Loading...
04-27-1983 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES April 27, 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 Balderson, Dir. of Planning Mr. Thomas Callahan, Airport Manager Mr. N. E. Carmichael, Commissioner of Revenue Chief Robert Eanes, Fire Department Mr. James Gillentine, Nursing Home Admin. Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of Parks and Recreation Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Admin. Mr. William Howell, Dir. of General Services Mr. Robert Masden, Dir. of Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mrs. Mary A. McGuire, County Treasurer Mr. Steve Micas, County Attorney Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir. of Community Develop. Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget and Accounting Mr. John Tye, Acting Real Estate Assessor Mr. David Welchons, Act. Director of Utilities Mr. George Woodall, Dir. of Economic Develop. Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 10:05 a.m. (EDST). Mr. Dodd gave the invocation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the minutes of April 11 and 13, 1983, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Gillentine stated that the Nursing Home is embarking on a program to replace two existing buses for outings in the community for the Home's residents. He introduced Mrs. Judy Beach, Director of Activities, who began this program. Mrs. Beach stated that the Nursing Home has a 1964 and a 1966 bus, both exceeding 200,000 miles. She stated that the residents are involved in weekly field trips ~]md a bus which is dependable and equipped properly will cost $42,000. She stated that approximately 75 residents participate in the trips and that it 83--201. is vital to their overall theraDy. She stated that $22,000 has been raised through candy and bake sales, a Ruritan-sponsored dance, etc. She stated other fund raising activities are scheduled and hopefully by December, 1983 they will reach their goal. She stated that the Byrd High School Journalism class had a telethon planned to helped raise money which has now been delayed because of lack of time but is rescheduled for next year. She stated that Mrs. Gillespie, Journalism Teacher, is presently working on a documentary which will be utilized by various community organizations, etc. Mr. Hedrick commended Mrs. Beach for her outstanding efforts which makes the County Nursing Home one of the most outstanding in the State. Mr. Hester stated that several months ago, staff of Johnston-Willis Hospital contacted his office concerning their interest in helping develop Huquenot Park through their Community Affairs Dept. He stated that the Hospital has donated $3,500 to the County for improvements, and that along with a state grant which had been received for the equipment, will complete the fitness trail. He stated the ttospital staff intends to use the facility as much as possible. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded bv Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administrator ~o write a letter of appreciation to Johnston-Willis Hospital for their generous donation of $3,500. Vote: Unanimous On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, From the beginnings of American Private Enterprise on Jamestown Island centuries ago, small business has been a key contributor to virtually every Virginia community's industry, commerce and community leadership; and Whereas, Today small businesses employ a major portion of Virginia's work force and provide an important source of innovation and growth potential for our entire economy. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes these contributions and ~oins the President of the United States and the Governor of I~irginia in setting aside the week of May 8-14, 1983 as Small I~usiness Week, and calls this observance and its meaning to the I~ttention of all residents of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Robertson stated there were several people present who were interested in the fourth public hearing relating to child care centers and family day care homes. He indicated if there were no ~bjections, the Board would consider the ordinance relating to ~hild care first. There were no objections. .D. ZONING ORDINANCE - CHILD CARE CENTERS AND FAMILY DAY CARE ~r. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled fo£ a ~ublic hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 21-3 relating to the definition of a child care center and a family ~ay care home. Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commissien ~pproved the proposed ordinance with the deletion of the ~ollowing sentence under "Family day care home": The to%al 83-202 number of children received for care, protection and guidance shall not exceed nine during any one twenty-four hour day; if the total number exceeds nine, then the facility shall be considered a child care center. Mr. Daniel stated that the intent of the Planning Commission was to conform as closely as possible with the State law and that that it would not be proper to start interpreting things differently from what the State regulations were. He stated then each case would be investigated on a complaint basis, and whatever the State determined, would be how the County would treat the activity. Mr. Balderson stated, that if a Conditional Use is required, conditions mav be recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Board that deal with total number of children which means it can be treated on an individual basis. He stated this ordinance deals with land use and is in conformance with the State law relative to licensing which is close to the land use situation; however, there may be requirements relative to health and building codes which are not addressed in this particular amendment. Ms. Carol Mayo, Social Works Supervisor for the City of Richmond and resident of Chesterfield County, was present. She read a prepared statement, a copy of which is filed with the paper;~ of this Board, in favor of the adoption of an ordinance which is in compliance with State law to allow 5 children to be cared for in private homes. She stated 45.6% of mothers with children now work outside the home which has risen from 34.4% in 1975; that there will be 10,500,000 pre-school children with working mothers by 1990; children who are unsupervised before and after school are vulnerable to accident, assault and emotional injury as some are told to lock themselves in the house, some are locked out, etc.; 52-57% of all married couples today have both parents working which leaves 14,000,000 children between the ages of 6-13 of which 2-5,000,000 children are latch-key children left home with no supervision, etc. She stated that unsupervised children can cause an additional burden on government as well as the schools who have no one to turn to if a child is sick or if school is dismissed early; the police who get calls to check homes for intruders and the welfare department who must investigate calls of suspected neglect/abuse. She stated that the Chesterfield County's Social Service Dept. indicates that about 25% of the child abuse/neglect cases they handle each year are related to lack of supervision before and after school. She stated the children need protection and that it is a much better alternative to allow neighborhood residents to care for other !children. She urged the Board to provide more day care opportunities for children who are too young to go to day care facilities, for part-time children who cannot go to day care centers and for the before and after school children who cannot go to day care centers so there will be less and less unsupervised children. Ms. Midge Rectenwald supported the change in the law because more and more women are finding it a must to go back to work and would prefer part time opportunities. She stated the current law is very restrictive for those women to find before and after school and part time child care; it restricts those who work different shifts who do not fit commercial day care schedules and anyone who has children under 2; it restricts anyone with children with a medical problem who is advised by a pediatrician to find in-home child care; and it restricts those women who need occasional child care for reasons such as doctor's appointments, leisure time activities, etc. Mr. Rod Armstrong, Chairman of the Smoketree Community Association, read a letter sent to the Board which indicated support of the proposed ordinance. He stated that other localities are in compliance with the State law and he urged the adoption of such an ordinance in Chesterfield. He stated a 83-203 survey was completed in Smoketree which results were: of 380 families in Smoketree, 275 completed the survey; of 275 who completed, 111 had both husband and wife employed; and of the 111 employed wives, 60 were employed mothers with a total of 92 children who need full or part time care during the work day; and 15 families had children not admitted to day care facilities because the children are under 2 years old. When divided according to the need for full or part time care, there are 35 who need full time care because they are pre-school and 57 who are elementary through 5th grade who need supervision or day care on a part time basis. He stated that the need for child care goes beyond Smoketree and into the entire County as there are 14,860 children in grades ~-5 in 23 schools in the County. He stated this demonstrates a clear and more urgent need for a more flexible day care ordinance. He stated on behalf of the Board of Directors of Smoketree they offer their appreciation to the Board for their consideration which will benefit the working women in the County. He stated he would like the ordinance to be amended as proposed to reinsert the wording "ten or more" under the Child Care Center. Mr. Micas stated he felt this would be advisable. There were approximately 20 people present in support of this ordinance. The Board expressed appreciation to Mr. Armstrong and the Smoketree residents for recognizing a problem, and working to solve it. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING SECTION 21-3 RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF A CHILD CARE CENTER AND FAMILY DAY CARE HOME WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 21-3 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-3 Definitions. o o o Child care center. Any facility other than a Family Day Care Home operated for the purpose of providing care, protection and guidance to a group of ten or more children separated from their parents or guardian during a part of the day only except: (1) a facility required to be licensed under a summer camp under the Code of Virginia, Sections 35-43 through 35-53; (2) a public school or a private school, unless the Commissioner of Welfare and Institutions determines that such private school is operating a child care center outside the scope of regular classes; (3) a school operated primarily for the educational instruction of children, two to five years of age, at which children two to four years of age do not attend in excess of four hours per day and children five years of age do not attend in excess of six and one-half hours per day; and (4) a facility which provides child care on an hourly basis which is contracted for by a parent occasionally only; (5) a facility operated by a hospital on the hospital's premises, which provides care to the children of the ~hospital's employees, while such employees are engaged in performing work for the hospital; and (6) a Sunday School conducted by a religious institution or a facility operated by a religious organization where children are cared for during short periods of time while persons responsible for such children are attending religious services. o o o Family day care home. Any private family home in which more khan five children ~e received for care, protection, and S3-204 guidance at any one time during the twenty-four hour day. These regulations shall not apply to: (1) children who are related by blood or marriage to the person who maintains the home, or (2) homes which accept children exclusively from departments of welfare or social services. Vote: Unanimous 3.A ORDINANCE RELATING TO PAYMENT OF LOCAL LEVIES Mr. Hedrick stated ~his date and time was scheduled for a public hearing to consider an ordinance pertaining to the crediting of payment of local levies to local accounts. Mrs. McGuire was present and stated the State Code requires that the Treasurer check all of the delinquent accounts before crediting any payments received which also includes any taxes due in the Clerk's Office. She stated this would be impractical to enforce and requested that the Treasurer's Office be exempted from this requirement. She stated that this will in no way reduce their efforts to collect delinquent taxes as they collect 99.21% of current and delinquent taxes. She stated they review delinquent taxes on a monthly basis and have five regular billings. She stated the current law does not aid them in any way. She stated they do check delinquent taxes and refer the taxpayer to the Clerk's Office when they are handled on an individual basis, but they cannot do this on busy days. There was no one present in opposition. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the followinq ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDI~G SECTION 8-12.3 PERTAINING TO THE CREDITING OF PAYMENTS OF LOCAL LEVIES TO LOCAL ACCOUNTS Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: That Chapter 8, Article 1 of the Code of the Countv of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended by adding Section 8-12.3 as follows: ARTICLE 1 IN GENERAL o o o Sec. 8-12.3. Crediting of payments for local levies to local accounts. The treasurer shall, not be required to credit payments received or any local levies to the most delinquent local account of the taxpayer making such payment. Vote: Unanimous 3.B. CONVEYANCE AT AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO TRIAD, INDUSTRIES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of land at the Airport Industrial Park to Triad Industries, Inc. There was no opposition present. Mr. Luckard was present and stated their company would produce water treatment equipment for production of high purity waters for the power industry and medical markets. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board to execute a deed for the conveyance of 2.88 acres of land at the Airport Industrial Park to Triad Industries, Inc. which parcel is located off of Reycan Road. Vote: Unanimous 83-205 3.C. CONVEYANCE OF 31¼ ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON ROUTE 1 and 10 Mr. Hedrick stated the public hearing relating to the conveyance of 31~ acres of land located north and east of Iron Bridge Road had been deferred to this date and time from the April 13, 1983 meeting. Mr. Welchons presented a soils map indicating that only 10% of the parcel is favorable for septic tank use and the bulk is doubtful and unfavorable. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the offer of $48,000 was reasonable and made a motion that it be accepted with the funds being placed in the General Fund contingency. Mr. Dodd stated he felt $2,000 was more appropriate as this is next to prime ]and. Mr. Daniel withdrew his motion. Mr. Dodd made a motion that the land be sold for $2,000 per acre and that Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Williams be given 60 days in which to consider the offer and that if it is accepted, that the Chairman be authorized to execute any necessary documents for the conveyance and that the funds be placed into the General Fund contingency account. Mr. Bookman stated he felt the land would double in value in years to come but seconded the motion. Mr. Hedrick explained the policy of the County regarding any offers of purchase of County property. Mr. Daniel requested that a policy be drawn by the County Administrator and County Attorney for the disposition of County property as he felt each case should be handled exactly the same. Mr. Howard Marley, representing Mr. and Mrs. Williams, stated the their original offer was $36,000±. He stated the property would be used for farming by Mr. Williams. He stated he felt the statement "next to prime land" was unreasonable, as he felt it would take approximately 10 years for sewer for this development to be extend. He stated that it would be better to sell the land, receive funds and collect taxes on it. It was noted by Mr. John Tye, that the appraisal of $48,000 was approximately one year old. Mr. Daniel suggested this matter be deferred until a new appraisal could be obtained. The question being called: Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone. Absention: Mr. Daniel. 3.E. REFUND FOR OFF-SITE AND OVERSIZED SEWER AND WATER LINES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to refunds for off-site and oversized sewer and water line extensions. He stated that the Richmond Homebuilders Association and the Richmond Area Municipal Contractors Association had requested a 60 day deferral of this public hearing as they are reviewing the policy and would like to make comments and recommendations at a later date. Mr. Bookman stated that this was brought about because of bid rigging and he understands the State does not have a bid rigging law but is covered under the Davis-Bacon Act which is a federal law and involves federal funds. He stated that any time there were federal funds involved, the County bids publicly. He stated he would like laws involving bid rigging in the State researched. He stated he would like the 60 day deferral to include indexing of prices that could be utilized for oversize and off-site refunds in the development of water and sewer lines which would only necessitate one bid and could be at the discretion of the utility director to determine from the indexing if it were appropriate. He stated the ordinance for the County also reads that we have the prerogative in paying out any of these rebates to require public bidding. He stated that if it could not be resolved at the utility level with one bid through indexing, then public bids could be obtained uhen refunds are involved. Mr. Welchons stated that the contractors and engineers suggested and ~3-206 are working on indexing prices for the refunds at this time. stated they will submit recommendations to staff for review before coming to the Board. He Mr. Bookman stated for the record that in his judgement he felt this matter is of general application for the benefit of Chesterfield. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred the public hearing relating to refunds for off-site and oversized sewer and water line extensions until June 22, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. Vote: Unanimous 4. BUDGET ITEMS 4.B. CONSIDER APPROPRIATION FOR NEW FIRE TRUCK Mr. Ramsey stated a fire truck scheduled for fiscal year 1983-84 has been delivered early and in order to utilize the equipment, the County would have to pay for it. He suggested using funds in the current budget and decreasing same from next year's budget. It was generally agreed that the County Administrator make necessary transfers within the Fire Department budget to pay for this equipment with the understanding that the 1983-84 budget which has been presented, will be amended to decrease it by this same amo~unt, $106,300. 4.A. SCHOOL BOARD BUDGET Mr. Dodd stated he did not approve of reducing the negotiated School Budget figure at this time and added perhaps the Board should look at additional revenues or go into the surplus to do what was negotiated. He addressed the Hay System, the opening of new schools, buses, debt service, etc. and stated that he did not feel the School System could absorb this with additional cut by the Board of $300,000. He stated the Hay study involves an additional $340,000. He stated he felt there may not be adequate reserves in the future for requests by the School Board should they need it. Mrs. Girone stated she did not feel $300,000 would hurt their budget and that the proposed County budget is balanced and felt the Board should approve it at this time. She stated that the School System will receive $12,000,000 extra this year with the County Government receiving only $2,000,000. She stated the $300,000 is less than one-half of one percent of the School budget, and whenever the Board tries to limit funding, the teachers salaries, the schools buses, etc. are attacked first. She stated that the School System has $95,000,000 and can do what is right for the teachers. She stated the $300,000 means a lot to the general County government. She stated that the School System has not accomplished the work necessary to implement the Hay System even if they did have the money. She stated that if one category is to be addressed, the Board should address each as one impacts the other. She stated the taxpayers had indicated they did not want the Board to get involved in the categories, just the bottom line figure. Mr. Bookman stated the teachers' pay is already locked in and in the past, the Board has always appropriated funds when the School System needed it. He stated he had been told the School System will have $800,000 to turn back in at the end of the year. He stated no one could a~opt a budget that is going to come out exact. Mr. Hedrick explained that early in the year it was felt that there would be a shortfall of $2,000,000 and the General County government and School System tried to work out something to reduce the shortfall. He stated the $800,000 figure involved cost saving measures by the School System which could be turned 83-207 back in if the saving measures were implemented. He stated he felt there is a potential for more than that amount but it is not known at this time. Mr. Bookman inquired why each bus should be replaced every ten years as they might possibly be refurbished. Mr. Daniel stated that the School System is hit with the unexpected 3% cost of living raise that the employees will receive which will be $330,000 which they will handle, and then the County Administrator suggested reducing their appropriation by $300,000 more. He stated that the School Board indicated they would absorb this in textbooks, teachers salaries and buses. He stated the Board should appropriate the original amount of $96,641,000 and address another funding mechanism later. He stated his concern for capital needs for the next two or three years for school buses, debt, etc. Mr. Daniel moved that the Board adopt a School Budget of $96,641,000 for 1983-S4 which included the $300,000; and that an ordinance be advertised for a public hearing to consider increasing vehicle license fees by $3.00 and the balance of the County budget to be discussed later. He stated he would propose that a three year projection for the entire County and School System be prepared. Mrs. ~irone stated that the Board should level with the taxpayers because if there is a major need to chanqe the funding of the School System, which there may be, the Board will have to deal with that and explain it to the taxpayers and raise taxes. She inquired what the funding source would be for the $300,000. Mr. Daniel stated landfill fees could be increased or the vehicle license fees could be increased. After further discussion it was generally agreed to defer this matter until after zoning cases this date. 5. CONFIRMATION OF ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO HUBCO SALES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority) has considered the application of Hubco Sales, Inc. (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $360,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition and construction of a sales and distribution center (the Facility) in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a pub].ic hearing thereon on April 7, 1983; and Whereas, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors (the Board) of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds in order to comply with Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, and a record of the public hearing has been filed with the Board. Be It Further Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia: The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield for the benefit of Hubco Sales, Inc., to the extent required by 83--208 Section 103 (k), in order to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Facility. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103 (k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-]380 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the Company nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith nor credit nor the taxing power cf the Commonwealth, the County or the Authority shall be pledged thereto. e This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Mr. Daniel inquired if the Board should be acting in this fashion or if the Chairman could approve such action. Mr. Micas stated that he was satisfied that the Authority's counsel was correct in that this Board must ratify this action. Mr. Daniel requested that this be investigated further. Mr. Dodd requested that if possible, the amount of backup material be reduced. Vote: Unanimous 6. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.A. CONVEYANCE TO JOHNSTON-WILLIS HOSPITAL On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board set the date of May 25, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a .655 acre parcel of land owned by the County to Johnston-Willis Hospital which property is separated from Huguenot Park by proposed Early Settler's Road (Extended). Vote: Unanimous 6.B. CONVEYANCE TO ROBERT E. DAVENPORT--AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of May 25, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. to consider conveyance of a one acre parcel in the Airport Industrial Park off of Virginia Pine Court to Robert E. Davenport. Vote: Unanimous 7. PURCHASE OF LAND ADJACENT TO MIDLOTHIAN FIRE STATION Mrs. Girone stated that if the Board approves contributing funds to the Midlothian Fire Department that there should be a stipulation that should any of this land be sold which they plan to purchase, that the funds come back to the General Fund of the County since the revenues derived for the purchase are from the General Fund. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board: Transferred $40,530 from 'the Contingency Account and added the same amount to the $8,208.48 previously appropriated for purchase of land at Midlothian Fire Station. That an amount not to exceed $48,739 be appropriated for donation to the Midlothian Volunteer Fire Depaztment, Inc. to be restricted to the purchase of adjoining land. e Any future sale shall of any portion of this land shall accrue to the General Fund of Chesterfield County. 3-'209 Mr. John Smith stated that Chesmid Park Corporation has been damaged in excess of $].50,000 which will be determined by the Courts at a later date. He stated that he was concerned that the owner of this parcel of land has not had any input with regard to the sale of this property which he felt was wrong. Mr. Daniel stated that the Board is not entering into any land purchase, it is the Volunteer Fire Dept. He stated if there were any questions of the legality of the transfer, that it be held with them as he felt this Board was not in a position to give an opinion. He stated if a contract is not consummated by the Fire Department and the property owners, the donation made by the Board is null and void. The question being called: Vote: Unanimous Mr. Smith stated this action would duplicate previous action by the Board and put the Board on notice that the Corporation will expect to collect and be properly reimbursed for the actions taken. 8. CONSENT ITEMS 8.A. BINGO/.RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the requests from the Crestwood Elementary School P.T.A., the Greenfield Elementary School P.T.A., and the Virginia State University Athletic Boosters Club for bingo and/or raffle permits ±or calendar year 1983. Vote: Unanimous 8.B. APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT FIRE ~RSHAL On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board replaced Sergeant K.L. Spaulding and appointed Sergeant Gerald A. Haynes as an Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 27-36 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 8.C. AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TAXIWAY CONTRACT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract with Delta Associates, P.E., Inc. for construction, administration, supervision and inspection of the Airport Industrial Park Taxiway in an amount not to exceed $9,000. Funds previously appropriated. Vote: Unanimous 8.D. SEALEZE CORPORATION AND W. G. FIELDS CONVEYANCES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board to execute a deed of conveyance of behalf of the County for property at the Airport Industrial Park to Sealeze Corporation which public hearing was held on April 23, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 83-210 On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board ratified and approved the action taken by the Chairman in executing the deed to W. G. Fields for conveyance of a parcel of land at the Airport Industrial Park which public hearing was held on April 23, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 9. APPOINTMENTS 9.A. CAMP BAKER ADVISORY BOARD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred consideration of the appointments to the Camp Baker Advisory Board until an Executive Session for personnel matters as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 9.B. C~TOUR APPOINTMENTS On motion'~f Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board confirmed the term of appointment for Mr. Robert Brittle as one year and for Mrs. Marie Beach as two years on the Metropolitan CONTOUR Board. Vote: Unanimous 10. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 10.A. CONTRACT FOR AIRPORT CONSULTING AND DESIGN SERVICES On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract for airport planning, engineering, construction management and inspection services with Delta Associates in the amount of $198,950. Services are to include those related to the airport expansion project as generally described in the County's preapplication for land acquisition or preapplication for construction. Vote: Unanimous 10.B. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board: Approved the cost for installation of a street light at Providence Road and Elkhardt Road which cost is $291 and funds will be expended from the Clover Hill District Street Light Funds; and Approved the installation cost of $419 for three street lights along Meadowdale Boulevard and appropriated funds from the Dale 3¢ Road Account for this cost. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the installation cost for seven street lights in the amount of $1,966 with $1,704 from the Matoaca District Street Light Funds and $262 from the Matoaca District 3¢ Road Account which lights are to be located as follows: Brickhouse Drive and Brickhouse Court River Road and Truth Drive 83-211 4. 5. 6. 7. Ayes: Nay s: River Road and Attucks Drive Truth Drive and Attu~ks Drive Sasha Court and Shaker Drive Sacks Lane and Shaker Court Brickhouse Drive and Sacks Lane Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Daniel. Mrs. Girone as it is not her policy to light entire subdivisions. 10.C. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the installation of three street lights at the following locations with funding to be expended from the Matoaca District 3¢ Road Funds: Ralph Road and Andrews Drive Rosewood Lane and Woodpecker Road Andrews Drive and Rosewood Lane Vote: Unanimous !O.D. VDH&T RESIDENCY OFFICE OPERATIONS Mr. Batderson stated that Mr. Frank Gee, Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, had to leave the meeting as he had another appointment scheduled. It was generally agreed to defer the report on the VDH&T residency office operation until the May 11, 1983 meeting. 11. HIGHWAY ENGINEER It was generally agreed that discussion of individual road matters with the Supervisors be deferred until the May 11, 1983 meeting since Mr. Gee had to leave the meeting. Mr. Balderson stated the public information meeting for the Powhite Parkway design plan would be held on May 17 and ].9 at the Residency Office between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and on May 21 between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. He stated the public hearing would be held at 7:30 p.m. on May 25th at Monacan High School. He stated the public information session on the Parham and Chippenham connector would be held on May 11, 1983 between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. at Huguenot High School. He added a position statement would be prepared by staff for the Powhite design plan. 12. UTILITIES ITEMS 12.C.1. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM KPWH Mr. Hedrick stated the County had received a request for acceptance of a deed of dedication from KPWH Associates for a variable width right-of-way extending from the end of an existing 50 foot wide right-of-way north for a distance of 470 feet along Hickory Road. Mrs. William Halder was present and stated that at the time they purchased this property it was understood that the access to their property was deeded. She stated that they have now sold the property and it was found that there does not exist a deeded access to the parcel. Mr. Hedrick stated that the Planning staff had recommended denial of this request because of their concern of the proliferation of a private road subdivision and s~ggested that they secure s private access easement or that the property go through the subdivision process whereby they would be required to bring the road into tke system. Mr. Dodd stated that he did not expect any problem with this dedication. Mrs. Girone stated that she could see in the future that this would cause some problem and would require the use of taxpayers money to improve the road for which she d~d not agree. There was some discussion regarding the ingress and egress easements used by other property owners in the area. Mrs. Halder stated that they sold the property but because it says there is a deeded access and there is not, the purchasers want to rescind the contract as a possible agreement between the other property owners for an easement will not satisfy the words "deeded" access. Mrs. Girone excused herself from the meeting. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that the County Administrator be authorized to accept a deed of dedication from KPWH Associates, a inia General Partnership, for a variable width right-of-way extending from the end of an existing 50 foot wide right-of-way to the north for a distance of 470 feet off of Hickory Road, Map Section 160-13. It is also the consensus of the Board that should this nine acre parcel in the future be split for more than one strucutre, then it would be brought to state standards before this developement is allowed. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Bookman. Abstent~.on: Mr. Daniel because he felt this was not the clearest way to address this problem. At>sent: Mrs. Girone. Mrs. Girone returned to the meeting. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION iOn motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board into Executive Session for the purpose of consideration of the use of real property for public purpose pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and for the purpose of discussing the investing of public funds where aining is involved pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) (5) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. : Unanimous 14. MOBILE HOME REQUESTS Dodd stated that he is the mobile home business but is not y in sales and he did not know who might be talking %o his regarding the purchase of a mobile home. He requested that f any applicant has talked to his firm, to please let him know that he could abstain from voting. 3SR050 Bermuda Magisterial District, Mr. and Mrs. Howard L. Wade uested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home property which they own. Tax Map Sec. 152-2 (2) Chesterfield , Block I, Lot 3 and 4 and better known as 75413 Appomattox (Sheet 43/44). · Wade was present. There was no opposition present· On of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved s request for a period of five years subject to the following ~onditions: 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 sha]! any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be packed 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. Al]. mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Personal goods and articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a permit for a Mobile Home 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 ab·ye conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous 83SR051 In Dale Magisterial District, Jesse and Donna Lewis requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which belongs to Thomas Wilmoth, father-in-law of Mr. ~Lewis. Tax Map Sec. 65-4 (1) Parcel 2 and better known as 6120 Cogbill Road (Sheet 22). Mr. Lewis was present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel cautioned the applicant that he was not certain how many more years this request may be granted, in that as the area becomes more urbanized, there may be opposition. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, 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. 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 articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a permit for a Mobile Home 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. 83-2]4 Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous 835052 In Matoaca Magisterial District, David C. Matthews requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax Map Sec. 160 (1) part of Parcel 18, and better known as 7715 Rhodes Lane (Sheet 48). Mr. Matthews was present and stated that he would like to be allowed to submit an application to have the Mobile Home after the five year period has ended, if necessary. Mr. Dodd stated that the five year period is a standard condition and as the community changes there may be opposition. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Daniel, 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. 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 articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a permit for a Mobile Home 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 mobi].e home. 0 Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous 15. REQUESTS FOR REZONING/CONDITIONAL USES 83S032 In Midlothian Magisterial District, FRED D. AND JOAN F. CARAVETTA requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling in a Residential (R-15) District on a one (1) acre parcel fronting approximately 175 feet on Cowan Road, also frontin~ approximately 240 feet on Sykes Road and located in the southeast quadrant of the Intersection of these roads, and better known 947 Cowan Road. Tax Map ].8-8 (2) Bcm Air Manor, Block D, Lot ]2 (Sheet 8). 83-2].5 Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of this request. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded bv Mr. Dodd, the Board accepted the request for withdrawal. Vote: Unanimous 82S089 (Amended) In Matoaca Magisterial District, THE HOUSE OF PRAYER requested a Conditional Use to permit two (2) two-family dwellings in an Agricultural (A) District on a 82.61 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,800 feet on the north line of Newbys Bridge Road and located approximately 350 feet west of its intersection with Rock Run Road, and better known as ]0500 Newbys Bridge Road. Tax Map 77-4 (1) Parcel 14 (Sheet 21)· Mr. Balderson stated the Planni.ng Commission had recommended approval of this amended request subject to certain conditions. Mr. John Deal, member of the House of Prayer and attorney representing the case, stated they agreed with the conditions as recommended· There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Ro~ertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request sub.3~ct to the following conditions: This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for The House of Prayer and shall not be transferable, nor run with the land. The conditions stated herein notwithstanding, the site plan prepared by Raleigh E. Phelps, CLS, dated December 11, 1981 and revised January 29, 1982, shall be considered the plan of development for the two (2) two-family dwellings. Occupants of the two (2) two-family dwellings shall be restricted to church members and/or caretakers of the property. Vote: Unanimous 82Sl12 In Matoaca Magisterial District, FIRST PIONEER REALTY, INC. requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit an exception to the requirement that a mobile home permit must be renewed every five (5) years in a Residential (R-7) District on a .5 acre parcel fronting approximately 85 feet on the east line of Shire Oak Drive, and located approximately 90 feet south of its intersection with Perthwood Lane, and better known as 20105 Shire Oak Drive. Tax Map 180-3 (3) Oak Forest Estates, Section 3, Block I, Lot 28 (Sheet 52). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request. Mr. Jay Weinberg of First Pioneer Realty the principal of which is Mr. Richard Bogese, was present· He stated that Mr. Bogese bought what he thought was a modular home, he applied for and received all of the required electrical inspections and building inspections as would be done for any single family detached dwelling in the County. He stated that he was notified later that his occupancy permit had been revoked because he had a mobile home and not a modular home· He stated the difference between a modular home and a mobile home is that a modular home is transported on a flat bed truck, whereas a mobile home is transported on a chassis, absent that distinction, he would not be here today. He stated this home has poured footings and foundations and is virtually impossible to move from this location. He stated it is in compliance with the BOCA Code, therefore is a modular home. He stated this home meets all the provisions of the building code, plumbing code, electrical code and fire and health safety codes. He stated if a mistake was made, it was made in good faith. He stated the structure is compatible with the homes in the subdivision, complies with the County's General Plan 2000, there is a permanent foundation, an occupancy certificate has been issued and it meets the BOCA Code standards. He stated there was no opposition to this structure There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated that he is in the manufactured housing business but he has not sold a house such as this since 1975. He stated he would not abstain but would participate, in that he is not in that industry anymore. Mr. Daniel inquired if the Board had to act on this request if the Board determined this was not a mobile home. Mr. Micas stated this is a mobile home under the current definition and that ICMA is currently looking at this definition to see if modifications are necessary. Mr. Dodd stated that he felt technology of the industrv has progressed as this is the cheapes~ and best mode of transporting this type of housing and the Code may have to be changed. He stated this structure had more ~'~spections probably than some houses and he favored approval. Mr. Daniel inquired if it will be considered a mobile home in th~ future. Mr. Weinberg stated that once the Code is changed, this designation will be changed and will convert this to a modular home rather than a mobile home. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The plan submitted with the application, prepared by Charles C. Townes and Associates, shall be considered the plan of development. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic approval of the plan submitted with the application. The existing shutters shall be replaced with either slatted or solid paneled shutters which shall be of subdued earth tone colors. The chimney shall be enclosed with wood material, approved by the BOCA Code, which shall be of the same color as the facades of the structure. Aves: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs Girone. A~stention: Mr. Daniel because he did not feel this should have been considered by the Board. 83S005 In Bermuda Magisterial District, HARROWGATE TRUST requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit 1].6 multiple fami]~ units (condominiums) in a Residential (R-7) District on a 22.5 acre tract fronting approximately i10 feet on the west line of Harrowgate Road, and located approximately 350 feet north of its intersection with Hyde Park Drive. Tax Map 115-15 (1) Parts of Parcels 2 and 3 (Sheet 32), and also requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O) with a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit office use on a two (2) acre tract fronting approximately 400 feet on the west line of Harrowgate Road, and located d~.rectly across from its intersection with Hyde Park Drive. Ta× Map ]_]5--15 (1) Parts of Parcels 2 and 3 (Sheet 32). ~3-217 Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the Office Business (O) zoning and approval of a .Conditional Use Planned Development for the entire 34.5 acres for condominium development subject to certain conditions. Mr. Herbert Gill, representing Harrowgate Trust, was present. He stated that this property is Residential (R-7) and this plan lwould provide for better control of the property because there .would be controls through th~ conditions and through the IVirginia Condominium Act. H~_ stated the traffic and traffic Icon~rol would be reduced as condominiums produce 7.5 trips per ~unit rather than 10 for single family development. He stated that the present utilities system for sewer would be sufficient to handle this project. He stated that in a Supreme Court Case very similar to this said that the only difference between single family development and condominiums is that townhouses are constructed in clusters and not detached, however, they are single family residences. He stated the economics should be considered and if there are no good reasons why it should stay single family, then it should be granted for townhouse. He stated the condominiums will be ~old for $85,000-$125,000, that there would be 116 condominiums whereas there could be 115 single family dwellings constructed as indicated on another schematic wh~c]% indicates the density is not a concern. He stated that the office park was proposed so that condominiums would not be backing up to Harro%~gate Road. He stated the Planning Commission felt some other use o~ the property rather than office park should be made. He stated the purpose of the office park was so that the residents of the condominiums could utilize the buildings. He stated that the Planning Commission wanted 100 units, but they would rather have 109; the Planning Commission wanted 50% brick and they would prefer 40%; and that the Planning Commission wanted the loop road to be 50 ft and they would prefer 40 ft. as they felt it would look better. He presented a petition of support by 42 people in the area who were interested in seeing this development approved. He stated the Chester area needed a development of this type. He added that it is anticipated by the Planning staff that 82 children will be generated at this development and that is a high figure as it is felt that older, retirees will utilize the development, but ngted that Wells School is under capacity a% this time. He stated that the developer will put forth a sincere effort to make this a first class development. Mr. Tom Murphey, representing his mother, Evelyn Goyne Murphey, read a letter in support of this development indicating that older people would like 'to move into this type of housing after children have left home as there would be less upkeep; widows or widowers would like this type of housing; that there is a demand for this type of housing; that the current zoning would allow for less expensive housing, etc. Dr. Kenneth Copeland, representing approximately 200 property owners around the proposed project, stated that they are in opposition to this development because all homes in the area are single family detached dwellings and would like it to remain that way. He stated that this would set a precedent for the undeveloped 100± acres surrounding this property. He stated with the topography of the land, he did not feel 115 homes could be developed on this parcel. He stated if this development were approved as well as adjacent land, Chester would become an apartment. He stated the homes in the area range from $40,000-$600,000. Mr. Henry Taylor stated that he wanted the reasonable and best use of the property not just for profit and financial gains by the developers. He stated the Deople trust in the government and requested the Board deny this request for public safety and peace in the area. Ms. Donna Horner, adjacent property owner, stated she did not feel older, retired people would want to use a three story condominium; that this would create a traffic problem and that she was also concerned about the integrity of the pond. When asked, Mr. Balderson indicated there would be less traffic generated by a condominium development on this property than single family dwellings. Dr. Copeland stated he felt the topography the land would allow only 60 single family units which would generate 600 cars versus 730 of the condominium project. He stated he felt this development would also destroy the integrity of the lake. Mr. Balli, homeowner around the lake, stated that 200 people oppose this development and would have signed a petition had they been asked. He stated that he was concerned about the destructio~ of the lake and the control/upkeep of the lake. He stated he felt this would be a mistake and stated he believed in the democratic process and requested the Board to vote the wishes of the p~o?le. He stated he did not know why the area was zoned R-7 a~ each hous~ has more than one acre and he did not feel it would be developed as R-7. Mr. Ron Neeley stated he was opposed to this project. He stated he was not questioning the workmanship or integrity of Mr. Cole, but referred the Board to the Hyde Park development as it was once held as a source of pride in the community. He stated that although a law case was sited earlier, he felt if there were 45 more lawyers, there would be 45 more opinions. He stated the letter from Mrs. Murphev was nice, but she is not directly affected as are the property owners in this area. Mrs. Dottie Armstrong stated that she did not live in the immediate area but she was concerned about the lake and wanted it protected. She stated her concern for the retention of water and topography of the land. She state~ that she felt it was too small a commitment for the lake ~n the staff conditions and requested that VPI and other experts comment on the buffer for this lake and the effect of this development. She stated that the land moving machines will have to be brought in near the lake and will destroy the integrity, etc. Mrs. Girone stated that this is a custom tailored plan for the area and if the 50 ft. buffer is not enough, it could be increased. She stated that as the land is zoned at this time, there are no safeguards. She referred to Brandermill which has a monitoring system and controls for the lake which can be accomplished through a conditional use planned development here. Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning staff, Environmental Engineering and the Soil Scientist determined this was reasonable, but it will come back before the Planning Commission for schematic approval for special details. Mrs. Girone stated that she felt the residents might be disappointed if Residential (R-7) were constructed on this property as they will be small box houses as she ha~ experienced this in Mid!othian and it is not attractive nor what the public envisioned. · Armstrong stated that she felt the final details shoul~ been determined already so that the people would know what happening and what the alternatives are. She stated that though it is zoned R-7, nothing in the surrounding areas equal that zoning district. She also raised the question of the use of the lake by boats, canoes, etc. and the restriction of motorbikes, etc. She stated that the old zoning should be upgraded to the changing times. Mr. Bookman stated zoning cannot be taken away from people. Mr. Cole stated that he had proffered at the community meeting to form a committee with other property owners and their company to help address their concerns. Mr. Wayne Alexander stated he had developed the property on the other side of the lake and these property owners and were allowed to use the lake except for motors and it is in the covenants. Mr. Bookman stated tha~ all property owners would have to abide by the same restrictions. Mr. Alexander stated that at the Planning Commission it was ~.ndicated that 50 ft. was not adequate but was reasonable because tt,.? Planning Commission did not want to destroy the plan of development. He stated he felt trees would be removed and the lake would not be preserved. Mr. Gill stated that the tepography will allow for the development of 115 homes; that the three stories will include a garage on the first level; and that they do have an interest in the integrity of the lake as their residents will be there as we].].. Mr. Cole stated that they are concerned with the preservation of the lake. He stated the need for this type of housing is evident as residents are moving to the West End of Richmond for housing. He stated that it would be done in good taste with vegetation, trees, etc. and that the topography has been taken into consideration. He stated that experts were hired to plan the development and the layout. He stated that should this not be approved, he would not develop R-7 here but would put the property up for sale. He stated he had received letters from people who were looking for this type of housing and were interested in this development. He stated he felt their plan would be compatible with the area. He stated if the Board recommended 90 units, they would accept that and other conditions placed on it. Mr. Balderson stated that 19 letters in opposition, a petition signed by 176 in opposition and three letters in favor had been received. Mr. Dodd stated Bermuda District had the most R-7 development in the entire County. He stated that he was not making this decision lightly, as reputable people are involved, and felt they would plan a good development, but he felt the need is not here for this type of development as evidenced by the area residents. He stated he felt the need in the area did exist for something of this nature. He stated that if this was the entire impact it would not be bad, but there is vacant property surrounding it and it could set a precedent. There were approximately 30 people in opposition. After further consideration, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that this request be denied. Mr. Bookman stated he would support this if it were in the northern portion of the County. He stated if it did not set a precedent in the area which is mainly single family, he could support it as he felt it was a good project as far as the density that could come. Mrs. Girone stated that she hoped the residents would be happy with what could come, as its future is uncertain at this time. She stated that the northern portion of the County °o 3 - 2 2 0 had experienced and learned the hard way. Mr. Daniel stated the concerns Mr. Dodd mentioned were some that he had at the Planning Commission. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Bookman. Abstention: Mrs. Girone. 83S009 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial Districtf REGENCY HOME BUILDERS, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) with proffered conditions on a ten (10) acre parcel fronting approximately 360 feet on the west line of Providence Road, and located approximately 480 feet south of its intersection with Woodward Drive. Tax Map 28-7 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request subject to the proferred conditions. Mr. John Cock was present. Mr. Bookman inquired if 1200 square feet meant living space and if he would proffer that. Mr. Cock indicated that there would be 1200 square feet living space in both the one add %~o story structures. Mr. Micas stated that this could not be proffered at this time but the developer could indicate this was his intent. Mr. Cock stated that this was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and that was his intent. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following proffered conditions: The ground floor area of any single-family residence erected on any of the lots shall not be less than 1,200 square feet for a single-story residence; and not less than 912 square feet for any residence of more than one story. The visible foundation of all single-family residences on any lot shall be constructed of brick only on all exterior walls. All single-family residences must have some exterior appurtenance on either the front or side elevations, such as stoops, open porches, patios, decks or breezeways. Vote: Unanimous 83S013 In Matoaca Magisterial District, EDWARD J. BELL AND LUTHER L. CAUDLE requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a golf driving range in an Agricultural (A) District, in a Community Business (B-2) District, and in a General Business (B-3) District on a six (6) acre parcel, which lies approximately 250 feet off the south line of Hull Street Road, measured from a point approximately 1~400 feet west of its intersection with Courthouse Road. Tax Map 49-11 (1) Part of Parcel 16 and Tax Map 49-7 (t) Part of Parcel 18 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. There was no opposition present. Mr. Robert Brutt, representing the applicant, stated that there was a concern regarding the lane of pavement but Mr. McCracken with the Highway Dept. indicated a two year extension would be granted or until the front sites along Route 360 are developed. He stated further that this is an interim use for the land between now and when it might become a part of Rockwood Shoppin~ Center which could be 5 or 15 years. Mr. Bookman stated the time limit should be eliminated and 83-221 read that the deceleration lane would be constructed at such time as the property on the west side were developed. Mr. Hedrick stated the original condition required the deceleration lane now but the time extension was granted as an accommodation. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted to and for Edward J. Bell and Luther L. Caudle, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., dated 2/2/83 and revised 3/1/83, shall be considered the master plan. 0 Lighting shall be positioned so as not to create a traffic hazard along Route 360. A lighting location plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department in conjunction with final site plan submission. Improvements, shown on the master plan, shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet south of the north property line. Eventual extension and construction of an east/west driveway between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north (fronting along Route 360) shall be accomplished when those properties develop. Other than the driving range and associated accessories use, there shall be no other recreational use made or conducted on this parcel. An additional lane of pavement, curb and gutter, shall be provided as the Route 360 frontage is developed. Signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for shopping centers in a B-2 District. A fence, as shown on the plan submitted, shall be erected along the eastern property line. Landscaping shall be accomplished on both sides of the fence so as to break up the monotony of the fence line. A specific landscaping plan, depicting this requirement, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan submission. In conjunction with the grantinq of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic approval, subject to the conditions stated herein. Vote: Unanimous 83S015 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, NATIONAL CHILD CARE CENTERS, INC. requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 74S054) to permit exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and an amendment to Condition 2D of Case 74S054 to delete the requirement to extend Hasty Lane for a proposed day care center on a one (1) acre parcel fronting approximately 145 feet on the east line of Speeks Drive, and located directly across from its intersection with Hasty Lane on a parcel which fronts the north line of Route 360, and lies on the east and west sides of Speeks Drive. Tax Map 49-6 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 14). 83-222 Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Speeks was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present.. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions to permit exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a day care: Parking spaces shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) space for each twenty (20) children enrolled up to a maximum of six, plus one (1) for each employee. Further, the driveway and parking area shall be designed to provide an area for embarkation and disembarkation. This area shall be connected to the main building by sidewalks to preclude the need for children having to cross any driveway. The driveway entrances and exits shall be de- signed to maximize pedestrian safety, and provide a t~affic flow which precludes backing onto a right of way, and/or vehicles stacking up and overflowing onto a right of way. The site plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated November 23, 1982~ and revised 2/18/83, sha].l be considered the plan o~ development. The east/west private drive shall be extended for a length sufficient to serve the southern entrance into the site. This driveway shall be curbed and guttered, as deemed necessary by Environmental Engineering, and shall be paved. In conjunction with the granting of this request, schematic approval shall also be granted, subject to the enrollment being decreased or the number of parking spaces increased to accommodate the recommended condition. And further the Board approved the deletion of the requirement to extend Hasty Lane subject to the following conditions: The Amended Master Plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, da%ed August 10~ 1982 and revised 2/18/83, shall be considered the plan for the extension of a private drive eastward to the Speeks Oil Company. The private drive shall be ex'tended as property abutting it develops. The drive shall be curbed and guttered, as deemed necessary by Environmental Engineering, and shall be paved to a minimum width, of twenty-four (24) feet. Vote: Unanimous 83S017 (Amended) In Midlothian Magisterial District, JOHNSTON-WILLIS, LIMITED presented three (3) separate but related requests. The first request is for rezoning from Residential Townhouse-For-Sale (R-TH) to Office Business (O), plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit any or a combination of the following: Medical offices, occupational health facilities, outpatient surgery facilities, extended care facilities, skilled nursing facilities, or rehabilitation facilities on a 6.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 900 ~eet on the southeast line of Early Settlers Road, and located directly across from its intersection with Red Lion Place. Tax Map 17-2 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 8). The second request is to amend a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 80S059) to permit relocation of recreational facilities on a parcel which lies south of Robious Road and east and west of the intersection of Robious and Early Settlers Road, and better known as Heritage Village. Tax Map 17-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet ~). ?he third request is to amend 83-223 previously granted Conditional Use permit (Case 77A151) to permit the deletion of a twenty-five (25) foot buffer along the north property line of a parcel fronting approximately 300 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike at its intersection with Johnston-Willis Drive, and better known as Johnston-Willis Hospital. Tax Map 17-6 (1) Parcel 9 and 10 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of these requests subject to certain conditions. Mr. Wick Lyne was present. Mrs. Girone stated that she was concerned that the Planning Commission conditions and staff conditions were different and suggested that condition #3 stay as written in the staff report which allows for plantings, berming and/or fencing and that condition #9 be eliminated which addressed times of operation. Mr. Lyne agreed with the changes. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved these requests subject to the following conditions: Rezoning from Residential Townhouse-for-Sale (R-TH) to Of~ice Business (0) with a Conditional Use Planned ~3eve lopment: e Early Settlers Road shall be accepted into the State system prior to the issuance of any building permits. Additional pavement and curb and gutter, as deemed necessary by the VDH&T at the time of schematic plan review, shall be constructed along Early Settlers Road. This widening shall be constructed to the VDH&T standards and taken into the State system prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern and eastern boundaries (i.e., adjacent to R-TH and A Zonings) of the office tract. This buffer shall consist of existing vegetation which shall be supplemented with additional plantings, berming and/or fencing· A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. In addition to those uses specifically permitted in the Office Business (O) District, the following uses shall be permitted: occupational health facilities, outpatient surgery facilities, extended care facilities and skilled nursing facilities. Alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities and in--case psychiatric care facilities shall be prohibited. No structure shall exceed a height of two (2) stories. All lighting shall be low level., not to exceed a height of f~fteen (15) feet and positioned so as not to project light into adjacent residential properties. With the exception of directional signs, one freestanding sign, not to exceed t%~enty-five (25) square feet in area, shall be permitted identifying this development and the tenants therein. This sign may be illuminated, but may only be luminous if the face of the sign is constructed with an opaque material with only the letters, which may be transparent, emitting light. The sign shall employ subdued colors. Prior to erection of the sign, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. All other signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for Office Business (0) Districts. Within the parking areas, a minimum of five (5) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided for each parking space. The landscaped areas shall be located so that no parking space is more than 125 feet from a portion of the required landscaped areas. These landscaped areas need not be continuous, but shall have at least one (1) tree in each separate area. Required setbacks shall not be calculated as a part of the required open space. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. II. Deletion of the twenty-five (25) foot buffer along the northern boundary of the Johnston-Willis Hospital property: II!. Relocation of the Heritage Village recreational facilities s~bject to the following conditions: The pool shall be located to the rear of Lots 7 through 10, Block F, and more specifically, in the area shown as Alternative 92 site. Outdoor lighting skall be low level, not to exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet, and positioned so as not to project light into adjacent properties. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and to between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight Fr~.day and Saturday. 4. There shall be no outside public address system. One (1) sign not to exceed ten (10) square feet in area shall be permitted. The sign shall neither be luminous nor illuminated. In conjunction with the schematic plan submission, a pedestrian access plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern boundary of the pool site, adjacent to Avon Park. With the exception of underbrush, this buffer area shall be maintained in its natural state. Where existing vegetation is insufficient to provide screening of the pool from adjacent property to the east, additional planting shall be required. A specific landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. At the time of schematic plan review, the Commission may impose additional conditions necessary to protect adjacent property owners from intrusion of light and noise. Vote: Unanimous 83S019 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, REALTY INDUSTRIES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) of a 5.2 acre parcel, which lies approximately 150 feet off the east line of Clearlake Road, measured from a point approximately fifty (50) feet north of its intersection with Cheyney Circle. Tax Map 27-15 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of Residential (R-7) and approval of (R-9). Mr. Larry Horton, representing Realty Industries, stated the recommendation .of the Planning Commission was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Girone, the Board denied the request for Residential (R-7) and approved Residential (R-9). Vote: Unanimous 83S022 117 Midlothian Magisterial District, PAUL W. DUKE Irez¢~n~ng from Residential (R-40) to Residential '~lprofter~d conditions of a 28 acre parcel located terminus of Murray Hill Drive. Tax Map 8-14 (1) 1 (Sheet 2). requested (R-15) with at the western Part of Parcel Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request with the acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Roy Vaughan was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to acceptance of the proffers as follows: 1. 20,000 square feet minimum ].ct. 2. 2,000 square foot minimum house. Actual exploration site diggings will be located on the final record plat. No home will be constructed over any of the exploratory pits. Lots 1-21, 29 and 30 at the front building line shall have a minimum width of 120 feet. 5. Lots 22-27 will have a minimum road frontage of 105 feet. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Robertson excused himself from the meeting because his son did a survey for this property for the next case. He stated he did not have a material financial interest, but wanted to prevent any questions in the future. 83S023 In Matoaca Magisterial District, LAVERNE C. COLE, JAMES T. WADDILL, IV AND R.A. CARROUTH requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25) o~ a 77 acre parcel fronting approximately fifty (50) feet on the west line of Lewis Road, and located approximately 2,400 feet north of its intersection with Bradley Bridge Road. Tax Map 131-6 (1) Part of Parcel 15 (Sheet 40). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. George Griffith inquired about the entrance road off of Lewis Road, as the developer is surveying the other side of the'property and inquired where the road would go. Mr. Carrouth, representing the applicant, stated there were some sight distance problems in the 50 ft. access and they negotiated today for the southern lot for the road and planned to change the entrance to the southern lot. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request. Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Robertson. Mr. Robertson returned to the meeting. 83S025 In Dale Magisterial District, W.Si CARNES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O), plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit an emergency medical clinic, and an exception to the parking setback requirement on a .686 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the north line of Bonniebank Road, and located approximately 450 ~eet west of its intersection with Hopkins Road. Tax Map 52-8 (i) Part of Parcel 7 (Sheet 15)· Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Carnes was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the site plan prepared by A.G. Harocopos and. Associates, dated 1/28/83, shall be considered the master plan. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern property line. A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western property line from the front facade of the buildinq to the rear property line. Within these buffers, there shall be maintained a six (6) foot high solid board fence. Furthermore, these buffers shall be landscaped in accordance with the Minimum Guidelines Landscaped Buffers. A landscaping plan, depicting this requirement~ shall, be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval[ in conjunction with schematic plan review° The entrance and exit shall be clearly marked by a combination of signage and/or asphalt painting. The applicant shall submit a plan for the manner in which the entrances and exits are to be designated to the Planning Department for approval. In conjunction with the granting of this request, a five (5) foot exception to the required fifteen (15) foot parking setback requirement along Bonniebank Road shall be granted. The structure to be erected on the parcel shall have a residential appearance and shall not exceed a height of one (1) story. In conjunction with final site plan submission, a colored rendering, depicting this requirement, shall be submitted to the Plannin~ Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan ~eview. Only one (1) freestanding sign, with the exception of directional sign, shall be permitted. The freestanding sign shall not exceed the heig~ht of five (5) feet or an 83-~227 aggregate area of thirty (30) square feet. Freestanding signs may be illuminated by ground mounted, low level light only. Signs shall employ subdued colors and shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from existing right of way of Bonniebank Road. Prior to erection of any signs, colored renderings and a lighted plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Ail outdoor lighting shall be low level, not to exceed a height of fifteen (]5) feet, and shall be positioned so as not to project light into adjacent properties. A lighting plan, depicting this requirement, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along the property frontage so as to align with existing curb and gutter in front of the adjacent property to the east. This pavement shall be constructed to the VDH&T standards and taken into the State system prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. (No~e: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.) Vote: Unanimous 83S028 In Bermuda Magisterial District, RAYMOND W. CURNOW requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance relative to setbacks and paving in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 1.38 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 300 feet on Galena Road and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 81-12 (3) Quail Oaks, Section 2, Block 4, Lots 3, 4 and 26 (Sheet 23). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jeff Collins was present representing the applicsnt and stated that condition ~5 addressed engineering and they are having a problem with drainage on Route 1 and did want to clarify the wording so the Highway Department had some flexibility as to whether or not they should p~t a widening lane and curb and gutter, as it may make it worse. Mr. Dodd agreed that wording should be added. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the site plan, submitted with %he application, shall be considered the plan of development. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted for the sole purpose of manufacturing utility storage buildings and the sale of those structures. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the following exceptions to the bulk requirements shall be granted: 83-228 Se be A five (5) foot exception to the requirement that outside display and storage areas be located a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the ultimate right of way of Galena Road. C · A thirty (30) foot exception to the requirement that outside display and storage areas be located the minimum of fifty (50) feet from Jefferson-Davis Highway. An exception to the requirement that business signs be located a minimum of f±fteen (15) feet from Jefferson-Davis Highway. ee An exception to the requirement that parking and driveway areas be paved. An exception to the requirement that Galena Road be considered a sixty (60) foot right of way. The e×isting chainlink fence, which runs parallel to the western property liDe, shall be slatted so as to screen this use from adjacent property to the west. Prior to slatting of the fence, a sample of the slatting materials and colors shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Provided enqineering dictates, additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Route 1 to the VDH&T standard. This construction shall be completed and taken into the State system prio~ to the issuance of an occupancy permit. (VDH&T) In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Commission shall grant schematic approval of the plan submitted with the application. Vote~ Unanimous 83S031 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ~ARIE C. BOERNER requested a Conditional Use to permit a family day care home in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.7 acre parcel frontin~ approximately 350 feet on Happy Hill Road, also fronting approximately 300 feet on Baldwin Road and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads, and better known as 4209 Baldwin Road. Tax Map 132-11 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 41). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mrs. Boerner stated that she would prefer not to have a fence required in condition #6 as it would cause a financial hardship and the land is steep and there is a large area for the children to play· She stated that there is a deep bank and trees whereby the children do not go and that she has not had any problems for the past 23 years. Mr. Balderson stated the condition was included for the safety of the children. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Rober~son, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use sh~ll be granted to and for Marie C. Boerner, and shall not be transferable, nor run with the land. 83-229 e Se Vote: This Conditional Use shall be granted for the purpose of keeping no more than ten (10) children. There shall be no sign permitted identifying this use. Hours of operation shall be confined to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no addition to the existing structure to accommodate this use. Unanimous $3S033 In Matoaca Magisterial District, BARBARA B. OAKES requested a Conditional Use to permit a stock farm (2 Shetland ponies) in a Residential (R-25) District on a 2.158 acre parcel fronting approximately 430 feet on the south line of Thoreau Drive, and located approximately 550 feet southwest of its intersection with Trailwood Drive. Tax Map 110-3 (3) Rocky Run, Section 4, Block G, Lot 6 (Sheet 29). Mr. ]~alderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. R. E. Collier was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Barbara B. Oakes, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. No more than two (2) Shetland ponies shall be kept on the property. The pasture shall be established as depicted in the plan, submitted with the application, and the pasture shall be fenced so as to contain the animals. The pasture shall be cleaned and made free from manure daily. In addition, fresh straw and disinfectant shall be applied to eliminate proliferation of odor and propagation of insects. No commercial, activity, with respect to the keeping of the animals, shall be permitted. This Conditional Use shall be issued for a period not to exceed three (3) years from date of approval and may be renewed upon satisfactory reapplication, which must demonstrate that the keeping of these animals has not, and will not, adversely affect area property. The animals shall not be placed on the site until the applicant's single family house is constructed and occupied. Prior to erection of the proposed fence surrounding the pasture, a plan shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering which indicates that the fence will not result in a drainage problem. Vote: Unanimous 8 2, ~- 2 3 g- Mr. Dodd stated that a stronger projector or some improvements need to be made so that slides can be seen better. Mr. Hedrick stated that staff had checked into this and the cost was high, but he would check further. 83S037 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, CREEKWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. requested an amendment to a previously granted Special Exception (Case 75A212) to permit additional private recreational facilities (swimming pool, club house and associated playing fields and courts) in a Residential (R-7) District, on a 5.718 acre parcel fronting approximately 400 feet on the north line of Ketcham Drive and located approximately 180 feet east of its intersection with Round Hill Dr~ve. Tax Map 51-1 (1) Parcel 3 and Tax Map 51-2 (3) Creekwood, Section C, Block F, Lot 1 (Sheet 15). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. There was no opposition present. Mr. Larry Waters was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the follow~ng conditions: The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by the Wilson-Moreth Partnership, and dated 2/7/83, shall be considered 'the plan of development. A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be provided along all exterior property lines. With tke exception of the buffer along Ketcham Road in which a single sign and a single driveway shall be permitted~ and the buffer along the northern property line in which the tennis court may encroach fifteen (15) feet, all buffers shall remain in their natural state. A solid board fence, having a minimum height of eight (8) feet shall be erected around the south and east of the proposed pool, so as to further screen the pool from adjoining properties to the south and southeast. In the buffer along the western propertv line, a barrier fence shall be provided to prohibit trespassing onto adjoining lots. A security ~nd nuisance fence shall also be erected along the northern, southern and eastern edge of the multi-purpose athletic field. No cutting, clearing or grading shall be permitted in these buffer areas, wlth the exception of the areas necessary for erection of the fences. In cleared areas o~ 200 square feet or greater, ornamental and evergreen trees, having a minimum initial height of five (5) feet, shall be provided. A plan, depicting these requirements, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (Note: Planting requirements do not apply within the 150 foot Vepco easement.) Ail outdoor lighting shall not be mounted higher than ten (10) feet above finished grade and shall be positioned so as not to project into adjacent properties. 4. Ail parking and driveway' areas shall be paved. One (1) sign shall be permitted identifying this use. This sign shall not be luminous or illuminated and shall not exceed six (6) square fee~ in area. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m~, on Friday and Saturday. Ail proposed structures shall utilize similar architectural style and materials as e×isting structures located on site. The total numbe~ o£ parking spaces required shall be provided at the following ratios: 83,--23i Swimming pools , 1 for each 90 square feet of combined swimming and wading area. Tennis, volleyball and basketball courts - 4 for each court. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Waters stated that he had just called Midlothian and for a one minute conversation and it cost $1.95 at the pay phone. The Board asked Mr. Hedrick to check into this. 83S038 In Dale Magisterial District, R. W. ADAMS ENTERPRISES, INC. requested renewal of a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 77S192) to permit operation of a motor vehicle service and repair facility in a Light Industrial (M-l) District, on a 2.5 acute parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the northeast line of Whitepine Road and located approximately 40 feet northwest of it~ intersection with White Bark Terrace. Tax Map 79-6 (3) Chesterfield Airport/Industrial Park, Lots 2 and 10 (Sheet 22). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions· There was no opposition present. Mr. LeMann was present and inquired if he could not move trees where the taxiway is planned. Mr. Balderson stated that condition was not applicable in the utilities cr right-of-way easements and he would be allowed to remove trees, etc. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr· Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the followin¢ conditions: This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for R. W. Adams Enterprises, Inc. for a period not to exceed the lease of the property by the U.S. Army. The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the site plan, presented with the application and dated 12/15/78, shall be considered the plan of development. There shall be no additions or alterations to existing structures other than for routine maintenance. The existing eighty-two (82) foot buffer along Whitepine Road shall be maintained in its natural state with the exception that underbrush may be cleared. The eight (8) foot slatted chain]ink fence and gate within this buffer shall be maintained. e The ten (10) foot buffer strip adjacent to the sixty (60) foot taxiway, along the northeast property line, shall be maintained in its existing vegetated state with no trees, shrubs, underbrush or other natural vegetation being removed, cut or otherwise disturbed. 0 The chainlink fence, located along the northwestern property line (side), shall be maintained. The fence shall be slatted with the same materi~ls and colors used in the fence located along the front of the property. This slatting shall be accompl, ished within sixty (60) days of the date of spproval of this request. E3--232 0 Within the buffer strip areas, no facilities with the exception of fences associated with this operation shall be permitted. No outside storage of any junk materials, automotive parts, parts of automobiles, or other debris shall be permitted. Vote: Unanimous 83S039 In Midlothian Magisterial District, HARRIS, COWAN, OWEN, AND NANCE requested an amendment to Condition 1 of a previously granted rezoning (Case 81Si]4) to permit a freestanding sign in a buffer area in an Office Business (O) District, on a one (1) acre parcel fronting approximately 700 feet on the northwest line of Huguenot Road. and located approximately 450 feet southwest of its intersection with Robious Road, and better known as 1930 Huguenot Road. Tax Map 8-].6 (1) Parcel 7 (Sheet 2). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the sign which indicates the street address of the property and approval of the sign which identifies the use of the building on the property subject to a single condition. Mr. C~vcn was present. Mrs. Girone stated this building was an asset to the area. Mr. Cowen stated he had no problem with the "1930 sign", but if the Highway Department says move it they will. He stated however, as to the "Cowen, Owen and Nance sign", he had been to the Highway Dept. and there was some questions, but they now say they will not add hard surface to that side of the road and will not need any more right-of-way. He stated he is straight with the Highway Department, but he did not want to move it just for easements. He stated if both signs were approved in the 25 ft. buffer, 'the "Cowen, Owen and Nance sign" meets the 15 ft. setback and the "1930 sign" would have to be worked out with the Highway Department. Mr. Daniel stated he felt strongly about why signs are not put in buffers and if it is in the ordinance, he felt there was a reason. He inquired if the builder knew the signs were placed in a buffer which should not be done and staff indicated the developer had been notified. After furthe~ discussion, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this request be approved. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. GiroDe. Abstention: Mr. Daniel because he felt the developers realized they were in the buffer prior to erection of the sign. 12. UTILITIES ITEMS 12.A. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL STATUS REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the report on the water and sewer financial status. 12.B.1. SEABOARD COAST LINE AGREEMENT - MISTWODO FOREST On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded b~? Mr. Bookman, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, in regular meeting assembled 'that the Chairman of said Board of Supervisors be and he hereby is authorized to enter into an agreement with the Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. and to sign same on behalf of said County whereby said Railroad Company grants unto said County the right or license to install and maintain for the purpose .~3f conductiDg sewage, a line of 14 inch pipe across the riqht-of~-way and under track or tracks of said Railroad Company at o£ near Chester, Virginia, as particularly described in said agreement, w~h'ich agreement is dated ~arcn~ ~ ].4, 1983. A copy of which agreement is filed with this Board of Supervisors and which approval is subject to approval as to form by the County Attorney. Vote: Unanimous 12.B.2. MISTWOOD FOREST OFFSITE TRUNK SEWER ALONG ASHTON CREEK On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Estimated County Cost: Code: 574-]-00556-0000 S83-8CD/7(8) 3082, Mistwood Forest Offsite Trunk Sewer Along Ashton Creek Tributary Developer: Roper Development Company Contractor: F. Oo Powers Excavating Contractors, Inc. and Whitley Boring Company Total Construction Cost: $ 78,797.66 - Fo O. Powers Excavating 34,850.00 - Whitley Boring Co. $113,647.66 - Total $1.09,341.91 - Refunds through connection fees Vote: Unanimous 12.C.2. ENON CHURCH ROW) RECREATIONAL ACCESS PROJECT OFFER On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board rejected the counteroffer from Mr. George W. Jinkins, Jr. in the amount of $5,500 for which the County offer and appraised value is $1,095.00 for the Enon Church Road Recreational Access Project-0746, Tax Map 135-8. It was noted that negotiations will continue. Vote: Unanimous 12.D. 12.D.1. CONSENT ITEMS ADJUSTMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR WATER PROJECTS On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the following adjust;~ent of appropriations: W83-12C - Melville Road Extension - Appropriated $3,369.33 from 563 Surplus and transferred $1,000 from 380-1-61000-4393 for a total of $4,369.33 to 380-1-63121-4393. This project was approved by the Board on January 12, 1983 and no money was appropriated. W79-20B - Chesdin Road Pumping Station - Appropriated $4,000 from 367 Bond Surplus to 380-1-69207-4393. On April 13, the Board transferred $82,431.73 from the project back to the fund balance. It has been discovered that there was a mathematical error and thst only $78,431.73 should have been transferred back to the fund balance. This appropriation will correct this error. Vote: Unanimous 12.D.2. EXTENSION OF REFUND PROVISION FOR W78-34CD, GLENWOOD On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board granted an extension of time until April 30, 1984 for the refund provisions under Contract W78-34CD, Glenwood Subdivision, which was requested by Newbys Bridge Road Associates. Vote: Unanimous 83--234 12.D.3. SOUTHERN RAILWAY - WATER LINE CROSSING AGREEMENT On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement with the Southern Railway Company for installation of 16" water line across the Southern Railway Company right-of-way 750 feet east of Milepost 132 at Bon Air, Virginia, which is in conjunction with the Buford Road Bridge Relocation, subject to approval to form by the County Attorney. Vote: Unanimous 12.D.4. SEABOARD COAST LINE - WATER LINE CROSSING AGREEMENT On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, in regular meeting assembled that the Chairman of sai( Board be, and he hereby is, authorized to enter into an agreement with the Seaboard System Railroad, Inc., and to sign same on behalf of said County whereby an agreement dated 23rd January, 1985, is amended to acknowledge owner's consent, permission and approval to County to install and maintain, for the purpose of conducting water, a line of 16 inch ductile iron pipe, and other appurtenances, across owner's track right-of-way, at or near Bellwood, Virginia; as more particularly described in said supplemental agreement, which supplemental agreement is dated February 22, 1983, a copy of which supplemental agreement is filed with this Board of Supervisors and which authorization is subject to approval of ti County Attorney as to the agreement form. Vote: Unanimous 12.D.5. VEPCO AGREEMENT FOR NEW COURTHOUSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL On motion f Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman and County Administrator t( execute a standard agreement with Vepco providing electrical service to the new Courthouse Elementary School which easement is 20 foot wide on the south side of proposed Courthouse Road extending from the end of the Vepco line approximately 900 feet west. Vote: Unanimous 12.D.6. DEED OF DEDICATION FOR WEST END ASSEMBLY OF GOD On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to sign a deed of dedication, accepting on behalf of the County, from the congregation of the West End Assembly of God, a strip of land located along Chalkley Road, Tax Map 97-9. Vote: Unanimous 12.C.3. SURVEY FOR SEWER FOR WORSHAM ROAD, BRIGHTON GREEN On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board requested the Utilities staff to survey homeowners for a short line of sewer installation for 9 families which is estimated to cost $18,000 along Worsham Lane in Brighton Green Subdivision. Vote: Unanimous 12.E. REPORT OF DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water 83-235 and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, on July 28~ 1982, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution recognizing that Powhite Parkway from ChiDpenham Parkway to Route 288 and Route 288 from Powhite Parkway to the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike constitutes a critically needed first phase for new arterial road construction in Chesterfield County that should be built as a single project to provide for orderly development in Chesterfield County; and Whereas, the 1983 General Assembly adopted legislation providing for the extension of tolls on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike for the purpose of funding designated regional highway projects which include Route 28~ from Route 360 to the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike; and Whereas the State has ~ ~ ~ov~d~=G assistance and cooperation to the County's financial ~dw~sor in evaluating alternatives for toll funding of Powhite Parkway and Route 288 from Powhite t~rkway to Route 360. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby di£ects the County Administration an~ financial advisor and requests the County Legislative Delegation to proceed to fully evaluate feasibility of Powhite Parkway and Route 288 from Powhite Parkway to Route 360 as a State Article 10, Section 9C bond issue. And Further the Board authorized payment of Wood and Dawson's counsel's cost from the legal fees cate§ory in the County Attorney's budget. Vote: Unanimous 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION FORPF~-,R.,O~N~J.,, ~ AND DISPOSITION OF PUBLICLY HELD PROPERTY On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and the disposition of publicly held property pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (I) and (6), respectively, of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended. ' ' ' ' Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 6.B. CONVEYANCE TO ROBERT E. DAVENPORT--AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute a contingent sales contract for the sale of a one acre parcel at the Airport Industrial Park to Robert. E. Davenport contingent on the outcome of the public hearing. Vote: Unanimous 9. A. APPOINTMENT OF C~IP LAKt!.R~ " AI~'VISORY~ COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Dodd, s~.~onde, d';~'', ~ by Mrs. G~rone, the Boara appointed the fo]lowing people to the Camp Baker Advisory Committee: Mr. Bill Haskins, Representative of Chester Civitan Club Mr. Elwood Elliott, Representative of Chester Civitan Club Mr. Richard L. Gale, Citizen Representative Mr. Harold J. Beavers, Jr., Citizen Representative Vote: Unanimous 4. SCHOOL BUDGET Mr. Hedrick stated consideration of the School budget, the County budget and the Appropriation resolution was deferred from this morning's session until this time. Mr. Dodd reiterated his strcnq commitment to the School System and he supported Mr. Daniel's resolution this morning of the $96,641,000 School Budget and he would do anything within reason to get that money such as taking it out of the contingency, increasing vehicle license fees, etc. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the School Budget for i983-84 of $96,641,000 with the rest~ation of 'the $300,000. Mr. Bookman inquired where the funds would come from. Mr. Hedrick stated that experience tells him that if the Board approves the budget in this form, that the issue will be where the additional $300,000 will come from and cautioned the Board that the unappropriated balance of $4,500,000 is marginal and we have already gone into it for $1,900,000. He stated he could not iterate to the Board strongly enough how much the bond rating firms look at our history and tradition of how we use that fund balance. He stated because we are a high growth, fairly new jurisdiction, the bond ratin~ firms do not have a lot to judge on and they look at the amount of responsibility and discretion that the Board exercises and hsndles the unappropriated fund balance. He stated when we talk of our low tax rate, etc. they say that is only temporary and what they really look for is the demonstration of responsibility and discretion. Mr. Girone inquired where the $300,000 would come from as it would leave an unbalanced budget. Mr. Daniel stated that this only the School Budget and he would be offering a motion later to advertise the vehicle license fees to be increased $3 and also to raise landfill rates to $12.50 which would be a break-even point. The question being called: Ayes: Nays: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel. Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone. Mrs. Girone stated that to approve a budget without identifying the funding source is irresponsible and is no way to do business. Mr. Daniel stated methods are still at the Board's discretion 'to fund the additional $300,000 and one is increasing the vehicle license fee by $3.00 per vehicle. He stated that this could be considered as an option. Mrs. Girone inquired if this increase were predetermined. She stated the School Budget had been adopted and now the Board would be asking the public if that is what they want. Mr. Daniel stated that the County Administrator had presented alternatives which ~nc]uded $500,000 for a $5 increase on vehicle licenses. Mrs. Girone inquired if the fee were not approved, where wouid the money come from. Mr. Daniel 83-237 stated all alternatives should be considered. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the public hearing date of May 25, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. to consider an ordinance increasing vehicle license fees by $3.00. Mr. Bookman stated there was not a real commitment to the School Board as we were $900,000 apart, from what they requested and what the County Administrator thought we could give without a tax increase. He stated somewhere thereafter $700,000 was offered but we did not authorize setting this figure and in order to do so they had proprosed to raise $500,000 on vehicle license fees. Mr. Dodd stated he did not fee]. it proper for the School System to pick up $630,000 difference and not buy buses and open schools in the northern end of the County. Mrs. Girone stated that they were told they were getting $4,'700,000 and they were content with that and then another meeting was held where $700,000 more was discussed. Mr. Dodd stated that the first time we went to the bond issue it was anticipated that it would cost 12-14¢ and it was defeated. He stated the next time, we told the people we thought it would co~t 5¢ and we could do J.t with a $3.00 increase per automobile license and he felt this was a good job. He inquired where the money for the Powhite would come from and stated he felt the Board should be considering the $5.00 and not the $3.00 but this will suffice. The question being called: Ayes: Nays: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel. Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board instructed the County Administrator to take the final recommended budget and give the Board, with his best professional experience, a forecast of what the financial situation will be for the next three years, and in particular, identifying what we might expect in terms of surplus that might be generated over estimates of revenue and expenditures. And further that staff work with the School Board to determine the cost of opening Midlothian School, the cost of buses, the capital needs, etc. to get a feel for both the School Board and County Government side. Mr. Daniel stated he wanted to know what the impact will be in the future as there are a lot of things coming. He stated Dr'. Partin is speaking of a $2,000,000 capital need for additional buses for the next few years and he felt someone should be keeping the Board informed on a regular basis of the changes. Mrs. Girone stated that last m~nute changes such as just made cause the forecasts to be unpredictable. She inquired how the County Administrator could be requested to project expenditures when the Board changes things weekly. Mrs. Girone mentioned the appropriations for the Dale Park was exactly the funding needed. Mr. Daniel stated that those funds were in this year's budget and it was never considered to be going to the Schools and there was a healthy return on the funds and even more than expected. He referred to the Midlothian Fire Station as another appropriation. Mrs. Girone stated this saved the County from having to construct another fire station. 83-23~ Mrs. Girone stated the School System will spend all they are given and they have $12,000,000 more than last year and the General County only has $2,000,000. She stated that they said they were to have 500 students more and ~hey had 60; this year they say they will have 200 more and she felt they will not have any. Mr. Bookman addressed the 27 teachers in the budget to be hired last year for 58 students. The question being called: Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel. Nays: Mrs. Giro~e. Abstention: Mr. Bookman. 17. EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PERSONNEL MATTERS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourned at 6:25 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on May 11, 1983. Vote: Unanimous R i c~'r~ f/.~hedr ~ck County Administzator 4~a~a n1 Robert s)~ 83.-239