The URL can be used to link to this page

02-23-1983 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES February 23, 198'3 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. J. Royal] Robertson, Chairman Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Vice Chairman Mr. C. L. Bookman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator ~,taff in Attendance: Mr~ Stanley Balderson, Dir. of Planning Mr. Thomas Cal. lah~n, Air.port Manager Ms. Suzan Craik, Empiove~ DeveloDment Spe~iali.',~t Chief Robert L. Esnes, Fire Department Mr. Robert Galusha, Personnel Director Mrs. Virginia Gordon~ Reqistrar Mr. Phi! Hester~ Dir. Parks and Recreation Mr. Robert l-[odder, BuJ. ldinq Inspecnor Mr. Elme'u Hod~e, Asst.. County Administ r a'tor Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Geneza]. Services Mr. Robert Masden, Diz-. of Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Env. Engineer Mr. Steve Micas~ County Attorney ~r. Jeffrey Muzzv, ~ir. of Community Develop. Mr. Lane Ramsev, Dir. Dudqet & Accounting Mr. David Weichons, Act. Dir. of Utilities Mr. Ceorqe Woodall, Dir. of Economic Pevelop~ent Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at !-.he Courthouse at 10:05 a.m. (EST). Mr. Dodd gave the invocz~tion. On motion of Mrs. (;ironer second~d bv Mr. Bookman, the Boa. x'd approved tile minutes of I.~e]",ruarv 9, 1.9f~3 as at,%ended. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Howell int. roduce~ l'{r. Thomas Ca..'l.'lahan, Ai;~.port ~.anaq'er, wk, o began working for the Cou]~t.v on February 14, '!983. Mi'. Howell stated the C. ounts., %4as very fortunate to h{lve a man with ~r. Ca].lahan's experience and expertise. Mr. Ca].lahan stated he looked forward to working iii the Counl:v and felt that 'the pos~;ibJ!;|..{.ies a'~.;e tremendous wi.th {he runway expansion project, etc. He offered his assJ. stance and st,T~ted that bis high priority would be handiing/reducinq con[plaints saving/conserving funds at the facility. 9'he Boa.~-d welcol[:ed Cal].ahan to the County. Chief Eane,?~ stated this time wa~, .~.~"~ asJ.(]e in order to recogni-ze District Chief Lynn Church for his many years of dedicated service to Chesterfield and for his support of the County Government and Fire Department. He stated that Chief Church was very instrumental in making the transition into a first class combination volunteer and paid fire department much easier. On notion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, District Chief Lynn Church in October, 1982 stepped down as District Chief of Company #1, Chester, after serving in that capacity since December, 1976; and WHEREAS, Chief Church has served as a member of the Chester Company since 1963 and held various positions including Recording Secretary, 2nd Lieutenant, 1st Lieutenant, 1st Captain, Safety Officer and Assistant District Chief; and WHEREAS, Chief Church has been very active in the District Chiefs' Association, serving on several committees including the Training Committee and the Standards Committee which led to the establishment of the current standards for volunteers; and WHEREAS, Chief Church has been a leading advocate of the Combination System in the County and has been very supportive of one centrally managed and coordinated County-wide Fire Service with the Volunteers and Career Service working together as a team; and WHEREAS, It is the desire of this Board to recognize his faithful service to the Chesterfield Fire Department and to spread this recognition upon the Minute Book of 'the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the long and dJ~stinguished service of District Chief Lynn Church and this Board extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, their appreciation for his nineteen (19) years of service to the County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Robertson presented Chief Church with the resolution. Chief Church stated 'that he felt Fire Administration and the Board deserved recognition because of their support of the Department. Chief Eanes recognized Mrs. Nancv Church who w~s present. Mr. Dodd stated Chief Church is not only active in the Fire Department but in the community as well. Mr. Hedrick stated Chief Church was one of the first Chiefs he met when he first came to the County, and he is not only a exemplary fireman but an outstanding human being as well. Mrs. Craik was present and stated the ~eep Chesterfield Clean Corporation would like the Board to designate April 9 through May 14 as Keep Chesterfield Clean Weeks. She stated last year a two week period was designated and thev would like to expand this program to five weeks this year. She stated that this campaign was successful last year and by desi§nating five weeks, each magisterial district will have a special week in which to focus on anti-litter activities. On motion of %be Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation is organized as a community group to impvove the environmental quality of Chesterfield Countv through the development of a program to reduce litter and littering~ and WHEREAS, This group is plaDning a spring clean-up of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE~C)LVED that t}~e ChesterfJ.e]d Co'~nty Board of Supervisors s~uppo]~ts this worthy cause and designates 5.B, 5.C. April 9 - May 14, 1983 as "Keep Chesterfield Clean Weeks, 1983"; ~nd FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Board encourages all residents and businesses to participate in this program to make Chesterfield County a better place to live and work. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider a lease agreement with the Enon Athletic Association to operate a concession facility at Point of Rocks Park. Mr. Dodd inquired why a public hearing was needed for an item such as this. Mr. Micas stated that it represents a lease or granting of an exclusive right to use public property for the purpose of making a profit and the General Assembly adopted a law that there should be at ieast a public hearing on the matter before any such leases were approved. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a lease agreement with the Enon Athletic Association to operate a concession facility at Point of Rocks Park which contract is for a three year period. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated that this time and date was scheduled for a public hearing to consider the use of Revenue Sharing Funds. He stated the Federal regulations for receiving Revenue Sharing Funds require that the County Administrator hold a public hearing for the purpose of presenting the citizens with an opportunity to suggest items they would like to have considered by the County Administrator in the preDaration of the County budget for funding by Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. Hedrick stated that there would be $1,823,800 in Revenue Sharing funds coming to the County this year. There was no one present who wished to address this matter. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hedrick stated that this time and date was scheduled for a public hearing to consider a Flood Plain Management Ordinance. Mr. McElfish stated that in January, 1973 the County qualified for acceptance into the National Flood Insurance Emergency Program. He stated that at that time temporary regulations were adopted until the County could become eligible and be included in the regular program. He stated the emergency program enabled property owners to purchase flood insurance coverage at rates made affordable through a Federal subsidy with a ceiling. He stated in the summer of 1981, the Corps of Engineers Drepared a flood insurance rate study establishing base flood elevations on numerous creeks and streams in Chesterfield County. He stated in September, 1982, the Federal Emergency Management Agency provided the County with detailed flood insurance rate maps and established March 16, 1983 as the deadline for the County to enter the regular Flood Insurance Pro~ram. He stated under this regular program, the available limits of coverage are double those under the emergency program. He stated the coverage is available at a subsidized rate reflecting the ~egree of risk for the property. He presented slides indicating the emergency programs that the County has been in since 1973 for residential ~nd commercial insurance, changes in the ordinance versus what the County has been doing in the past regarding the construction in or near a flood plain, the distinction between commercial and residential development which distinction was not made before, Ie~mitted uses in flood plains, etc. Mrs. Girone inquired about ~xlsting homes in the flood plain and if they would qualify? Mr. ~cElfish stated that ~ould be taken care of under the change ~here citizens own land, 95% of which is inundated by the ~iase flood would be allowed to construct a home within the flood fringe provided it would be elevated to one foot above. He stated this would take into account homes on the James River, ~3-0~5 on the Appomattox, etc. and the one on Old Gun Road and staff would be available to work with them. He stated there is another regulation regarding existing homes that may have been partially destroyed by fire, for example, or when additions are constructed, etc. He stated if the new costs were more than 50% above the assessed value, they would have to meet the requirements. Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr. Epps was aware of this. Mr. McElfish stated that when she had given him the copy at the last meeting, Mr. Epps indicated he would contact him if he had any questions and he has not done so. Mr. McElfish stated the ordinance provides measures which will prevent or minimize flood damage with basic guidelines which have been applied by the Federal Government and that staff has met with the Richmond Homebuilders, developers and engineers and they support this ordinance. He stated this will become a portion of the Zoning Ordinance which will be administered by the Director of Environmental Engineering. He stated, in summary, the Flood Plain Management Ordinance provides measures to prevent and minimize flood damage with minimal additional cost and it would allow citizens to double the amount of flood insurance on e×isting homes in the flood plain; it makes available on many of the creeks pre-engineer}.ng that would save costs when a developer/engineer wants to develop adjacent to this which is available at the Courthouse; it would drastically reduce the spending of large sums of money in the future on capital improvement drainage projects in order to keep down flooding; it would keep stream areas natural and make it available for bike paths, etc.; and it would standardize the management of all flood plains %~ithin Chesterfield County. He stated it represents, for the most part, the current practice of the Planning Commission and staff approvals for the past six years and it makes official and streDgthens these practices and the County has worked with the State and Federal governments and the State is considering this plan as an exsmple for other areas. He stated he would like to thank the developers, engineers and builders who have worked with the staff, especially John Davenport of the Richmond Homebuilders Association. Mr. Delmonte Lewis, representing the Richmond Homebuilders, was present. He complimented staff for their work and the cooperation received by the Association. He stated they also appreciated the opportunity to have input into this matter. There was no one else to speak. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone~ the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, In summer of 19Sl, the U. S. Corps of Engineers completed a Flood Insurance Rate Study establishing base flood elevation on 'the creeks in Chesterfield County, and in September 1982, the Federal Emergency Managemen~t Agency announced the base flood elevations for Chesterfield as final; and Whereas, Chesterfield has prepared a Flood Plain ~.anagement Ordinance which is designed to prevent or minimize flood damage; and Whereas, The Federal £mergency Management Agency has advised Chesterfield County that they have until March 1.6, 19S3, to adopt flood plain measures that are in accord with Federal standard guidelines; and ~ Whereas, The Planning Comm~ission of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, on January 25, 1983, recommended approval of this Flood Plain Management Ordinance. 83-086 Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfie]_d this 23rd day of February, 1983, that the following Flood Plain Management Ordinance is adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIEI,D, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2]-3 AND 21-5 AND ADDING DIVISION 13, SECTIONS 21-77.1 THROUGH 21-77.15 RELATING GENERALLY TO ESTABLISHING FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapter 21 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and reenacted by adding the following sections to the table of contents: Division 13. Flood Plain Management 21-77.1 Purpose of Division. 21-77.2 Duties of Director of Environmental Engineering. 21-77.3 Flood Plain Districts and Zones. § 21-77.4 Flood Plain Maps. 21-77.5 District Boundary Changes. 21-77.6 Interpretation of District Boundaries. 21-77.7 District Provisions 21-77.8 Floodway District. 21-77.9 Flood-Fringe District. 21-77.10 Approximated Flood Plain Districts. 21-77.11 Application For Variance. § 21-77.12 Building Permits and Variance. 21-77.].3 Existing Structures in Flood Plain Districts. 21-77.]4 Flood Hazard Mitigation. 21-77.15 County Liability._ . (2) That Sections 2]-3 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and reenacted by adding the following definitions: Section 21-3. Definit~[ons. Administrator. The Federal Insurance Administrator who administers the National Flood Insurance Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Area of special flood hazard. That land in the flood plain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area will be designated on the County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as Zones A, Al-All, Al4, Al5, Al6. Backwater. A flow retarding influence due to a dam or other constriction such as a bridge or culvert, or another stream. Base Flood. A flood having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year. 83-0~7 Development. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. Existing construction. Structures for which the start of construction commenced before the effective date of this ordinance. Existing construction may also be referred to as "existing structures." Flood. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas. Flood Boundar~ and Floodway Maps (FBFM). The official map of the County on which the Administrator has delineated the boundaries of the 100 and 500 year floods and floodway. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The official map of 'the County on which the Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the County. Flood plain management. The operation of an overall progran of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including, but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans, flood control works and flood plain management regulations. Floodpr0ofing. A combination of structural and non-structural additions, changes or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. Floodway. As shown on the County's FBFM, the channel of a river or other watercourse, and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one (1) foot at any point. Floodway fringe. As shown on the County's FBFM, the area of the flood plain that can be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the base flood by more than one (1) foot at any point. New construction. Structures for which the start of construction co~nenced on or after the effective date of this ordinance. One Hundred Year Flood. See base flood. (3) That Section 21-5 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-5. Administration of chapter. This chapter shall be enforced by the Director of Planning, except as specified in Section 21-77.2, and those appointed by the Director of Planning shall have the full cooperation of all other county officials in %he enforcement of this chapter. The building inspector, upon receipt of an application for a permit to construct, alter or use any building or premises, shall, before granting such permit, submit the same to the director, who shall certify whether the proposed construction, alteration, or use of the building or premises conforms to the provisions of this chapter. If such construction, alteration, or use of the building or premises does not conform to the provisions of this chapter, the building inspector shall refuse to issue the permit. (4) That Article III of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and reenacted by adding Division 13, Sections 22-7.1 through 22-77.15 as follows: 83-088 Division 13. Flood Plain Manaqement Section 21-77.1 Purpose of Division. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent loss of life and property, hazards to health and safetv, disruption of commercial and governmental services, extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base by: (a) Regulating uses, activities, and development which, acting alone or in combination with other existing or future uses, activities, and development, will cause unacceptable increases in flood heiqhts, velocities and frequencies. (b) Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and development from locating within areas subject to flooding. (c) Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in flood-Drone areas to be protected and/or floodproofed against flooding and flood damage. (d) Protectinq individuals from buving lands and structures which are unsuited for intended purposes because of flood hazards. Section 21-77.2. Duties of Director of Environmental En~,,ineerin9· (a) This division shall be enforced by the Director of Environmental Engineering and such deputies as the Director of Environmental Engineering may appoint. The Environmental Engineer shall review all plans of development and building permits, and certify that the proposed development or construction is not in violation of the provisions of this chapter. If such proposed plan of development or construction is in conflict w~th this chapter, the Director of Environmental Engineering shall refuse to approve such plan or building permit. (b) The Director of Environmental Engineering shall maintain, for public inspection and furnish u~on request for the determination of applicable flood insurance risk premium rates within all areas having special flood hazards identified on the County FIRM, any certificates of floodproofing, information on the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) above the base flood elevation, and the horizontal distance of %he structure from the outermost boundary of the base flood for all new or substantially improved structures. Also, records will include whether or not such structures contain a basement, if the structure has been floodproofed, and the elevation above the base flood level to which it was floodproofed. (c) The Director of Environmental Engineering shall maintain a record of ali. w~riance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in the county's annual report submitted to the Administrator. Section 21-77.3. Flood Plain Districts and Zones. (a) Basis of Districts. The 100 year flood shall be adopted as the base flood for purposes of flood plain management measures. The 500 year flood shall be employed to indicate addi'~ional areas of flood risk in the County. The basis for the delineatiom of these districts shall be the Flood Insurance Study and Related Maps for Chesterfield County prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Aqe~ncy, 83-089 Federal Insurance Administration, dated September 16, 1982, as amended. (1) The Floodway District is delineated for purposes of this ordinance, using the criteria that a certain area within the flood plain must be capable of carrying the waters of the base flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one (1) foot at any point. The areas included in this District are specifically defined in Table 2 of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study, and are shown on the accompanying FBFM. See Figure 1. (2) The Flood-Fringe District shall be that area of the base flood area not included in the Floodway District. The basis for the outermost boundary of this District shall, be the base flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study, and as shown on the accompanying FBFM. See Figure 1. (3) The Approximated Flood Plain District shall be that base flood area for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, but where a base flood plain boundary has been approximated. Such areas are shown cn the FIRM. Where the specific base flood elevation cannot be determined using other sources of data, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Flood Plain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, recorded subdivision plats, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity, shall determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications who shall certify that the technical methods used accurately reflect currently accepted technical concepts. Studies, analyses, computations, etc. shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the Director of Environmental Engineering and shall include a theoretical delineation of Floodway from Flood Fringe when development within an Approximated Flood Plain district is requested. See Figure 1. (b) Basis of Zones. The unincorporated areas of Chesterfield County shall be divided into zones, each having a specific flood potential or hazard. Each zone shall be assigned one of the following flood insurance zone designations: See Figure 2. (1) Zones Al-Ail, Al4, Al5 & 16: Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by waters of the base flood. (2) Zone B: Areas between the Special Flood Hazard Area and the limits of the 500 year flood, including areas of the 500 year flood plain that are protected from the 100 vear flood by dike, levee, or other water control structure; also, areas subject to certain types of 100 year shallow flooding where depths are less than one (1) foot; and areas subject to 100 year flooding from sources with drainage areas less than one (1) square mile. Zone B is not subdivided. (3) Zone C: year flood. flooding. Ail areas outside the limits of the 500 These areas are subject to minimal or no (c) Overlay Concept (1) The Flood Plain Districts described above shall be overlays to the existinq underlying districts as shown 83-090 on the official Zoning Ordinance Map. As such, the provisions for the flood Dlain districts shall serve as a supplement to the underlying district provisions. (2) Where there is any conflict between the provisions or requirements of any of the Flood Plain Districts and those of any underlying district, the more restrictive provisions and/or those pertaining to the flood plain districts shall apply. (3) In the event any Drovision concerning a Flood Plain District is declared inapplicable as a result of any legislative or administrative actions or judicial discretion, the basic underlying district provisions shall remain applicable. ~ection 21-77.4. Flood Plain The boundaries of the Flood Plain Districts are established ~s shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and Flood ~nsurance Rate Maps, which are declared to be a part of this ~rdinance and which shall be kept on file in the office of ~the Director of Environmental Engineering. See Figure 2. Section 21-77.5. District Boundary Changes. The delineation of any of the flood plain districts may be revised by the County where natural or man-made changes have Dccurred and/or more detailed studies conducted or undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified agency, or ~here individual documents indicate the need for such change. However, prior to any such change, apDroval must be obtained from the Administrator. Section 21-77.6. InterDretation of District Boundaries. Initial interpretation of the boundaries of the Flood Plain Districts shall be made by the Director of Environmental Engineering. An appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals may be taken by any person aggrieved or affected by the interpretation. Section 21-77.7. District Provisions - General. (a) Ail uses, activities, and development occurring within any flood plain district shall be undertaken only upon the issuance of a building permit. Such development shall be undertaken only in strict complisnce with the provisions of this ordinance and with all other applicable codes and ordinances, such as the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the Chesterfield County Subdivision and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinances. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Director of Environmental Engineering shall require the applicant to provide, in addition to the basic information on the permit, the following information. (1) For structures thnt will be elevated, the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) above the base flood elevation and the horizontal distance of the structure from the outermost' boundary of the base flood. (2) For non-residential structures that will be floodproofed, the elevation to which the structure will be floodproofed. (3) The elevation of the base flood. (b) Under no circumstances shall anv use, activity, and/or development adversely sffect the capacity of the channels or 83-091 floodways of any watercourse, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system. (c) Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channels or floodways of any watercourse, stream, etc., as shown on the County's FIRM, and Dr~ior to approval by the Director of Environmental Eng~.neering, the applicant shall also obtain approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State Water Control Board. Further, the applicant shall ~ive notification of the proposal to all affected adjacent municipalities. Cobbies of such notifications shall be forwarded to the County's Director of Environmental Engineering, the State Water Control Board, the State Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Federal Insurance Administrator. (d) Ail new construction of habitable residential structures in subdivisions, within zones Al-16 and unnumbered A zones on ~he County's FIRM, shall be prohib- ited. (e) Ail new construction of habitable residential structures on parcels which are at least 95% inundated by the base flood and outside of a subdivision (on record as of March 16, 1983), within zones Al-16 and unnumbered A zones on the County's FIRM, shall have a minimum floor level of twelve (12) inches above the base flood and cause no increase in the base flood elevation. (f) Ali. substantial improvements of habitable residential structures, within zones Al-16 and unnumbered A zones on the County's FIRM, shall comply with § 21-77.13 (a). (g) Ail new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures, within B and C Zones on the County's FIRM, shall have a minimum floor level of twelve (12) inches above the base flood elevation, adjacent to the nearest A zone, and be set back at least five (5) feet horizontal distance from the outermost boundary of the base flood. (h) Ail new construction of non-residential structures within the floodway on the County's FBFM shall be prohibited. (~) Ail new construction and substantial improvements of non-residential structures an~ accessory bu~ldinqs, within the Floodway Fringe on the County's FBFM, shall either (i) have a minimum floor level, of twelve (12) inches above the base flood elevation, or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary fac~.lities be designed to be watertight at least twelve (].2) inches above the base flood level with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hyd~odvnamic loads and effects of buoyancy. (j) Ail new construction and substantial improvements of non-residential structures, within B and C Zones on the County's FIRM, shall either (i) have a minimum floor level of twelve (12) inches above the base flood elevation of the nearest A Zone, or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that at least twelve (12) inches above the base flood level of the nearest A Zone is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. (k) Where floodproofing is utilized for a particular structure in accordance with paragraph (i) above, a reg.~.stered professional engineer or architect shall certify 83-~092 that the floodproofing methods are adequate to withstand the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors associated with the base flood. A record of such certificates, indicating the specific elevation (referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD)) to which structures are floodproofed, shall be maintained with the Director of Environmental Engineering in accordance with ~ 21-77.2 (b). (1) The Director of Environmental Engineering shall require that owners of existing Mobile Home Parks and Mobile Home Subdivisions, locaned within Zones Al-16 and unnumbered A zones on the County's FIRM, file an evacuation plan indicating alternate vehicular access and escape routes with the Virginia State Disaster Preparedness Office. (m) All existing mobile homes,located in a special flood hazard area on the County's FIRM, shall be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement by providing over-the-top and frame ties to ground anchors. Specific requirements shall be that (i) over-the-top ties be provided at each of the four corners of the mobile home with two additional ties per side at intermediate locations; mobile homes less than fifty (50) feet long require one additional tie per side; (ii) frame ti. es be provided at each corner of the home with five additional ties per side at intermediate points; mobile homes less than fifty (50) feet lonq require four additional ties per side; (iii) all components of the anchoring system be capable of carrying a force of 4,800 pounds, and (iv) any additions to the mobile home be similarly anchored. (n) The placement of new mobile homes on individual lots or parcels, the construction of new mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, and the expansion or substantial improvements to existing mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions shall be prohibited within Zones Al-16 and unnumbered A Zones on the County's FI~. (o) For the placement of new mobile homes on individual lots or parcels, for the construction of new mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, and for the expansion of existing mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions require, within Zones B and C on the County's FIRM, that (i) stands or lots are elevated on compacted fill or on pilings so that the lowest floor of the mobile home will be at least twelve (]2) inches above the base flood level of the nearest A Zone and be s~t back at least five (5) feet horizontal distance from the outermost boundary of the base flood, (ii) adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler are provided, and (iii) J.n the instance of elevation on pilings lots are large enough to permit steps, piling foundations are placed in stable soil no more than ten (10) feet apart, and reinforcement is provided for pilings more than six (6) feet above the ground level. (p) Ail subdivision proposals and other proposed new developments shall include~ within such pl~oposals, base flood elevation data. (q) Ail new construction and substantial improvements to existing structures shall have the access driveways elevated to at least the base flood level. Section 21-77.8. Flo¢~dwa¥ District. (a) In the Floodway District no residential or non-residential structures, mobile homes, or filling shall be permitted. (b) Permitted rises. 83-093 In the Floodway District, the following uses and activities are permitted, subject to review and approval of the Environmental EngJ. neer, a]~d provided that they comply with the provisions of the underlying district and are not prohibited by any other ordinance. Further, no development shall be permitted except where the effect of such develop- ment on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements, which have been approved by the Environmental Engineer and/or State authorities, as required. (1) Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. (2) Publ~ic and private recreational uses and activities such as ~arks, dav camps, picnic grounds, golf courses, boat launching and swinuning areas, hiking, and horseback ridlnq trails, wildlife an¢! nature prese~'ves, game fsrms, fish hatcheries, t~ap and skeet game rsn~.{es, and hunting and fishing areas. (3) Accessory residential uses such as yard areas, gardens, play areas, and loading areas. (4) Accessory industrial and commercial uses such as yard areas, parking and loading areas, airport landing strips, etc. (5) Material extraction which will not increase the level of flooding c,~ velocity. See Chapter 7.2 of the County Code, and ~ ~ ~e~.tions 21-65 and 21-77.12 (12) of this chapter. (6) Temporary outdoor recreational uses such as circuses, carnivals, and similar activities. (7) Utilities and public facilities and improvements such as railroads~ streets, bridges, transmission lines, pipe lines, water and sewage treatment plants, and other similar or related uses. (8) Water-related uses and activities such as marinas, docks, wharves, piers, etc. (9) Storaqe of materials and equipment provided that they are not soil stockpiles, buoyant, fla~nable, explosive, toxic nor radio active, and are not subject to major damage by flooding, and/or provided that such material and equipment is firmly anchored to prevent flotation or movement, and/or can be readily removed from the area within the time available after flood warning. (10) Structures (cther than inhabitable) accessory to the uses and ac'tiwities ~n paragraph (b) 1 through 9 above. (I1) Other sJ.r~i].ar uses, structures and activities,. provided they cause no increase in flood heights and/or velocities. ~ect~.on 21-77.9. Flood-Fringe District. (a) In the Flood-Fringe District, the development and/or use of land shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations of the underlying district provided that all such uses, activities, and/or development shall not increase the base flood levels, and shall be undertaken in strict compliance with the floodp]'oofing and related provisions contained in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code 83-094 and all other app].icable codes and ordinances. Under no circumstances will filling in the flood fringe area be permitted to make a building lot for the purpose of constructing a residential dwelling. (b) Permitted uses. (1) Those uses permitted in the Floodway District 21-77.8 (b)), subject to review and approval of the Environmental Engineer. (2) Residential structur~:s subject to the provisions of ,~ 21.77.7 (e) . (3) Non-residential construction subject to the provisions of § 21-77.7 (i). (4) Accessory residential structures subject to the provisions of ~ 21-77.7 (i) Section 21-77.10. Approximated Flood Plain District. In the Approximate Flood Plain Distri. ct, all developmemt and uses shall be the same as permitted in the Floodway District. Section 21-77.11. A.~j. cation for Variance. The burden of proof rests upon the applicant and without such proof a variance must be denied. The applicant must show: (i) good'and sufficient cause, (ii) that failure to grant the variance would result in an exceptional hardship, (iii) that granting the variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the 'public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances, (iv) the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. Section 2].-77.12. Considered. Bull.ding Permits and Variances - Factors to be (a) In considering applications for development in the Floodway and Flood Frinqe Districts and variances, the Director of Environmental Engineering or Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider the following factors: (1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. No building permit nor variance shall be granted for any proposed use, development or activity within the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts that will cause any increase in f].ood levels during the base year flood. (2) The danger of matert[als being swept on to other lands or downstream to the injury of others. (3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the abilihy of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. (4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owners. (5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility t.o the community. (6) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. (7) The availabil, itV of alternate locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. 83--095 (8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated future development. (9) The relationship of the proposed use to the C~eneral Plan 2000 and flood plain management program '~0r the ar--~-~.--~ ' ' (10) The safety of access to the property in time of flood by ordinary and emergency vehicles. (11) The e×pected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. (12) The loss of beneficial natural stormwater management characteristics. (13) Such other factors that are relevant to the purposes of this ordin.-~nce. (b) The Director of Environmental Engineering, or the Board of Zoning Appeals, may refer an. application and accompanying documentation for a building permit or variance to an engineer or other qualJ, fied person or agency for technical assistance in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights, velocities, the adequacy of the plans for protection, or any other related matters. (c) The Board of Zoninq Appeals may forward requests for Variances to the t.'ederaJ. Insurance Administration for comment. (d) The Director of Environmental Engineering and Board of Zoning Appeals shall notify the applicant for a building permit and/or variance in writing that the approval of such for construction of a structure below the base flood elevation (i) could increase risk to life and property, and (ii) could result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. (e) A record of the above notification, as well as all variance actions including justification for their issuance, shall be maintained by the Director of Environmental Engineering. Variance approvals shall be noted in the annual report submitted 'to the Administrator. ;ection 21-77.13. Existing.. Structures in Flood Plain Distr~cts A structure or use of a structure on premises which lawfully existed before the enactment of these provisions, but which is not in conformity with these provisions, may be continued subject to the following conditions: (a) Habitable residential structures (1) The modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structur'e requiring a bu.~lding permit and/or use located in any flood plain district to an extent or' amount of less than fifty (50) percent of its value, in accordance with the County Assessor's records, shall be elevated to the greatest extent possible. (2) The modif~cat.~.on, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure requiring a building permit and/or use regardless of its location in a flood plain d.~.strict to an extent or amount of more than fJ. ftv (50) percent of its value, in accorc]ance with. the County Assessor's records, shall constitu~e a sub~;tantial improvement. This improvement shall, be elevated to at least twelve (12) inches above the base flood level. (b) Non-residential structures (1) The modif%cation, alteration, repair, reconstruction., or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use located in any flood plain district to an extent or amount of less than fifty (50) percent of its value, in accordance with the County Assessor's records, shall be elevated and/or floodproofed to the g~eatest extent possible. (2) The modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use regardless of its location in a flood plain district to an extent or amount of more than fifty (50) percent o~ its value, in accordance with the Co~nty Assessor's records, shall constitute a substantial improvement. '£his improvement shall be elevated to at ].east twelve (12) inches above the base flood level and/or floodproofed to at least twelve (12) inches above the base flood elevation. Section 21-77.14. Flood hazard Mitigation. Within the Base Flood and/or the Approximated Flood Plain areas, as delineated, the following additional provisions shall be met: (a) Ail electric water heaters, electric furnaces and other critical electrical installations shall be permitted only at elevations at least twelve (12) inches above the base flood level. (b) Water supply systems, s&nitary sewage systems, and gas and oil supply systems shall be designed to preclude infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the systems into floodwaters. Design and construction shall be in accordance with BOCA requirements. (c) Adequate drainage shall be provided to minimize exposure to flood heights. (d) Preliminary plat requirements shall include a map showing the location of the proposed subdivision and/or land development with respect to any designated flood plain district, including information on, but not limited to, the base flood elevations, boundaries of the flood plain districts, proposed lots and sites, fills, and areas subject to special deed restrictions. Section 2]-77.15. Cou~j, I,iabi].it~i The degree of flood protection sought by the provisions of this Ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based upon acceptable erigineerJng methods of study. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or notu. r~l causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This Ordinance does not imply that areas outside the f].ood plain districts, or land uses permitted within such districts, will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Chesterfield County, nor any o~ficer, nor employee thereof, for any flood damages that resu].t from fei. lance on this Ordinance, or any administrative decision !awful].¥ made thereunder. Vote: Unanimous 83-097 5,Do Mr. Hedrick stated this time and date had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 21 of the Code of Chesterfield changing "Director of Community Development" to "Director of Planni~ng." Mr. Micas stated that this ordinance had been advertised prematurely and that consideration should be deferred until March 23, 1983 which will allow enough time for the Planning Con~ission to consider this change and make a recommendation to the Board. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred consideration of this ordinance until 10:00 a.m. on March 23, 1983. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a parcel of land at the Airport Industrial Park. Mr. Woodall stated this conveyance of one acre of land to Sealeze Corporation, an existing industry, would add to the present site for future expansion. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a sales contract for the sale of 1.0 acre parcel in the Airport Industrial Park to Sea]eze Corporation which parcel fronts on the southeastern side of White Bark Terrace and adjoins the southwestern property line of the parcel belonging to "Super Seal" and is approximately 250 feet in depth, as measured along the southwestern property of "Super Seal"; the southwestern property line is to be perpendicular to the tangent of the curve of White Bark Terrace. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated, this date and time had been advertised fer a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a parcel of land at the Airport Industrial Park. Mr. Woodall stated this conveyance of one acre of land ~o W. G. Fields, trading as American Sprinkler Corporation, was for construction .of a new facility. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to enter into a sales contract for the sa].e o~ ]..0 acre parcel located at the Airport Industrial Park to W. G. Fields, trading as American Sprinkler Corporation, which parcel fronts to the southside of Virginia Pine Court, and which adjoins the so~theastern property line of the parcel belonging to "Tate Engineering"; and which adjoins the southwestern boundary line of Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park shown on said plat at Subdivision Boundary; the southeastern boundary line of the property is perpendicular to the tangent of the curve of Virginia Pine Court. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated the Board was being requested to adop~ on an emergency basis an ordinance relating to the polling place for the Swift Creek Voting Precinct. Mrs. Gordon stated that office had received a letter from Mr. Fred Bott, Manager ,Df Brandermill, informing them that they could no longer'ut±!i~e ~he building they had been using for voting purposes.. She stated she had contacted Mr. Tom Fulghum, Asst, Superintendent of Schocls, who informed her that Swift Creek Middle School could be u~ed in June for the primary but not for the general election in November; however, in Nove~ber they could use the new Genito School which would be complete~. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Bookman~ seconded by Daniel, the Board adopted the ~o].lowing ordinance on an emergency basis and set the date of March 23 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for "~ public hearing: 7.ao An Ordinance to Amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as Amended, by Amending Section 7.1-2 Relating to the Polling Place for Swift Creek Voting Precinct Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1. That Section 7.1-2 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 7.1-2. Precinct boundaries and polling places. The following shall be the precinct boundaries and polling places for magisterial districts in the county: O O O CLOVER HII.L DISTRICT SWIFT CREEK VOTING PRECINCT: Beginning at the center line of Hull Street Road (U.S. Route 360) where it intersects with Otterdale Road (State Route No. 667); thence in a northwardly direction to its intersection with Old Hundred Road (State Route 652); thence southeastwardly along the center line of Old Hundred Road to its intersection with the center line of Hull Street Road (U. S. Route 360); thence southwestwardly along the center line of Hull Street Road to the point of beginning. The voting place for Swift Creek Voting Precinct shall be the Swift Creek Middle School, 3700 Old Hundred Road; effective June 15, 1983, the voting pi. ace for Swift Creek Voting Precinct shall be "Genito" Elementary School, 13800 Genito Road. O O O Vote: Unanimous Mr. Bookman stated he had requested and received an opinion from the Commonwealth's Attorney regarding his participation in the discussion regarding the setting of a public hearing date to consider revisions to the County policy on refunds for off-site and oversized sewer and water line installations. He stated based on that opinion he would not participate in this matter and excused himself from the room. Mr. Micas stated that the current policy for refunds for off-site and oversized sewer and water installations is to use a three bid system and the County then refunds on the existing policy based on the bid which is most advantageous to the County. He stated staff has examined that policy particularly in regard to what other localities are doing throughout the State who are experiencing rapid growth ~n their utilities system. He stated staff is satisfied that the County policy is similar in many respects and superior in others to policies used in such places as Virginia Beach, }{enrico Count¥~ Fairfax County, etc. He stated for the last five years, in comparison to Henrico County, for reimbursement for the most common job for oversizing sewer work, the County's method resulted in refunding substantially less to developers and contractors. He stated staff felt the current County system is a fair and equitable re~r~ursement policy. He stated marly of the larger systems do not require any bids whatsoever as a basis for deter~nining how much to be refunded for off-site and oversize work. He stated it appears that after reviewing the Co'u~tv system which has been in effect for 20 years that some modifications m%ght be desira, ble to insure 83-~099 the lowest possible price for any particular utility job and recommendations have been made which report has been sent to the Board. He stated this would include the developer's consulting engineer advertising for the water/sewer work and bids being taken at a particular time in the consulting engineer's office; that the engineer would tabulate the bids and certify that it was a regular and accurate bid tabulation and after going through that process, the County would refund based on the lowest bid received during that process. He stated each bidder would also be required to sign an affidavit as a condition of bidding that he arrived at the bid independently without communication with other contractors/developers and that he stands ready and willing to do the work at the bid price. Mr. Dodd stated that since he had been rather vocal regarding this matter he felt the Board should be very careful in changing a system based on only costs. He stated he had some questions of how the bid process has worked. He stated he did not feel the Board should change the policy without considering all aspects and he referred to the dollar figure regarding the fees in other jurisdictions in the report. He stated he wanted to make sure the County received input from the homebuilders, engineers, etc. before this public hearing is held because he did not intend to make a change just for "change sake" because of the recent publicity. Mr. Daniel stated he agreed with Mr. Dodd but that he could support the setting of a public hearing date at this time. He stated the County Administrator was requested to look into this matter and present the Board with a proposal which is being accomplished today. He stated that he felt everyone who has an interest in this matter should look at the facts, analyze them and communicate them to the County in a very precise manner. He stated staff should notify all interested parties of this matter. Mr. John Smith stated he did not feel 30 days was adequate time to make any comparative studies and gather information from other organizations. Mr. Hedrick stated that staff has been reviewing at the entire utility ordinance and began the undertaking of the utility master plan as well. He stated with 'the retirement of Mr. Painter there has also been a transition pericd involving other items as well. He stated this was included in staff review before any publicity and it was all being done in a logical manner. He stated because of the publicity and the question raised about possible abuse of the system, the staff singled this out because of the implied urgency. He stated that staff feels comfortable dealing with this in any manner the Board sees f~.t. He stated that calls have been received from the contractors' association stating they do want to have an opportunity to speak to this item and staff will continue working with them. Mr. Dodd stated he did not see any urgency in this matter because of the publicity. He stated he was upset that the system would come under attack but the biggest concern he has is to be sure that the County is doing what is right and having the input of the people involved. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of April 27, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Sections 20-10 and 20-32 relating to refunds for off-site and oversized sewer and water line extensions. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Bookman. 83-100 7oBo ° Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting. Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning staff and administration spent approximately 1% years in review and drafting the public facilities plan as the element of the County's Comprehensive and General Plan. He stated that this was presented to the Board and then forwarded to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. He stated this has been accomplished and they recommended that the Board adopt the Plan. He added staff has discussed the content and thrust of the plan with each Board member and it is now requested that a public hearing date be set. He stated that this plan is not the capital improvements program, it is not predicated upon the approval of a capital improvements program nor is a capital improvements program predicated upon approval of this. He stated it is a guide for such planning and for such budgetary considerationS. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of March 23, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider the Chesterfield Public Facilities Plan. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board at the request of the School Board: Increased Planned Budget Revenue account 141-1-00012-1052-000 In-Service Training/ Gifted by $15,000. Increased Planned Budget E×penditure accounts: 141-1-22497-2151-000 Consultant Services 141-1-22497-2907-000 In-Service Training 141-1-22497-3402-000 Instructional Supplies $ 2,600 12,045 355 $15,000 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Howell stated that the plans for the Southern Area Landfill have been approved and a construction and operation permi~ has been issued by the State Health Department. He stated the next step would be the authorization to solicit bids and award a contract to the lowest bidder. Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a letter from Mr. Herbert Gill of the law firm of Rudy and Gill, regarding this item. Mr. Dodd stated he was very interested in the southern area landfill but he had some mixed emotions regarding it. He stated he did not want to see industry have to haul refuse to the northern area landfill due to costs and filling of the landfill before anticipated, but he did not want to ignore the new breakthroughs and technology in the field of landfills and solid waste disposal. He stated various proposals have been before this Board and they were risky to say the least. He stated there is a proposal involving the General Electric Company With local people who have developed some new technology from Germany which has been operating successfully for years. He stated if he could have some assurances that the existing southern area landfill's life could be extended without impacting the northern area landfill, he would be agreeable to a delay of bids in order that the proposal involvin9 Genera]. Electric could be considered and investigated further. Mr. Howell stated that staff does not have any cost fiqures or an actual proposal from %he people involved with General Electric at this time. He stated it seemed ~o be a revival of another proposal considered by the Board ].sst year or at least the technology seems to be the same. He stated that under present methods of operation the southern area landfill will be closed in September or October, 1983. He stated there are some minor things which might be done to extend the life by one to three months. He stated there has been a proposal to go higher but staff is concerned about compaction and leachate as ten feet has already been added to the original plan. He stated everything would have to go perfectly if the new ]andfi!l is to be ready at the time the old closes under present methods of operation. Mr. Hedrick stated that the assurances Mr. Dodd requested in that there would be an alternative on line at the time of the closing of the southern area landfill if bids were not authorized, could not be guaranteed. Mr. Daniel inquired if the people could be contacted and told if they are going to make a true proposal that it would have to be completed within a reasonable time. He stated he ~did not feel one or two months would delay every thing in the field of solid waste disposal in the southern area of the County. Mr. Hedrick stated the letter was just received this morning and staff has not been involved in any negotiations at all with any parties as the Board had told staff to proceed with all due haste with the design for construction of the new southern area landfill and to try to extend the life of the existing southern landfill as much as possible in order to have the old close and the new open simultaneously. Mr. Daniel stated he thought a preliminary application had been submitted to the County for zoning for the solid waste disposal facility. Mr. Balderson stated they have not submitted a complete application, they still need to identify the scale and scope of what they propose to do in a more documented sense than what is currently in the office. He stated there is no anticipated date when this application could come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bookman stated he felt the Board had discussed this with the people involved this time as well another firm for the last 1% years. He stated he felt each were trying not to give the final figure but to see what they could negotiate. He stated he was not against new technology but he felt the necessity for a landfill would never be eliminated for the individual's use. He stated the County will not receive a better price than within the next 30-60 days for construction of the landfill. He stated if we don't go forward with the landfill, that in six months or more we will have nothing bonafide. He stated the proposals can come in later and be considered even when we have two landfills as other jurisdictions are investigating ways to dispose of solid waste. He stated we have a permit to build the southern area landfill now. He stated a landfill committee meeting brought nothing but praise on how the County has performed with regard to the northern area landfill and the same can be accomplished in the southern portion of the County. Mr. Hedrick stated he thought this was a proposal from a third and different party and that General Electric is providing only the technology. Mr. Bookman stated 'that one of the selling points for one of the last 'proposals was that General Electric was backing it. Mr. Hedrick stated the proposals from the others seemed risky and unsure. Mrs. Girone stated that with the growth of the County projected through the year 2000, we w~ll need two landfills and we are fortunate to have identified two sites. She stated the northern area landfill is working fine. She stated she felt the soliciting of bids for the landfill needs to go forward to provide the same service to the southern portion of the County. She stated she felt something like the new technology for solid waste disposal as discussed today will eventually come to the County and when it does, it will hav~ its rightful place. She stated she was concerned that they are all experimental and none have been developed to their full potential. She stated the County could not depend on something of this nature which is experimental. She stated she felt the landfill in the south would always be needed as a back up for the citizens in the southern part of the County and when the proposals are developed to the fullest, the County will have to choose between them. Mr. Robertson stated he too felt it would take time for these companies presenting the proposals, to set up and operate and in the meantime the County should proceed with another landfill. He stated he felt this landfill would always be needed even when a company comes in for solid waste disposal. Mr. Daniel suggested that bids be received but before awarded, brought back to the Board for consideration. Mr. Bookman stated he did not feel good bids would be received if it were felt that the Board may not be in total support of it. He stated a lot of work is involved in preparing these bid documents. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel this would affect the bids received if this ~s of the urgency e×pressed by some of the Board members today. He stated he felt that the solicitation of bids is the point at which the County should be today. Mr. Hedrick stated the reason this was presented to the Board in this manner was because staff could have gone to bids without going to the Board but would have had to come back to authorize execution of contract. He stated, however, it was felt that some of these questions should be answered before the County solicited bids and put contractors through the expense of preparing bid documents when we may not proceed. Mr. Daniel suggested that the Board just pass this by and staff !proceed as they would have to solicit bids. Mr. Hedrick stated ~that staff would need some direction because the last discussion was that staff would proceed with the southern area landfill and had cut off all other options and did terminate all other discussions. He stated in the near future we will pass the point of no return. He stated even if the Board did not authorize proceeding with bids at this time, that the latest directive from the Board was to discontinue consideration of alternatives and proceed with the development of the southern area landfill and that in the absence of further direction, staff would maintain that stature. Mr. Daniel stated that alternatives should be discussed with anyone who has proposals. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board authorized the staff to solicit and receive construction bids for the southern area landfill and authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract with the lowest responsible bidder. Mr. Dodd stated that he had heard that people felt it was hard to negotiate with staff because staff was not receptive because of the difference of opinion of how to proceed. He stated he felt to refuse to look at their proposal, especially where they discuss the total cash savings over the years which would be tremendous to the taxpayers of the County, would be wrong. He stated he did not feel the Board cared about the taxpayers ef the County as we have never operated two majcr landfill at one time and he would like to see those costs. He stated it was his feeling that it should be deferred 30 days and tell the people to bring a concrete proposal ~o the Board. .~r. Bookman stated he was concerned with taxpayers money but the najority of Board instructed staff to break off negotiations and 9roceed with the landfill. Mrs. Girone stated the County is also larger than it has ever been and there exists a need for two landfills. Mr. Daniel stated he was skeptical that the southern landfill is on its last leg as far as being f~ied as it has been that way since he came on the Board. ~{e stated there may be long ter~.n benefits which would outweigh the short term delay or discomfort. g3--,103 He stated he did not mind going to bid but would not support authorization of a contract without seeing all new technology and proposals which have been submitted. Mr. Bookman stated that the County has previously operated two landfills simultaneously, althoug~ the method and quality of operation may have been different. Mrs. Girone stated that the new landfill will operate in cells and the County will operate as much as is needed at any one time but not necessarily the entire landfill. She stated the bid time is now and the prices will not be better. She stated that new concepts need time to develop and be investigated and this could not be decided within 30 days. Mr. Hedrick stated that at this point in time and with all factors considered, he felt the Board did not have any real alternative but to proceed with the southern area landfill. He stated staff presented the Board with alternatives, one of which was felt would save money over five years and that was with the transfer station, but there were problems there. He stated that new technology for the disposition of solid waste is here and most of the problems have been worked out and there is one operating in Salem and it is expandinq. He stated the County now has some time constraints, problems and cost factors which should be considered. He stated the things going unsaid are: 1. Technology is available but those seeking this approval, do not have the Board's confidence; this third proposal or another may have the business acumen to make it work; but in order to making it work it will take time and not be accomplished within 30, 60 or 90 days. He stated he felt that all may think the proposal for a solid waste disposal facility has merit but if we spend $2,000,000 of the public's money for the landfill, it will make this proposal less cost beneficial than we would like. He stated he felt the Board should proceed with the southern area landfill. He stated it would take the company at least 6 months to clarify those plans which is being very optimistic and also he felt it should be able to stand on its own and without being dependent on the County. Mrs. Girone called for the question. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the southern area landfill could be extended 6 months with no problem as we could go up higher. Hedrick stated the County landfill was not designed for this height. Mr. Dodd added he felt staff was being pressured to bring this item before the Board. Mr. Hedrick stated staff has not been pressured. stated he was not aware of any pressure. Mr. Bookman Mrs. Link, operator of %he northern area landfill, stated as a citizen that there was a bond issue in November, 1981 for a landfill and the citizens expect a landfill. She stated that as a landfill operator she has been to seminars and they have not been told of any promising alternatives to a landfill that will be cost effective, that are on line and operating everyday. She stated there are some dreams. She stated from a construction standpoint now is the time to go to bid. Mr. Daniel proceeded to offer a substitute motion to give only the authority to solicit bids for the landfill. Mr. Micas indicated that the question had been called and stated that it was up to Mr. Robertson as ~o whether or not it was recognized. Mr. Robertson stated he recognized the question being called The vote being taken on Mrs~ Girone's motion was as follows: Ayes: Nays: Mr. Robertson~ Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone. Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel. 10 .A. 10.B. 10.C. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute two right-of-way easements for Virginia Electric and Power Company at Matoaca Park to the baseball field and tennis courts. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board Authorized the County Administrator to execute a real estate contract with the Cizek heirs for the purchase of 14.50 acres l_k Park~ adjacent to Ettr'~~ Authorized the Right-of-Way Section to hire a surveyor to accurately delineate the property boundaries; Appropriated $8,500 for t. be purchase of the property from the General Fund Contingency as the other $34,500 will come from the Ettrick HUD Grant; and Authorized the County Administrator to accept title to the property subject t.o a successful title search by the County Attorney's office° Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the Department of Parks and Recreation to co-sponsor a bluegrass festival in conjunction with the Chesterfield South A. M. Lions Club on July 15, 1983 at the County stadium subject to compliance with the music festival ordinance. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone stated that she had received a call from the Midlothian Fire Department and they have a proposal to purchase some adjacent property located to the side. She stated that a problem has always existed regarding lack space for parking and for expansion. She stated that it is in the capital improvements program that we eventua].ly put a bay on the building which would save the County funds from having to build another station. She stated that she would like the Board to com~t to work with the Midlothian Fire Department to the extent of $68,000 with any agreement which they might have coming back to the Board for approval. She stated she felt the cost would be a lot less than that amount, that it could possibly be financed over 2-3 years, etc. Mr. Dodd stated that he felt the Board would work with them but inquired why it was coming to %?~e Board in this manner. Mrs. Girone stated the Department has worked with staff but they cannot proceed without some firm commitment that the County is behind them as the volunteers do not have the money. Mr. Daniel stated it was similar to a short terra loan and it would be paid back. Mr. Micas stated there are limitations on lending money such as this. Mrs. Girone stated she was not asking for a loan but a commitment of helping them to that maximum extent with a specific agreement coming' back to the Board. It was agreed by the Board that they are in support of this concept to acquire additional land at the Mid]otbian Fire Station and that a definite proposal be submitted to the Board for consideration. Mr. Dodd excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Galusha was present and stated that two amendments were recommended to the County Supplemental Retirement System. He stated they we~'e basi~cally housekeeping measures which invclved a more precise definition of "er~ployee" as it relates to elimination for participation in the plan and th~ second relates to coverage and total year~ of service when a break in 83.-].05 12. ].3. service is involved. Mr. Daniel stated he did not agree with the second change as he did not feel a person should be able to leave and then return to the County's employment and receive credit for this past service at the point where he left off. Mr. Galusha stated sometimes that person brinqs back more expertise than he left with and it is to the County's benefit. Mr. Daniel inquired if it could be selective in who received the on-going benefits. Mr. Micas indicated it could not, all had to be treated equally. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following resolution: Resolved, that Sections ].11 and 2.03 of the Chesterfield County Retirement Plan be amended in accordance with the exhibit attached hereto. Resolved, that the appropriate officers of the County are authorized to take such actions as may be necessary or desirable to assure the continued qualification of the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and to maintain it in compliance with other applicable laws. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. G~rone. Abstention: Mr. Daniel because he did not feel an employee who leaves the County should be able to resume service credit where he left off upon rehir~ng. Absent: Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board hereby approves December 26, 1983 (Christmas) and January 2, 1984 (New Year's Day) as holJ~davs for the County of Chesterfield and should the Governor grant additional holidays for State employees, the County Administrator is hereby authorized to make the policy consistent with the State at the appropriate time. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board appointed Mrs. Frances Meadows to the Capital Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council. until Pebruary 23, 1956. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman~ seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board extended the terms of appointment on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Committee for Ann Belsha, Clover Hill; Mary CooDer, Matoaca; and Willie Smith, Dale; until January 31, 1984. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appointed Ms. Melody Gray, Midlothian, and Ms. Marilyn Kim, Bermuda, to the Keep Chesterfield Clean Committee whose terms are effective immediately and will expire on January 31, 1984. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr Robertson, the Board accepted the resignation of Mrs. Carla O~Hare from the Co~¥~unity Services Board representing Matoaca District. Vote: Unanimous 83-:1.06 14. Mr. Hedrick informed the Board that Mr. Frank Gee, Resident Engineer with the Virginia Dept. of Highways and Transportation, would not be present at the meeting today as scheduled but would attend the March 9, 1983 meeting. 15 .A. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board: Authorized drainage work involving extending existing storm sewer approximately 54 feet to the west of the Enon Fire Station, back fill and stone the area and appropriated $4,300 from the Bermuda District 3¢ Road Funds. e Authorized the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to perform the work at Enon Fire Station as per the sketch filed with the papers of this Board and to bill Chesterfield County in the amount of $4,300. Vote: Unanimous 15.B. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the installation of four street lights at the intersection of Genito and Courthouse Roads as per the plat prepared by Vepco at a cost of $1,009 with the cost to be paid half from the general fund contingency and half from the Matoaca District Street Light Funds. Vote: Unanimous 15.C. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with funds to be expended as indi. cated: Intersection of Marina Drive and Jefferson Davis Highway, Bermuda District, Bermuda District Street Light Funds. Intersection of Belmont Road and Pippin Lane, Dale District, General Fund Contingency. Vote: Unanimous 15.D. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board made report in writing upon his examination of Heather Stone Drive in Heather Hill, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, it is resolved that Heather Stone Drive in Heather Hill, Bermuda District, be and it hereby is established as a pub].ic road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Heather Stone Drive, beginning a~ 'the intersection with Walnut Drive, Sta'te Route 691, and running northeasterly .13 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This road serves 17 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft. right-of-way for this road. Heather Hill is recorded as follows: Plat Book 37, Page 49, October 14. 1980. Vote: Unanimous 16 .A. Mr. We!ebons presented, the Board with water anti sewer financial status reports. 83 --]07 16 .B. 16.C. 1. 16.C.2. 16.C.3. 16 .D. 17. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners if the amount as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be declared in full force and effect immediately upon passage: Mr. and Mrs. James C. Morris, et al. 3938 Lake Hills Road Richmond, Va. 23234 Parcel 023 $1,148 Parcel 035 811 Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: S82-34CD/7(8)2342, Mansfield Branch Trunk Sewer to Serve Smoketree Subdivision Developer: Midlothian Enterprises, Inc. Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Total Construction Cost: $250,626.30 Estimated County Cost: $ 50,000.00 Cash Refund $200~626.30 Refund through connections fees Codes: 380-1-72342-7212 - Cash refund (no appropriation needed) 574-1-00556-0000 - Refund through connections fees Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Contract S82-21C/7(8)1211, installation of sanitary sewers to serve thirty-three homes on Paulhill, Gregory and Randolph Streets, Falling Creek Farms, to Best Backhoe and Excavating who submitted the low bid ef $75,064.07. Funds previously appropriated. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a deed of dedication from Louis L. Pearson, et al., along Pine Crest Drive to Millside Subdivision to the County, accepting it on behalf of the County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the financial consulting services for Powhite Parkway and Route 288. Mr. Hedrick stated the Highway Department had formally notified the County that the roads in the following subdivJ~sion had been accepted into the State Secondary System effective February 4, 1983: 83-108 Roxshire, Section 6 Planters Row Drive - Beginning at intersection with Framar Drive, State Route 1223, and going 0.09 mile southerly to intersection with Planters Row Court, then continuing 0.28 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac. Planters Row Court - Beginning at intersection with Planters Row Drive and going 0.04 mile easterly to a cul-de-sac. Length 0.37 mi. 0.04 mi. 18. 19. Mrs. Girone stated it was a red letter day at the General Assembly with regards to roads for the County. She stated the approval of the bill to extend tolls on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike and use of the revenue on regional highways projects should mean that we will be seeing some improvements in the County, specifically Eoute 288 and Temple Avenue Extended as well as the Parham Road/Chippenham connector. The Board recessed for lunch. Reconvening: On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board went into Executive Session to discuses personnel matters as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 83SR018 In Bermuda Magisterial District~ Grover Massenburg requested renewal of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property which is owned by Annie M. Jackson, mother of applicant. Tax Map Sec. 67-3 (1) Parcel ll, and better known as 2680 Drewrv's Bluff Road (Sheet 23). No one was present representing the applicant. It was generally agreed to defer this matter until later in the day. 20. 82S022 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Pavell & Co~any, Ltd. requested rezoning from Agricu!tur~l (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 71.79 acre parcel fronting approximately 2100 feet on the south line of West Road and located directly across from its intersection with Egan Road. Tax Map 40-14 (1) parcels 15, 16, 17, 18 and part of Parcels 43 and 14 (Sheet 15). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 30 day deferral. He added this case has been deferred a number of times costing the County $567 in advertising above and beyond the the application fee which information has been communicated te the applicant several times. There was no one present regarding this matter. Mr. Bookman stated 'the Board is faced with a zoning case today and the deferrals have been to get a conformance with what the public wants. He stated he met with area property owners and it is his understandin~ that a majority of them do not want West Road to be a through artery~ but this should be decided by the Planning Con~nission. He stated several plans have been proposed. He stated the developer has offered $].5,000, which is hal~ the cost to improve West and TurDer Roads. He explained that these 83-!09 improvements are needed regardless of the proposed development. He stated this Board should not consider planning, but rather the zoning for as large a piece of property as this. He stated he did not want to create another Pinetta Drive which would be prevented if West Road were cul-de-saced on both ends. He stated he would defer this matter if something would result from the deferral. Mr. Daniel stated for the record that the deferrals were at the request of the app]~cant and that the proffers made at the Planning Commission were denied at the recommendation of the County Attorney's office and nothing is different from that time. Mr. Bookman stated that he was ready to make a motion on this request, but was reluctant to do so since the applicant was not present. He stated that he did not feel any additional information could be entered. Mr. Micas stated that there could be more understandable proffers as these proffers are not appropriately written. Mr. Bookman stated he felt the offer of $15,000 'to complete road work was reasonable and should be approved. Mr. Daniel stated that this would be using zoning to do budgeting for road improvements as the County would have to find the other $].5,000. Mr. Bookman stated similar instances had occurred in the past° Mr. Balderson stated the applicant would come before the Planning Commission with a plan and that is where most of those types of conditions have been imposed unless the Board sees fit to view this as a Conditional Use Planned Development which the dew, loper did not want to submit because of costs. After further discussion it was on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board defer this request until March 23, 1983 at which time the case will be heard and if there is any additional input that it be incorporated for that meeting. Vote: Unanimous 82S097 In Bermuda Magisterial District, J. Carl Morris requested rezoning from Agricult~]ra! (A) to Residential (R-7) of an 85 acre parcel fronting approximately 2,000 ~eet on the north line of Enon Church Road, and located approximately 1,500 feet west of its intersection with Loren Drive. Tax Map. 135-.11 (1) part of parcel 1 and Tax Map 135-14 (I) part of parcel i (Sheet 42). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant has requested a 30 day deferral as he is contemplating amending his application from residential to industrial zoning. He stated he told the applicant that if he proceeds with industrial zoning, the request for Residential (R-7) must be withdrawn and a new request for industrial zoning will be submitted for Planning Con~ission consideration. Mr. Balderson stated he did not know of 'the applicant's definite plans as to which route he would be taking. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred this request until March 23, 1983 and staff was requested to direct the applicant in the proper procedures for whichever request he decided upon. Vote: Unanimous 82S101 In Bermuda Magisterial District, The Village Courts requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) of a ten (10) acre parcel fronting approximately 680 feet on the east line of De Lavial Avenue, and located approximately 570 feet north of its intersection with Lee Street. Ta× M~p 115-2 (2) W. C. Truaheart~ Lot 6 and Tax Map ].15-6 (2) W. C. ~rueheart, Lots 7 and ~ (Sheet 32). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request. Mr. Daniel corrected the staff report and asked that all records be reviewed as he abstained from voting and did not vote "nay" as indicated. Mr. Bookman excused himself from the meeting for a possible conflict of interest as his son performed work in Densewood Hills which is adjacent. Mr. G. E. Miles was present and stated they have been working on this case for 1½ years. He stated that there are apartments behind this, business ~.o one side and residential across the front. He stated their original plan was for apartment zoning which was denied and now they are requesting Residential (R-7). He stated they began with 49 homes and have reduced it to 45 with 9 houses rather than 12 fronting De Lavial and with only seven accesses onto De Lavial~ He stated the homes will cost $50-55r000, that larger homes will be on the front; they will dedicate land for widening of Centre Street and the street through the property will eventually connect to Centre Street as recommended by staff. He stated they had met with the property owners. He stated staff recommended that no houses face De Lavial Street but they do not feel they should have backyards facing the highway and e×~sting homes so they have reduced the 12 lots to 9 lots on the front which gives a better appearance. He stated area property owners want 12-15 homes on the property but that is not feasible. Mr. Alvin Goyne, adjacent property owner, stated that they agree with the staff report due to the highway conditions and that 1.5 houses per acre should be constructed and not the 4.5 that the applicant is requesting. He ststad the Highway Report indicates that De Lavial is already 50% overloaded for its design and it is difficult to pass on this narrow country road. He stated there is a need for transition between the apartments and their residential area but he felt this proposal would devalue their property. He suggested R-9 for the entire parcel would be more in line with the neighborhood. He stated the density and the accessibility to De Lavial were their main objections. Mrs. Frost inquired if the applicant could request an amendment to the request at this late date. Mr. Micas indicated that he could request something less dense than the original request. Mrs. Frost stated the Planning Commission and the Highway DeDt. were opposed to this request and quoted from their reports. She referred to traffic accidents and safety situations on De Lavial as reasons for denial. She stated the residents have not seen a revised plan for the area. Mrs. Phylis Parrott, as President of Chesterbrook Civic Association representing 60 families, expressed their opposition to this request because this w~ll cause a tremendous amount of traffic on a narrow road and that the Highway Study shows that many roads in this vicinity are carrying a non-tolerable or excess level of traffic. She stated that low density for this property and the Perdue property will result in 2000 vehicles per day on a collector road. She stated this will create an undesirable situation. Sh~ requested that the safety of their children be considered and asked that the Board to follow the recommendations of the traffic study. She stated she felt this approval would set a precedent for other projects in the area. She requested that the Board study the growth plan of the County and not approve this high density subdivision. Mr. Dodd stated that he has tried to protect the area but to come behind an apartment project %~ith houses priced $75,000 would not be feasible. He stated two sps~tment pro~ects have been proposed and they have not been approved. He stated that he felt people were being too critical as they have delayed this matter repeatedly in order to work out an access to Centre Street which has been accomplished and ©ne day will be extended. He stated that the old railroad right~-of~w~y Js being retained for a roadway in the future. 83-111 Mrs. Frost inquired about the development of other properties in the area. Mr. Dodd stated they would be considered on their own merit. He stated this was a conditional use and conditions could be accepted by the applicant. It was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved to approve Residential (R-7) zoning with a Conditional Use Planned Development subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of forty-five (45) l~nits shall be permitted. No more than seven (7) individual lot accesses shall be permitted to De Lavial Street. e There shall be a ma×imum of nine (9) lots fronting De Lavial Street. Ail dwelling units fronting De Lavial Street shall have a minimum of 1,400 square feet of gross living area. Right-of-way shall be dedicated through the property for the extension of Centre Street. The above stated conditions, notwithstanding the Master Plan submitted shall be considered the plan of development. Mr. Dodd stated he felt this was a very difficult area. He stated he felt there has been established a trend of nice homes and by tying into a conditional use, this area's density will be limited. When asked, Mr. Miles stated he would build a nice subdivision and accepted the recon~ended conditions. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Bookman· Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting. 83S001 In Midlothian Magisterial District, Midlothian Enterprises, Inc. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 140 acre parcel, which lies approximately 1,600 feet off the southern terminus of Walton Park Road. Tax Map 26-13 (!) part of parcel 1 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Con~ission had recommended denial of this request and approved Residential (R-12) zoning for the property east of the Isaac Walton Park access road and R-9 zoning for the property west of the Isaac Walton Park access road. Mr. Jim Hayes was present representing the applicant and stated this recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board denied this request and approved Residential (R-12) zoning for the property east of the Isaac Walton Park access road and R-9 zoning for the property west of the Isaac Walton Park access road. Vote: Unanimous 83S002 In Midlothian Magisterial District, Broad Rock Land Corporation requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 24.57 acre parcel fronting approximately 450 feet on the north line of Lucks Lane and located approximately 1,500 feet west of its intersection with Abingdon Road. Tax Map 38-1 (1) parcels 4 and 9 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request° There was no opposition present. Mr. Delmonte Lewis was present representing the. applicant. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 83S003 In Midlothian Magisterial District, Louis T. and James McGavock Smith requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3) of a 1.88 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the west line of Grove Road~ and located approximately 1,640 feet south of its intersection with Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-16 (2) Sunny Dell Acres, Lot 15 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson state~ the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. Smith was present representing the request. There was no opposition present. On mot[on of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved thJ. s ~equest subject to the following condition: ' - A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western property line. This buffer shall be maintained in its natural state with no clearing or grading permitted. There shall be no facilities permitted within this buffer area. Vote: Unanimous 83S006 In Midlothian Magisterial District, The Covington Company requested an amendment to Condition #5 of previously granted Conditional Use (Case 82S018) to permit the deletion of the requirement that all parking and driveways be curbed and guttered in a Residential Townhouse-For-Sale District on a 9.21 acre parcel, which lies at the western terminus of Groundhog Drive. Tax Map 9-12 (1) parcel 1 and Tax Map ].0-9 (10) parcel 6 (Sheet 3). Mr. Balderson stated the P].ann].ng Commission had a tie vote and the case was before the Board with no recommendation. Mr. Carter was present representing ~he applicant and stated the condttions recommended by staff were acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone stated she reviewed the' area after the recent snow storm when the snow was melting and what exists for drainage is functioning well. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The plan prepared by staff for a combination of CG-2, CG-6, continuous timber curb and timber bumper blocks shall be considered the plan for Section F of Edgehill Condominiums. The sections of Edgehill remaining to be constructed may be constructed in a similar manner. The specific design and types of curb and gutter shall be approved by Environmental Engineering and shall be as specified by Environmental Engineering at the time of site plan review. Timber curb blocks and timber c!~rbing shall be anchored with a minimum #4 re-bars, eighteen (18) inches long and placed six (6) feet on center. Vote: Unanimous 83SR018 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Grover Massenburg requested renewal of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property which is owned by Annie M. Jack£on~ mother of applicant. Tax Map Sec. 67-3 (1) Parcel. 11, and better known as 2680 Drewry's Bluff Road (Sheet 23). The applicant was not '~s ~+ pre~.en~ There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Boazd approved this request subject ['~o the following conditions: The applicant must be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or ].eased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any r,~obJ~le home be nsed for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoninq requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 ~eet to any existing residence. No additional permanen~-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Al! mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Personal goods and articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available~ they shall be used. Upon being granted a permit for a mobile home, the applicant must then obtain the necessary permits from the Building Inspector's Office. This must be done prior to the installation or relocation of the unit. Any violation of the above copditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the County Attorney's recommendation for a settlement in the amount of $4,000 in one payment in the County's case against D. W. Goyne. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourne, at 3:00 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on March 9, 1983. Vote: Unanimous County Administrator 83-].14