedication from David L. ~lcKenn~y St, and Joan $. McKenney for a 10 ft. strip of land located alon, LeGordon Drive, Midlothian. Vote: Unanimous Qn motion of Mr. Bookman, ~econ~ed by ~rs. Girone, th~ Board bekalf of the County two deeds of dedication from virile Glldew~ll (widow) located along Old Hundred R0ad~ Midlcthian District. Vote: UnanlmouD Mr. Painter presented the Doard with tho report of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Addicts=rater. On motion of Mr. Dodd~ seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved ~h~ iD~tallatien o~ fire hydran~ on Enon Church Road, east of Point of Rocks Park~ %he ~xac~ location to be determined by th~ ~i~e ~epartment. Funds to be appropriated ~hen ~he cost is determined for ~his project. Mr. Hadrick presented the Boar4 with a ~seort on ~he propo~ed Taxiway a~ the Chesterfield County Industrial Park and a report on redistricting and new precincts. Mr. Hednlek advised the Doard of ~he Virginia Municipal League Legislative Day and requested ,hyena intereste4 in attending, to Co,tact his office. into Executive Session to discuss legal ~atters a~ permitted by Section 2.1-344(a) (6} ef the Code Of Virginia, 19~u, as amended }~r. Oliver Rudy was present r~pre$ontin~ th~ Cheaterfield Buslne.ssmen's Caunoil. He ~tated that tkere currently exist ~hree pisces of legislation in the G~ne~al As~e~%bl¥ re~arding roads in the County and while the three do not accomplish everything~ they are a step in the right direction. He stated that the Board of Directors which represents approximately 325-35~ small businessmen in th~ County voted unanimously in support of the three pieces o~ legislation. He stated that tho Council ~ould also like the Board of Supervisor's support of the 82 057 any problem with thi~ legislation hut felt something more should have been done to tie Route 2g8 with Powhlts. Mr. Rudy stated that whil~ the businessmen would have probably supported more and stronger legislation, this is all that i~ available at this time. Thexe was some discussion of the proposed gasoline tax increase. Mr. Rudy stated the Council did not take a ~and on that issue. After further discussion Of the matter, it was on motion of the Boa~d, resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Snpervisors hereby supports: 1. Retaining Tolls on 1~95 House Joint Resolution 148 - Providing for a reconsideration 3. Ieee.anco of 9C BOnds for Powhlte Mr. Daniel expressed his concern that growth ~onev ~hould 9o te the localities which are e~periencing said growth] tt wau generally agree~ the Beard would recess for lunch_ Recenvening: Mr. Dexter Willi~ stated that th~ County Administrator had requested a evaluation of major needm on e~isting roads. He statsd that 1981 counts are not available at this ~ime And that %vhat~v~r decisions ars made at this time, would ~ot be implemented until about 198~. ~e stated the standards used by th~ County in the evaluation are approximately double the non-tolerable secondary road ~ten~ards of the VDH&T. indicated that ~ven go~n9 with the County's lea~t restrictive criteria for needed road improvements Rs of 18 months approximately SaT,000,O00 would be needed to four lan~ Huguenot ROa~, four lan~ Courthouse ~oad, and improvements for the northern per%ion of Chlppenha~, Eopkins Road, Reut~ ~60 and Jahnke and others. Me stated using the ~ighway Department standards it would cost $517,800~000 to accomplish the State Transportation Plan for Chesterfield Road Needs for 1995 and ~ing County standards would be ap~roxlmately $24~,3~0,000 in 1985. Hu reviewed the critical improvement needs, which is ba=icallv the six year plan, which included four laning Huguenot, the Route 36~ interchange, replacement of the Swift Creek Bridge, improvements in Ettrlck, right-of=way for Route 288 to Route etc. He stated that the earliest any of this could begin would be three years. ~. Williams stated there ~as funding Iegielation being but e~en with the various plans, the Count~ will not be able to complete 1~80 needs in le~s than 6 years a~d could take 96 vear~ to Complete the 1995 shown in the State Transportation ?lan. He s~sted that the total co~t of ~owhite and Route 288 make it virtually impossible £or eomplet~ conStZuction of these facilities before the end of the century and will ccmpletly be out of the realm of re~ular fun~in~ Und=r current funding be no need fei much discussion of the si~ year plan. when asked if the funding formula might be changed, Mr. McCreck~n with the Highway Department indicated he felt the chance~ were slim. ~. Muzz7 ~tated that with no funding, thousands of menbour~ by all groups involved in transportation planning aze being There was some discussion of the Highway Department budget in the County. Mr. McCracken ~tated he would fc~;ard a copy to the ~oard. ~r. Daniel requested copies of the projests listed in the 82-058 After much di~cussionr the conculslen was that the schedule for hhe County caking any action on hiqhw&y priorities wil~ be race,ended as foll~w~ at th~ secondary ford six veer plan bear%ag on April 29th, at the prima~v pr~allocation hearing on April 19th and at the s@con~ary road annual budget hearing on June 9th. On motion of Mr. Rookman, ~ecsnda~ by Mrs. Girone, tke Board approved the minutes of January 27, 1992, as amended. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board authorized the County AttornEy to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property cwner~ if the amouDt as sat opposite their names i~ not aooepte~. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notif~ hh~ said property owners by registered mail of hhe County's intention to enter u~on and take th~ property which is %0 be t~e sub,eot cf said ecndeK~laticn proceedings. An emergency e×is%inq~ this resolution shall be and it hereby is declared in ~nll force and effect i~ediately upon passage. Carl & Irma D. Dickerson Barbera T. J. C. ~ill Vote: Unanimous 319 Providence Road S 700 211 Providunc~ Road 700 201 Providence Road 1,O0O Mr. Bookman stated that there was ~ misunderstanding when the ~w ~ewer con~ectlon rates were adopted in February, 1981, ~e mtated when adopting this resolution his intention was %o Forest Acres and it should have read ~'the remaining" rather than "a portion of" Forest Acree. On motion of ~r. Book~aD~ seconded by Mrs. Girone, tke Board authorized the design survey and engineering for the balance of Forest Acre~ Subdivision at the curr~nt rate ~f $1,OO0 which project will be accomplished when determined fessible. Mr. O~Neil! stated that becauee the design curvey is being ~utborized it does DQ~ guarantee =hat thfs pro, eot will be done in the near f~ture. It wes generally agreed the Board would m~st on F~bruary 1~, at I1~00 a.~., on February 18, 1982 at ~00 ~.m. and on March I95~ at 2:00 p.m. fur budget work sessions. On motion of Mr. Daniel~ ~econded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went Iby .S~ction 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1~50 as !amended. Se~onvening: The Board recessmd to travel %o the Bull and Bear Club for dinner with the Legislative Delegation. 12. The Board dlscu~sed propose~ legislation and highway needs with the L~islative Delegation. On motion of ~lr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adjourned at 10:15 p.m_ until 2:00 p.m. on F~brusry 15, 1982. R~d]f~d~L. Medrick County Administrator Chazrman