Loading...
03-23-1983 MinutesBOARD OF SUPFRVISORS MINUTES March 23, 1983 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. J. Royall 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 Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Ba]derson, Dir. of Planninq Ms. Anita Bradshaw, Youth Services Coordinator Chief Robert L. Eanes, Fire Department Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. Robert Masden, Dir. of Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir., Env. Engineering Mrs. Mary Arline McGuire, Treasurer Mr. Steve Micas, County Attorney Mr. Jeffrey Muzzv, Dir. of Community Develop. Col. Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budqet & Accounting Mr. David Welchons, Act. Dir. of Utilities Mr. Dexter Williams, Chief of Transp. Plng. Mr~ George Wooda!l, Dir. of Economic Develop. Mr. James Zook, Cl~ief of Comprehensive Planning Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 10:05 a.m. (EST). Mr. Bookman gave the invocation. On motion of Mrs. Girone, secondgd by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the minutes of March 9, 1983, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous Chief Eanes introduced Ms. Kay Marano, Fire Safety Education Officer. He stated with the introduction of supplemental heating devices on the market last year, Ms. Marano saw a great need for a public information brochure concerning these devices. Ms. Marano stated that the number one cause of fires in recent years has dealt with alternative heatinq sources and people do not see these devices as a potential problem. She stated that rather than waiting for the injuries and deaths to occur with the introduction of the kerosene heaters, the County Fire Department designed a brochure which is the on].v one available providing adequate information rega£dinq kerosene heaters. She stated neighboring jurisdictions have experienced deaths and serious injuries with the abuse or misuse of these heaters but none have 10. been recorded because of heaters Jn the County. brochures were available for distribution. She stated Mr. Hedrick stated that Ms. Marano had designed the brochure and it is the only one of its kind and the information is widely distributed in the County. Mr. Dodd stated that he would like to defer Item #10 regarding Bermuda Run to the Executive Session scheduled for this date for possible potential legal matters as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. It was generally agreed to do so. Ms. Bradshaw was present and stated that participants involved in the Model County Government Day were present to observe a portion of the Board meeting. She stated Model County Government Day would be March 31, 1983 and presented the Board with the schedule and agenda. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, Students in the eleventh and twelfth grades in Chesterfield County Schools have been studying local government; and Whereas, Some of these students have been selected to represent their schools in portraying the roles of County officials on the 31st day of March, 1983; and - Whereas, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the importance of young people having opportunities to learn about their government, in order f6r them to become responsible citJ. zens. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved bv the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, that the 31st day of March, 1983, be declared as Model County Government Dav 1983 and that this observance be called to the attention of all citizens. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated that the Board would be meeting with Senator Paul Trible on March 31st and the students might want to adjust their schedule in order that they might meet their U. S. Senator and see how the local and federal representatives work together. The students introduced themselves and indicated the positions they would be filling on Student Government Day. The Board welcomed them to the meeting. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the importance of higher education for all citizens; and - Whereas, Traditionally many minority students have ~ifficulty obtaining funds to attend Institutions of Higher Education; and Whereas, The Un]ted Negro College Fund has provided assistance to minority students and the private institutions which assist such students~ and Whereas, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the efforts of the United Negro College Fund which is in the midst of its Annual Fund RaisiDg Drive. Now, Therefore~ Be It Resolved that the week of April 17 through April 23 be designated as United Negro College Fund Week 130 in Chesterfield County and that this designation be called to the attention of all citizens. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated that Mr. Willie Jo Bradley, Jr., Chairman of the Fund Raising Campaign, was unable to be present at the meeting but indicated a copy of the resolution would be forwarded to him. Mr. Hodge introduced Mr. Jim Remington, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing for Philip Morris and active member of the Richmond Renaissance Organization and the Metro Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Milton Coleman, Manager of Employee Relations for Operations of the Richmond Processing Plants for Philip Morris. He stated Richmond Renaissance is proposing the formation of a Metropolitan Convention/Tourism Organization (CONTOUR) for the purpose of promoting convention and tourism development in the Richmond Metropolitan area in order to increase revenues, provide increased employment and improve the economic health of all jurisdictions involved. He staled the initial membership of CONTOUR would be Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, the City of Richmond and the Metro Chamber of Commerce. He stated the budget is anticipated to be $459,000 of which the County is being asked to contribute 15% or $68,850 and to appoint members to the Board of Directors. He stated the membership for Chesterfield would be 1 non-voting member (the Chief Administrative Officer) and two voting members. He stated that currently the County participates in the Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau and this will replace that participation for which $20,000 was budgeted. He stated all of the other jurisdictions have approved this concept except for Richmond who was expected to 6onsider it next week. He stated because of administrative deadlines and submission dates, timing is of the essence. He stated staff recommends the payment of $48,800 which is 70% of the funding. Mr. Bookman inquired why the Citv of Richmond's membership would consist of 50%, was it based on population, etc.? Mr. Remington stated it was because they were contributing 50% of the funding and it is not based on population. He stated that it is anticipated that this will be a cooperative group and the Board will vote unanimously on all issues and will not be divided by political jurisdictions. He stated this proposal is flexible and can be changed. He stated a large number of people spent many hours on how the participation would be based and, fundamentally, it is based on funding. He stated this figure is merely an initial figure but when the Board meets they will have to address what the organization hopes to accomplish, how much it will cost and how much the participating jurisdictions will contribute, all of which can be changed. Mrs. Girone stated that she had been at several of the meetings and she was in favor of the County participating in this organization. She stated this was to be patterned after MEDC and although Chesterfield is not into the tourist business as is Richmond and even Henrico, ~t could be, especially with the zoning of two hotels; the numerous amount of restaurants; the groups who are interested in tourism such as a group in Midlothian trying to develop t~e coal mines as a tourist site, etc. Mr. Dodd stated he had some real concerns regarding this matter as sometimes everything looks fine qoing in and ends up the opposite. He stated that he was a supporter of MEDC because he felt Richmond was losing its competitive position in the southeastern market area. He stated, however, he is concerned when the County begins appropriating money to this group and that, but employees in the County may not be receiving raises. He stated he had difficulty in seeing a real benefit to Chesterfield County when it comes to motel rooms and facilities and he really feels the only benefit would be a matter of regional cooperation but he would vote in favor of this. He stated time and time again the Board has approved joining groups with regional impact, such as 'the RRPDC, Maymont, ~EDC, etc. and yet the media portrays the County as not wanting to cooDerate regionally. He stated he felt that it was time that the Richmond area realizes that Chesterfield believes in the regional concept but gets very little mileage. Mr. Remington stated he felt regional cooperation is very important but that the metropolitan area is on the verge of a renaissance and that the benefits will accrue in a reasonably short time. Mr. Bookman stated that MEDC has been good for the metropolitan area but there are four jurisdictions with equal representation and reiterated his concern about the voting participation. Mr. Remington stated that at their first session, the Contour Board should add to or amend the Charter, etc., but there had to be something for them to be formed around. Mr. Daniel stated for the record that Mr. Remington is his supervisor at Philip Morris, his regular employer, but that he would not be abstaining. He stated he has supported this concept and it is a starting place. He stated Chesterfield County has begun in its zoning process to develop hotels, the restaurant business is expanding, etc., and the County has put $50,000 into a publication describing in great detail the history of Chesterfield County which are tourist sites. He stated if the County were to receive any returns on those investments, this is the place to start. He stated the Board'will be able to appoint people to this Board who will articulate the Board's feelings and concerns and that this is the best approach available and maybe Chesterfield can benefit from this new agency. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the secret of the success of MEDC is that all have been cautious. Mr. Remington stated that some members of the MEDC group do not feel they receive their fair share of benefits and have the same argument and are uncomfortable with that group but they are successful. It was generally agreed that appointments to CONTOUR be deferred until the April 13, 1983 meeting. Mrs. Girone submitted the name of Mrs. Martha Gibbey, owner of the Sycamore Pewter Shop, for possible consideration as she has been an aggressive proponent of business and promotor of history and tourism in the County. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board: 1. Supported the formation of CONTOUR. 2. Approved the inclusion of $48,000 in next year's budget for this purpose. (It is noted this is more than the $40,000 recommended in the budget, but represents the 70% funding requirement provided for in the by-laws. Without this funding level, only one director could be appointed.) Deferred consideration of appointments until April 13, 1983. Unanimous e Vote: Mr. Hedrick stated for the Board's ~nformation that in addition to looking at the way the seats are structured and financial contribution, the by-laws are carefu].ly worded to appoint people 83-132 6oa. who are interested in tourism and as non-political as possible as there are no elected officials eligible for appointment. Mr. Remington stated the appointees should be tough-minded business, oriented people. Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time was scheduled for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Sections 8-12 and 8-13 of the County Code relating to payment of supplemental tax bills. Mrs. Arline McGuire was present and explained that this ordinance would cover tax bills that were assessed late which might prevent people from paying them before the deadline of the 5th of June or the 5th of December. She stated that the State Statute covers this and indicates if it is no fault of the taxpayer there should be no penalty. She stated her office has followed this practice in the past and requested that the County also formalize the procedure. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the following ordinance was adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 8-12 AND 8-13 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, ]978, AS AMENDED RELATING TO PAYMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAX BILLS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1. That Section 8-12 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 8-12. Payment of real estate taxes. (a) The tax levied on real estate situated in the county shall be due and payable in two equal installments, the first installment being due and payable on June 5 of each calendar year and the second installment being due and payable on December 5 of each calendar year. Any person failing to pay any such installment of taxes on or before the due date shall incur a penalty thereof of five percent, which shall be added to the amount of taxes or levies due from such taxpayer on such installment, which, when collected by the treasurer, shall be accounted for in his settlements; provided, however, that in the event that supplemental tax bills are issued pursuant to a supplemental assessment of real property, the owner shall not incur a penalty if said owner pays the tax shown on the supplemental bill within thirty davs from the date of the bill, but shall incur a penalty thereafter. 2. That Section 8-13 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 8-13. Payment. (a) The tangible personal property tax levied on personal property, including mobile homes, situated in the county shall be ~ue and payable on June 5 of each calendar year. Any person failing to pay any such taxes on or before the due date shall incur a penalty thereon of five percent which shall be added to the amount of taxes due from such taxpayer which, when collected Dy the treasurer, shall be accounted for in his settlements; ~rovided, however, that in the event that supplemental tax bills ~re issued pursuant to a supplemental assessment of personal property, for which the owner filed a timely return, the owner ~hall not incur the penalty imposed by this subsection if said Dwner pays the tax shown on the supplemental bill within thirty ~ays from the date of the bill, but shall incur the penalty thereafter. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to ~elieve any person from liability for penalties imposed under ~ubsection (b) of this section. 83-].33 6,B. 6.C. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 12 of the Code of the County relating to business license taxes for operators of amusement machines. Mr. Micas stated that the current County ordinance taxes video games and pinball machines in excess of the State limit and this would reduce the County tax to the State limit. He stated this is $100 per operator plus a percentage of gross and he stated this is mandated by the State. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 12-155, BY ADDING SECTION 12-155.1 AND BY REPEALING SECTION 12-155 RELATING TO BUSI~ESS I.ICENSE TAXES FOR OPERATORS OF AMUSEMENT MACHINES Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1. That Section 12-155 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, is amended, and reenacted as follows: Sec. 12-155. Amount of tax on operator. Every person selling, leasing, renting or otherwise furnishing or providing a coin operated~ amusement machine, as defined in Sections 58-266.1(11) and 58-359 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, shall pay a license tax of the lesser of one hundred dollars and two percentum of the gross receipts received by such operator or two hundred dollars and thirty-six hundredths of one percentum of the gross receipts received by such operator from amusement machines operated within the county This section shall not apply to any person owning less than three coin machines and operating such machines on property owned or leased by such person. 2. That this section shall be effective from January 1, 1983 until December 31, 1983. 3. That Section 12-155 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, is repealed effective January 1, 1984, and replace~ by Section 12-155.1 as follows: Sec. 12-155.1. Amount of tax on operator. Every person selling, leasing, renting or otherwise furnishing or providing a coin operated amusement machine, as defined in Sections 58-266.](11) and 58-359 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, shall pava license tax of two hundred dollars and thirty-six hundredths of one percentum of th~ gross receipts received by such operator from amusement machines operated within the county. This section shall not apply to any person owning less than three coin machines and operating such machines on property owned or leased by such person. 4. That this section shall take effect January !, 1984. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated this date and t~.me was set for a public hearing to consider an ordinance changing the polling place for the Swift Creek Voting Precinct. Mr. Micas stated this had been approved on an emergency basis at the February 23, 1983 meeting in order to forward the change to the Justice Department for 6 .D, their approval. He stated it changes the polling place at Brandermill from the Brandermill Civic Association building to the existing Swift Creek School for the June primary, thereafter the polling place will be at the new Elementary School on Genito Road. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the following ordinance was adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978 AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ~ 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 § 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 followinq shall be the precinct boundaries and polling places for magisterial districts in the county: o o o CLOVER HILL DISTRICT SWIFT CREEK VOTING PRECINCT: Beginning at the center line of Hu].i Street Road (U.S. R~ute 360) where it intersects with Otterdale Road (State Route No. 667); thence in a northwardly direction ~o its intersection with Old Hundred Road (State Roul;e 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 place for Swift Creek Voting Precinct shall be "Genito" Elementary School, ]3800 Genito Road. 0 0 0 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance substituting the "Director of Planning" for the term "Director of Community Development" throughout the ordinance. Mr. Daniel stated that the Planning Commission had discussed this matter the night before and had recommended approval. Mr. Micas stated the advantage of the this change is to make it consistent with the operating practice of the government. He explained that there is a conflict when an appeal, is before the Board of Zoning Appeals from what is currently called the Director of Community Development, which decisions are more properly the decisions of the Director of Planning. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING CHAPTER 21, BY SUBSTITUTING "DIRECTOR OF PLA~NI'NG" FOR "DIt£ECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT" THROUGHOUT CHAPTER 21. Subdivision of Land Sec. 18-1. Purpose of chapter. o o o These regulations are established with reasonable consideration of the character of the county with a view toward conserving the value of buildings upon the land and providing the best possible environment for human habitation. It is intended that these regulations shall suDplement and facilitate the enforcement of the provisions and development standards contained in the Uniform Statewide Building Code, Chapter 21 of the Code; and the general plan. A copy of this chapter shall be maintained on file in the office of the director of planning. Sec. 18-2. Definitions. o o o Agent. The county planning commission and the director of planning as the provisions of this chapter require. Sec. 18-18. Procedure for subdivision approval. o o o (a) Tentative plats. The subdivider shall prepare a proposed tentative plat in accordance with the provisions of division 2 of this article, including a proposal for the installation of improvements and intended dedication or reservation of public lands. The subdivider shall then file a letter of transmittance of the proposed tentative plat with the planning commission along with such tentative plat. Upon receipt of such proposed plat, the planning commission shall obtain the required recommendations from the department of planning and other public agencies. After receipt of' such recommendations, the planning commission shall either (1) approve such tentative plat, if such plat is in conformity with the provisions of this chapter; or (2) approve the plat subject to modifications; or (3) reject the tentative plat. Written findings giving specific reasons for disapproval shall be reported to the subdivider within sixty days after receJ, pt of such tentative plat. Such reasons shall relate in general terms such modifications or corrections as will permit approval of the plat. For the resubdivision of lots within existing subdivisions for the purpose of adjusting lot lines, when there is no increase in the number of lots and no change in the existing road layout, the director of planning is authorized to approve and sign the plat administratively for the planning commission. Thereafter the director of planning shall present a list of those plats administratively reviewed to the planning commission indicating action taken. In the event a plat is disapproved by the director of planning, such application shall be considered by the planning commission at their next appropriate meeting. For the resubdivision of two lots within existing subdivision, the director of planning is authorized to approve and sign the plat administratively for the planning commission. Thereafter the director of planning shall present a list of those plats administratively reviewed to the planning commission indicating action taken. In the event a plat is disapproved by the director of planning, such application shall be considered by the planning commission at their next appropriate meeting. (b) Renewal of Tentative Plats. The planning commission reserves the right to review the tentative plat at any time and tentative approval of the plat shall expire twelve months from the date of approval. When there are no changes from a previously approved tentative plat, the director of planning is authorized to administratively review and renew tentative plats for additional twelve month periods subgect to all previously imposed conditions. In the event it is deemed necessary to require additional conditions, renewal requests shall be considered by the planning commission at its next appropriate 83-136 meeting. Applications for renewal shall be prepared in the same manner as applications for initial tentative approval; provided, however, that applications for renewal shall be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (c) Final ~gt. After complying with the terms and conditions of tentative approval as outlined in (a) above, the subdivider shall prepare and submit to the department of planning the final plat incorporating a].l required modifications to the tentative plat and the provisions of division 3 of this article. The subdivider shall file seven reproductions thereof. The director of planning shall determine whether or not the final plat is in conformance with the approved tentative plat and shall approve the final plat if such plat does so conform; or he shall send such plat to the planning commission if not in conformity with their recommendation as to final action thereon. Upon receipt thereof, the director of planning shall examine the final plat and all necessary certificates to determine its conformity with the approved tentative plat and the requirements established in this chapter and by the planning commission, and shall either approve or disapprove such final plat. The director of planning shall not approve a plat for recordation that has not been approved by the director of utilities as meeting county requirements for public utilities. The director of planning shall approve or reject the final plat within sixty days of its submission unless the subdivider is notified of objections to the plat or the time is extended by agreement with the subscriber. After the final plat shall have been approved by the director of planning, the subdivider may record the plat. O 0 0 (e) Appeals. If the planning commission or director of planning fails to approve or disapprove the proposed final plat within sixty days after it has been officially submitted for approval, the subdivider, after ten days' written notice to the commission, or director of planning, may petition the circuit court of the county to decide whether the plat should or should not be approved. The court shall hear the matter and make and enter such order with respect thereto as it deems proper. If the planning commission or director of planning disapproves a final plat and the subdivider contends that such disapproval was not properly based on this chapter, or was arbitrary or capricious, he may appeal to the circuit court, and the court shall hear and determine the case as soon as may be. o o o Sec. 18-23. Drawing. The tentative plat shall be drawn at a scale of one inch equalling fifty feet for townhouse for sale subdivisions and all other subdivisions shall be at a scale of one inch equalling one hundred feet. Variations in scale may be made upon request at the discretion of the department of planning. The plat shall show correctly on its face the following information: o o o Sec. 18-39. Street right-cf-way width. The right-of-way width of all arterials shall be that indicated on the general plan, or if no width is indicated thereon, such width and all other design standards shall be determined by the planning commission upon recommendation of the director of planning; except, that no street shall have a street right-of-way width less than fifty feet. In no case shall the right-of-way width of a major arterial be less than ninety feet. 83-137 Design standards for local and collector streets in nonresidential (commercial or industrial) subdivisions or parts of subdivisions shall be determined by the planning commission. In no case shall such design standards be less than the minimum standards for a low density residential subdivision. o o o Section 2].-3. Definitions. o o o Director of planning. The planning director and the zoning administrator of the county. o o o Section 21-5. Duties of director of planninq. This chapter shall be enforced by the director of planning and such deputies ss may be appointed by him who shall have the full cooperation of all other county officials in the 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 that the proposed construction, alteration or use of the building or premises is or is not in violation of the provisions of this chapter. If such proposed use is in conflict with this chaptert the building inspector shall refuse to issue such building permit. o o o Section 21-10. Penalties for violation; right of entry. o o o (b) In addition to the requirements and penalties specified above, the director of planning may, and it shall be his duty to~ invoke any other lawful procedure available to the county, such as injunction, abatement or otherwise, as may be necessary to prevent, restrain, correct or abate any violation of this chapter. (c) The director of planning or his agents may enter upon or search any real estate or improvements thereon only after first obtaining a valid search warrant unless either: o o o Section 21-15. Powers and duties. o o o (c) To hear and decide appeals from the decision of the director of planninq. No such appeal shall be heard except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. o o o (f) TO hear and decide applications for such special exceptions as are authorized herein. In considering an application for a special exception, the board of zoning appeals shall give due regard to the nature and condition of all adjacent uses and structures and the probable effect upon them of the proposed use. It shall also take into account the special characteristics, design, location, construction, method of operation, effect on traffic conditions or any other aspects of the particular use of structure, that may be proposed by the applicant. If it should find, after notice and hearing as provided by Code of Virginia, section 15.1-431, as amended, that the proposed establishment or use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working on the premises or in the neighborhood, will not unreasonably impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor increase congestion in the streets, nor increase public danger from fire or otherwise unreasonably affect public safety, nor impair the character of the district or adjacent districts, nor be incompatible with the general ~!ans and objectives of the general plan of the county nor be likely to reduce or impair the value of buildings or property in surrounding areas, but that such establishment or u~e will be in substantial accordance with this chapter, the board of zoning appeals may grant the special. exception. In those instances where the board of zoning appeals finds that the proposed use may be likely to have an adverse effect as above, the board of zoning appeals shall determine whether such effect can be avoided by the imposition of any special requirements or conditions with respect of location, design, construction, equipment, maintenance or operation, in addition to those expressly stipulated in this chapter for the particular class of use. If such determination be in the affirmative, the board of zoning appeals shall impose such requirements; or conditions, and if these are accepted by the applicant, the board of zoning appeals shall authorize the issuance of the special exception; otherwise, the special exception shall be denied. The board of zoning appeals may require satisfactory evidence and quarantee or bond that the conditions stipulated will be and will continue to be complied with. Any special exception may be authorized and issued for either a limited or an indefinite period of time and shall be revocable by the director of planning at any time for failure to adhere to the applicable conditions. After revoking any such permit, the board of zoning appeals shall afford the permit holder an opportunity to be heard, as provided by the Code of Virginia, section 15.1-43l, as amended, and giving him at least five days written notice of the time and place of such hearing. Sec. 21-16. Applications for special exceptions and variances. Applications for special exceptions and variances may be made by any property owner, tenant, government official, department, board or bureau. Such application shall be made to the director of planning in accordance with rules adopted by the board of zoning appeals. The application and accompanying maps, plans or other information shall be transmitted promptly to the secretary of the board of zoning appeals, who shall place the matter on the docket to be acted upon by the board of zoning appeals. No such special exceptions or variances shall be authorized except after notice and hearing as required by section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The director of planning shall also transmit a copy of the application to the planning commission which may send a recommendation to the board of zoning appeals or appear as a party at the hearing. Sec. 21-17. Appeals to board. An appeal, to the board of zoning appeals may be taken by any persons aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the county affected by any decision of the director of planning. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty days after the decision appealed from by filing with the director of planning, and with the board of zoning appeals, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The director of planning shall forthwith transmit to the board of zoning appeals all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the director of planning certifies to the board of zoning appeals that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would in his opinion cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case g3-I~9 proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order granted by the board of zoning appeals or by a court of record, on applicatiOn and on notice to the director of planning and for good cause shown. o o o Sec. 21-19. Proceedi__ngs to prevent construction of building in violation of chapte_r__. Where a building permit has been issued and the construction of the building for which such permit was issued is subsequently sought to be prevented, restrained, corrected or abated as a violation of this chapter, by suit filed, within fifteen days after the start of construction by a person who had no actual notice of the issuance of the permit, the court may hear and determine the issues raised in the litigation even though no appeal was taken from the decision of the director of planning to the board of zoning appeals. o o o Sec. 21-23. Same--Duties of county department of planning.. The director of planning shall preserve the series of maps filed in his office by the clerk of the board of supervisors. The director of planning shall cause all extension, contractions or other changes made in the boundaries of the districts shown thereon to be indicated on the copies of the maps as soon as practicable after the effective date of ordinances making such extensions, contractions o~' changes. o o o Sec. 21-26. Street fronta eg_~~ired. o o o (bP No permit for t.~e erection, moving or conversion of any building shall be issued unless the street, highway or road adjoining the land on which such building is to be erected, moved or converted is: (1) a part of the state highway system, primary or secondary; or (2) such street, highway or road has been suitably improved to the satisfaction of the director of planning as adequate to provide a satisfactory means of ingress and egress for the public. This provision shall not apply to farm buildings, or structures not designed for human habitation. o o o Sec. 21-34. Generall~ o o o (c) Application for conditional use. An application for a conditional use directed to the board of supervisors shall be filed with the department of Planning on a form prescribed by the director. The application shall be accompanied by such plans or data prescribed by the director of planning as being necessary to review comprehensively the proposed project and shall include a statement in writing ~y the app.[icant and adequate evidence showing that the proposed conditional use will conform to the standards set forth in (f) below. Such application shall be forwarded from the department of planning to the planning commission with a request to review said application with accompanying data and recommendations. The planning commission's action shall then be lo,yarded to the board of supervisors. o o o (4) a. Application for planned uEe development. Every applicant shall submit an application to the director of planning indicating his intentions to proceed with a conditional use for a planned development. Such application, in addition to other 83-]40 requirements, shall indicate the location, size and general nature of the proposed planned development. The director of planning may, within thirty days of receipt of such application, instruct the applicant to provide additional special infcrmation reasonably necessary to review the conditional use application. An applicant whose planned development is intended to be constructed in phases shall indicate such phases including their proposed timing, public improvements and the impact of each phase upon the county public uti!itv, school and fiscal plans and programs at the same time he makes application for the conditional use. o o o d. Final plans. Final plans sha].l be final plats for property within the planned development to be subdivided. Final plans for lan~ not to be s~]bdivided shall be site plans as required in division 12 of this article. Final plans shall be submitted to the director of planning who shall approve them if he determines such plans are in accordance with an approved schematic plan and all applicable ordinances. If the final plans are not in accordance with a schematic plan, then the director of planning shall refer the final plan to the planning commission. If the commission finds the ~inal plan not to be in accordance with the schematic plan, the schematic plan shall be amended by the commission, or the final plan shall be made to be in accordance with the schematic plan before the final plan shall be approved. o o o Sec. 21-35.3. Enforcement and guarantees. The director of planning shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the board of supervisors to administer and enforce conditions attached to a rezoning or amendment to the zoning map, including (1) the ordering in writing of th remedy of any noncompliance with such conditions; (2) the bringing of legal action to insure compliance with such conditions, including injunction, abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding; and (3) requiring a guarantee, satisfactory to the board of supervisors, in an amount sufficiept for and conditioned upon the construction of any physical improvements required by the conditions, or a contract for the construction of such improvements and the contractor's guarantee, in like amount and so conditioned, which guarantee shall be reduced or released by the county, upon the submission of satisfactory evidence that construction of such improvements and the contractor's guarantee, in like amount and so conditioned, which guarantee may be reduced or released by the county, upon the submission of satisfactory evidence that construction of such improvements has been completed in whole or in part. Failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the require( use, occupancy or building permits. Sec. 21-35.4. index. Zonin~m~ to show conditions; conditional zonin~ The zoning map shall show by an appropriate symbol, the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning on the map. The director of planning shall keep in his office and make available for public inspection a conditional zoning index. The index shall provide ready access to the ordinance creating conditions, in addition to the regulations provided for in a particular zoning district or zone. Sec. 21-35.5. Petition for review of decision. Any zoning applicant who is aggrieved by the decision of the director of planning pursuant to the prcvisions of section 21.35.3 may petition the board of zoning appeals for the review of the decision of the director of planning. o o o Sec. 21-40. Near airports. The heights of all buildings and structures located within an area shown on an airport obstruction chart filed with the director of planning shall be limited to the heights permissible according to that chart. o o o Sec. 21-43. Mea._u.~;ement.' ~ - ~ The minimum front yard depths specified herein, and the minimum widths of side yards on the street side of corner lots, sha].l be measured from the existing street right-of-way line, except where a street is designated for widening or extension, in which case the measurement shall be taken from the future right-of-way line. In determining the location of such future right-of-way lines, it shall be assumed that the street is to be widened equally on both sides of the established center line to the full width designated, unless there is on file with the department of planning an attested copy :~i an officially adopted detailed highway plan for such street widening, extension or location, in which case the latter shall control. In no case shall any street in an "R" or "A" District be considered, for the purpose of this section, as having a right-of-way less than fifty feet wide, nor in any other district less than sixty feet wide. Each yard shall be measured horizontally to the nearest point of the building or use area, except for allowable projections. o o o Sec. 21-56. Parking lot regulations. (c) Buffer strips. Along any side or rear lot line which adjoins any "R" Distr~ct, except in front yard areas, there shall be installed and maintained an ornamental, concrete or masonry or solid board fence or chain link fence interwoven with aluminum slats or dense evergreen p].anting at least five feet rh unless natural conditions provide effective screening. The g and maintenance of all trees or shrubs shall be under supervision of the director of planning. · 21-72. General requirements. o o o (d) Nine copies of the site plans, preliminary or final, 11 be filed with the director of planning. The filing of the signed by the applicant or his agent shall constitute the ] for approval. The plan shall be accompanied by a payable to the county treasurer evidencing the payment of site plan fees as prescribed in this division for the ~ion and approval of site pi. ans. . 21-73. Administrative res!3onsibi!ity' (a) The director of planning shall be responsible for ~hecking the site plans for general completeness and compliance adopted plans or such administrative requirements as may be ~stablished prior to routing copies thereof to reviewing agencies )r officials. He shall see that all examination and review of ;he site plans are completed by the approving authorities. (b) The director of planning shall approve or disapprove of site plans in accordance with the reviewing authorities' .'ecommendations. He shall then return two copies of the site )lan, together with modifications, noting thereon any changes that /ill be required, to the applicant not later than thirty days from the date of submission, except under abnormal circumstances. Section 21-74. Review of site pl~9..s by.aPproving authorities. o o o (a) The director of p],mni.ng, or hJ.s agents, relative to: ~D 0 o Sec. 21-75. ?eriod of va]j(_]~.~v_ of approved site plan. An approved preliminary site plan shall become null and void if the final site plan is not submitted to the director of planning within one year from the date of approval of the preliminary plan. An approved finsl site plan shall become null and void if no significant work is done or development is made on the site within twelve months after final site plan approval. Construction or development may begin upon approval of the final site plan by the director of planninG~ payment of site plan fees and acquisition of building permits. The director of planning may grant a single one year extension upon written request of the applicant. Sec. 21-76. Minor or maj..Or adjustment in approved site plan. (a) After a site plan has been approved by the director of planning, minor adjustments of the site plan, which comply with the spirit of this division and other provisions of this chapter, with the intent of the approving bodies in their approval of site plans, and with the genera] purpose of the comprehensive plan for development of the area, may be approved by the director of planning with concurrence cf the reviewihg authorities concerned. Deviation from an approved site plan without the written approval of the director of planning shall void the plan and the director of planning shall require the applicant to resubmit a new site plan for consideration. (b) Any major revision of an approved site plan may be made in the same manner as originaL].y approved and any requirements of this division may be waived by the director of planning in specific cases where such requirement is found to be unreasonable and where such waiver will not be adverse to the purpose of this division. o o o Sec. 21-113. Required conditions. o o o (1) Recreational area required. An area conveniently accessible to and included within the townhouse development of not less than ten percent of the gross acreage shall be provided for suitable recreational use by the occupants of the townhouse development, and in no event shall less than 1.5 acres be so provided. A site plan of the recreational facilities shall be submitted to the director of planning for approval and incorporated in the master deed as apDroved before recording. Occupancy permits for townhouses shall be issued only when the recreational facilities have bee}] completed according to approved plan, or when the whole project, including recreational facilities, has been fifty perc~nL comp].eted, or when the developer-owner furnishes bond with approved surety to the county satisfactory to the director of planning and county attorney. o o o Sec. 21-129. P~ans' required.. Every application for the construction, operation, maintenance and occupancy for mcbi].e home park shall be accompanied with plans and specifications, fully setting out the spaces, motor vehicle parking spsces, the driveway giving access thereto, a plan of landscapJ.ng and providing a connection to a 83--]43 6.F~. sanitary sewer for each and every mobile home. Before any permit is issued for a mobile home park and the use thereof, the plans and specifications shall first be approved by the county department of planning and county health department, taking into account all of the provisions as se~ out hereinabove; and provided further~ that said plans arid specifications are in accordance with state regulations governing mobile homes. O O O Sec. 21-180. Plot p~l_an~]]ired. Every application for the construction, operation, maintenance and occupancs~ roi' a travel trailer park shall be accompanied with plans and specifications, fully setting out the trailer spaces, the }position of each travel trailer, motor vehicle parking spaces, the driveway giving access thereto, and a plan of landscaping. Before any permit is issued for a travel trailer park and the use thereof, the plans and specifications shall first be approved by the county department of planning and health department, taking into accoun[, all of the provisions as set out hereinabove, as well as such special conditions as may be imposed by the board; and provided further, that said plans and specifications are in accordance with state regulations governing trailer pa~ks. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time was scheduled for a public hearing to consider the Chesterfield County Plan for Public Facilities. Mr. Balderson stated staff and the Planning Commission had spent 35 hours in work sessions and had held a public hearing considering this Plan. He stated they recommended approval subject to slight mmendments. He stated staff has talked with approximately 250 citizens at various meetings to describe the plan and its impact, thrust, etc. on the cc~unity. He stated favorable comment has been received generally on this proposal from citizens and it is felt that this will be helpful to the Board in making public facility decisions. He stated the plan can be amended as often oz whenever the Board sees fit. Mr. Zook presented the Board with a copy of the Plan. He stated that the plan and its recommendations are good, sound recommendations that will assist the Board in its decision-making process wi'th regard to public faci!i~.ies. He stated staff and the Planning Co~nission tried to shape it into a format which will be useful to the Board. He stated it is important that the Board feels comfortable changing the plan as it feels necessary. He stated the plan basicall\f organizes action and direction to achieve those goals set with the ].east wasted motion and in the most efficient, and ]east costly fashion. He sta~ed the County has almost doubled its population between 1970 and 1980 and we expect another ]00,000 residents to locate here before the year 2000. He stated with this population, there is a changing environment in the County from a rural to a more urbanized setting and demands for, the need for and the ability to pay for ~ublic services will change. He stated the plan deals with this ~hanging environment and is one of three elements of the County's ]eneral Plan/Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff and the lanning Commission are currently workin~ on land use and the lan for streets and highways. He stated this deals with capital ~acilities or public facilities for Chesterfield County. He ~tated the goals are simple and pragmatic as possible. He stated zhey assess the cuzrent level of service Jn the County which on 2he whole is adequate. He st~ted the challenge is to maintain ~hat level as the population increases, to insure that we get the ~ost out of our public facJ~!ities ~nd that they are located ~ppropriately so that %hey can deliver their services effectively ~o the general public. ' stated there are three requests to the Board: That level of service guidelines be set b[f the Board. That the AdministratJ_on would prepare a report for the P. oard to look at the effect of g]~.~wth cnt. he ~.~ublic facilitJ.es system and advise the Board who would then make public facilities decisions. That the Board define the full-service areas of the County. He stated they would also encourage the Board to consider the concept of the urban service area into which future population would be channeled as well as future public facilities. He reviewed specific areas such as fire suppression and fire stations, the library system, the parks and recreation system, trash disposal, dra~n.~,'.~e, schools, public utilities system, the Airport, the courthouse complex, and described the level of service of each. He stated the major recommendation is that the Board set the level of service guidelines, adopt the objectives in the plan, review the ne(~ds bi-~tnnually and adopt the concept of the full-service area in the Ccunty. He stated if the plan is adopted, staff wi].l use it ~:o prepare recom~nendations and bi-annual reports ~:o the B~,trd and based on those reports the Board would make their public facilities decisions. Mr. Dodd stated he fe.].t the Board should hold a work session on this matter° Mr. James Stewart, Commissioner of the Football League itl the County for the Youth organizations, addressed only the parks and recreation phase of it as ~']e felt other areas would be taken care of as the need developed. He stated he has seen the presentation previously and he felt it was a well developed and planned concept. He stated that he would like to see an addendum made to this with regard to parks and recreation. He stated he has travelled throughcut the State and other jurisdictions are well advanced over Chesterfield County in this aspect. He stated the County is catching up but there is a long way to go. He stated the development of H(~guenot Park should proceed faster, and Dale Park is needed now as other districts within the County ?lave a public park on line and operating. Mrs. Girone inquired how the parks he discussed should be accomplished. He stated he felt it could be advanced through the master plan and if not there are always other "ways" in government to accomplish this. He stated if this were not possible, he felt certain a bond referendum would be passed by the voters as in the past. Mrs. Elsie Elmore, member of the League of Women's Voters, stated they plan to address this in the context of the budget as they realize part of this will be funded through the General Fund. She stated these are important issues and should not be too hastily decided. Mr. John Smith stated that he, too, felt the Board should conclude the budget hearing before cor~nitting to this plan itself in order to see what is in the budget and what can be accomplished. He stated he was interested in planning but was more interested in the result from the implementation or non-implementation of the plan. Mr. Daniel inquired if the plan were officially adopted as presented (which i~:le, ntifies the public service corridor and the corridor of the County' which will not be provided with urban level of services) would that mean that the governing body is establishing a policy that everythir'~g in the non-shaded area will not have urban zoning and the shafted area will be the urbani, zed corridor and will be where the County will be directing ali. urbanized services. Mr. Zook st~t~-zd that the Board is currently dealing with the conc~pt of the urban service area and the public facilities plan locates facilities in the u~:ban service area. He stated that specifica].ly s~.tt:[ng the line which defines the urban service area boundary, and the land use policies which determine what will be allowed on ope side or the other, will be addressed by the Board in the land us,c planning process. He stated they are not at this time ready to recommend which land use planning policies they should be provided. He stated they would be coming back to the Board with policies that wo~ld lead the County in that direction in the future. Mr. Hedrick stated this pub].ic facilities plan is a plan. He stated in essence, staff has prep~red based on their understandinq of the Board's posit~i.<~n at this time, the Board's feelings that 'there is a relatir, e balance between the level of service we now provide, the general satisfaction of the public and the general satisfaction with the cost of government Jn the County relative to the num[~er of peo'p].e and the level of service we provide. He stated staff has 'to conclude the County is growing and as a result of that growth we are going to have to go one of several ways with new growth. He stated 'there are going to be additional demands on exit;ting facilities, the Board will have to make a decJ.~;ion to .keep existing facilities, build new facilities or lower service levels by having more people use what exists. He stated that the bond rating firms were concerned that Chesterfield is a high growth jurJsdiction and wanted to know what we were doing to look down the road into our future to deal with our anticipated growth. He stated this is strictly a guide and it is not the ]and use element. }{e stated it is simply a matter of looking at existing service levels as the County grows, and giving a~ indica[-i, on of what will be needed to maintain these service levels. He stated this would be a guide that would be used when the budget is compiled each year, the Board would be advised of what is happening in 'the County and what staff thinks is needed and then the Board will decide on what is feasible. Mr. Bookman stated that there wo~]ld have, to be some exceptions to the areas indicated for water an¥i sewer, etc. Mr. Daniel stated that he did not feel it was always the County's responsibility to make exceptions just to make exceptions and that once a po!ic,v is set, it should be adhered to. Mr. Bookman stated that septic tank systems are an acceptable way to handle sewer and there will be exceptions that special situations will warrant. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the Boated w~uld need additional time to discuss this matter. Mrs. Cirone stated that this plan is whatever this Board o'.r a~]y future Board says it is. She stated it is a guideline, it is flexible and it. is not cast in concre-te. She stated it is a general direction, a general philosophy and feeling of this Board. now and it can be changed. Mr. Dodd stated there are fundamental things which need to be discussed regarding the level of service 'to be provided 'the entire County. Mr. Balderson stated the Board has discussed some of the important things which need to be considered and perhaps a work session could be schedu].ed before the Plan is adopted. On motion of Mr. Bo,Dkman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred this public hearing until May 25, 1983 and authorized staff to schedule a work session fo~ the entire Board. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date of April 27, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance pertaining to the crediting of payments of local levies to local accounts, Vote: Unan imou s 7oB. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date of April 13, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a parcel of ].and in the Airport Industrial Park to Triad Industries, Inc. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed to defer sett.~nq a public hearing date for consideration of an ordinance r~]ating to pet grooming shops, veterinary clinics and veterinarv hospitals until the proposed ordinance could be drawn or until later in the day. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board hereby authorizes the County Treasurer to negotiate short-term loans not to exceed $8,000,000 in accordance with Section 15.1-545 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the rate of interest as determined is in compliance with Section 2.1-326 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. It is noted that loans would be negotiated as needed to pay operating expenses. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Bookman suggested the deferral of consideration of PruCare Health Care Coverage for County employees. Mr. Hodge stated there were two representatives present who would like to address the Board on this matter and introduced Mr. Jeff Diamond and Mr. Charlie Crowder. Mr. Hodqe stated that he felt this proposal was beneficial to the employees an~] that it has been coordinated with various department heads and the School System and they are supportive of this concept. He stated in January, 1982, the Board authorized the modification of the'Blue Cross/Blue Shield proposal because we were running deficits, had tremendous rate increases, etc. He stated since that time it has progressed nicely and we no longer have deficits and our rates aze favorable. He stated, however, PruCare and HMO types of policies were not available at that time although there was some discussion of it and recently PruCare has begun operation in Richmond. He stated PruCare is a division of Pruden~al Insurance Company which is the ]ar~¥est and most successful Health Maintenance Operate. on in the United States. He stated they operate out of the McGuire Clinic at St. Luke's and St. Mary's Hospitals with the entire staff at the Clinics being a part of this group. He stated they have plans for a satellite operation on Hopkins Road which will open this year and they plan to open a facility at Jahnke and Chippenham B~siness Park. He stated the rates are comparable to Blue Cross/Blue Shield, however, there are no deductibles and no co-pars as there are now. He stated the employee ~s able to go 'to the doctor as he feels necessary with the idea in mind that if he can prevent a major illness, they will save the money and the employees benefit as well. He stated they do provide total care coverage for all kind of illness, they cover such things as annual physicals which are not now covered, no charge for additional visits, and there is a medication and drug rider as well. Mr. Hedrick stated that. basically staff is recommending that the Board authorize the entering into a contract with PruCare to make available to our employees an alternative health care progzam. He stated employees who want to participate will be able to and under this plan there ~s' no d~educ~.~Lle.~- ~" He stated if the employees join and they don't like it, thev can cancel the policy. He stated it is just an offer of an alternate source of hospitalization. Mr. Boo~an stated within a week another such group has begun operation and inquired if we should wait to see what other coverage is available. Mr. Hedrick stahed that if there are others, the law states that we cannot prevent these companies from coming in and offering their alternate coverage. I1. 12. 13. Mrs. Girone inquired what would happen if a large number of employees joined this group. Mr. Hodge stated, all indications are that it would be a benefit ss it is competition for Blue Cross/Blue Shield and usually rates qo down. He stated that Henrico County just joined this group and had 26% of its employees convert and had compJ.ete satisfaction. Mr. Daniel stated no County funds are involved in this and it is not like bidding a health insurance plan. He stated it would just be a matter of the giving those Countsz employees who want insurance coverage, a chance to decide which program they want coverage through. He stated he did not feel the Board needed to take any action as this was an operational question. Mr. Hodge stated the contribution on the part of the County would be the same for either option. Mr. Micas stated this allows the Board the opportunity to choose the extent to which the Board wishes to grant benefits for County employees. Mr. Daniel stated that if the Board endorses the pap~', i.t still would not be endorsing either pi. an, just giving the employees the opportunity to participate in another plan rather than Blue Cross/Blue Shield, whichever the employees choose. Mr. Micas stated that if other HMO's came on and the Board wanted to grant that benefit to emp].oyees, you could do that as well. Mrs. Girone stated she needed more time to consider this matter because w~tbout additional information and without knowing the impact on the County employees, she would not vote on this matter. She stated she did not feel this should be taken in haste as it is a big question. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this request be deferred until April ]3, 1983. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request from the B~ach Community Grange No. 958 for a Bingo/Raffle permit for calendar year 1983. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board appointed Mr. R. Garland Dodd to the Tri-Cities Policy Cemmittee (Crater MPO) effective immediately and whose term is for an indefinite period of time and further the Board reaffirmed Mr. Dexter Williams as his alternate. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Newcomb, Asst. Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was present in the absence of Mr. Frank Gee. Mr. Newcomb reminded the Board of the Preallocation Hearing on Primary Roads on March 31, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. at the Richmond District Office. Mr. Dodd stated he felt all the Board members should attend the Preallocation Hearing° Mr. Bookman expressed an intercept in having improvements made to the roads in Clover Hill District. Mr. Dodd thanked Mr. Newcomb for ~ne installation of signs at the intersection of Route 10 and Route 1o Mrs~ Girone requested that Mr. Gee con~act her regarding the Gordon School Crossing as the ~3esident~'~ still want a bridge across the ditch so that %he children can walk to school. 14 .A. 14.B. 14.C. 15 .A. 15.B. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Far,ss & Williams, Inc. in the amount of $24,946 for the construction of an addition at the Wagstaff Circle Fire Station. It is noted that $23,150 was previously appropriated. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed 'to defer consideration of the statement for the Preallocat~ on Hearing ~or Primary Roads until later in the day. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the installation of a street light on Centre Street with any necessary funds to be expended from the Bermuda District Street Light Funds. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the water and sewer financial status. Mr. Hedrick stated this date and 'time was advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of Foothill Lane and ten foot temporary consl~ruction easements. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following ordinance: An Ordinance to vacate a portion of Foothill Lane and 10' temporary construction easements across lot 2, Block V, and lot 5, Block W, Walton Park, Sectio~ G, Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 35, at Page 55. Whereas, Queensmil! North Corporation has petitioned the Boar~ of Supervisors of Chesterfield CounLy, Virginia to vacate a portion of Foothill Lane and 10' temporary construction easements across lot. 2, block V, and lot 5, Block W, Walton Park, Section G, Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 35, at page 55, made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated January 1.5, 1980. The portion of the right-of-way and easements petitioned to be vacated are more fully described as follows: A portion of Foothill Lane and 10' temporary construction easements across lot 2, block V, and lot 5, block W, Walton Park, Section G, as shown on a plat made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners, dated December 3, 1982, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. Whereas, notice has b~en ~ ~' ¢,~en pursuant to Section 15.1-431 the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the right-of-way or ease~w~.ts '~ ' sought to be vacated and the vacation will no~_ abridge the rJ.ght~ of any citizen. Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by ~he= Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, V'irginis: That pursuant to Section ].5.]-482 (b) of the Code of ~inia, 1950, as ~mended, the ...... · ~,~ovc described portion of Foothill Lane and eas_mt.n~,~ ~ - .... ' are hereby vacated and are no longer necessary for public use. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-48?~ (b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be record, ed no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virg~n?~a, 1950, as amended. The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. Accordingly, this Ordiuance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield as qrantor and Michael E. Matheny and Kay A. Matheny, husband and wife, and C. Roy Holmes and Barbara M. Holmes, husband and wife, ~i~'~ their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 15 .C. 15.D.1. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board authorized staff to proceed with the design and engineering and to bid the project extending a water line to serve three residents located on Branders Bridge Road and further appropriated $75,000 (which is the estimated cost) from the 563 Surplus. Mr. Hedrick stated this water line extension would have nothing t¢ do with serving the School. Mr. Dodd stated he felt there was a potential for the School to connect later. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the fo]lowing adjustment of appropriations for water and sewer projects: W80-90CD - Onnies Drive Water Line Extension - Appropriated $1,638.01 from 563 Surplus to 380-1-60902-4393. The Board approved this project on July 23, 1980, and no money was appropriated. WS1-24CD - Old Stage Road Water Line - Appropriated $19.68 from 563 Surplus 'to 380-1-61242-4393. The Board appropriated $1,500.00 on February 25, 1981. This additional amount will finalize the project. W81-48C - Mount Blanco, Section 5, Block C - Appropriated $708.26 from 563 Surplus to 380-1-61481-4393. The Board appropriated $700.00 on May 27, 1981. This additional amoun~ will finalize the project. Vote: Unanimous 15.D.2. 15.D.3. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for GAVCO Corporation who submitted the low bid of $267,000 for Contract W82-47C/6(8)2471, Improvements to the Swift Creek Filtration Planto (Funds previously appropriated.) Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Guirkin Plumbi~g and Heating who submitted the low bid of $84,721.36 for W83-1C/6{8)3011 for the Buford Road Bridge relocation and appropriated $93,193.49 from 563 Surplus to 380-1.-63011-4393 which includes a 10% contingency. Vote: Unanimous 83--]50 15 .D.4. 15.E. 16. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mir. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for O. D. Duncanson, Jr. and Sons who submitted the bid of $12,484.00 for W83-14CD/6{8)3142, installation of a water line in Gill Street, and further the Board transferred $10,614.40 from~ 380-1-69064-4393 and $1,418.00 from 380-1-61000-4393 to 380-1-63142-4393. It is understood that the developer of Mathenay Forest Subdivision will contribute $1,700 towards this improvement. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Welchons presented the Board with developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. Mr. Bookman stated he would like the Board to consider a sewer issue which was not on the agenda later in the day. It was generally agreed the Board would do so. Mr. Hedrick stated the County had been officially notified that the roads in the following subdivisions had been accepted into the State Secondary System, effective as indicated: Length_ Howlett Road (March 10, ].983) Beginning at the intersection with Park Road, Route 1497, and running southwest 0.06 mile to a dead end. 0.06 mi. Heritage Commons, Sections A and B (March 10, 1983) Red Lion Place - Beginning where State maintenance ends, Red Lion Place, State Route 1952, and going 0.03 mile easterly to intersection with Homestead Court, then continuing 0.05 mile easterly to intersection with South Red Lion Court, then continuing 0.02 mile easterly to tie-in to proposed Red Lion Place, Heritage Village, Section A. 0.10 mi. Marble Head Court - Beqi~ning at in~ersection with Red Lion Place, State Route 1952, and going 0.08 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac. 0.08 mi. Homestead Court - Beqinning at intersection with Red Lion Place and going 0.07 mile northeasterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.07 mi. South Red Lion Court - Beginning at intersection with Red Lion Place and going 0.06 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.06 mi. Additions (March 15, 1983) Sections 6, 7 and 8 of new location Route 604 from Station 23+00 to Station 25~00. 0.66 mi. Section 9 of new connecti~>n Route 759 at left of Station 13+60. 0.I0 mi. Abandonment Sections 1 and 2 of old location Route 604 and Station 5 of old location Route 759 between Station 2~+00 and Route 360. 0.34 mio 83-].51 18. 7~C. 19 .A. Phe Board recessed to travel to tl~e Beach Communi'ty Grange for lunch where they were the guests of the Soil and Water 2onservation District, the Farm Bureau and the Grange. Reconvening: Phe Board discussed the zoning districts where verterinary clinics, pet grooming facilities, veterinary hospitals, etc. were allowed. Mrs. Girone indicated she would like the Planning Commission to address this matter and consider pet grooming facilities in B-2 and as a Condi~:ional Use in B-1 and that veterinary clinics and veterinary outpatient facilities be allowed in B-2 and permitted as a Conditional Use in B-1. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, requested that the P].anning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding the zoning districts where pet shops, pet grooming facilities, veterinary clinics, veterinary outpatient facilities and veterinary hospitals would be allowed. Vote: Unanimous 83SR040 In Bermuda Magisterial District, J. W. Fulgham requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax Map Sec. 1].5-7 (1) parcel 15 and better known as 4210 West Hundred Road (Sheet 32). The applicant was not present. There was no opposition present. It was generally agreed that this matter would be deferred until later in the day. 83SRO41 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Randolph E. Browder, Sr. requested renewal of a Hobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax Map Section 98-6 (3) Belmeade, Block 6, Lots 18, 19, 20 through 23 and better known as 10610 Ravindale Avenue (Sheet 32)~ Mr. Browder was present. There was no opposit~on present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. e No lot nor parcel may be rented nor leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used 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 zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district sha].l be comp].ied wJ. th~ except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundahion. Personal goods and ~hicles shall not be sto~'ed underneath the mobile home. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being gran~:ed a permit for Hobile Home Permit/Special Exception, t~,.e applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from-the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior %o the insta]Jation or relocation of the mobile home. fi3-152 20 .B. 20 .A. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous 82S097 In Bermuda MagJ. sterial District, J. Car]. Morris requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) of an 85 acre parcel fronting approximately 2,000 feet on the north line of Enon Church Road, and located approximately 1,500 feet west of its intersection with Loren [)rive. Tax Map 135-11 (1) part of parcel 1 and Tax Map 135-14 (1) part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 42). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant i~ad requested withdrawal of this request. Mr. Dodd inquired if Mr. Morris had submitted a revised application. Mr. Ba]derson stated that he had not at this time but indicated he might. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board accepted the request of the applicant for withdrawal. Vote: Unanimous 82S022 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Pavell & Company, Ltd. requested rezoning from Agricultural (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 44 (Sheet 15). Mr. Balderson stated this case was being forwarded to the Board with no recommendatioa from the Planning Commission. He stated it has been deferred numerous times. He added the applicant has submitted two proffers this date, but he has not had a chance to review them in any detail. He stated, however, it appears the newly submitted proffers are similar to those submitted previously and are, therefore, unacceptable. Mr. Bookman stated the two proffers were: (1) half the cost, up to $15,000 to improve the intersection of West and Turner Roads; and (2) to cul-de-sac West Road on each end. Mr. Don Pavell was present. He stated that they want to develop a nice residential community, they do own the adjacent 27 acre parcel and they are establishing the reputation in the area o~ doing quality work. Mrs. Marcy Berger, speaking on behalf of the majority of the members of the Bel-Lake Civic Association, was present. She expressed appreciation for the time staff has given to assist them in this matter. She stated that West Road is very narrow and the intersection of Turner and West Roads is very dangerous. She ststed whether this development is approved or not, a problem exists now. She stated they do disagree with staff in making West Road a through s't~-eet to Newbys Bridge Road and ideally there should be an access to Belmont Road. She stated they have discussed this matter with the develoDer and he has offered $15,000 to improve the intersection of West Road and Turner and will cul-de-sac West Road at both ends. She stated they were against zoning completely unless the two proffers are accepted. She stated this is by no means the best solution, but it is a livable one. She stated the majority of the residents in this general area could support zoning with the two proffers. Mr. Hedrick stated he was not sure of the legality of the first proffer, but the second did not q,~aii~!y as a legal proffer. 83-]_53 Mrs. Harrington, member of the North Belmont Hills Civic Association, stated that she agreed with Mrs. Berger except a thoroughfare already exists through %he subdivision. Specifically, she stated that Creekwood Subdivision residents utilize Belmont Hills Subdivision to travel to Chippenham and Belmont. She stated the improvement for the intersection of Turner and %,,;est Roads was on the six year plan, but has been taken off completely. She stated she had talked to the Highway Dept. and they indicate the~e is nothing that can be done to improve th~s intersection other than taking the dip out of the road. She inquired if $'~5,000 wou.ld be enough to make the intersection safe. Mr. Bookman stated this $15,000 was not enough by itself, but the developer is offering to pay half the cost up to $15,000 which will help. Mrs. Harrington stated she appreciated the $15,000 but it would not make the improvements which are necessary. She further noted the Highway Dept. has indicated they do not have anv matching funds to make these improvements. Mr. Bookman dis~:ussed routing half of the traffic to Newbys Bridge Road which might eliminate some of the problem at the intersection. Mrs. Harrington stated that she felt it would be best to cul-de-sac West Road. Mr. Balderson stated that it was staff's position that regardless of whether or not West Road becomes a through street, is cul-de-saced, etc., a third access from this parcel, southwardly to Belmont Road should be constructed and that the ultimate development of this property should be predicated upon a portion of that traffic being directed in that fashion. He stated that the Planning Commission, in reviewing subdivision plans, has historically looked at plans with those requirements in mind and as a condition of approval require that before total build-out, a third public road access be provided, t{e stated the question of road network design is a p~:~rview of the subdivision plan review and approval process by the Planning Commission. He stated staff had not come to a final decision as to whether West Road should be copnected and such a decision will be arrived at when the tentative plan is submitted to the Planning Commission. He stated that he felt perhaps the applicant felt this proffer would lock in the Planning Commission to some tentative plan approval whJ. ch is not the case, as the Planning Commission could address the issue regardless of what proffers are made today. Mrs. Harrington stated that they were opposed because the roads were not adequate, the sight distance is poor and the Highway Department does not have any plans to improve the roads. She stated this should be investigated further to provide safe exits and entrances in the area. She stated she could not agree that the developer put up some money when there is no matching money for necessary improvements. She stated she felt Mr. Bookman had already decided this case. She stated they were in favor of West Road being cul-de-saced and if the matching funds were available they would be in favor of the request, however, those funds are not availab].e. She stated, the proffers are not valid. She added the Highway Department, staff, etc. are against cul-de-sacing West Road. Mr. Ba]derson stated that staff had suggested the developer apply for a Conditional Use Planned Development but he did not want to proceed in that manner. He noted the Conditional Use process could have dealt with these types of issues. Mr. Bookman stated th~qt because no one had showed up at the last meeting and because it ha~9 b~en qoing on for so long, he did have a decision in his mind wh~;n he c.~ln,e to the meeting. He stated he felt it might be best to accept half of the cost of the improvements or $].5,000 which would be a start to improving the intersection. He stated he also re[it staff and the Commission when considering the layout of this ~>iece of property~ will require a road that will abut property between that a]%d Belmont Road. He stated that the developer cannot b~: [orced to provide access ~cross another's property, but it was felt that eventually when ~djacent property is developed, a third access will be provided. He stated that perhaps fund~ could be found, for example, revenue sharing funds could be put to this road if the supervisor of the ~rea felt it was necessary. 4s. Debra Posey stated the condition of West Road before you get to the intersection of West Road a~-~d Turner Road is bad also. She stated that the sight d~stance is hazardous and there is no Ipainted median, there Js excessive traf£ic and this subdivision ~ill make the situation worse. She suggested there not be any more zoning until an access to Belmont Road is provided. She stated opposition to any zoning until there is another access. Mr. Daniel stated that he did not support this at the Planning Co~nission and he would ncr again today. He stated he felt the proper approach to this request would be through Conditional Use Planned Development which would address all the concerns mentioned today and some that were not. He stated the County Attorney has indicated that the proffer of half of the cost of improving the intersection was illegal and could not be accepted. Mr. Micas stated under straight rezoning with proffers, State law does not allow cash cont]3ibutions. Mr. Bookman stated he was certain that the County has accepted funds for a developer to improve other areas. Mr. Micas stated not under straight zoning. Mr. Daniel stated that even if the Board accepted the proffer regarding the cul-de-sacing, the Planning Commission is not obligated to approve i~. Mr. Micas stated that road alignment is still the responsibility of the Planning Commission and they could see fit to change it and if they did approve a different road configuration, the developer could not begin to develop because his zoning and subdivision approval would be inconsistent. He stated although ~he Board could accept proffer number 2, he would advise against it because ultimate authority for road configuration remains with the Planning Commission. Mr. Daniel stated that based on the health, safety and welfare of all Iparties, the proper approach would be through Conditional Use Planned Development. He stated anything that has been at the County level for this long and still needs to be hammered out at this late date must have something wrong with it. He stated a Conditional Use Planned Development would address all specifics, such as the traffic pattern, the improvements that will have to be made, the question of the third access and how you are to get out of the property, and will put it all in a neat package. He stated that there was a lot of opposition to this request. He stated that since the PlanniDg Commission meeting, no new information has been prescnted with the exception of spelling out the dollar amount instead of indicating one-half of the cost of improvements. Mr. Bookman inquired what could be accomplished by a Conditional Use Planned Development other than the layout of the lots and the roads. Mr. Balderson responded that a Conditional Use Planned Development would consider not only the land use question but also how it is accomplished. He ~tated the proffers that have been made deal beyond the ].and use and density question. Mrs. Girone questioned why it has taken 7 months to determine that a Conditional Use Planned Developme~t ~s the most appropriate means of obtaining approval and critized whoever was responsible for allowing it to proceed. She stated the Board should vote on this · ssue of R-9 zoning and if it is approved, send it back to 'the Planning Commission for site plannin9 review, as everyone is aware of the problem with West Road. ~r. Balderson stated the applicant was advised and the case deferred several times by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to decide whether to amend for a Conditional Use Planned Development. 83-]55 20 .C. Mr. Pavell stated he owns additional land in the area and plans to purchase more which will ultimately abut Belmont Road. He stated he was aware of the responsibi].ity to develop a proper community and planned to do Mr. McCracken was present and stated 'that the Highway Department sees a need for a road from Newbys Bridge Road to Belmont Road. He stated he J.s concerned about~ the D~offers that West Road would be cul-de-saced on each end. He stated if this were done, the traffic will be routed onto Manning Road, which the residents are against. He stated he felt this property should be zoned under a Conditional Use Planned Development to allow and insure a road network from Newbys Bridge Road to Belmont Road. Mrs. Girone stated she felt a grid patter]] for the roads was what was needed for the entire neighborhood, not necessarily a Conditional Use Planned Development on this little parcel. Mr. Dodd stated he felt something was not right with this case if the Highway Department were concerned. Mr. Hedrick advised the Board they were getting into matters that would not be legally binding for this zoning case. Mr. Micas reiterated that the proffer of $15,000 could not be accepted. He further advised that the cul-de-sac proffer can be accepted but he advised against it as the Planning Commission makes the final decision on road networks. Ms. Berber stated they tried to have something added in conditions at the Board level because when they go to Planning Commission, etc. the adjacent property owners are not made aware of it and conditions are changed, amended, etc. Mr. Bookman stated he also felt that if conditions are not placed on the developer at this point, they might not be by the Planning Commission. ' - After further discussion, it %~as on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board defer this request until May 25, 1983 and further that a committee made up of the developer, Mr. Balderson, M~. McCracken and someone (or more than one) of leadership representing the majority of the Community, meet to discuss this matter to answer ali the question, s addressed here today. Mr. Balderson e×plained that to change this request will require the applicant making an amendment through the proper application process. He stated if a Conditional Use is sought, it may be necessary to go back before the Planning Commission. He stated staff cannot initiate any action on filing a plan for the applicant, but can advise him. Mr. Dodd stated he felt this was a wise move and, hopefully, a better situation can be accomp].ished than what was proposed. Vote: Unanimous 82S108 In Matoaca Magisterial District, Stamie E. Lyttle requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40) of a 105 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,700 feet on the west line of Coalboro Road, and located approximately 1,600 feet north of its intersection with River Road. Tax ~Iap 124 (1) parcel 64 (Sheet 37). Mr. Balderson stated that the applicant has requested that this case be deferred an additional 60 days because the first 20.D. soil evaluations have not been completed due to wet weather. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration of this case until May 25, 1983 as requested by the applicant. Vote: Unanimous 82S109 In Midlothian Maq'isteria] District, E. M. Ciejek requested rezoning from Agricultural {A) to General Business (B-3) of a 11.5 acre parcel fronting approximz, tely 230 ~eet on the east line of Grove Road, and lo~ated appro×imately 1,500 feet south of its intersection with Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-16 (2) Sunny Dell Acres, Lots 17, ].8, 19, 20, 21 and 22 (Sheet 7) . Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to a single condition. Mr. Jim Hubbard stated that they agreed with the condition but requested that the buffer be reduced to 20 ft. which is being required for an adjacent pro!'~erty. He stated the abutting property will be turned into a private park and if the applicant puts outside storage, they could go back to the 50 ft. buffer. Mr. Balderson stated that B-3 allows heavy uses such as outside storage, etc. Mr. Hubbard inquired if it could be written that if there were outside storage a 50 ft. buffer wcu£d be maintained but 20 ft. otherwise. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the entire 50 ft. buffer was needed now, but the applicant could request an amendmen~ later if there were no outside storage. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject t.o the following condition with the understanding the Board will consider reducing the 50 ft. buffer should the site plan warrant such action: A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern and southeastern property lines. 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 20 .E. 83S004 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, C. J. Hubbard, Inc. requested renewal of a Conditional Use (Case 77S190) to permit the operation of a turkey shoot in an Agricultural (A) District on a 7.44 acre parcel fron~ing approximately 400 feet on the west line of Courthouse Road, and located approximately 2,700 feet north of its intersection with Hull Str~et Road, and better known as 3000 Courthouse Road. ~'a~ Map 49-3 (1) parcel 2 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated %he ?lanning Co~'~.ssion recommended approval of this ~'equest subject to certain conditions. Mr. Hubbard was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, t~e Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use shall ke granted to and for C. J. Hubbard, Inc~, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. 2. This Conditional Use shall be c~ranted for three (3) ~ears. 83-]57 20 .F. 20 .G. Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 12 noon and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. The use of firearms shall be limited to shotguns only. Alcohol~.c beverages shall be p~ohibited. Ali driveways and parking areas shall be graveled. All weeds and vegetative qrowth at. the Courthouse Road entrance shall be kept cut so as to afford good siqht distance for vehicles entering and exiting the parcel· Within thirty (30) days of the approval of this Cond~.tional Use, certification from the County Police Department, ver[fyin9 that fhis opera~ion complies with all State and County regulations, shall be submitted to the Planning Department. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to obtain this certification from the Police Department and transmit it to Staff prior' to any continued activity. The existing pit privies shall be removed and the pits filled and covered. Portable chemical toilets shall be placed on the site or new pit privies constructed. SanitatioD facilities shall be approved by the Health Department prior to construction. Vote: Unanimous 83S010 In Midlothian Magisterial. District, Vet~e Enterprises, Inc. requested rezoning from Agricultural CA) to Residential (R-9) of a two (2) acre parcel fronting approximately 580 feet on the west line of Spirea Road, and located approximately 520 feet north of its intersection with Lucks Lane. Tax Map 26-15 (1) part of parcel 3 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had reco~nended approval of this request. Mr. ?owell, developer was present. Mr. Charles Vette stated there has been a problem getting Spirea Road into the State System with regard to additional easements at the creek other than the normal 50 ft. as well as a drainage easement south of the property. He stated that he and Mr. Powell had made repeated efforts to obtain the easements over the past 6 or 7 months and wanted that in the record. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 83S011 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Wayne D. Morris requested rezoning from Agricultural CA) to Residential (R-9) of a 65.4 acre parcel fronting a[>proximate].y 550 feet on the east line of Newbys Bridge Road, and located directly across from its intersection with Jacobs Roa~]. Tax Map 50-].5 {1) parcels l0 and 48 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request for Residential (R-9) and approval of Residential (R-12). Mr. Jim Hayes~ was present representing the applicant and they agreed with 'the R-12 recommendation. Mr. Bookman inquired why public; sewer was not to be utilized. Mr. Hayes stated that it was not economically feasible as it was too ~ar away. He stated 'they would be u~'{i, ng public water and there would be 45-50 lo.ts. Mr. Bookman teac3 a letter from 20. H. 19 .A. Mr. Schuster, of the Fernbrook SubdivisJ. on, objecting to this rezoning due to traffic on Newbys Bridge and Fordham Roads. Mr. Bookman stated that he did not like approving septic tanks in this area. Mr. Hayes stated that there is a place for septic tanks in the County and water is not that feasible, but they are extending it nevertheless. He stated with the new septic tank restrictions, there should not be any ]~ng term problems. Mr. Bookman stated he would move approval subject to installation of public water. Mr. Micas stated that installation of public water could not be a condition of this zoning case. Mr. Hayes stated the Plannin~I Commission had given tentative approval at their meeting last Dight which Jnciuded public water. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded bv Mr. Dodd, the Board denied the request for Residential (R-9) and approved rezoning to Residential (R-12) . Vote: Unanimous 83S012 In Matoaca Magisterial District, David C. and Linda J. Matthews requested rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Agricultural (A) of a 7.33 acre parcel fronting approximately 50 feet on the south line of Rhodes Lane, and located approximately 2,400 feet west of its intersection with Sandy Ford Road. Tax Map 160 (1) parcel 18 (Sheet 48). Mr. Balderson stated th~ Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Matthews was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request'. Vote: Unanimous 83SR040 In Bermuda Magisterial District, J. W. Fulgham requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to par~ a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax Map Sec. 115-7 (1) parcel 15 and better known as 4210 West Hundred Road (Sheet 32). There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following conditJ, ons: The applicant shall be 'the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot nor parcel may be rented nor leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used 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 zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall, be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Personal goods and a~ticles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home. e Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. ]59 Upon being granted a permit for Mobile Home Permit/Special Exception, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated three items had been passed by. He stated one was a real estate matter, the o~her being the highway preallocation statemeDt and the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bookman stated that there were some people present who would like Board consideration of a sewer issue. He stated this request involves a situation that needs as early an answer as is possible and that the Utilities Department is aware of this mat~er. He stated it is a conceptual approval of a pumping station to serve 510 acres. Mr. Daniel inquired if this should first be considered and reviewed by staff prior to coming to the Board. Mr. Bookman stated that he d~.d not see any harm in considering this item to give these people an answer as Brandermill's pump station and force main is being designed at this time. He stated this has been reviewed by staff for approximately 2 months. Mr. Hedric]~ stated that he felt this approach did not follow plroper procedures to handle things of this nature. He stated staff has not had the opportunity to properly review it and will not be able'to offer comments regarding the matter. Mr. Bookman stated that many times the Board has entertained items that were not on the agenda and these gentlemen have talked with him, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Dodd. Mr. Hedrick stated it has not been the policy of the Board to negotiate sewer projects in public meetings. Mr. Welchons presented a map and indicated that the developers present were interested in serving the property on the north side of Route 360 back upgrade to a pump station on the south side. M~'. Bookman explained that several vears ago Brandermill came in with a plan to go across the pond or go down by the shore line. He stated he understood the Board to have made a decision not to go by the shore line but to allow Bright Hope pump station to be built to serve that east of the reservoir· He stated that a second pump station has been allowed in Woodlake to pump over to Route 360 and along to Swift Creek bypassing Bright Hope pump station· He stated these people have 450 acres of land and 60 more acres of zoned industrial land on the southside of Route 360 at the dry creek· He stated they would like to have conceptual approval, subject to seeing if any other people in the drainage basin want to participate, to p~]t in a pumping station· He stated there is no cost to the County in what they want to do regarding installation, there are no rebates or fees. He stated it is approximately a $400,000 station and force main. He stated they are willing to put that in but they need to incorporate ~ larger force m~in into Brandermill's plan while it is being drawn. He stated there has been an interest indicated by two other property owners· He inquired if there were any problems with them participating if they put up the money to share in the cost of enlarging the pump station· Mr. Welchons stated he did not know at this point but he thought it would work. Mr. Bookman stated what is needed is a conceptual agreement by the Board to allow a pumping station on the southside to serve this 510 acres which will pump the sewage into Brandermill's force main and back to Swift Creek° 83-160 Mr. Daniel stated he felt the Ut~lities Dept. should look at this matter and report back to the Board as he was not certain this concept was right or wrong. Mr. Dodd stated that Brandermill was getting ready to install a 16 inch line, and an 18 inch line would be needed to serve the Hancock's and Woodlake, and if Brandermill J.s not slowed down at this poJ~nt it may be too late. Mr. Hedrick stated that when the Board discussed Woodiake all the issues that are coming related to this issue were raised at that time, which was that J.f you allowed a pump station for Woodlake you would be deviating from the County's policy of continuing a gravity system. He stated then the Board voted against staff's recommendation to allow the system for Woodlake which staff's contention was that other requests would come in if this were approved. He stated the Board then approved this so as not to hold Woodlake up. He stated then $318,000 was approved to do an overall utility master plan to address this situation so that we would not get into making exceptions without having an overall picture, address 'the short and long range cost for development in the area, etc. He stated if this is approved, Charter Colony will come in as will. Evergreen, and money will be wasted. Mr. Bookman stated those propertic~ on the other side of the lake were discussed at that time as well as the possibility of determining if this could be pumped over into the Falling Creek drainage basin rather than gravity fed around the lake. He stated he hoped that was being studied. He stated this will not cost the County anything and the people will pay their connection fees. Mr. Dodd stated that the Hancock property was addressed separately and the Board said that it would be handled and it is no surprise. He stated that he felt the Hancocks should be treated equally. He sta'ted he understands now that Brandermill is not as far a long as original].y thought. Mr. Hedrick stated these conclusions might be accurate but he did not know at this time. Mr. Bookman stated he would like conceptual approval. Mr. Daniel stated he would agree with staff analyzing and giving the Board full recommendations before he could vote on this. Mr. Bookman inquired if we could deny a property owner from connecting to the County sewer system if there is nc cost to the County. Mr. Micas stated you could place appropriate conditions on the use of the public system as each case is different. Mr. Hedrick stated that he felt this was a mistake and he needed to say so as the Board is making a decision based on what is good for one individual. Mr. Daniel stated that staff should investigate all. possibi].ities and recommendations regarding this matter. He stated he felt the cost and alternatives should be presented to the Board. Mr. Pat Bowe was present and stated he had been discussing this with Mr. Welchons. Mr. Welchons stated that was true but only this past Friday had they presented additional information which staff has not had time to review and he is not prepared to make any recommendation at this time. Mr. Hedrick stated Brandermill may change their original idea on sewering the area as they have contacted him and are considerinq resurrecting the issue, but at this point the County does not know. Mr. Bowe stated that if Brandermill goes within 1500 feet of their property with their line that these developers want the line enlarged from a 16 inch to an 18 inch. Mr. Bookman stated he felt the concept could be approved. Mr. Dodd stated he wanted to make sure the door was not closed to the Hancock's regarding 'the possibility of connecting to the public lines but he 'fe]..t staff's input was important. There was some discussion regarding pumping stations, their maintenance, staff's position, danger of pump station's at the reservoir, etc. After further discussion it was on motion L7. & 10. 7.Bo of Mr. Daniel, seconded bv }Ir. Dodd, resolved that the Board authorize staff to investigate a].] of these issues for their analysis and bring back to the Board recommendations for consideration for the Hancock property at the April 13, 1983 meeting. Mr. Daniel stated that staff should contact Brandermill and inform them of the Hancocks' interest and the possibility of their' connecting to the line. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated that if the Hancocks would have called and told him that time was of the essence, staff would have tried to have this matter on the agenda for discussion. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss disposiZion of publicly held property and potential legal matte]-s as relating to Bermuda Run as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) and (6), respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board set a public hearing date of April 27, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. rather than April 13, 1983 (as previously set earlier this day) to consider the conveyance of a parcel o~ land at the Airport Industrial Park to Triad, Inc. and authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contingent contract for sale of said property. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Balderson presented the Board with the proposed Preallocation Hearing Statement for Primary Roads and stated the situation with priorities has not changed significantly since last year in terms of what our priorities are. He stated we have made significant progress on Route 288 and Powhite Parkway and the HighWay Department has suggested that the second phase of the Route 360/Chippenham interchange project be included in the priority list for Chesterfield. He stated that based on the position the County took last year and has maintained throughout this year, it would be better to hake those monies and put them on the Route 288 project since that is our top priority. Mrs. Girone stated it was her understanding that the County did not know how much of the money from toils would come to the County for Route 288. Mr. Balderson stated the County has yet to receive a priority schedule from the Highway Department as to how the money will be spent or for which projects. She inquired if we should allocate money to that now. Mr. Balderson stated it is staff's best indication that the toll road money is not enough to go around to all the projects that are planned. Mrs. Girone stated Mr. Harold King, Highway Commissioner, told her that it would build Route 288 for two lanes and obtain the four lane right-of-way and she felt we should hope for that. Mr. Balderson stated that as far as these priorities are concerned, it would add weight to our position of priorities if the #l priority is Route 288/Powhite and we put whatever money we have on that project. Mr. Bookman inquired when the Board changed the priority list as Route 360 interchange was third on the list and the first two were accomplished but now it is #4. He stated last year's projects were not listed in priority order, but they are this year. Mr. Williams bziefly explained the previous priority listings and how annual statements for t. he last few years had been made without respect to priority listing adopted in 1977. He stated 'that the County Administrator felt the recent lack of all adopted list was a problem and that a new list is proposed. He stated that on the new lzst are t.bos~e things which can 83-162 reasonably be expected in the ne×t 6-10 years with funding sources. He stated the previous list was endless and without a ~ommitment for funds and involved shifting priorities constantly· Re stated in the last few years annual statements had been made and the priorities were based on those statements, but it is proposed that this list will be what the County's statements will De based on. Mr. Bookman stated he could not understand why the Route 360 interchange was reduced in priority. Mr. Williams stated that the traffic in that corridor would be taken care of t~y the Powhite Extension. He stated that the Powhite Extension land Route 288 were the Board's top priority and as such Route 288 Will take all the money forever. Mr. Bookman stated he did not feel the Huguenot Road project, should take priority· Mr. Williams stated that the funds relocat4nq Elkhardt Road and relocating Lancers Boulevard for the first phase will be done next spring· Mr. Williams stated this year the Highway Dept. has allocated $245,000 for this phase. Mr. Bookman inquired how much was allocated for Huguenot Road. Mr. Williams indicated $600,000. Mr. Bookman stated the Board has not changed its priorities and he stated he felt. the Route 360 area is the worst in the County. Mr. Hedrick stated that based on the current traffic patterns in that area ~hat is correct but with Powhite being built, it will change the traffic pattern substantially and therefore the $3,000,000 wculd be better spent on another project as opposed to spending it on Route 360 when staff thinks it will be solved. Mr. Bookman stated that means 5-7 years before relief would be coming to this area. Mr. Dodd stated the four laning of Route 10 from Route 1 to Route 10 has now fallen to ~9. Mr. Hedrick reviewed the priorities on the list which were as follows: Completion of preliminary engineering and toll. funding analysis for Powhite Parkway and Route 288 from Powhite to Route 360. 2. Huguenot and Robious Road intersection. 3. Chippenham and Hopkins Posd interchange. 4. Route 360 and Chippenham Interchange, first phase. 5. Route 288 from Route 360 to 1-95. 6. Route 10 Bridge replacement in Chester. Mr. Bookman stated he felt there was no higher priority than the Route 360 and Chippenham interchange. Mr. Dodd stated if Route 288 to Powhite and around is constructed, there would be no problem at Route 360. Mr. Bookman stated that would be true but if we get the Laburnum route, this will still be a major intersection with no cloverleaf on Chippenham other than Jahnke Road. After some discussion it was generally agreed that the last sentence be taken off on page D3 of the statement. Mr. Williams stated after talkJ.ng with the Highway Department, the only projects the County has discretion on (switching funds for projects and the fact that you cannot for bridges, etc.) is the Huguenot Road project, the Route 360 project and possibly the Powhite Study funding. He stated we did not have any discretion regarding Route 288 right-of-way or bridqes, etc. Mr. Bookman stated the 360 interchange is not. in there at all. Mr. Williams stated that staff was reco:'~ending the seccnd phase be deferred. Mr. Bookman stated he could not go along with this. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt the Route 360 interchange was also important. Mr. Dodd stated that he felt the corridor of Route 10 between Route i and Chippenham is very important also. Mr. Hedrick stated his last conversation'regarding Route 288 was that they are not necessarily talking' about Route 288 from 95 over to Route 10 but Route 288 from Route .l to koute 10 as the first phase. He stated they are talking about phasing it right now and that would be the first phase. 83-](3 Mr. Bookman inquired wl~y Route 360 interchange was taken off. Mr. Williams stated models had been made and it would serve the same basic traffic that the Powhite would handle. He stated that in addition to Powhite Parkway and Route 288, there is not enough money to pay for 288 and roi. Is will not pay for this and we need to put every available dollar towards those projects because the Powhite project will take care of that traffic demand. Mr. Bookman stated he felt this interchange needed to be put in the statement. Mr. Balderson stated that it is a m~tter of the projects equalling up to the money that is available and staff has Lried to recommend priorities within that money bracket. He stated we had a long wish list and it included almost every road in the County an4 'there is no question about the need, but the recommendations had to be pared down to that money bracket and to maximize the dollars that we have on most important projects. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board revise the proposed statement to incl,]de the priorities which are within the monies available but the following projects are also of major importance to the County: the second phs.~.]e of Chippenham/Route 360; the remainder of 147 and Route 10 four laning and should any money become available, that it be applied to these projects. Mr. Bookman stated that he felt this should not be in the statement as a secondary l%st. He stated they should be in the same category as the other projects and added if there are monies available. Mr. Daniel stated he would like very much to have the Route 360 interchange but he did not know where to get the funding. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Nays: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Daniel and Mr. Girone. Mr. Bookman. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourned at 5:25 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on March 30, 1983 for public hearings regarding the budget, the tax levy and the use of revenue sharing funds. Vote: Unanimous County Administrator