Loading...
05-25-1983 MinutesBOARD O~' SUPERVISORS MINUTES ~-ay 25, 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 Ms. Suzan Craik, Extension Agent Mr. Phil Hester, Dir., Parks and Rec. Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. Co. Administrator Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir., Env. Engineering Mr. Steven L. Micas, County Attorney Mr. Jeffrey B. Muzzy, Dir., Comm. Dev. Mr. Gary Patterson, Asst. Co. Attorney Mr. Lane B. Ramsey, Dir., Budget & Acct. Mr. Dave Welchons, Act. Dir. of Utilities Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 10:00 a.m. (EDST). Mr. Bookman gave the invocation. 1. REPORT ON MINUTES Mr. Hedrick stated that due to the absence of the Deputy Clerk to the Board, the minutes had not been completed for the May 1!, 1983 meeting, but would be completed for the next Board meeting. 2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Hedrick recognized Mr. John G. "Chip" Dicks, member of the House of Delegates, who was present in the audience. 3. PRESENTATION OF PAINTING OF I,ORD CHESTERFIELD Mrs. Lucille Moseley stated that she was present on behalf of the Chesterfield Historical Society and its President, Judge Ernest Gates, who could not be here to present the painting of Lord Chesterfield to the Board of Supervisors. She stated that some months ago, the President of the Society mentioned that there was not a picture of the person for whom Chesterfield County was named hanging in the Courthouse, as there is in several other jurisdictions. She stated that Chesterfield County was named for Philip Dormer Stanhope, the 4th Earl of Chesterfield, 234 years ago. She gave a brief history of Lord Chesterfield and introduced Mrs. Mary Ellen }{owe, the artist and also a member of the Historical Society. She stated that Mrs. Howe, in order to get a picture of Lord Chesterfield, had called the National Portrait Gallery in London and asked them to photograph the original portrait by Ellen Ramsey. Mrs. Howe read the plaque to the audience and unveiled the painting. 83-256 Mr. Robertson, on behalf of the Board, graciously accepted the portrait and stated it would be hung in the entrance foyer of the administration building. He recognized the Historical Society for their great efforts and work exerted to preserve the history and heritage of Chesterfield County. He stated this was a great moment and would be remembered for many years, the day that Lord Chesterfield came to Chesterfield. He complimented Mrs. Howe and thanked the Historical Society. 4. PETITION FOR WIDENING OF ROUTE 10 THROUGH CHESTER Dr. Hillier presented a petition signed by approximately 700 citizens in favor of widening Route 10 through Chester. He stated that during the rush hour, traffic moves very slowly down Route 10. The widening had been suggested in 1972 or 1973 but the citizens in Chester did not feel it was necessary at that time. He stated that the petition had been placed in seven businesses in Chester for customers to sign. Dr. Hillier stated he would like to see a four lane highway with underground utilities, sidewalks, traffic controls and, if possible, a tree lined median. Mr. Dodd accepted the petition and stated that this was the first "grass roots" effort from the community to get the road widened. Mr. Dodd presented the petition to Frank Gee of the Highway Department and told him that the citizens would wc~k with the Highway Department on this project. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5A. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Hedrick stated that this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Section 21-60 relating to freestanding business signs. Mr. Balderson stated that this was a housekeeping measure simply to clarify that only two freestanding signs for each principal building on a site are allowed. It is staff's opinion that the wording of the ordinance is somewhat ambiguous~ thus the wording is being changed to bring the literal interpretation in line with past and current enforcement practices. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Planning Commission also recommended that the Board consider a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance relative to signs. Mrs. Girone asked if this ordinance applied to freestanding, mobile signs. Mr. Balderson stated it did not. Mr. Glen White was present and asked why the change was being made. Mr. Balderson stated upon review of the ordinance by the County Attorney, it could be interpreted that two freestanding signs could be placed at the location of the principal building as well as at an accessory building. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN OP~INANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 21-60 RELATING TO FREESTANDING BUSINESS SIGNS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 21-60 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended and re-enacted as follows: Section 21-60, Same -- MH-~.i~ O, and B-1 Districts The following signs shall be permitted in the MH-1, 0 and B-1 Districts: 83-257 (b) Business signs may be inteqral with or attached to the main building, or may be attached to a freestanding support located on the premises. Two freestanding business signs per main bui].ding are permitted on the premises in all business districts. Where the side lot line adjoins an "R" District, the exterior signs shall be attached flat against the building and shall not face the adjacent lot located in an "R" District unless such sign is located at least fifty feet from the "R" District. Business signs shall not extend more than six feet into any required yard, whether affixed to the building or to any other structure, or shall not extend above the roof line or parapet wall if attached to the building. The aggregate sign area of all business signs on any one lot shall not exceed one square foot for each one foot of lot frontage (on corner lots, either the front lot line or the corner side lot line, but not both, may be used to compute sign area, regardless of the road classification). Business signs shall not exceed twenty-five feet in height or the height of the building, whichever is greater. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone stated that she would be in favor of a general review of the sign ordinance and that consideration should be given to mobile signs as she believes they are being abused and are unsightly. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board requested the Planning Commission perform a general review of the sign ordinance. Vote: Unanimous 5.Bo CONVEYANCE OF LAND AT AIRPORT/INDUSTRIAL PARK Mr. Hedrick stated that this date and time was scheduled for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of land at the Airport/Industrial Park. There was no opposition present. Mr. Hedrick recognized the buyer, Mr. Robert Davenport, and thanked him for his interest in the Industrial Park and wished him success. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board to execute a deed for the conveyance of a 1.0 acre parcel at the Airport/Industrial Park to Robert E. and Jane A. Davenport which )arcel is located off Virginia Pine Court. Tote: Unanimous 5.C. REQUEST OF JOHNSTON-WILLIS TO ACQUIRE COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY IIMr. Hedrick stated that this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider the request of Johnston-Willis Hospital to acquire .655 acres of County owned property. He stated that this land was originally a buffer and there were some problems with keeping it cleared. Mr. Hedrick also stated that this would place the property back on the tax roll and that the hospital wanted to acquire the land so they could keep up the appearance. Mrs. Girone stated that the County had acquired this Ilpiece of land for the price of $10 and she felt the County should Isell it to Johnston-Willis for the same price. She stated the hospital had recently donated $3,500 to the County to be used to improve a nearby park. There ~as no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board to execute a deed for the conveyance of .655 acres of County owned property located on the south line of Early Settlers Road to Johnston- Willis Hospital for the sum of $10.00. 83-258 Vote: Unanimous 5.D. MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Mr. Hedrick stated that this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider increasing the motor vehicle permit fee from $15.00 to $18.00 and increasing other motor vehicle permit fees an equivalent percentage. Mr. Hilton Brooks was present and spoke in opposition to the increase. He stated that the automobile driver is already taxed too much and this increase would be a burden on the senior citizen with a low income. He stated the reason the citizens had this increase is because the Board had been too generous to the schools. He stated the only benefit he received from his taxes was trash pickup once a month and that was not adequate. Mr. Lawrence Smith was present and thanked the Board of Supervisors for giving his children a quality education. He stated the cost of doing any business is going up every day and we have to realize that. He stated that Chesterfield County has a fine record and an excellent School Board which needs the Board's support and stated that money spent for education is well spent. Mr. John Smith was present and suggested since this was a user tax, why not charge the senior citizen a lower rate and charge those under 65 more to make up the difference. Mr. Glen White was present and stated that he comes in contact with hundreds of citizens every day. He stated that the people are against the license tax increase. He stated that the Board had to implement this tax as they had spent when they didn't have the money. He stated that parks are good for the people, but they need to be put in the right perspective. He stated that rather than taking the $250,000 out of contingency to finance the Dale Park, it should have been spent on teachers and employees' salaries. He stated that priorities should be set on people and not on things. Mrs. Girone stated that the Board had spent the money before they had it by giving it to the Schools and then on the County side come up with a deficit. She stated that they had decided not to increase the real estate levy and now were proposing to raise the vehicle license tax on cars. Mrs. Girone stated that the County would always have a problem with the teachers' salaries until the School Board addresses and revises their salary scale for teachers. She stated that until that is done, the teachers will continue to lobby for more money for the schools, which does not always go to salaries. She stated when there is 6 million dollars in new money to spend in this County and there is less than 1 million dollars on the County side and the balance goes to the schools, in addition to the state and federal money they receive and there is no increase in the number of students, she stated that they have sufficient money. She stated she resents the fact that the issue on the vehicle license tax on cars is coming down to how much you support public education. She stated that is not the issue. She stated the Board had overspent and was now faced with raising the vehicle license tax or living within their means and cutting back. Mr. Bookman stated the County should not increase a tax to raise $300,000 in a $170 million budget. He stated that this Board is 83-259 on record supporting public educa~ion. He stated that he had tried to get the County employees a 3% increase and asked the School Board to try to eliminate $300,000 from their budget as a temporary measure and come back to the Board later, if necessary. He stated he understood that t'here is a minimum of $800,000 left over in the School Board's current budget. He felt to raise the vehicle license tax was not necessary. Mr. Daniel stated that when the County Administrator originally prepared his budget, he had recommended a $5 increase in the vehicle license fee. He stated that this tax was a bargain compared to Richmond and Henrico County. He further stated that the County is becoming more urbanized and an urban environment would need more money for programs to satisfy urban needs. Mr. Bookman stated that the first budget by the County Administrator did not include a $5 vehicle tax increase. The School Budget fell $900,000 short of what the County had anticipated giving the school system and that figure was narrowed down to $200,000 when the Board decided to give the School System $700,000 and in order to do that the $5 increase was proposed. He stated that the original proposal did not include the increase. Mr. H~'~rick stated that when the budget process began, the School Board was given a target figure. They prepared their budget and stated they could not meet 'the target and were $900,000 short. He stated that the Board members were not involved in the budget process at the time when the license tax increase was originally proposed. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board called for a vote on the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 14.1-19 AND 14.1-21 IMPOSING AN ANNUAL LICENSE TAX ON PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORCYCLES, TRUCKS, TRAILERS, SEMITRAILERS AND CAMPERS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 14.1-19 and 14.1-21 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 14.1-19. Amount of tax--Automobiles, motorcycles. On each and every passenger motor vehicle there shall be an annual license tax of eighteen dollars; and on each and every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of six dollars. Sec. ].4.1-21. Same--Trucks, trailers, busses, etc. (a) On each and every truck not designed and used for the transportation of passengers, and not exempt from taxation as otherwise herein provided, the license tax shall be as follows: With gross weight of 6,500 pounds or less ...... $18.00 83-260 With gross weight of 6,501 pounds to 12,000 Pounds ................................ $22.00 With gross weight of 12~001 pounds to 20,000 pounds ................................ $26.50 With gross weight of 20~001 pounds to 30,000 pounds ................................ $30.00 With gross weight of 30,001 pounds or over ..... $36.00 (b) On each trailer and semitrailer with a gross weight of 1510 pounds or more, the license tax shall be eighteen dollars, and one and two wheel trailers with a gross weight of 1500 pounds or less of a cradle, flatbed or open type with a body length of not more than nine feet and a width not greater than the width of the motor vehicle to which it is attached to the owner's own motor vehicle and used only for carrying property belonging to the owner of such trailer, the license tax shall be six dollars. (c) On each trailer, semitrailer and camper designed for use as living quarters for human beinqs having a gross weight of 1501 pounds or more, the license tax shall be twelve dollars. On each trailer designed exclusively for the transportation of boats, regardless of weight, the license tax shall be eight dollars. No such trailer shall be operated, propelled or drawn over a highway of this county until such license tax is paid. (d) In the case of a combination of tractor-trailer, or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part of such con~ination shall be licensed as a separate vehicle and separate license indicia shall be issued therefor. (e) On each and every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is attached and which is permanently used solely for transportation of such machinery, there shall be a license tax of twelve dollars. (f) Each and every motor vehicle used exclusively for transporting passengers to and from school, Sunday School, or church, or other place of divine worship shall be exempt from paying a license tax. (2) 1984. That this ordinance shall be effective January 1, The question being called: Ayes: Nays: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone 6. BUDGET ITEMS 6.A. ADOPTION OF THE 1983-84 C(}UNTY BUDGET AND THE 1983-84 APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION Mr. Ramsey stated that the adoption of the budget and the appropriation resolution were two separate processes. He stated that they were also asking that the Board accelerate the monies from next year's budget to this year's budget to start an additional cell at the Northern Area Landfill. He stated $85,000 needed to be moved as the landfill was at a critical point and 83-261 construction needed to beqin. Mr. Ramsey stated that they were asking the Board to adjust certain fees, the landfill fees to be increased from $9 to $10 per ton, the Nursing Home rates be increased $6 per day and that the Pay-for-Performance plan be implemented January 1, 1984 and adoption of the budget in the amount of $171,457,300. Mrs. Girone stated if the landfill rates go up, trash pickup by private contractors will also be going up. She stated that she felt this is one service the County should provide to its constituents and that it should be subsidized. She stated she did not agree with subsidizing the Airport. Mr. Ramsey stated that the $11 charge was not even a break even amount for the County, that the break even amount would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $12.00 to $12.50. Mr. Hedrick stated that the landfill rates are fixed and no matter what figure was arrived at, that expenditure still had to be paid out of fees or the General Fund. He stated it is just a question of whether the money comes out of the General Fund or from fees. Mr. Daniel stated that the Airport subsidies have been reduced to $74,000; that $74,000 is being recycled into the General Fund as stated in an analysts' report through property tax, etc. He stated that the landfill fees do not support the General Fund, that they are a complete outflow. He stated that landfills are going to be used up and they cost money to operate. Mrs. Girone stated that when the Board began workinq on the budget, they agreed there would be no tax increases in Chesterfield County and now there are proposals to increase vehicle license taxes and fees. She stated if she had known that the Board would increase fees and taxes, she would have viewed the budget in an entirely different light and given the Police and Fire Departments top priority. Mr. Daniel stated that the Board had been aware of the need for increases in fees by reports from staff. He stated that information was constantly being reviewed in order to give the County the best budget possible. Mr. Dodd stated if he were to be saddled with the name of "big time spender" he would have to say that the Board had an issue come before it regarding landfill operations which would save the County $1,000,000 per year but the Board would not consider it; that the Board had a chance to look at another way of handling mentally disturbed children to save $200,000 and the Board choose not to do it; that two major schools are opening in the County, neither of which are in Bermuda District, which will cost $800,000; there is a $3,000,000 payment on a note on bonds that were passed and some Supervisors indicated it would cost $.05 on the tax rate but now we are considering adding $3.00 to the license tax fee; all of which have been forgotten. He stated that it was difficult to remain silent but saying it does not change anyone's mind. Mr. Bookman stated that he would vote against the budget as he felt it did not have the right priorities. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved: (1) The appropriation of funds to begin construction of a cell at the Northern Area Landfill and reduce the 1983-84 recommended budget by a like amount ($85,000) for Capital Improvements. (2) follows: Approved increases in fees, effective July 1, 1983, as (a) Landfill fee from $9 per ton to $12 per ton. (b) Nursing Home rate by $6 per day. (3) Adopt the new Pay for Performance Plan for implementation on January 1, 1984. (4) Adopt the 1983-84 recommended budget, with changes noted, of $171,457,300. The question being call.ed: Ayes: Nays: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Gi~cne 83-262 On a motion of the Board it is hereby resolved that the fol- lowing amounts be appropriated to the designated funds and accounts from the designated estimated revenue sources to operate the County 'departments, other agencies and non-depart- mental accounts for fiscal year 1983-84: General Fund Estimated Revenue: From Local Sources General Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Licenses, Permits Fines & Forfeitures Use of Money and Property Service Charges Recovered Costs Miscellaneous From Other Agencies State, Federal & Other Localities Reserve, School Debt Reserve, Construction Transfer from County CIP Fund 330 Anticipated Fund Bslance '7/1/83 Total Revenue Appropriations: Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Office Document Processing Economic Development General Services Data Processing Accounting and Budget Personnel County Attorney Internal Audit Purchasing Assessment of Property Collection and Disbursement of Taxes Circuit Court & Clerk's Office District Courts Commonwealth's Attorney Police Department Sheriff and Jail Fire Department Civil Defense Emergency Medical Service Safety Communications Center Animal Control Human Services Administ~ration Youth Services and Information County Social Service Programs Health Department Mental Health & Mental Retardation Juvenile Detention Home Probation Community Development Planning Department Building Inspection Environmental Engineering and Drainage Solid Waste Service Extension Service and Agricultural Fair Elections Maintenance of Buildings & Grounds Street Lights $ 54,647,300 14,993,600 1,702,200 400,000 1,284,600 602,900 757,100 151,500 16,625,300 229,100 426,100 135,800 6,205,800 $ 98,161,300 $ 97,100 314,500 31,800 311,300 341,400 1,626,800 759,700 230,600 220,600 112,400 264,300 1,218,200 856,200 283,900 50,700 287,500 7,013,500 2,111,500 5,615,300 7,300 78,000 40,300 432,300 233,800 85,800 28,100 3,012,700 653,700 2,369,500 587,300 17,300 113,500 694,700 629,900 772,600 1,086,300 97,500 185,700 1,428,000 116,200 83-263 Road Improvements Recreation and Parks Library Employee Welfare & Benefits Non-Departmental Capital Projects Debt Service Law Library Transfers Fund Balance Available for Appropriation 6/30/84 Total General Fund School Operating Fund Estimated Revenue: State Federal Local Transfer - General Fund Transfer - Revenue Sharing Transfer - School CIP 340 Literary Loan Reserve Total Revenue Appropriations: Administration Instruction Regular Day School Pupil Transportation Food Service Operation and Maintenance of School Plant Fixed Charges Summer School Adult Education Other Educational Programs Debt Service Capital Outlay Total School Operating Fund Revenue Sharing Fund Estimated Revenue: From the Federal Government Interest on Bank Deposits Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/83 Total Revenue Appropriations: Roads Transfers to Schools Total Revenue Sharing Fund County CIP Fund 330 Estimated Revenue: Bond Interest Total Revenue Appropriations: Debt Service - County Total County CIP Fund 330 School CIP Fund 340 Estimated Revenue: Bond Interest Total Revenue 45,000 1,568,400 1,708,000 342,100 413,900 315,000 lw768,700 8,500 53,023,800 4,550,100 $ 98,161,300 $ 34,740,550 2,545,550 4,602,200 51,765,800 1,562,900 305,000 119,000 $ 95,641,000 $ 1,177,200 48,997,500 3,511,900 4,555,000 10,498,400 13,984,200 303,100 175,000 1,224,600 10,227,800 986,300 $ 95,641,000 1,737,900 50,000 36~000 $ 1,823,900 $ 305,000 $ 305,000 $ 135,800 $ 135,800 $ 135,800 $ 135,800 261,000 1,562,900 ].,823,900 Appropriations: Transfer to school Operating Fund Total School CIP Fund 340 County Vehicle Maintenance Estimated Revenue: Sales Transfer from General Fund (Debt) Total Revenue Appropriations: County Garage Two-Way Radio Total County Vehicle Maintenance County.Airport Fund Estimated Revenue: Sales Use of Money and Property Transfer from Genera]. Fund Total Revenue Appropriations: Airport Total County Airport Fund County Nursing Home Fund Estimated Revenue: Patient Care Services Total Revenue Appropriations: Nursing Home Fund Balance 6/30/84 Total County Nursing Home Fund Water Revenue Fund Estimated Revenue: Sales Total Water Revenue Fund Appropriations: Transfers Total Water Revenue Fund Water Operating Fund Estimated Revenue: Transfer from Water Revenue Interest on Bank Deposits Reimbursement Total Revenue Appropriations: Water Operating Total Water Operating Fund Water Debt Service Fund Estimated Revenue: Interest on Bank Deposits & Investments Transfer from Water Revenue Total Revenue 83-265 $ 305,000 $ 305,000 $ 1,433,300 184,000 $ 1,617,300 $ 1,479,400 137,900 $ 1,617,300 $ $ $ $ 644,600 104,800 74,000 823,400 823,400 823,400 3,769,300 3,769,300 4,077,800 308,500) 3,769,300 4,911,000 4,911,000 4,911,000 4,911,000 3,630,900 61,400 15,000 $ 3,707,300 $ 3,707,300 $ 3,707,300 $ 71,000 741,603 $ 812,603 Appropriations: Debt Service Total Water Debt Service Fund $ 812,603 $ 812,603 Water Improvement, Replacement & Extension Fund Estimated Revenue: From Use of Money & Property Miscellaneous Revenues & Refunds Transfer from Water Revenue Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/83 Total Revenue 240,800 35,000 538,497 1,500,000 $ 2,314,297 Appropriations: General & Administrative Transfer Capital Projects Fund Balance 6/30/84 Total Water Improvement, Replacement & Extension Fund $ 621,000 900,000 $ 793,297 $ 2,314,297 Water Meter Installation Fund Estimated Revenue: From Use of Money & Property Charges for Current Services Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/83 Total Revenue Appropriations: Meter Installation Fund Balance 6/30/84 Total Water Meter & Construction Fund 255,000 1,066,000 1,500,000 $ 2,821,000 $ 746,900 2,074,100 $ 2,821,000 Water Central Stores Fund Estimated Revenue: Service Charges Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/83 Total Revenue Appropriations: Central Stores Anticipated Fund Balance 6/30/84 Total Water Central Stores Fund $ 410,300 25,000 $ 435,300 $ 434,900 400 $ 435,300 Water Bond Construction Fund Estimated Revenue: Interest on Investments Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/83 Total Revenue Appropriations: General & Administrative Transfer to CIP Fund 380 Fund Balance 6/30/84 Total Water Bond Construction Fund $ 10,000 1,000,000 $ 1,010,000 12,000 900,000 98,000 $ 1,010,000 Sewer Fund Estimated Revenue: Interest Earned Sewer Service Charges Sewer Connection Fees Other Revenue Anticipated Fund Balance '7/1/83 Total Revenue $ 75,000 6,000,000 2,330,000 102,300 3,650,000 12,157,300 83-266 Appropriations: Sewer Operating Sewer Debt Sewer Improvement Sewer Bond Construction Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Balance 6/30/84 Total Sewer Fund Utility Capi__tal Projects Estimated Revenue: Transfers: Water Bond Construction Water Improvement Sewer Fund Total Revenue Appropriations: Capital Improvements Total Utility Capital Projects 3,297,100 2,286,623 1,022,500 11~700 3,950,000 1,589,377 $ 12,157,300 $ 900,000 900,000 3,950~000 $ 5,750,000 $ 5,750,000 $ 5,750,000 Be it further resolved: That the County Administrator may authorize the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure to another within the same department or agency. That the County Administrator may transfer up to $5,000 from the unencumbered balance of the appropriation of one department or agency to another department or agency, including the contingency account encompassed, in the Non-Departmental appro- priation. No more than one transfer may be made for the same item causing the need for a transfer. That the County Administrator may increase appropriations for the following items of non-budgeted revenue that may occur during the fiscal year. Ce Insurance recoveries received for damage to County vehicles or other property for which County funds have been expended to make repairs. Refunds or reimbursements made to the County for which the County has expended funds directly related to that refund or reimbursement. Any revenue source not to exceed $5,000. That all outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June 30, 1983 are reappropriated to the 1983-84 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encum- bered in the previous year. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of ~he fiscal year but shall remain appropri- ations until the completion of the pro~ect or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate resolution, changes or elimi- nates the appropriation. Unencumbered balances remaining after completion of a capital project will revert to the fund balance of the fund which provided financing for the capital project. This section applies to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 1983 and appropriations in the 1983-84 budget. That the approval by the Board of Supervisors of any grant of funds to the County constitutes the appropriation of both the revenue to be received from the grant and the County's expendi- ture required by the terms of the grant, if any. And further that the appropriation of grant funds will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, but shall remain appropriated until comple- 83-.267 tion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate resolution, changes or eliminates the appropri- ation. Upon completion of a grant project, staff is authorized to close out the grant and transfer back to the funding source any remaining balances. This applies to appropriations for grants outstanding at June 30, ~1983 and appropriations in the 1983-84 budget. At the close of the fiscal year, all unencumbered appropri- ations for budget items other than Capital Projects, grants, and donations shall revert to the Fund Balance Available for Appropriation of the fund in which they are included. That the County Administrator may appropriate both revenue and expenditure for donations made by citizens or citizen groups in support of County programs and that any remaining unencumbered balance at the end of the fiscal year will be reappropriated into the subsequent fiscal year. That the Treasurer is authorized to make transfers to the various funds for which there are transfers budgeted, not to exceed the amounts budgeted. She shall transfer funds only as needed or in accordance with any existing bond resolutions that specify the manner in which transfers are to be made. That the Treasurer may advance monies to and from the various funds of the County to allow ma×imum cash flow efficiency. The advances must not violate county bond covenants or other legal restrictions that would prohibit an advance. That the County Administrator is authorized to make payments for the following Trust & Agency Funds for the specified reasons for which the funds were established. In no case shall the expenditure exceed the available balance in the fund: Nursing Home Patients' Fund M. W. Burnett Employee Award Fund Drainage District Fund Special Welfare Fund T. F. Jeffress Memorial Fund Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone stated that she voted for the Appropriations resolution but did not agree with it. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board recessed for five minutes. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 10. CONSIDER AGREEMENT WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL Mr. Hedrick stated that Mr. Herb Sink was in the audience and he also had to be in Henrico County today on this same issue and asked that the Board move his item up. There were no objections Mr. Sink stated that the Job Training Partnership Act will go into effect October 1, 1983 and that the Governor has redesignated service delivery areas within the State of Virginia. Henrico, Hanover and Chesterfield County have had the Counties ol 83-268 Powhatan, Goochland, New ~ent and Char]es City added, to their consortium. He stated that the counties are one service delivery area and the City of Richmond is a separate service delivery area by virtue of having a single jurisdiction population of over 200,000. The proposal before the Board is supported by the business community and has been discussed with the City and the three policy board members under the CETA program. This specific agreement provides that: (1) The Chief Elected Officials of each County will designate two of their number representing urban and rural counties to meet with the chief elected official of the City of Richmond to determine the size and representation on the Private Industry Council. (2) Chief Elected Officials will review nominations for membership on the Private Industry Council from Private Industry and recommend appointments to be negotiated with the City of Richmond. (3) Any party to this agreement may terminate their involvement by giving a ninety-day notice to the other parties. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to sign the agreement with-the Private Industry Council on behalf of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous 6.Bo RESOLUTION APPROVING 1983-84 LITTER CONTROL GRANT Mrs. Craik was present and stated that $12,1].9 had been given to the County by the State Department of Litter Control. She stated that the Litter Committee was under the leadership of the Extension Service. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of Chesterfield County; and, Whereas, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, for the allocation of public funds in the form of Grants for the purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and, Whereas, having reviewed and considered the Regulations and the Application covering administration and use of said funds, Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors hereby endorses and supports such a program for Chesterfield County and hereby authorizes the County Administrator to plan, budget, apply for and accept a Grant, which if approved, will be used to fund said Program; and Therefore, Be It Further Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Development., Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve said Application and Program to be operated in accord with the regulations governing use and expenditure of said funds. Vote: Unanimous 83-269 7. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.A. CONVEYANCE OF 2 ACRE PARCEL IN CITY OF RICHMOND On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board set the date of June 8, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider conveyance of a .2 acre parcel owned by the County of Chesterfield in the City of Richmond, located off Bryce Street. Vote: Unanimous 7.B. AMENDMENTS TO COUNTY CODE RELATING 'PO PURCHASING On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board set the date of June 22, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider amending Article VIII, Chapter 2 of the Code o__f Chesterfield, 1978, as amendedv relating to purchasing. Vote: Unanimous 8. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING JUNE AS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the Governor of the Conm~onwealth of Virginia has designated the month of June as Parks and Recreation Month; and Whereas, Suitable and positive leisure experience are vital to good physical and mental health and enhance the quality of life for all citizens; and Whereas, Ail citizens can enjoy self-renewal in the out-of-doors through the green spaces and the facilities in our county parks; and Whereas, Our citizens can fulfill their potential in the use of their leisure time through the varied individual and group opportunities provided by the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department; and Whereas, Chesterfield County recognizes that the efforts of its professional park arid recreation staff have enhanced the services available to Chesterfield County residents; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby declares the month of June as "Parks and Recreation Month" in Chesterfield County and encourages all our county citizens to visit our parks and participate in our recreational activities; Be It Further Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation and gratitude to the professional park and recreation staff for its service and dedication to the enhancement of leisure activities and facilities in Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous 9. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH APP©MATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. Bookman, secondad by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the CouDty Administrator to enter into an agreement and lease with t~]e Appomattox River Water Authority for a water access facility on proper-ny owned by the Appomattox River Water Authority. Vote: Unanimous 83--270 11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.A. ADOPTION OF ~HESTERFIELD PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN Mr. Hedrick stated that the Board had earlier held a public hearing on the Public Facilities Plan, but that a decision on the Plan had been deferred until today's meeting after holding a work session on the Plan. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4 of the Code of Virginia provides for the preparation and review of a comprehensive plan for ali Virginia localities, and allows preparation of this plan in parts; and Whereas, the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors requested that the Chesterfield Planning Commission review the Chesterfield Plan for Public Facilities, an element of the County's comprehensive plan; and Whereas, the Commission has considered the Plan, has provided the opportunity to hear public comment on the plan and has recommended that the plan be adopted with their recommended amendments; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the intent, general content and concepts of the Chesterfield Plan for Public Facilities. Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors adopt the Chesterfield Public Facilities Plan as an element of the County'~ Comprehensive Plan. And directs that the Plan be used to guide the general character, location, extent and timing of future public facilities 8nd to guide the Administrative recon~endations to the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors. Vote: Unanimous ll.B. DRAINAGE REQUEST AT ROBERTSON AND SHOP STREETS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board authorized the VDH&T to install 32' of 15" pipe and bill the County in the amount not to exceed $1,200 which funds are to be appropriated from the Bermuda District 3¢ Road Fund. Vote: Unanimous 12. CONSENT ITEMS 12.A. RECOMMENDATION TO JUDGES FOR APPOINTMENT OF POLICE OFFICER On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board respectfully requests the Circuit Court Judges to appoint Mr. Rona]d F. Rischmiller as a Police Officer for Chesterfield County effective June 20, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 12.B. REQUEST FOR FiRE WORKS DISPLAY On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request for the Fire Works Display by George F. Hoover at 2 Bellona Arsenal on July 4, 1983, subject to the regulations of the Fire Department. Vote: Unanimous 12.C. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER FOR COUNTY GARAGE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved 83-271 and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for Change Order ~10 for the Chesterfield County Vehicle Maintenance Facility in the amount of $34,500 for additional work items requested by the County. This completes the job and no additional funding is required. The County Administrator is further authorized to execute all necessary documents to settle outstanding litigation involving the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Vote: Unanimous 12.D. AGREEMENT FOR FIRE WARNING SIGNALS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the Agreement with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for the Installation and Maintenance of Fire Warning Signals at Midlothian Fire Station #5, subject to approval as to form by the County Attorney. Vote: Unanimous 13. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 13.A. REPORT OF WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL STATUS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the report on the water and sewer financial status. 13.B. WATER ITEMS 13.B.1 APPROVAL OF WATER CONTRACT FOR LADINO LANE On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and. authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents ~or the following water contract: W83-55CD/6(8)3552, Ladino Lane Depositor: William H. and Louise B. Avery Contractor: County Forces Estimated Cost: $2,000.00 Actual Cost to Depositor: 700.00 Estimated County Cost: $1,300.00 and further the following appropriations be made: Appropriate $1,300.00 from 563 surplus to 380-1-63552-4393. Appropriate $700.00 from 566-1-00640-0000 (advances by developer) to 380-1-63552-4393. Vote: Unanimous 13.B.2. ADJUSTMENT OF APPROPRIATION FOR WATER PROJECT On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the following adjustment of appropriation: W83-15CD, Rolling Hill, Offsite - Appropriate $331.19 from 563 surplus to 380-1-63152-7212. More 12 inch water line was installed outside the developer's property than was originally estimated. This appropriation will finalize the project. Vote: Unanimous 13.B.3. RESOLUTION ON CORPS OF ENGINEERS' STUDY On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution regarding the Corps of Engineers' study on a water supply for Northside Hampton Roads: Whereas, the Department of the Army, Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, has reviewed alternative plans for water supply needs of the Northside Hampton Roads area; and ~3-272 Whereas, such studies indicate va~'ious alternatives including withdrawal of water from the Appomattox River and the James River; and Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is greatly concerned about a safe and adequate supply of water for the present and future needs of the area. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors urges that any study of water supply address the needs of all localities that use or may use the water sources being considered; and Be It Further Resolved, that the Corps of Engineers is requested to advise Chesterfield County at the inception of any water studies that affect Chesterfield County's use of such waters; and Be It Further Resolved, that the County Administrator or his designee is directed to present this resolution at the public meeting to be held on May 26, 1983, at York High School. Vote: Unanimous 13.C. SEWER ITEMS 13.C.1. EXTENSION OF REFUND PROVISION FOR S73-44C1 On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board granted an extension of time until April 19, 1984 for the refund provisions under Contract S73-44C-1, Rocky Run Branch Trunk Sewer, which was requested by Realty Industries, Inc. Vote: Unanimous 13.C.2. SURVEY FOR SEWER FOR FRIEND AVFNUE A~D REYMET ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board requested the Utilities staff to survey homeowners for sewer service to 22 families on Friend Avenue and Reymet Road which is estimated to cost $190,000. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd excused himself from the meeting, but stated there was no conflict of interest. 13.D. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM CHESTERFIELD INVESTMENT CORP. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to sign a deed of dedication, accepting on behalf of the County, from Chesterfield Investment Corporation, a Virginia Corporation, a strip of land along Lucks Lane. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone Absent: Mr. Dodd Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting. 13.E. REPORT OF DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 14. LUNCH Mr. Hedrick stated that the Board would recess for lunch at the Airport to discuss new laws enacted by the 1983 General Assembly g3~-273 affecting the County and the Board of Supervisors, legislative changes that revise the Virginia Conflict of Interests Act and procedures for changing the salary for the new Board of Supervisors. Reconvening: On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as permitted by §2.1-344(a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 15. MOBILE HOME REQUESTS Mr. Dodd stated that he is in %he mobile home business but is not directly in sales and he did not know who might be talking to his firm regarding the purchase of a mobile home. He requested that if any applicant has talked to his firm, to please let him know so that he could abstain from votinq. 83SR069 In Dale Magisterial District, Ms. Helen F. Holloway requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which she owns. Tax Map Sec. 65-4, Parcel 9, and better known as 6025 Cogbill Road (Sheet 22). Ms. Holloway was present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel noted that this was a renewal but that as the area develops, the applicant should not assume future renewals will be approved as conditions may change. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 app].icable 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. Ail 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. 5. 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 above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous 83-274 83SR070 In Matoaca Magisterial District, Aubrey L. Hendricks requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax Map Sec. 49-11 (1) Parcel 6, and better known as 10609 Hull Street Road (Sheet 14). Mr. Hendricks was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 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. e 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 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. 5. 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 mobil~ home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous 83SR071 In Matoaca Magisterial District, Gloria M. Crocker requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on propert~ which she owns. Tax Map Sec. 180-15 (2) Radcliffe, Block C, Lot 14 and better known as 6716 Madison Street (Sheet 52). Ms. Crocker was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve~ 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 o 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 permitte~ to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, an~ 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. 83-275 No additional permanent-type livinq space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a per'man~nt 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 above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. : Unanimous 83SR072 In Matoaca Magisterial District, Charlotte H. Stell requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property she owns. Tax Map Sec. 181-1.4 (5) Perdue Property, Block · Lot 5, and better known as 21448 Perdue Avenue (Sheet 53/54). Stell was present. There was no opposition present. On of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. e NO lot nor parcel may be rented nor leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district 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 ho~s 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 above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Unanimous 3SR073 Matoaca Magisterial District, R. J. Ellis requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which is 83-2?6 owned by Joyce Rowland, daughter of the applicant. Tax Map Sec. 186-3 (2) Augustus Wright, Lot 23, and better known as 21613 Hillview Street (Sheet 52). The applicant and his daughter were present. Mr. Charlie Jones was present and spoke in opposition to this request. He stated that the mobile home was unsightly and had appliances, etc. stored on the porch. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this request for 30 days in order for Mr. Robertson to visit the site. Vote: Unanimous 16. REQUESTS FOR REZONING 82S022 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, PAVELL & COMPANY, LTD. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 71.79 acre parcel fronting approximately 2100 feet on the south line of West Road and located directly across from its intersection with Egan Road. Tax Map 40-14 (]) Parcels 15, 16, 17, 18 and Part of Parcels 43 and 14 (Sheet 15). Mr. Balderson stated that the applicant had requested a 90 day defe~Lal. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this case until August 24, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 82S108 In Matoaca Magisterial District, STAMIE E. LYTTLE requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40) of a 105 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,700 feet on the west line of Coalboro Road, and located approximately 1,600 feet north of its intersection with River Road. Tax Map 124 (1) Parcel 64 (Sheet 37). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. John Henson was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 83S020 (Amended) In Matoaca Magisterial District, BREVARD, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) with proffered conditions of a 92.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,900 feet on the south line of Lakeview Road, also fronting approximately 2,400 feet on the west line of Branders Bridge Road and located southwest of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 175-9 (]) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 49). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to acceptance of the seven conditions proffered by the applicant and the buffer condition recommended by staff. The applicant was present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request and accepted the following seven conditions proffered by the applicant: The color scheme of Williamsburg colors, combined with natural and earth toned colors, shall be used. Color shall be approved at the time of issuance of a building permit. 83-277 e Ail houses shall have brick foundation around the entire foundation. The overall average lot size shall be an average minimum size of 12,000 square feet for the entire developed tract. Gross floor area of the following types of houses shall be used. This is excluding carports, garages, porches and decks: - Rancher - 1,008 square feet Two-story or one and one-half story - 864 square feet (on first floor) The ground floor level for a tri-level or contemporary shall be a minimum of 1,008 square feet. e A forty (40) foot buffer shall be maintained along Lakeview and Branders Bridge Roads. This condition changes the original condition of a thirty (30) foot buffer. e The minimum front width allowed in an R-9 District is seventy-five (75) feet. This shall be changed to a minimum of eighty (80) feet. And the following condition recommended by staff: Within the forty (40) foot buffer along Lakeview and Branders Bridge Roads, there shall be no individual vehicular access, structures, buildings or othe~· facilities located within these buffer areas. Public roads shall be permitted to transverse these buffers. At time of tentative subdivision review, the Planning Commission shall address the specific treatment and requirements relative to landscaping within these buffer areas. Vote: Unanimous 83S026 In Midlothian Magisterial District, R.H. STAPLES, JR. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) of 1.7 acres and from Community Business (B-2) of 2.91 acres to General Business (B-3) with a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance encompassing the entire 9.81 acre parcel fronting approximately 375 feet on the west line of Courthouse Road, and located approximately 725 feet south of its intersection with Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-]2 (1) Part of Parcel 25; Tax Map ]6-12 (2) Sunny Dell Acres, Part of Lots 25, 26, 27 and 43; and Tax Map 16-16 (2) Sunny Dell Acres, Part of Lot 23 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had reco~nended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He stated that one letter of opposition was received from the Moody Estate, an adjacent parcel that is held in a public trust by the State of Virginia as a perpetual open space/recreational area. Mr. James Schafer, a resident of Stonehenge, was present and stated he was not in opposition to this specific request, but generally objected to the development of Courthouse Road in this area. He stated that there is already a traffic problem on Courthouse Road when trying to exit from Stonehenge at certain times of the day. He stated that the development of Grove Road was not consistent with the development of the offices located on Courthouse Road and Stonehenge subdivision. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 83-~78~. 10. The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the master plan, prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated 4/4/83, shall be considered the plan of development. A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern boundary of Parcel 23, Tax Map 16-16 and Parcel 43, Tax Map 16-12 and along the southern boundary of Parcel 25, Tax Map 16-12 where adjacent to Agricultural (A) zoning. With the exception of the east/west collector road which may encroach into these buffers, the buffers shall be maintained in their natural state with no clearinq or grading permitted. This condition may be modified by the Planning Commission through schematic plan review. Prior to obtaining a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Courthouse Road, or right of way, as indicated on the latest VDH&T plans for Courthouse Road widening, whichever is greater, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. An additional lane of pavement, to include curb and gutter shall be constructed along Courthouse Road. This lane shall be constructed to VDH&T standards and taken into the State system prior 'to the issuance of any occupancy permits° In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, an east/west collector road plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. This plan shall show the extension of an east/west road from Courthouse Road to Grove Road. The east/west co]lector road shall have a minimum right of way of fifty (50) feet with an adjacent ten (10) foot utility easement. Location of this easement shall be approved by the Utilities Department in conjunction with site plan approval. This road shall be curbed and guttered and have a minimum pavement width of forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. This road shall be constructed and taken into the State system. Uses located along Courthouse Road frontage shall be confined to general and/or medical offices. However, if the east/west collector road is extended and constructed to Grove Road, the Courthouse Road frontage may be developed for either a bank; restaurant, not including drive-in establishments; or savings and loan associations. In conjunction with schematic plan review, renderings of the structures which front Courthouse Road shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. There shall be no individual parcel access to Courthouse Road. Access to Courthouse Road shall be confined to the proposed east/west collector road. There shall be no access to the east/west collector road for a distance of 150 feet, west of the eastern property line (i.e., the property line after dedication of right of way specified in Condition #4). Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Courthouse Road, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. This planting shall be for aesthetic purposes and not for screening of the use. Specific landscaping plans, depicting this requirement, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. One freestanding sign identifying this development shall be permitted along Courthouse Road. This sign shall not exceed 83-279 an aggregate area of fifty (50) square feet and a height of fifteen (15) feet from finished grade. This sign may be illuminated, but may only be luminous if the sign field is opaque with translucent letters. Uses fronting Courthouse Road shall not be permitted freestanding signs, but shall have signs attached to the buildings. The aggregate area of the signs permitted for those uses fronting Courthouse Road shall be as permitted in the Office Business (O) District. Lighting for building signs, along Courthouse Road, shall be as required for the freestanding sign. Signs for development within the interior of the project shall be as regulated in the General Business (B-3) District, with the exception that freestanding signs shall not exceed a height of twenty-five (25) feet. 11. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the following exceptions to the bulk requirement shall be granted: Se An exception to the requirement that parking spaces be ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet. All parking spaces shall be a minim~m of eighteen (18) feet by nine (9) feet, and all driveways shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet in width. An exception to the limitation that warehouses not exceed 25,000 square feet on any one parcel. The total warehouse area for this development shall not exceed 100,000 square feet. 12. Excepting Condition #7, the business uses of this property shall be limited to the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Catering Establishment Frozen Food Locker and Sales Locksmith Offices Office Supply Store Paint and Wallpaper Sales Carpenter and Cabinet Shops Contractor's Offices and Display Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC, Insulation, Drywall, Roofing Shops-Sales and Services Laboratories Printing Shops Building Material Sales Contractor's Shop Machinery Sales, Service, Rental and Repair Freight Forwarding, Packing and Crating Services Wholesale Trade Warehouses Wholesaling Houses and Distributors 13. There shall be no temporary or mobile signs permitted. Vote: Unanimous 83S035 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JULIA A. WARD requested amendment of a previously granted zoning (Case 80S091) relative to buffer requirements, and a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to the bulk requirements relative to setbacks and access on a parcel which fronts approximately 150 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike and located approximately 870 feet west of its intersection with Tuxford Road. Tax Map 17-16 (I) Parcel 4 and Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 8). 83-280 Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jerry Campbell was present to represent Julia Ward. Mr. Campbell asked that Condition 3B be approved rather than 3A. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended 3B be approved. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated March 31, 1983, shall be considered the plan of development. Within the twenty (20) foot setback along Route 60, the area shall be landscaped and bermed in the manner shown on the elevations prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated March 31, 1983. A turn lane, twenty-six (26) feet from centerline of 'the westbound lane of Route 60, shall be constructed from the eastern line of the fifty (50) foot wide access strip west, for a distance of 100 feet with fifty (50) foot taper sections on each end of the turn lane. In addition, curb and gutter shall be constructed along Route 60, as deemed necessary by the VDH&T. This construction shall be to VDH&T standards and taken into the State system prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. In conjunction with the granting of this request, schematic plan approval shall be granted. Vote: Unanimous 83S042 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a sixteen (16) acre parcel fronting approximately 850 feet on the east line of Old Hundred Road, and located approximately 2,550 feet south of its intersection with Brandermill Parkway. Tax Map 48-13 (1) Part of Parcel 10 (Sheet 13). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Jay Rowe was present. Mr. Bookmal] asked if this development would be compatible with Brandermill. Mr. Rowe stated it would. Mr. Bookman suggested a minimum square footage of 1,200-1,500 feet be used. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 83S043 In Dale Magisterial District, SALEM CHURCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricuit~]ral (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 1.1 acre parcel, wkich lies approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the western terminus of Huntingcreek Drive. Tax Map 80-9 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 22). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Jim Hayes was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 83S045 In Bermuda Magisterial District, SAVANNAH C. BOOKER requested 83-281 rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) of a three (3) acre parcel fronting approximately 220 feet on the east line of Jefferson-Davis Highway, and located approximately 100 feet south of its'intersection with Velda Road. Tax Map 82-13 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet 23). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommend approval of this request subject to one condition. The applicant was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, 'the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern property line and along the southern property line adjacent to Halfway House Heights, Block 1, Lot 22 and Block 2, Lot 1. This buffer shall be landscaped and/or fenced so as to screen the uses, developed on this property, from adjacent residential property to the east and south. A plan, depicting this requirement, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan submission. Vote: Unanimous 83S046 In B~muda Magisterial District, JAMES B. FRIEND requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Industrial (M-2) of a 2.86 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the south line of Old Bermuda Hundred Road, and located approximately 1,700 feet east of its intersection with Old Stage Road. Tax Map 134-1 (1) Part of Parcel 1 and Tax Map 133-4 (1) Part of Parcel 37 (Sheet 41). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to one condition. The applicant was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A sixty-five (65) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern property line adjacent to Old Bermuda Hundred Road. With the exception of a single access driveway, this buffer shall be maintained in its present vegetative condition with no clearing permitted. No buildings, parking areas or driveways shall be permitted within this buffer area. Vote: Unanimous 83S047 In Matoaca Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD NAUTILUS PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER,' LTD. requested a Conditional Use to permit a health club in an Office Business (O) District on a .86 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, and located approximately 340 feet south of its intersection with Deerfie]d Drive, and better known as 9520 Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 95-3 (i) Parcel 10 (Sheet 31). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission has recon~ended denial of this request. Mr. Chip Burgess was present representing the applicant. He stated his client was in agreement with the conditions. He stated this operation would be similar to the Nautilus Fitness Center located in the Longest and Wells building in Chester. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use shall be granted for the purpose of operating a nautilus physical, fitness center, only. There shall be no additions or alterations to the exterior of the existing structure in order to accommodate this use. 83-282 e There shall be no freestanding signs permitted identifying this use. One (1) building mounted sign, not to exceed four (4) square feet in area, identifying the use shall be permitted. This sign shall neither be luminous, nor illuminated. The sign shall employ subdued colors and shall blend with the architectulal style of the building. Prior to erection of the sign, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Hours of operation shall be confined to between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. There shall be no Sunday operation permitted. Within the existing buffer along the western property line, additional planting shall be accomplished. Such planting shall be of a type and density which will effectively screen the parking area from the adjacent single family residential development to the west. A plan, depicting this requirement, shall be submitted to the Planning Department within fifteen (15) days of the approval of this request. Within thirty (30) days of the approval of the plan, the landscaping shall, be accomplished. Occupancy for the health club center shall not be granted until such time that the approved plan is inst~.tuted. Vote: Unanimous 83S049 In Bermuda Magisterial District, CRADDOCK J. NUNNALLY, JR. requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) of a .6887 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the west line of Jefferson-Davis Highway, and located approximately 300 feet south of its intersection with Swift Run Road. Tax Map 116-15 (2) Cool Springs, Block A, Lots 10-15 (Sheet 32). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. The applicant was present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated that he was an adjacent landowner, however he did not feel there would be a conflict if he voted on this case because this rezoning would not have a material affect on the property value of his parcel. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board recessed for five minutes. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: Mr. Hedrick stated that Chesterfield County had been recruiting for a new Director of Utilities. He stated that this search had been nationwide. He stated that some very highly qualified individuals had been interviewed within the state and our own organization and it was his recommendation that Mr. Dave Welchons be appointed as Director of Utilities. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board aDpointed Mr. Dave Welchons as Director of the Utilities Department. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Welchons thanked the Board for their confidence in him and . stated he would do his best to keep the Chesterfield County Utilities Department one of the best in the country. 83-283 Mr. Hedrick asked that a Division of Public Works be established ~nd that a classification for a Director be established. i)n motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board lestablished a Division of Public Works and asked that a Iclassification for Director of that division be established to linclude Sanitation, the ~onstruction Coordinator, Utilities and IRight-of-Way. And further the Board authorized the County I~dministrator to amend the ]983-84 Appropriation to accomplish the establishment of this office with three fourths of the cost of the office coming from the Utilities Budget and one fourth of the cost coming from the General Fund Balance. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went into Executive Session as permitted by ~2.1-344(a) (2) of the Code of Virginia,1950, as amended to discuss the condition, acquisition or use of property for a public purpose. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: On m¢>tion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adjourned until June 8, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. Vote: Unanimous Hedrick County Administrator 1 Robe~n 83-284