Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12-14-1983 Minutes
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES December 14, 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. William Correll, Construction Coordinator Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of Parks and Recreation Mil'. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. Joe Horbal, Asst. Commissioner of Revenue Mr. William Howell, Diro of General Services Mr. Robert Masden, Dir. of Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Environmental Engineer Mrs. Mary A. McGuire, County Treasurer Mr. Steve Micas, County Attorney Mr. Richard Nunna!ly, VPI/SU Extension Agent Major Linwood Parrish, Police Department Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget and Accounting Dr. W. P. Wagner, Health Department Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Sheriff E. L. Wingo, Sheriff's Department Mr. George Woodall, Dir. of Economic Development Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 10:00 a.m. (EST). Mr. Robertson introduced Reverend Gerald R. Chancellor, Pastor of Second Branch Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. Reverend Chancellor stated his Church is located on Second Branch Road beyond Pocahontas Stste Pazk, has approximately 400 members and is one of the oldest churches in the County, founded in 1791. 1 APPROVAI, OF THE ~T]"~'~'m,r,,2. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded ky Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the minutes of November 2.~, x'_-~3., as; amended. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. ~Abstention: Mr. Dodd because he was not present at the meeting. 2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' oe £'©MMEN'_US Mr. Dodd stated that he would like to make presentations on behalf of the Board t:o two outstanding individuals, Mr. J. Royall Robertson and Mr. C. ]~ B:.}okma~. 83-672 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, Mr. J. Royall Robertson has served on the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, representing Matoaca District, from November 22, 1982 through December 31, 1983; and Whereas, Mr. Robertson volunteered many additional hours of service to the citizens of Chesterfield County as a representative on various service and planning organizations; Whereas, The Board indicated their support and confidence in Mr. Robertson by appointing him Chai]:man in 1983. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisor~ of Chesterfield County hereby recognizes the outstanding leadership and direction provided by Mr. Robertson; and Further, Be It Resolved that the Board hereby expresses its appreciation for his loyal and dedicated service to the citizens of Chesterfield County and its respect and admiration for an outstanding demonstration of ability and influence during his tenure on the Board of Supervisors through the presentation of a plaque inscribed as follows: J. ROYALL ROBERTSON, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHESTERFIELD CO~/NTY 1983 Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Abstention: Mr. Robcrtson. Mr. Dodd presented Mr. Robertson with the framed resclutio~ and plaque. Mr. Robertson state~ it had been his honor, pr~.vilege and enjoyment to serve as a member of the Board and he wished th~ County much success in the future. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopte¢ the following resolution: Whereas, Mr. C. L. Bookman served as the elected representative from Clover ~{ill District on the Board cf Supervisors of Chesterfield County from January 1, 1976 through December 31, 19~3~ and Whereas, Mr. Eookman volunteere~ many additional hours of service to the citizens of Chesterfiel~ County as a representative on various service and planning o~ganizations; and Whereas, Mr. Bookman's eight yaars of exceptional service %¢ the citizens of Chesterfield County deserve special recognition. Now, Therefore, Be I~t Resolved that the Board of Supervisor~ of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation for his loyal and dedicated service to the ~ '.~ · ~t~ens of Chesterfield County through the presentation of a plaque inscribed as follows PRESENTED TO C. L. BOOKMAN BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD IN RECOGNITION OF EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESEN~'IN~ CLOVER HILL DISTRICT ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FROM JANUARY 1, 1976 TH~)U~ DECEMBER 31, 19~3 Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mro Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absention: Mr. ~oo~man. -673 Mr. Bookman expressed appreciation for the resolution and plaque and stated it had been his privilege and honor to serve the residents of Clover Hill District and the County on the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Girone stated that the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission had also presented Mr. Bookman with a resolution of appreciation for service on the Commission for the past 8 years. Mr. Hodge introduced Mr. Mike MacNeilly, General Manager of Chesterfield Cablevision since November 7, 1983. He briefly outlined Mr. MacNeilly's past experience and educational background. Mr. MacNeilly stated he has been extremely impressed with the facilities and programs available in the County as well as the staff. He stated the Cable Company has experienced problems in the past and since November 7th, have been examining what the problems are, what the real cause is and have begun to address the solutions. He stated they have made some significant improvements and by the end of the month, it should be abundantly clear that they are interested in the community and in resolving all the problems that exist. He stated he welcomed calls from staff and Board members. He stated the Company will be making new channel offerings, increasing the staff, and working to improve the efficiency of the office, etc., of which the Board would be formally notified within the next few weeks. He stated they plan to become more involved with community efforts and will increase the effort to have an open door policy between the Board members and the public and the Company. He stated that he and the Company are looking forward to a long and positive relationship and he felt they have made steps in that direction. The Board thanked Mr. MacNeilly for his comments and for taking time to come and address the Board. Mr. Richard Nunnally stated that the federal government notified his office last week that Chesterfield County had been declared a disaster area due to the drought sustained during the summer as a result of the resolution adopted by the Board. He stated the farmers will now be eligible for low interest loans through the Farmers Home Administration and Small Business Association. He stated the loans will be based on the amount of loss that they had as it relates to the County average or that farm's average with adequate justification. He thanked the Board for their action which allowed the process to work and benefit the farmers. Mr. Hedrick stated that he understands there are two matters which should be considered after the conclusion of Item 3. He stated Mr. Dodd would like to bring an item before the Board and that there are people present relating to Item 13.B.2. who would like this taken out of sequence~ The Board generally agreed to do so. 3. RESOLUTIONS 3.A. RECOGNIZING A. PERRY STR!CKLAND III, SCHOOL BOARD Mr. Daniel. stated that Mr. Strickland would not be present at the meeting today but requested that he present the proposed resolution to him on behalf of the Board at the Reception tonight in his honor at the School Board~ He stated that Mr. Strickland represented Dale D~strict for approximately 10 years and did not seek reappointment this year. It was generally agreed that Mr. Daniel present Mr. Stricktand with the resolution. 83-674 On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, Mr. A. Perry Strickland, III was appointed to the Chesterfield County School Board in June, 1974; and Whereas, Mr. Strickland's ability and leadership was recognized by his peers by their appointing him to serve on such major committees as the Budget Committee and the Audit Committee to which he devoted many long and dedicated hours to the citizen~ of Chesterfield County; and Whereas, Mr. Strickland served as Vice Chairman of the School Board from January 1, 1980 until December 31, 1983; and Whereas, During Mr. Strickland's tenure on the School Board, great strides were made in providing quality education which is evidenced by the outstanding achievements by the County students which are recognized throughout the State and Nation. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisor~ of Chesterfield County h~reby expresses its appreciation for his loyal and dedicated service to quality education for which Chesterfield is well-recognized; and Further, Be It Resolved, that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mr. A. Perry Strickland, III as an indication of th~ gratitude and respect for his outstanding ability and influence which he so generously provided to the County of Chesterfield fo~ the past nine and one-half years. Vote: Unanimous 3.B. RECOGNIZING JAMES STEWART, CHESTERFIELD QUARTERBACK LEAGUE Mr. Daniel recognized Mr. James Stewart who was present. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, Mr. James Stewart has served as Commissioner of th, Chesterfield Quarterback League for the last five (5) years; and Whereas, Mr. Stewart's efficient organization and direction of the Chesterfield Quarterback League has enhanced the cooperation with the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department; and Whereas, Mr. Stewart has provided public service by unselfishly contributing and volunteering his time and efforts toward the well-being and happiness of the youth of Chesterfield County. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Stewart for his service and dedication to this program; And Further Be It Resolved that this Board of Supervisors acknowledges its good fortune in having such an outstanding individual as Mr. Stewart as a citizen of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Mr. Stewart with the resolution and introduced Mrs. Hazel Stewart who was also present. He stated that Mr. Stewart was known for his successful programs in the Chesterfield Quarterback League. Mr. Stewart stated his appreciation and accepted the resolution on behalf of the 2200 players, cheerleaders, volunteer workers, etc. in the League. Mr. Hester stated his appreciate, on for Mr. Stewart's spirit of cooperation for the past five years and stated that he has volunteered his time even though he does not have any children ir the program. 83-675 Mr. Hester introduced Mr. John Houston, newly appointed C0mmis~ioner 0£ th~ 0ua.r[~rback League. Mr. HousLon staled he looked forward to working with the County in the future and requested the Board's support for this very important program. 3.C. RECOGNIZING MRS. JERRY WILLIAMS, MASTER GARDENER Mr. Richard Nunnally stated that the Extension Service prides itself in serving the County through the use of volunteers. He stated last year alone, volunteers contributed over 13,000 hours of time to the various Extension Service programs in the County whose salaries could have cost the County approximately $90,000. He stated the Extension Service is very grateful for the aid th, give to help the citizens, especially with the population increasing because the demand for information increases as well. He introduced Mrs. Jerry Williams who represented the horticultural field and initiated the Master Gardener concept four years ago; Mr. Richard Cook who is Chairman of the Keep Chesterfield Clean Committee and has given countless hours of hi time speaking to groups, representing that program, ensuring the litter grant is utilized effectively, encouraging education regarding anti-litter, etc.; Mrs. Grace McNamara who represented the 4-H program, has served in that capacity for many years, has an outstanding record regarding the number of children in the program and time that she gives, has had representatives on the State 4-H Horse Judging Team for the past three years, etc.; and Mrs. Margaret Watkins who has served through Home Economics as well as 4-H, currently serves on a major fund raising campaign help raise funds to improve the 4-H Camp for boys and girls of Chesterfield as well as the entire area. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, Mrs. Jerry Williams was instrumental in the establishment of the Master Gardener program in Chesterfield County; and Whereas, During 1983 she coordinated the activities of 20 volunteers who gave individual assistance to some 4500 County residents; and Whereas, She has served in an advisory capacity on both the state and local levels; and Whereas, She has consistently worked toward environmental quality and the preservation of Natural Resources. Be It Therefore Resolved that the Board of Supervisors commends and expresses appreciation to Mrs. Jerry Williams for her outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Robertson recognized and presented Mrs. Williams with the framed resolution. 3.D. RECOGNIZING RICHARD L. COOK, KEEP CHESTERFIELD CLEAN On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, Mr. Richard L. Cook has shared his talents and expertise to encourage community involvement 'through the Keep Chesterfield C].ean Committee; and ' Whereas, His efforts have resul'ted ir~ the K3C winning the 1982 and 83 Governor's Clean V.Srginia Award of Merit and the Kee9 Virginia Beautiful Award of Recognitions; and Whereas, He has consistently stressed the importance of education in all anti-litter activities. Be It Therefore Resolved that the Board of Supervisors commends and expresses appreciation to Mr. Richard L. Cook for his outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Robertson recognized and presented Mr. Cook with the framed resolution. 3.E. RECOGNIZING MRS. GRACE MCNAMARA, 4-H LEADER On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, Mrs. Grace McNamara has been an active 4-H volunteer leader for more than 15 years; and Whereas, She has consistently contributed to the quality of the equestrian activities and facilities here in Chesterfield County; and Whereas, Members of the Chesterfield Cavaliers 4-H Horse an( Pony Club have earned positions on the prestigious State 4-H Horse Judging Team each year since 1981; and Whereas, She has served in an advisory capacity on both County and District levels. Be It Therefore Resolved that the Board of Supervisors commends and expresses appreciation to Mrs. Grace McNamara for her outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Robertson recognized and presented Mrs. McNamara with the framed resolution. 3.F. RECOGNIZING MRS. MARGARET WATKINS, EXTENSION SERVICE On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, Mrs. Margaret Watkins has been an active volunteer and supporter of Extension Service pro~rams for many years; and Whereas, She has served on the local and state levels through Extension Homemakers as well as other areas of Extension work; and Whereas, She is presently Chairman of the Chesterfield County Citizens for Jamestown 4-H Educat~ional Center which will yield rich benefits for Chesterfield 4-H members as well as boys and girls throughout Northeastern Virginia. Be It Therefore Resolved that the Board of Supervisors commends and expresses appreciation to Mrs. Margaret Watkins for her outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Robertson recognized Mrs. Watkins and presented her with the framed resolution. 83-677 3.G. COMMEMORATING 350TH ANNIVERSARY OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT Mrs. Girone stated that the Executive Board of VACO has been discussing the commemoration of the 350 Anniversary of County Government and Chesterfield will also be making an occasion commemorating this anniversary as well with some activities, etc. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, 1984 marks the 350th Anniversary (Sesquitricentennial) of the 1634 Act of the Grand Assembly of the Virginia Colony, which created the first shires or counties; and ' Whereas, Chesterfield County, established in 1794, shares much of that history of County Government in Virginia; and Whereas, the achievements of private citizens and local officials in the leadership role of county government through the centuries deserves recognition and attention. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County in Virginia does hereby declare 1984 as the Sesquitricentennial Year of County Government in Virginia in cooperation with the Virginia Association of Counties and will duly commemorate this historic event commencing with the Investiture Ceremony on December 28 and continuing with events throughout 1984. Vote: Unanimous 3.H. RENAMING THE CHESTERFIELD NURSING HOME AFTER MS. LUCY CORR Mr. Dodd stated there has been some discussion regarding renaming the Chesterfield County Nursing Home after Ms. Lucy Corr to which he is in full support. He stated Ms. Corr is a most deserving person who has meant a great deal to the County and its citizens. On motion of the Board, the Board approved and authorized staff to handle any necessary arrangements to rename the Chesterfield County Nursing Home after Ms. Lucy Corr. Vote: Unanimous 3.I. RENAMING OF ECOFF PARK AFTER HAROLD GOYNE Mr. Dodd stated in the past there have been facilities named after people who have meant a lot to the County. He stated there have only been two facilities named for elected officials--Lloyd C. Bird High School and the O.B. Gates Elementary School. He stated that no facility has been named for any member of the Board of Supervisors and he felt that it was a real oversight in not recognizing some of these outstanding individuals. He stated he would like the Board to consider renaming Ecoff Park in Chester after Mr. Harold Goyne who served on the Board for 25+ years, served as chairman, etc. He stated he would also like an appropriate plaque displayed in the park. On motion of the Board, the Board approved and authorized staff to handle any necessary arrangements to rename Ecoff Park after Mr. Harold Goyne. Vote: Unanimous 83-678 13.B.2. ORDINANCE TO VACATE PORTION OF JIM STREET Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of Jim Street. Mr. Welchons stated the Utilities Department does not object to this vacation but the Planning Department has recommended denial. He stated the four adjacent property owners have all signed the petition agreeing to the vacation, it is a wooded street, they do have public access by another means and several property owners are present at the meeting. He stated the Planning Department was concerned that there were lots fronting on that street and if the street were vacated, those lots would not have public access. Mr. Daffron stated that all the adjacent property owners joined him in this petition and they own all the lots that are concerned. Mr. Charles Armistead stated he lived in the area that staff was concerned about. He stated he has a piece of property that does not join Route 10 but he has another which does which is the Chesterfield Farm Bureau parking lot and ~.s the driveway to his home. He stated the back lot of Mr. Jones is nothing more than a fish pond and his back lots are in a drainage, flood plain area which drains from the C&P Telephone Company. He stated he felt the entire area should be studied which involves Jim Street, May Street, etc., but that the Board should adopt this ordinance today. Mr. Dodd stated the County will not be installing any more sewer and the water is already in so it will not be necessary for utility installation. Mr. Balderson stated the concern is that access to lots of record would not be provided if this vacation is granted. He stated vacation of the entire subdivision should be affected if this road access is vacated. He stated it would be more appropriate to vacate the entire subdivision or individual lots affected whereby you would create parcels that have public street frontage. He stated vacation of the street in and to itself would be acceptable to staff under those terms and acceptable under proper subdivision regulation or subdivision control of the area. He stated what has happened in the area is that there was a subdivision put to record, the street facilities ~ere not built, and various individuals bought individual lots or ~roups of lots which have not been developed. He stated most of these are used for the property owners personal use and he felt the petitioners were not going far enough into the vacation to ~reate a proper subdivision process and the entire subdivision or lots involved should be vacated to provide parcels of land with ~roper road frontage. ~r. Dodd stated there was no reason for the County to have access ~o the rear of Jim Street and all the owners have signed the ~etition. ~r, Hedrick stated that the main concern of staff is that the parcels are platted as separate lots and there is the potential that the lots could be sold; however, by the vacation of this street, those lots could be land-locked which might lead to a private road subdivision and the County might be requested to improve and maintain it. Mr. Dodd stated that as long as all property owners agree and the County does not need the street for utilities, it has been the practice to abandon roads. ~rs. Girone inquired whv there was a need to vacate this street ~hen the street is undeve].oped. Mr. Daffron stated that if Jim ~treet were opened, it would make a speedway between his property ~nd Mr. Jones' property. He stated this would not be vacating a ~treet, but a potential street. Dn motion of Mr. Dodd, seconde~ by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted ~he following ordinance and further authorized staff to review lhe entire area and bring any additional changes to the Board ~or consideration in the near future: ~3-679 An Ordinance to vacate a portion of Jim Street within East Chester, Bermuda District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 2, at page 306. Whereas, John F. Daffron, Sr., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of Jim Street within East Chester, Bermuda District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 2, at page 306, made by W. W. LaPrade dated April, 1910. The portion of the plat petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A portion of Jim Street within East Chester, 40' in width and shown outlined in red on a plat made by W. W. LaPrade, Engineer and Surveyor, dated April, 1910, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. Whereas, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of right of way sought to be vacated and the vacation will not abridge the rights of any citizen. Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of Jim Street is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use except as hereinafter outlined. The grantees hereby convey unto the County and the County hereby reserves the entire length and width of Jim Street as a perpetual drainage easement. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto, shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the centerline of the right of way hereby vacated in the property owners of the abutting lots free and clear of any rights of public use except as stated above. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and John F. Daffron, Sr., and Mildred P. Daffron, husband and wife; William C. Jones and Helen W. Jones, husband and wife; W. H. Matheny; and Charles T. Armistead, or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.A. UTILITIES WAREHOUSE PROPERTY ON WALMSLEY BOULEVARD Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had b~en advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of five and one-half acres of land with improvements located at 5025 Walmsley Boulevard in the City of Richmond and better known as the old 83-680 utilities warehouse. Mr. Welchons stated that bids were received for this parcel of land and staff recommends the County accept the bid of Mr. Southall in the amount of $92,500 and convey the property. He stated further that Mr. Glen Morgan is present to address the matter today as Mr. Southall is having problems obtaining commercial zoninq from the C~ty of Richmond. He stated Mr. Southall would like to obtain dispensation from the bid. Mr. Bookman inquired if there were a need for the County to keep the facility. Mr. Welchons stated that he was not aware of any. Mr. Micas stated that there was an extension of use in order to retain the non-conforming use for zoning purposes even though the new facility was constructed. He stated if a use is discontinued in the City, the zoning is lost. Mr. Hedrick stated we retained the property for a while, then the County was approached by Mr. Mr. Southall who was interested, He stated the County Departments then reviewed the facility for its potential use for which there was none and brought it to the Board for sale. He stated this was the high bid. Mr. Bookman inquired if this bid were subject to zoning approval by the City of Richmond. Mr. Micas stated that the bid did not include any conditions. Mr. Bookman stated he read where Mr. Southall submitted a bid of $100,000 based on the condition of zoning. Mr. Welchons stated that Mr. Southall made that offer earlier in the year as well as another bid was received. He stated both were rejected and then it was advertised for public sale in the newspaper. He stated that Mr. Southall did submit the successful bid from the ad in the paper which was bid without conditions. He stated the next bid was $40,000. Mr. Glen Morgan stated that he would like to withdraw the bid and receive refund of the deposit. He stated that they have gone to the City and discussed extensively the possibility of rezoning. He stated they cannot obtain a Use Permit and the other alternative is to obtain a Variance but that is based on undue hardship which they do not have unless the County forces them to purchase the property. He stated this would be forcing Mr. Southall to purchase property for which he has no use and eventually there would be a law suit in both the County and the City. He stated he initially knew about the zoning when h~ submitted his bid of $100,000 and the County was aware of this. He stated when he responded to the ad in the paper, being a layman, he felt this was also based on the condition of zoning. He stated Mr. Southall d~d not inquire at the City of Richmond but with the County staff and the average person as well as an attorney would have been led to believe zoning was obtainable. He stated that Mr. Southall was told that the non-conforming use might be continued for storage via a grandfather clause. He stated that the grandfather clause was already outdated which the County should have known because passive use does not continue the non-conforming use, only active use. He stated secondly, the non-conforming use could not be transferred to another owner as it was specifically for Chesterfield County for the utility yard. He stated their efforts in the City of Richmond are anticipated to be unsuccessful. He stated he felt Mr. Southall came to the County and was led to believe that he could use this property for the use he wanted and thus submitted his bid. Mr. Dodd inquired if Mr. Southall would be willing to defer this matter for 30 days in order for ~he County to clarify this situation with the City of Richmond. Mr. ~organ stated he could not make a decision at this time for his client. Mr. Dodd stated he did not feel the County should operat~ on a buyer-beware situation. There was no one else present to discuss this matter. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved that the Board reject all bids for the conveyance of property and improvements located at 5025 Walmsley 83-68]~ Boulevard in the City of Richmond, refund deposits and further the Board authorized staff to proceed to obtain an appropriate commercial zoning for this parcel of land from the City of Richmond since it has been commercial for many years. Mr. Daniel inquired if staff were aware of this situation prior to today's meeting. Mr. Micas indicated staff was aware of this yesterday. Mr. Daniel stated the Board should have been made aware of this prior to the presentation. Mr. Morgan stated that if it had been handled in any other way, Mr. Southall could have been involved in other legal problems and he felt this was handled in the best possible manner. Vote: Unanimous 4.B. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY TO WESTOVER INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of property at the Airport Industrial Park to Westover Investment Associates. Mr. Woodall stated that the applicant would like to withdraw their offer as appropriate financing could not be obtained and they cannot pursue the purchase of this property. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion] of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board accepte~ the request of the applicant, Westover Investment Associates, to withdraw their offer to purchase 3.5 acres of land at the Airpor~ Industrial Park. Vote: Unanimous 4.C. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY TO WATS PARTNERSHIP Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of property at the Airport Industrial Park to WATS Partnership. He stated this facility would house a general, electrical contracting firm. He stated the purchase price is $27,500 per acre and there will be 6% brokerage fee to Brandermill Realty. He stated WATS Partnership will lease the property to Star Electric Company fro~ Greensboro, North Carolina. He introduced Mr. John Star, President, and Mr. Jack Shropner, Vice President, of Star Electric Company. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd welcomed the members of the Company to the County. Mr. Woodall stated the Company is very interested in the Airport operation and they have a corporate aircraft which they use between Richmond and Greensboro. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Do'd, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to execute any necessary documents conveying a deed to WATS Partnership for approximately 1.6 acres at the Airport Industrial Park, located on the northeastern side of Whitepine Road and located across from the parcel shown as McQuay-Perfex, Inc., at a purchase price of $27,500 per acre wit~ a 6% brokerage fee to be paid to Brandermill Realty. Vote: Unanimous 4.D. ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 12-39 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to business ~icense taxes and providing for a penalty. Mr. Horbal explained that the Commissioner's office feels the portion of the Code which is being requested to be amended, has a gap in ~he license system as it does not provide for licensing o~ a business that provides a personal service to another business. Mr. Micas stated the second item in this ordinance would also provide an exemption for private security guards who make less than $10,000. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of the Board, the following ordinance was adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 12-39 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1. That Section 12-39 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, is amended, and reenacted as follows: Sec. 12-39. Enumerated; amount of license tax. Every person engaged in one or more of the following busi- nesses shall pay a license tax equal to ten dollars for all gross receipts below five thousand dollars and twenty-hundredths of one per centum of the gross receipts above five thousand dollars for the businesses conducted by him as follows: o o o (j) Any person engaged in any business service not other- wise licensed under this chapter where the service is rendered for compensation either upon or for any business, trade, occu- pation or governmental agency. (k) Provided, however, that every person engaged in the business of providing protective services shall be exempt from the duty to apply for a business license or pay such license tax if the gross receipts for such services does not exceed $10,000 during each taxable year. Vote: Unanimous 4.E. ORDINANCE REGARDING FINANCE AND TAXATION Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Sections S-15 and 8-16 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to finance and taxation. Mr. Horbal stated that the tax relief for the elderly and handicapped currently have limits that were set in 1981 with a total exemption to the real estate tax on people who qualify under the program° He stated the limit now for income is $13,000 with a sliding scale below that for the various percentages of relief and the net worth limit is $40,000. He stated that Mr. Bookman had requeste( that Mr. Carmichael look into this matter. He stated last year the Commissioner's Office declined 55 applications because they did not fall within the criteria. He stated that 17 of the 55 applicants would have qualified if the limits had been $1,000 higher in each category and if the net worth were $50,000. He stated this would have meant a dif£erence in taxes of $3,061 in tax relief. He stated this proposed change would increase each income level by $1,000, and the net worth to $50,000. Mr. Bookman stated that the last time the Board adjusted these limits was two years ago. He stated he felt this should be reviewed periodically and that when the Board addresses it again, that it look more closely at net worth. Mr. Dodd stated'that he felt the Board should do something like this because the poor and the elderly will not be able to live in the County. He stated a lot of people say it is a good County to make money in but it is a bad County to retire in. He stated we have to do this to meet some needs of the people. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 8-15 AND 8-16 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED RELATING TO FINANCE AND TAXATION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 8-15 and 8-16 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 8-15. Restrictions and conditions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the dwelling and up to one acre of land upon which it is situated subject to real estate taxation under this chapter may be temporarily exempted from such tax when any such property is owned by and occupied as the sole dwelling of a person not less than sixty-five years of age or a person who is determined to be permanently and totally disabled as defined in section 8-17.1, hereunder subject to the following restrictions and conditions: (a) That the total combined income during the preceding calendar year from all sources of the owners of the dwelling living therein does not exceed fourteen thousand dollars; provided, that the first four thousand dollars of income of each relative, other than spouse, of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total. (b) That the net combined financial worth, including interest, as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year, of the owners, and of the spouse of any owner, excluding the value of the dwelling, and one acre of land upon which it is situated, does not exceed fifty thousand dollars. (c) The fact that persons who are otherwise qualified for tax exemption, pursuant to this article, are residing in hospitals or mental care for extended periods of time shall not be construed to mean that the real estate for which tax exemption is sought does not continue to be the sole dwelling of such persons during such extended periods of other residence so long as such real estate is not used by or leased to others for consideration. Sec. 8-16. Schedule of exemptions permitted. When the total combined income from all sources and the net combined financial worth of the persons qualifying does not exceed the limits prescribed in section 8-15, the amount of exemption from real estate taxation for the dwelling and up to one acre of land upon which it is situated shall be in accordance with the following schedule: Income Percentage of Exemption 0 through $10,500 $10,501 through $12,000 $12,001 through $14,000 Vote: Unanimous 100% 50% 25% 83-684 4.F. ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 12 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by Adding Section 12-1.1 providing for an exemption from business license taxes. Mr. Horbal stated the business license tax ordinance was not necessarily intended to tax businesses such as grass cutters, paper boys, etc. with very low income. He stated this ordinance sets a level of $3,000 for which anything below that would generate a minimum license tax and the loss of revenue to the County would be less than $5,000. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of the Board, the following ordinance was adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A SECTION 12-1.1 PROVIDING FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1. That the Code of the County of Chesterfield is amended by adding Section 12-1.1 as follows: Sec. 12-]..1. Exemption from license tax. Every person engaged in a business, occupation or professior otherwise taxable pursuant to this chapter shall be exempt from the duty to apply for a business license or pay such license tax if the gross receipts for such business, occupation or profession do not exceed $3,000 during each taxable year. Vote: Unanimous 4.G. LEASE OF CAMP BAKER PROPERTY TO RAARC Mr. Hedrick stated that this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the lease of property known as Camp Baker to the Richmond Area Association of Retarded Citizens (RAARC). Mr. Hodge stated that members of the Camp Baker Task Force and Mr. Marshall Butler with the RAARC were present. He stated the Task Force submitted a report to the Board several months ago which recommended the lease of Camp Baker to RAARC. He stated they have negotiated the lease and are in agreement except for two items. He stated the first is that staff does not feel County Departments should pay fees for the use of the facility. He stated the facility is limited to the elderly and physically and mentally handicapped and there are Departments who work with those groups, and i~he County does not feel they should be required to pay fees. He stated the other is that the RAARC has concerns about the save-harmless/hold-harmless portion which is standard for all County contracts. Mr. Dodd inquired about the use of the facilities by County Departments for special population districts and inquired if it were restricted to those departments. Mr. Hodge stated that was correct and is written in the contract. Mr. Harold Beavers, Chairman of the Camp Baker Task Force, was ~present. He stated that they are also concerned about the two items mentioned. He stated the only support the County will be providing will be police, fire and the usual refuse collection. He stated the County does, through some of their agencies, provide funding to the Association for program content in the summer and in turn some County residents attend and participate in the program. He stated the maintenance of the property is the responsibility of the Association, the light bill, the heat bill, the water, the chlorine, the full-time resident manager who is 83-685 responsible for security and property maintenance, etc. He stated the cost and user fees will be established by the Management Board and will represent only the actual operating expenses that is used by the various groups. He stated each available facility will be prorated for each group. He stated the Association is not a profit-making group and they are proposing that every group, except for the Association, pay these fees. He stated each use will cost the Association, as a percentage of those fees will be paid to the Management Board to be put into a Maintenance and Operating Fund for emergency repairs, etc. Mr. Bookman stated he had a problem if the fees were to be anything other than actual costs. Mr. Beavers stated they had reviewed actual bills for a several year period to determine the costs involved for heat, electricity, etc. and it will be reviewed at least every two years and perhaps even annually. He stated the other groups that use the facility, will provide the staff, supplies, etc. and will also clean the property when they leave. Mr. Bookman inquired who would make up the Management Board and were they only members of the RAARC. Mr. Dodd stated that the Board of Supervisors will be appointing the Management Board and suggested the words "based on cost" be included. Mr. Beavers stated that the insurance verbiage they can live with but were concerned with Page 5, Paragraph 3 relating to review by the Risk Manager. He stated that they would prefer that this be reviewed by the Management Board. Mr. Daniel inquired about the terms of the Management Board. Mr. Beavers stated the report brought to the Board by the Task Force recommended the terms would begin on May 1, 1984 and the initial terms would be for three years for a 7 member Board with 1 ex-officio member. He stated he felt, personally, that initial appointments in May should be for 3 to have 3 three year terms, 3 for 2 year terms, and 2 for one year terms; that one appointed for 3 years should be a representative of the RAARC, one for the two years should be a representative of the Civitans and then there would be some continuity. Mr. Bookman stated that he did not agree with the elimination of review by the Risk Manager. He stated the Management Team is working under the Board of Supervisors and if there were a problem, it could be brought to the Board but he felt there was a need for a qualified person in insurance to advise what is needed. Mr. Beavers stated that the only problem is that any group that puts on. a program for the handicapped or elderly is eligible to use this property. He stated the Association carries a very extensive coverage but there may be a small non-chartered or non-incorporated organization whose purpose is to provide programs for the handicapped or elderly who would otherwise qualify to use this property but there is no way they can maintain liability insurance. He stated their purpose is to get maximum use for the facility without penalty. Mr. Bookman stated he did not feel anything ]ess than adequate should be accepted. He stated the lease does provide for insurance to be carried by the County to protect its interest. Mrs. Girone stated that she felt the Risk Manager would have to remain as he represents the County's interest. Mr. Bookman stated if there were an impasse, the Management Board could address the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Beavers stated on Page 6, Paragraph E, it discusses the user fees collected being given to the Management Board. He stated for clarification, this is only a small percentage of the fees as discussed previously. There was no one else present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the lease of the Camp Baker property to the Richmond Area Association for Retarded Citizens with the following changes: 1. County will pay fees based on actual costs; That the membersh'ip sha].l be staggered with 3 for 3 year terms, 3 for 2 year terms and 2 for one year terms with the actual membership of organizations to be determined later; 83-686 e That the Risk Manager be included at the present, but if there are problems in the future, it can be worked out at a later date; 4. That the save-harmless clause be retained. Mr. Beavers stated, personally, as a resident of the County and not a member of the Committee, he felt that the membership should not be restricted to one person from each magisterial district. He stated he felt each member of the Board could appoint a member but that they not necessarily reside in that member's district. The Board took this under advisement for later as it was a policy matter. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd thanked all the members of the Committee for their time and effort in this regard. 18. RESIGNATIONS AND/OR APPOINTMENTS On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board accepted the resignation of Dr. Paul Prince from the Community Services Board and appointed Mr. Richard Gayle to the Community Services Board effective immediately whose term will expire in December, 1985 which is the unexpired term of Dr. Paul Prince. Vote: Unanimous 5. SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the initiation of a School Health Nurse's Assistant Pilot Program whereby four nurse's assistants will be hired on a part-time basis, trained and assigned to elementary schools. Training and medical supervision will be provided by the Health Department physicians and nurses with resources of the Health Department available as needed. It is noted that funds for this project will come from County funds already appropriated to the Health Department but which have not been matched by the State at this time. A copy of the details of the full proposal are filed in the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous 6. MODIFICATION OF COUNTY AND SCHOOL BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel the Board authorized the modification of the employee health care plans as follows: Blue Cross/Blue Shield - Reduced the inpatient provision for nervous and mental d].sorders from the present unlimited coverage to sixty (60) days per contract year. Rates and co-payments will remain unchanged. PruCare - Increased the rates as shown in the table filed with the papers of this Board with employees paying for all costs above the County contribution. Mr. Daniel inquired if an employee has the option on an annual basis to choose either plan, he or she may desire. Mr. Hedrick stated that was correct. Vote: Unanimous 7. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ACTION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: 83-687 Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), has considered the appl of H & H Properties (the "Company") requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an not to exceed $400,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a warehouse and office facility consisting of approximately 15,000 square feet (the "Project") to be located on 2 acres of land on the right hand side at the end of that unnamed street which is ti first left off of Pocoshock Boulevard in Pocoshock Square in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on November 30, 1983; and Whereas, Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds oJ industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and Whereas, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and Whereas, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103 (k) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bond: of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 8. REQUEST FOR BINGO PERMIT The Board inquired what the County Attorney's recommendation was regarding the request for a bingo and/or raffle permit by the Virginia Belles Softball Club for 1984. Mr. Micas stated it was his opinion the Board has the legal authority to either grant or deny the request. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request for a bingo and/or raffle permit by the Virginia Belles Softball Club for calendar year 1984. Vote: Unanimous 9. CONSENT ITEMS 9.A. REQUEST FOR BINGO PERMITS On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits for the Manchester-Richmond Moose, Lodge ~699; Cavalier Athletic Club, Inc.; Knights of Columbus, Bishop Ireton Council 96189; Salem Church Jaycees; Bensley-Bermuda Volunteer Rescue Squad; Robert E Lee VFW, Post 92239; and American Legion, Post 186 for calendar year 1984. Vote: Unanimous 9.B. WATER MARKERS FOR APPOMATTOX CANOE LAUNCH On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, The Appomattox River Water Authority and the County of Chesterfield have entered into a cooperative agreement to provide a public water access facility, the Appomattox Canoe Launch; and Whereas, It is the responsibility of Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation to maintain this facility, to encourage saf~ boating practices on the River, and to warn boaters of River obstruction; and Whereas, This River canoe launch facility will allow boater~ access to a six and one-half mile stretch of the Appomattox Rive] from below Brasfield Dam to Ettrick in which there are River obstructions; and Where~s, The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries has a system of uniform regulatory waterway markers to convey to the small craft operator the presence of natural or artificial hazards; and Whereas, The property owners along the shoreline of the Appomattox River have agreed, in writing, to the placement of these signs on their property. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors agrees to the placement of these uniform waterway markers on the shoreline of the Appomattox River betwee] Brasfield Dam and Ettrick. Vote: Unanimous 9.C. WRITE-OFF OF NURSING HOME DELINQUENT ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board wrote-off twelve delinquent accounts receivable totalling $21,157.66 for the Chesterfield County Nursing Home. It is understood that the County Attorney's office will continue its efforts in collecting these accounts, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous 9.D. COUNTY'S 1984 HOLIDAY sCHEDULE On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the following as holidays for Chesterfield County employees in 1984: 83-689 Holiday Lee Jackson Day Washington's Birthday Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veteran's Day Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving Day Christmas Eve Christmas Day New Year's Eve Vote: Unanimous Observed January 16 February 20 May 28 July 4 September 3 October 8 November 12 November 22 November 23 December 24 December 25 December 31 9.E. ABANDONMENT OF CORNER ROCK ROAD Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that old Corner Rock Road be abandon. Whereas, the developers of Roxshire Subdivision, Sections 6 and 7, have constructed a new Corner Rock Road (Route 728) which provides service to the same citizens as the old road. We therefore petition the Virginia Department of Highways to abandon .46 mile of old Corner Rock Road as shown on the enclosed sketch, pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia. Vote: Unanimous 9.F. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Scottingham Drive and McAden Place in Solar I, Section 4, Phase I, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Scottingham Drive and McAden Place in Solar I, Section 4, Phase I, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Scottingham Drive, beginning at its intersection with Partridge Lane, State Route number unassigned, and Scottingham Drive, State Route number unassigned, extending northerly .11 mile to the intersection of McAden Place; McAden Place, beginning at its intersection with Scottingham Drive, extending east .05 mile to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 19 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft. right-of-way for all of these roa~s. ~his section of Solar I is recorded as follows: Section 4, Phase I, Plat Book 42, Page 38, January 28, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Nesbitt Drive, Dunford Ro~d and Carriage Pines Drive in Carriage Pines, Clover Hill DJ. strict. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Nesbitt Drive, Dunford Road and Carriage Pines Drive in Carriage Pines, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Nesbitt Drive, beginning at its intersection with Starview Lane, State Route 687, extending west .15 mile to the intersection with Dunford Road, then west .03 mile to a dead end; Dunford Road, beginning at its intersection with Nesbitt Drive, extending south .05 mile to the intersection of Carriage Pines Drive; Carriage Pines Drive, beginning at its intersection with Starview Lane, State Route 687, extending west .14 mile to the intersection of Dunford Road, then west .03 mile to a dead end. These roads serve 43 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft. right of way for all of these roads. Carriage Pines is recorded as follows: Plat Book 40, Page 27, December 1, ]981. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Boardr made report in writing upon his examination of Drexelbrook Road in Pennwood, Section 3, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Drexelbrook Road in Pennwood, Section 3, Clover Hill District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to tak~ into the Secondary System, Drexelbrook Road, beginning at its intersection with Belmont Road, State Route 651, extending westerly .42 mile to tie into existing Drexelbrook Road, State Route 2181. This road serves 46 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft. right of way for this road. This section of Pennwood is recorded as follows: Section 3, Plat Book 43, Pages 35 and 36, June 15, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Condrey Ridge Drive in Solar II, remaining portion of Section C, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Condrey Ridge Drive in Solar II, remaining portion of Section C, Clover Hill District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Condrey Ridge Drive, beginning where State maintenance ends, Condrey Ridge Drive, State Route 2722, and going .02 mile northwesterly to a dead end. This road serves 2 lots. 83-69]. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft. right of way for this road. This section of Solar II is recorded as follows: Section C, Plat Book 40, Page 64, February 2, 1982. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Centre Street, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Centre Street, Bermuda District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Centre Street, beginning at the northern end of existing State maintained Centre Street, State Route 1513, and running northerly .06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This road serves as access to commercial property. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 60 ft. right of way for this road. Centre Street is recorded as follows: Plat Book 1311, Page 150, March 13, 1978. Vote: Unanimous 9.G. EASEMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE AT AIRPORT AND PARK On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute two easement agreements with the Virginia Electric and Power Company for easements located at the intersection of Route 10 and Whitepine Road, a copy of the plats are filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous 10. APPOINTMENTS On motion of Mrs. GJ~rone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appointed Mr. Read Goode to the Richmond Metropolitan Authority whose term is effective immediately and will expire on June 30, 1986 filling the unexpired term of Mr. Richard Blanton. Vote: Unanimous 11. HIGHWAY ENGINEER Mr. Charles Perry, Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and T~ansportation, was present. He stated that signal studies had been requested for the intersection of Dundas and Strathmore and Krause Road and Route 10 and he would report the results in the near future. He stated that that at the last meeting there was some concern regarding Powhite Parkway where it intersects with Chippenham and the Department will continue to review this situation per his discussion with Mrs. Girone. 83-692 He stated the City had written a letter regarding the intersection of Route 147 and Chippenham which had been copied t¢ Mrs. Girone. He stated that striping at the intersection of Krause and Gatesgreen should be accomplished today. Mr. Bookman stated for the past several years, the County has been trying to get a third lane from Providencetown Drive to Davis School. He stated he hoped this would continue to be a priority as it has been funded with Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. Bookman stated $180,000 has been allocated for Hicks and Reams Roads at Providence for straightening the intersection and he hoped this bad situation could be improved. He stated that hE knows the people in the area, and if he could be of any assistance to let him know. Mrs. Girone stated that guardrails on the north bound ramp of Jahnke onto Route 150 have been destroyed as well as on the left side of the southbound lane at the Powhite Creek on Route 150. She presented Mr. Perry with a note regarding a speed limit sign. Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation for the Department's effort in establishing the traffic signal at Hopkins and Chippenham. He stated because of the organized method, traffic flows through safely and more quickly than before. Mr. Daniel inquired if Mr. Perry had discussed additional pavement around the entrance to Indian Springs on Hopkins Road or the Chester side where the hill exists. He requested that Mr. Perry meet with Mr. Muzzy regarding this matter in an effort to move the project along and stated he had agreed to use 3¢ Road Funds to pay for this project. Mr. Dodd thanked the Department for the installation of signs on Coxendale and Rio Vista indicating no-through truck traffic. He stated that he felt some review of the intersection of Old Stage and Route 10 was needed. He stated this is dangerous and suggested that perhaps on the east bound, as is on the west bound, a 45 mph reduction be extended to that intersection as well. Mr. Dodd expressed concern for problems with trucks using Kingsdale and Route 1. Mr. Dodd thanked the Department for reviewing the intersection of Dundas and Strathmore. Mr. Bookman stated that the intersection of Genito and Route 360 and the intersection of Hicks and Route 360 both need lead arrows to get onto Route 360. Mr. Perry stated he would look into these matters and report back at his next meeting with the Board. Mrs. Girone expressed appreciation to Mr. Perry for his quick decision making attitude and the use of common sense when working with her on road matters. 12. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 12.A. LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR POWHITE/ROUTE 288 Mr. Hedrick stated he would request that the Board defer consideration of transferring funds for the land use 83-693 transportation planning services for the Powhite-288 study area. He stated bids were received substantially higher than originally estimated and staff needs time to discuss this matter with the agencies submitting the bids. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this matter until January 11, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 12.B. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS Mr. Dodd stated that all the requests for street lights in Bermuda met the criteria except for one which he felt was very close to a bad curve and a street light would be beneficial. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved th installation of street lights at the following locations with any necessary funds to be expended from the District Street Light Funds as indicated: 1. Intersection of Malibu Street and Boyd Lane, Bermuda 2. Intersection of Malibu Street and Dewberry Lane, Bermuda 3. Intersection of Dewberry Lane and Boyd Lane, Bermuda 4. Boyd Lane, between 11649 and 11701, Bermuda 5. Dewberry Lane, between 11749 and 11741, Bermuda 6. Intersection of Ken Drive and Ecoff Avenue, Bermuda 7. Intersection of Elmart and Elkhardt, Clover Hill 8. Hemlock Road, between 3650 and 3660, Bermuda 9. Intersection of Meadowville Road and Sunset Blvd., Bermuda 10. West Strathmore Road, between 2943 and 2949, Bermuda. Vote: Unanimous 12.C. AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board referred an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Section 18-18 (d) relating to signing the final plat to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Vote: Unanimous 12.D. EXPANSION OF FOOD FACILITY AT COUNTY JAIL Mr. Daniel stated that the expansion of the food facility at the County Jail is in the legislative package which has been approved and it has received wide coverage. Mrs. Girone inquired where the money would be coming from. Mr. Hedrick stated the Board would have to appropriate $100,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund and then apply for the other $100,000 from the State. Mrs. Girone stated she did not understand if this was so serious, why is the Board just now hearing about it as it should have been in the budget. Mr. Hedrick stated it was included in the Capital Improvements Budget last year on which the Board never acted. Mr. Dodd inquired when the County had to commit the funds as the General Assembly would not act on its portion until the Spring. Mr. Ramsey stated the County would rather have the funds appropriated at this time since the commitment is being made. Mrs. Girone stated this was December and would the Board go s~x months without any money in the Contingency. Mr. Hedrick stated that the Contingency was reduced by $150,000 this year and the Board could appropriate additional funds into the Contingency. Mr. Hedrick stated the expansion needed immediate attention. Sheriff Wingo stated this has been included in the Capital Improvements for several years. Mrs. Girone inquired if this could be postponed for six months and be included in next year's budget. Sheriff Wingo stated that they would like to enlarge the kitchen before summer as last summer the employee~ worked in intense heat. Mr. Dodd stated 83-694 that he could understand the concern of other Board members that it is not in the budget, but he felt it was needed. Mrs. Girone and Mr. Bookman stated they were not questioning the need, just the timing in the middle of a budget year. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the following resolution, authorizing the County Administrator to enter into a contract with an architect to proceed with planning, pending the approval of 1984-85 State construction funds, at a cost not to exceed $20,000 and further transferred $75,000 from the Gcmeral Fund Contingency and $25,000 from the Sheriff's budget to the Capital Projects fund and increased State revenue by $100,0000 for its share, if approved, for this project and further the Board transferred $200,000 from the Unappropriated Surplus to the General Fund Contingency to replenish the Contingency account for the remainder of fiscal 1983-84: Whereas, the Kitchen in the County Jail is inadequate and obsolete, which deficiencies have been noted by the Department of Corrections' representatives when making inspections; and Whereas, the Department of Corrections personnel have assisted in making an evaluation of the situation and have submitted a recommended plan whereby the problem can be corrected; and Whereas, the cost of said improvements is estimated at $200,000; and Whereas, procedures and policies allow for State funding of one-half of the cost of projects approved by the Board of Corrections; and Whereas, the County recognizes the need for the subject improvements; and Whereas, the County accepts the responsibility for funding one-half of the project. Now, Therefore, Be tt Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Board of Corrections approve the expansion of the Chesterfield County Jail Kitchen, at a cost not to exceed $200,000; and ~ Be It Further Resolved that the Board of Corrections is requested to approve the funding of one-half of the cost of this project, at a cost not to exceed $100,000, subject to . funds being appropriated by the legislature for this purpose; and Be It Further Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby commits the funding for the remainin9 one-half cost of the project at a cost not to exceed $100,000. Vote: Unanimous 12.E. ST. LEGER SQ[A~E! '~' PROPOSAL ~OR~ ' POWHITE PARKWAY/ROUTE 288 Mr. John Smith was present and introduced Mr. Joe Matyiko. Mr. Smith presented and read. a letter, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board, from both himself and Mr. Matyiko regarding St. Leger's zoning approval and the widening of Coalfield Road as well as proffers regarding right of way dedication and $50,000 reimbursement for the portion of a Diamond Interchange with conditions. Mr. Bookman stated that contrary to printed material, he does support Powhite to Route 360. He stated he had serious reservations regarding the extra 1.2 mil.es from the Coa!field-Genito Cloverleaf thnt goes westwardly. He stated this he ~felt was being built to serve developers~ interest. }{e stated the County is struggling now to receiv~~. 9C funding and upf~ont monie~3~ etc. and he felt the Board should reconsider bui]diDg that e~tra ].2 miles which intersects a~. Old Hundred Road approximately 1 mile from GeD~tc and/or BrandermJ. i! but i.t does intersect at Evergreen and it is an 'i~'qtegral part of thc ~'.~ : ,..~.,:~.~en'c of the?~? pz'opc-;!tti.,?s. He state.:] Mr. Smith on many occasions tried to give this to the Board as his property was zoned in January, 1980 for commercial use for 160 acres. He stated that in March, 1980 Evergreen was zoned by the Board. He stated for the position of building a limited access beyond the properties that the Board has zoned, to the extent of a mile and not support some form of an access to these properties which have been zoned to Powhite, needs to be reconsidered. He stated he had hoped the study that had been authorized 4 or 5 months ago would have been completed but now even to get the study in progress has been deferred until January. He stated the design that Mr. Smith has proposed as a pistol, the Board does not want to consider because none are highway engineers. He stated we have allowed Mr. Smith and anyone along that corridor to enter into contract with the Highway Department with the County b~?~ing third party. He stated one such developer has taken advantage of this and another did not. He stated that if Mr. Smith wants to propose a design for a pistol which he feels is better, less expensive, etc., he should enter into a contract as staff has proposed be done and pay the cost for that. He stated he agrees with the study that was authorized and feels it is still needed but has concerns about building this extra mile. He stated we are struggling to get this off the floor and this extra mile will cost $5,000,000-$6,000,000. He stated the Board has several choices: to eliminate the extra mile to bring this into kilter, allow Mr. Smith to enter into a contract, and/or entertain an overpass at Coalfield Road, if we are to build the extra mile. He stated he did ncr understaDd why there was a proposal to cut off an artery of moving traffic as desperate as the County needs it in that area and to cul-de-sac Coalfield Road from the north and south. He stated if that is so, then that procedure should also be explored to serve the property that the Board zoned. He stated this 160 acres is sitting there with the only proposed access to serve that property being a dead end road off Coalfield or going west a mile to come back another mile for various industrial, B-3 and commercial properties as the plan now stands. He stated he felt a decision should be made and to dead end Coalfield Road is wrong if we are to build the extra 1.2 mile. He stated he did not feel the Board should get into business of aiding developers as that 1.2 miles should be built by the people along that corridor as they develop their properties. Mr. Dodd stated he always thought that the Board was speaking of ending that road at the 288 intersection and inquired when this 1.2 mile was included. Mr. Bookman stated there are two different issues. He stated 288 goes north to Route 60 but this 1.2 goes west to Evergreen property which is bringing a four lane road through its property to meet that intersection of Hundred Road. He stated it has been on the map for sometime. Mrs. Girone stated the Commission approved it as it was included in the public hearing in July to go forward with that 1.2 miles. Mr. Daniel stated from what he heard from the legislators and others that this was part of the total road. He stated the concern that he has shared with others was the rationale for closing Coalfield Road if a "relocated Coalfield" is needed for development there which is in the zoning. He stated he never thought closing Coalfield Road made good transportation sense. He stated the question is that we have Mr. Smith's proposals with various alternatives and inquired how we transmit this for consideration. Mr. Bookman stated the question is whether we continue the 1.2 miles west of Coalfield and Genito's intersection, once that is resolved you will not only have less dollars to put up front but you will also be able to take some time with the study and plans for the Board and staff as to how you want those developers, including this parcel, to get that road extended. He stated he understands this goes to Evergreen 83-696 with no accesses as it is limited and in between this 160 acres there are other parcels that are at their mercy to even go west a mile until that particular land develops. Mr. Bookman stated he did not feel the overall citizens of the County should have to pay the dollars to ride this road that are going to be required to extend this 1.2 miles. Mr. Daniel stated he has never been convinced that closing Coalfield Road was in the County's long-term best interest. He stated he had a situation where a main artery was closed through Chippenham, that being Cogbill Road, it is workable but he did not see that situation translating up here. He stated if Coalfield Road is needed he could endorse that. He stated he hated to see the lengthening of that road get confused with the decisions that we must make today. Mr. Bookman stated that the first question is whether you build 1.2 miles, and if you do, the next question would be are you doing to pay part, trade off, etc. He stated here are 60 acres that are needed, put in an overpass over Coalfield and in doing so allow access to that road. Mr. Daniel inquired how the extension of 1.2 miles related to Mr. Smith's recommendation on how to handle the intersection ~f Coalfield Road. Mr. Bookman stated it does not create a problem at this time but once this is approved, you will build the 1.2 miles with no access of this 160 acres, then you are too late to solve the problem. Mr. Daniel stated the Board would not sit by and watch this intersection of Coalfield Road/288 not have the opportunity to gain its full economic potential. Mr Bookman stated that no one has solved the problem and it remains an issue and that is why Mr. Smith continues to address the Board. He stated here we are ready to go with a plan that extends Powhite another 1.2 miles as limited access with no access to this property. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt whatever plan is to be worked out for this area for ingress and egress is a critical decision. He stated whether or not the 1.2 miles hangs in the balance, will fall out later but something needs to be done to address the accessibility in those four corners in that general area. Mr. Bookman stated it should fall in or out now, once you solve that problem, then you can take off and you have plenty of time and besides you are talking about $5,000,000-$6,000,000 less for the entire road. Mr. Balderson stated that construction costs would be less but there is another side to the issue which involves revenues necessary to make the road feasible and accessing those revenues and traffic that will put the quarters in the slot to make the project feasible. Mr. Bookman inquired how you would add any more traffic when the people are coming to the Coalfield-Genito intersection regardless, and Evergreen is going to develop regardless. Mr. Balderson stated the feasibility study indicated that additional access was necessary in order to properly feed traffic that would use the toll road facility. He stated the purpose of accomplishing the Powhite/288 area access study is to maximize feasibility for development potential and the advantages of everyone concerned. He stated that Mr. Smith's research for accessing his property and the area in general can be passed on to the consultant to be incorporated into the total access question. He stated that no one is saying that property in this area should not be accessed. He stated it is to the advantage of everyone to do so. Mr. Bookman stated that all that has been said today to access, ~.s ~to go west to come back east. Mr. Balderson stated the County was not satisfied with the situation presented at the public hearing with regard to this 1.2 miles and that is why the study is being undertaken, the Highway Department is in accord with doing the study but what they are saying is let's go a little bit further, let's look at this question that you presented to us, all of the other engineering points taken into consideration, we will go with whatever is an acceptable plan as presented ~t~ the County. Mr. Dodd stated that he was ready for a motion that we do not relocate Coalfield Road S3-697 and that we do provide access to existing Coalfield Road. He stated to relocate Coalfield Road is not wise and is wasted money. Mr. Daniel stated we have learned to think in terms of relocation of Coalfield Road but as he understood that, that road which was quoted as the relocated road was actually a brand new road that went through there and terminated. He inquired if the Board supports that new road. Mr. Dodd stated if you used existing Coalfield Road, you would not need that road. Mr. Bookman stated the motion to leave existing Coalfield Road is our plans, the new relocated Coalfield Road is being built by developers. He stated if the motion goes toward the Board supporting leaving Coalfield Road open, if that is built, it will have to go over it and access will be worked out with the consultant's report. He stated he had serious questions as there are no tolls coming on the 1.2 miles and it should eliminate $5,000,000-$6,000,000 so that alters the feasibility. Mr. Balderson stated what they have been able to ascertain from the feasibility study is that the additional mileage is necessary because of the traffic generation and origin and destination of that traffic fed onto the facility. He suggested to the Board that they not preclude options at this point without the benefit of a professional engineering study to give the soundest advice possible. Mrs. Girone stated the design of the Powhite has been approved by the Highway Commission and the Board has approved a study of the whole area to see where the road is supposed to go in the future. She stated she did not think it wise to sit here and redesign a road in a Board meeting but should remand this for further study. She stated the Board could vote on the intent of what it wants studied or looked at or what the feeling of the Board is to the outcome, but she felt this should be considered very seriously and discussed with road planners in the Highway Department and the consultant. Mr. Smith stated that he did not present his consultant's report to the Board. He stated there is a consultant's report in the package he gave the Board and what it tells you is not how much more traffic you will have if you extend over, but it is going to tell you how much further you have to go to get on the road to get back. He stated he provided a copy of the resolution passed by the Highway Department and calls their attention to paragraph 4, the last sentence in that resolution, which states that this resolution is made with the understanding that the design may require modification. He stated that is what we are talking about in accessing Coalfield Road and the Highway Department's Chief of Location and Design is fully in accord with his thinking-- it is merely a design change and not a location change and he will consider the request as such. Mr. Bookman stated he would like to propose a motion to leave the present Coalfield Road as an open artery and that the property in qUestion, there is the assurance of this Board that access will be provided to the Powhite extension. He stated this would solve Mr. Smith's concern until the studies and surveys were in. Mr. Smith stated that if the resolution says that the present location of Coalfield Road will be maintained and that other properties adjacent to Coalfield Road will have access to it and access to 76, is all that needs to be said. He stated that you are talking about a staff recon~endation and normally the public never sees that recommendation. He stated they have met with staff on this several ~imes and had long discussions. He stated the memo that you are referring to has the location of the property lies west a~d north of 288, with staff location of this property is east and north of 288. On motion of Mr. Bookman, it is the intent of this Board to leave existing Coalfield Road open and that access will be provided ~3-698 for this 160 acres. He stated he felt this would end the matter until the studies were received. Mr. Hedrick stated the Board discussed this issue earlier and it was his understanding that the Board's direction was that you wanted this study made but you put J~n there two conditions which you expressly wanted looked at in this study. He stated one was that it was your intent that if at all possible you wanted to keep Coalfield Road open, and the second was that you wanted this study to look at a means as it was the desire of this Board, if possible, to provide a safe means to this property in question to that road. He stated he felt the action that is being discussed today, seems to have already been taken. Mr. Bookman stated that action may have been taken in discussions regarding the hiring of consultants but it is not a matter of record. He stated the only other question, in light of the money problems, does the Board want to build the 1.2 miles west. Mrs. Girone inquired if all these questions of leaving Coalfield open and of extending to Old Hundred Road could be forwarded to the consultant. She stated she did not want to decide anything today, but remand it to the consultant for study. Mr. Bookman stated he felt an amendment to the resolution should be made to include the wording "suitable and safe access not to go west of the property" as several avenues can be considered. Mr. Daniel stated he would like to see the wording prior to voting on this. Mrs. Girone cautioned the Board that our delegation at the General Assembly will be attempting to obtain 9C funding on this road in January and they are not even privileged to this new concept. She stated they have a road on the map that was approved by the Commission and that is what they are taking over there. She stated that now we are making a change to that. Mr. Bookman stated there is no change in concept. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the delegation should be a part of this decision. Mr. Dodd stated he knows what her fears are and he thinks this is not the proper vehicle or time to do this, but sometimes you have to take the improper time to make a bold move. He stated the case in point is that this road is important enough to this County and it reminds him when the present toll road went through, the Board sat back and there was no exit put at Willis Road and private people had to put it in which was not proper, there was no exit put at Reymet Road, there is no exist at Bellwood Road and now Chesterfield County has all that land bypassed with no access, getting ready to do it on 295 with no exit at Meadowvilie Road, and here we are going to let a consultant tell us what we know is right. He stated the Board should take a bold move now to say we want Coalfield open even if it is the wrong vehicle. He stated we should have Willis Road open, and the others. Mrs. Girone stated she did not feel the Board would be using the proper avenue to suddenly decide this today. Mr. Daniel stated even though you feel this way, this information would be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the alternatives will be worked out and the proposed ccsts for ~esign or whatever would be paid by St. Leger's Square. Mr. Clarke Plaxco, representing the ~l~nagement of Brandermill, was present. He sta't.~ he came to encourage the Board to undertake the study of the entire corridor. He stated he was confused and does not understand what kind of action the Board can take on Mr. Smith's proposaL. He stated he would like to indicate that the other landowners in the vicinity have had no opportunity to review Mr. Smith's plans add in fact received no notice that this was an agenda item until early this morning. He stated Brandermill feels it is totally inappropriate for the Board to take any action on this proposal without confering 83-699 with surrounding property owners. He stated since there are so many competing interests in the vicinity of this proposed study area, they feel an in-depth study as the Board was prepared to d~ earlier today, and a comprehensive plan is highly appropriate to protect the interests of the citizens of the County especially ii order to remove this critical issue from a political agenda and to help assure the feasibility of a fragile toll road economics. Mr. Bookman stated the Board would not be changing anything. Mr. Plaxco stated he felt it was a drastic change. He stated there is an interchange at 288 and Powhite and Highway standards require that there be no other interchange or access within a mile of that interchange. Mr. Bookman stated he did not mention interchange. Mr. Pla×co stated that motion provides for at-grade access from Route 288 all the way westward. Mr. Bookma stated that he did not fee]. the motion said that. Mr. Plaxco stated that they support Mr. Hedrick's prepared motion, Mrs. Girone and staff comments in that any action that you take today simply be remanded to the consultant to take under advisement Mr. Smith's presentation and thoughts and integrate it into the stud~ process. He stated he felt it would be highly inappropriate and~ grossly premature and irregular for this Board to make specific statements about exactly what the road system does in that area without a transportation consultants report. He stated he felt it would be appropriate to express your intent but to put on record exactly what the roads must do, he felt inappropriate. Mr. Bookman stated the motion included the word intent. Mr. Dod( seconded the motion. He stated it may be awkward but he felt this should be done in the open. Mrs. Girone inquired if the intent was to study it or decree that this shall be. Mr. Bookma stated nothing is being changed on the study. Mr. Hedrick state that he was concerned about the words "will be" as he felt Mr. Smith will bring it back to the County's attention in a few months. Mr. Smith stated he would not be waiting that long on this or any other matter. Mrs. Girone moved that the proposed resolution be typed up during lunch and be brought back to the Board after lunch so it can be seen. She stated this would allo~ all to understand the motion and see what the ramifications are. Mr. Daniel stated it is his feelinq that it is just our intent tI keep the road open from a criss-cross to a stop light and that somehow access to those properties be maintained. Mr. Bookman stated the agenda was published on television and the Board is not trying to do anything underhanded and he could not believe that it was just found out this morning. Mr. Daniel stated they are not saying how anything should be done, just that it was the Board's intent to have %he artery to continue to flow and that the property be considered. Mr. Hedrick stated that this study will look at the feasibility of access conceptually and will not address the specific design of access and so forth and if it reaches a point that there has to be a design made for access, the Highway Department will look at Chesterfield County and say we have to pay for this design or the parties involved will have to pay for it. He stated that Mr. Smith will bring that issue back to the Board, in his opinion. Mr. Bookman stated it did not matter if he brought it back because if we want the road open, we will have to certainly pay for the engineering to keep it open. Mr. Hedrick stated the re~son he brought this up was because in other instances where this issue has arisen with other developers along the Powhite Parkway, we have said the developers have to pay for the design. Mr. Bookman stated that if Mr. Smith wants his design, let him get with staff and put up his money and let the Highway Department do it like the others. He stated to leaw Coalfield Road is not up to developers but it is in the County's interest. Mr. Hedrick stated he was talking about the access to the road which is a new design. Mr. Bookman stated we offered other developers an opportunity to compose a design and pay for it on lands that were not zoned and this is property we zoned. Mr. Hedrick stated he did not feel this was an exception or a difference. 83--700 Mr. Dodd seconded Mrs. Girone's motion for a deferral of this matter until 2:00 p.m. It was generally agreed that this matter would be deferred until 2:00 p.m. and that a motion was not necessary. It was generally agreed the Board would consider the utility item involving several people in the audience, break for lunch, take the balance of the agenda and then do zoning. 13.D.5. CONDEMNATION FOR REAMS ROAD WATER EASEMENTS Mr. Welchons stated that Patrick G. and Shirley W. Wharam had settled and signed last night and it can be removed from the proposed condemnation proceedings for water easements along Reams Road for Project W82-48B. He stated this line is needed to connect two existing water lines to move water from south to north. He stated the line has been in the plan for some time, the design was made to be put in easements so that when Reams Road is improved there would not have to be any water line relocations. He stated some of the property owners are present today who are concerned about the dedication of the easements. He stated staff has reviewed the line on the ground several times and made minor adjustments to miss some properties. He stated where there is shrubbery ~nvolved, it is in the agreement that it would be relocated and not destroyed. Mr. Barden was present to discuss this matter. Mr. Hedrick stated this just came to his attention before the meeting started and requested the Board defer action until January 11~ 1983 meeting and allow staff to meet with the property owners. He stated he did not feel the Board would want to make a dec~sion today regarding the relocation of a water line across the road. Mrs. Girone excused herself from the meeting. There was some discussion regarding the location of the line across the street, clearing, etc. Mr. Barden indicated the line would be crossing the road further down the road. He stated it has nothing to do with the money, but that they wanted it across the street so as not 'to disturb the shrubbery that the residents have planted. Mr. Welchons stated that the contract is on the agenda but the contractor has no problem with this being deferred. After further discussion of the matter, it was on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board deferred further consideration of this matter until January 11, 1984. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Daniel. Absent: Mrs. Girone. Mrs. Girone returned to the meeting. There was some discussion regarding an Execu%~.ve Session. It was generally a~reed, it woul~ be held later in the day. The Board recessed for lunch. Reconvening: 83-701 Mr. Hedrick stated that the Board would be handling some carry over items from the agenda this morning and as soon as that is completed, mobile home and zoning requests would be considered. 12.E. ST. LEGER PROPOSAL FOR POWHITE PARKWAY/ROUTE 288 Mr. Bookman inquired if everyone had read the resolution as typed. Mrs. Girone stated that she felt the staff's recommendation in the packet which involves further planning is the way to proceed. She stated the Board should not take a position for part of the project as it is very crucial, it has been approved by the Highway Commission in its entirety and there is a procedure to amend that plan, and the whole issue and impact should be considered. She stated the Board should not take a stab at it in the dark today which she felt the motion was. Mr. Daniel suggested that the recommendation of staff with the addition of "and it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to leave existing Coalfield Road as an open road and that safe and suitable access will be provided to the 160 acres of land be approved." Mrs. Girone stated that the motion should read that the planners consider the concept of leaving Coalfield Road but she does not want the Board to commit or direct that is the Board's final opinion. She stated the members of the legislature have worked very hard with members of the state to get this into an affordable form and any change will have an impact on the cost of building the road and it may have an impact on the revenues received from the road. She stated she is concerned that the entire package will be disturbed and it is almost ready to go into bill form and be taken to the General Assembly by the legislative delegation. She stated it was fine to consider this problem and ask the planners to consider this, and even to say the Board looks at it favorably, but she did not feel a directive or a hard and fast position that we want this accomplished is right when you don't know the total impact of the entire concept. She stated she felt the landowners in the neighborhood as well as the delegation should be advised of this idea. She stated she felt the delegation wculd be surprised to see this action if taken today. Mr. Daniel inquired if all of this would surface during the process when the applicant would bring his plans to the Highway Department for their consideration. He stated the recommendations in the Board packet with the additional verbiage would certainly satisfy all parties. Mr. Bookman stated that four men, ers of the Board have said it is their wish or intent to leave Coalfield open. He stated the intent of this motion is to advise and make it a matter of record, that this is the intent of the Board, and to be protrayed to the consultants that in their deliberations to derive how this road can be left open. He stated it is the intent and not ~ hard and fast decision. He stated if this is the intent, let's vote on it. He stated he was not trying to design a road but if it takes an overpass, then it is the County's cost to engineer that overpass. He stated that is not any other developers cost. He stated that if Mr. Smith's design is to be studied, then that is up to him and he will pay the cost for engineering. Mrs. G~rone inquired if the cost of the overpass is $3,000,000, what would the Board's position be. Mr. Bookman stated the position would then have to be assessed as to the advantage of leaving Coalfield Road open and if it were worth $3,000,000, if that were the cost. ~s. Girone stated ~.hat she would like the consultant who has been hired by the County to study th~ whole area, look at those alternatives, look at the impact of leaving Coalfield open, look at the impact of not e×tending the road all the way to Old 83-702 Hundred and present some alternatives with the costs. She stated at that time the Board could make a decision and talk with the Highway Department and the delegation at the General Assembly. She stated that all will know what we are doing. She stated there is a design that has been approved by the Highway Commission, it will have to go through a process to them to be amended and in the meantime take the time to study the alternatives, what the impacts are, the design changes are, the costs are and decide in a rational way if we want to go that way or not. She stated all of us are interested in leaving Coalfield open, we are interested in the impact of not extending the road to Old Hundred and the cost; but to sit here today and say that it is the will of the Board that Coalfield be open or that the road not be extended to Old Hundred without a study or some information from planners~ from the Highway Department and our delegation is a mistake. She stated the recommendation by staff will solve all the problems and do what all of us have in mind-- it will look into Mr. Smith's proposal in a fair way. Mrs. Girone suggested a motion that the information received will be considered by the County in ~ts effort to develop an access plan for the Powhite Parkway/Route 288 interchange area, and that the County is willing to enter into contractual agreements with VDH&T to develop an alternative preliminary design proposal provided that the cost of the design will be paid by St. Leger Square or some other private funding source. Mr. Bookman inquired when the Board planned to tell the Highway Department or the consultant that the wish of the Board is to leave Coalfield Road open. Mrs. Girone stated she would amend her motion to include "and that the consultant consider the wishes of the Board to leave Coalfield Road as an open provided it is economically feasible." She stated that you could tell them that you are interested in that. She stated that she did not feel the Board should say they are going to leave Coalfield open without knowing what it is to cost and about the impact on the traffic and surrounding land. She stated an overpass is certain to cost several million dollars. Mr. Bryce Powell, President of Midlothian Enterprises, was present. He stated he could not overemphasize his agreement with what Mrs. Girone said. He stated the big picture you are facing is the feasibility o~ this road overall. He stated he has to differ with Mr. Bookman, as he spent a year with the Planning staff, Planning Commission and Board getting a project called Evergreen approved in 1980. He stated this called for the termination of Coalfield Road by Powhite. He stated he does not really care except there has not been any public hearing since that time equal to what they went through in that exercise for the Board to make a statement "it is their intent". He stated as far as he knows, there hss been no public input to reach that decision. He stated more importantly since May of last year, while they have been plsnning Evergreen, they were told by the staff that a consultant study was going to made of the access in this area. He stated there is no study today and to make this decision at this point is wrong. He stated he only knows of one discussion he had with Mr. Bookman in July or August when it was concluded at the end of the meeting that a consultant study was the way to go. He stated he was also speaking for Mr. Gary Fenchuck of Brandermill as well. He stated that they are concerned property owners and they have not tried to influence anyone in waiting for this consultant's report. He stated he felt th~s was unbelievable that the Board would be considering a motion such as this without any more input than has been made today. He stated Mrs. Girone's point is the most important to be considered in this effort and the consultant should come in and analyze from a revenue and cost basis the access for this road and stand behind that. g3-703 Mr. Daniel stated that the whole thrust behind this is not to leave something out when the potential was there, which could be to have Powhite in place and not get across it from the existing Coalfield Road as well as having large land tracts that had no accessibility. He stated the principals are there that all five agree with, the only thing is how to word it so that it does not jeopardize anything that is already in place or jeopardize anything that could happen. He stated last year the Board adopted a resolution which gave clear procedures on how the County would operate on a request for a change in design. He stated we have done that already and that is the extent of what i: in the Board paper. He stated also it was suggested through many discussions, that the County could say at this time that it would be nice, but not necessarily wind up that way, if these other objectives be maintained but without destroying that which has been put in place so far. Mr. Powell stated he felt it was impossible for him to consider the fact that a consultant would study this without taking that as an option. Mr. Daniel stated this is more or less like, "don't forget it." Mr. Powell stated he felt this would unduly prejudice the decision. He stated he had never heard of a public hearing where it was decided it should be opened because based on his zoning case, it was determined it should be closed. Mr. Daniel stated in another zoning case, it was concluded it should be open. Mr. Bookman stated it has not been discussed at a public hearing to leave Coalfield Road open, it has been general discussion by Board members. He stated that Evergreen was zoned in March, 1980, and St. Leger was zoned in January or February, 1980. He stated the total planning of everything has been to bypass this property in a manner that it would not have any access whatsoever. He stated if this was on record as being the intent of the Board, then the consultant could weigh that into his considerations. He stated he has nothing against the consultant going forward, it has been 4 or 5 months since it was discussed and voted and now it is January and still has not been accomplished. Mrs. Girone stated a suggested amendment would be that the Board of Supervisors request the consultant include in their study the advisability of leaving Coalfield Road open and advise a method of accessing the immediate 160 acres. Mr. Micas stated that if you place two inconsistent statements together, it creates the opportunity for ambiguity which is kind of what you are doing if you take the staff's recommendation and then the additional verbiage. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the consultant would consider this action means for them to design an alternative with Coalfield open regardless of what comes along. Mr. Daniel stated he felt they would consider it as a wish of the governing body to leave Coalfield open with the next consideration being its economic feasibility. Mrs. Girone stated that wi.th the lack of roads in the County, they all want to leave as many open as possible to function and not close any. She stated we are interested in that but we want to know if we can leave it open and still have a functioning, affordable inter~ection or area. Mr. Bookman stated it is our intent to leave the road open, if it is economically unfeasible, it goes unspoken you will change your mind. Mr. Dodd stated it did not take a consultant to see the need for a road opening and he brought up a case in point this morning. He stated when they built 1-95 we had a half interchange at Willis Road, no interchanges at Bellwood and Reymet which have hurt the County in its economic development and 83-704 here we are going to sit by and let a consultant tell us what to do when we know what to do is right. Mr. Bookman repeated his motion which was that it is resolved by the Board that the County is willing to enter into contractual arrangements with VDH&T to develop an alternative preliminary design proposal provided that the cost of the design will be by St. Leger Square or some other private funding source and it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to leave existing Coalfield Road as an open road and that safe and suitable access will be provided to the 160 acres of land west of this property. Mr. Dodd stated this does not tie the County down nor does it jeopardize Powhite. Mrs. Girone suggested an amendment to the motion that would speak to economic feasibility. Mr. Bookman stated that was self explanatory. Mrs. Girone suggested an amendment to the motion that the planners consider the wishes of the Board of Supervisors to leaw existing Coalfield Road as an open road provided it is economically feasible and that safe and suitable access be provided to the 160 acres of land but not west of this property. She stated this would change "intent" to "wishes" and add "provided it is economically feasible." She stated this is an $83,000,000 project and this could add $3,000,000 to it. She stated it could make the obligation of the County up to $30,000,000 of front money. She state(] the whole problem with the Powhite is to pay for it, everyone knows we need it. She stated we have had a Toll Road Authority for five or six years, before that we have been to the Highway Department for fifteen years to get the road paid for. She stated now everyone is cooperating to get the road paid for and we are coming upon a financially feasible project and this resolution could very possibly put it out of range. She stated that the Board should not bind itself and say we have to open Coalfield Road, but say we wish to study this and consider the ramifications. She statec the Board needs to know as much as we can about any decision we make and to say blindly that we are going to keep Coalfield open and not consider how much it will cost and the impact on the legislation that is coming in January, is not a responsible action. Mr. Dodd stated he agreed with her except for one thing. He stated that everything he has seen has a cul-de-sac on Coalfield Road and it is going right on by us and before we know it, it will be cul-de-saced and dead ended. He stated he was not doing .this blindly. Mrs. Girone stated she thought the design to cul-de-sac Coalfiel~ Road came from County. Mr. Balderson stated it was the Highway Department's design proposal based on the best accessing situation that th~,y hn~] in hand. lie stated at that point i.t became the County's intent to seek consultant assistance to look at all options available to come up with a proposal for access that maximizes our advantage to make the project feasible and maximizes the opportunity for securing the kind of development that we want in that area. He stated if we modify the approach the consultants are going to take in any way, regardless of the outcome of the study recommendations, we are talking about renegotiating or negotiating again with those consultants on the basis of what the Board does today. He: stated it will affect it in terms of cost and timing. Mrs. Girone inquired about the timing. Mr. Balderson stated we are at a point in time where we have a reasonably good proposal from 'the consultant and are trying to adjust that to a cost we can bring to the Board that i effective and we are very close to that but we asked for a deferral to bring staff's best effort forward. He stated the Board's decision could add to the cost and the time of 83-705 negotiation. He stated the will take approximately four months. Mr. Daniel stated the whole issue evolves around the word intent or desirability, etc. He stated we have certain desires about things on Powhite and we have already received a matrix back if you choose Column A it will cost you so much, or Column B, etc. He stated he sees this as one more column in the matrix that at the appropriate time when the decisions have to be made we will know what we want, what we can afford, what 9C funding will give us, etc. He stated this could be one of those items that you could pick and choose to fit, be it sight barriers, sound barriers, etc. Mrs. Girone stated the General Assembly and the State Treasurer have got to have a firm figure in January and the figure we have now is $83,000,000. She stated if in April the design is chan¢ and $3,000,000 added for this intersection, you will have to $3,000,000 somewhere else. Mr. Bookman stated that St. Leger or whomever could donate land which is worth so much money and could affect the cost. He stated if we don't do something to get an access to St. Leger that is sensible, he doubted very seriously that the acreage involved for Powhite would be donated but this could be a trade off. Mrs. Girone requested that the consultant just.be reque to include in their study the advisability of leaving Coalfield Road open and a method of accessing the immediate 160 acres. She stated the Board should have full knowledge of all impacts before they decide on a design. She stated this road has been underway almost 20 years, public hearings have been held, the state and the County have spent a lot of money on design and to one afternoon decide on a major change without supporting data information, is wrong. She stated we should ask them to study for us. Mr. Dodd inquired if this matter should be deferred until later in the day as many people were present for other matters. Mr. Bookman stated that could be done or the question called. Mrs. Girone stated that the Board said to all developers that if they had an alternative design to cffer, there was a method of doing that as the County Attorney and the Highway Department had developed a contract and we had one developer who has chosen to do this and is having alternative designs considered by the Highway Department. She stated this developer could have made himself available to take advantage of this opportunity and a contract and this could have been all finished and done with. She stated that another developer was interested in this process but decided against it and one that is taking advantage of it. She stated this developer has had an open process ~hat everyone knew about and he could have come on and signed that contract have the Highway Department design this to his wishes so we have not held him back. Mr. Bookman stated that the Board is not voting on changing the design for Mr. Smith which he has p~t forth to us. He stated we are voting on what the B~ard has s~ they want to do and that i~ leave Coalfield Road open and has r~i~ing to do with Mr. Smith entering into a contract for leaving Coalfield Road open as it i~ up to the Board to leave it open or not. He stated he is simply saying let's say it or quit saying it without putting it on the record. 83-706 Mr. Bookman called the question. Mr. Robertson stated all that is being requested is consideratiol here and that is all. Mr. Bookman repeated the motion which said that the County is willing to enter into contractual arrangements with VDH&T to develop an alternative preliminary design proposal provided that the cost of the design will be paid by St. Leger Square or some other private funding source and it is the intent of the Board ol Supervisors to leave existing Coalfield Road as an open road and that safe and suitable access will be provided to the 160 acres of land west of this property. Mr. Daniel inquired what west of the property meant. Mr. Bookman stated it meant not further west of the property to the terminus of Route 76. Mr. Daniel inquired if the motion could stop at the end of "land" and leave all the other subject to the consultants. He stated the only questions which had been discussed is leaving Coalfield open and making sure there is access for the 160 acres Mr. Bookman stated that safe and suitable also is getting into minor details but he would consider safe and suitable to be something that is usable so he would amend the motion to stop after "land". Mrs. Girone stated she would like to call for a substitute motion. Mr. Robertson stated the question had been called. Ayes: Nays: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Bookman. Mrs. Girone. Mr. Daniel stated he was voting in favor of this as he felt ther, was a hang up on words but the fundamental considerations have been addressed and that is the protection of everything that has already been done, the thought process of how wishes are and are clearly defined and should not hamstring a consultant from doing a professional job. Mr. Welchons introduced Mr. Ed Beck, the newly employed Assistant Director of Utilities. He stated that Mr. Beck comes to the County with experience from the Highway Department, uti!it~es firm and private industry. The Board welcomed Mr. Beck to the County. 16. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOMES 83SR207 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Mamie Sayles requested renewal of a Special Exception to park a mobile home on property which she owns. Tax Map 81-8 (]~) parcel 2 and better known as 9101 Omaha Street (Sheet 23). Ms. Sayles was present. There was no opDosition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request for a period of ~ive years subject to the fo]lowing standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobi home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to parked on an iDdividuai lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district sha].l be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer th~n ~0 feet to any existing residence. 83-707 e No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall .mot be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available they shall be used. ' Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, 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 the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd stated that he did not have a problem with the first request for a mobile home permit since it was for a renewal, but he did forget to make a disclosure that he is in the mobile home business, although not directly related in sales, and if anyone is purchasing a mobile home from his company to please let him know in order that he might excuse himself from the room to prevent a possible conflict of interest. 83S208 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Ms. Christine G. Gold requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which belongs to Stuart Butler, father of the applicant. Tax Map 82-13 (5) Central Park, Block 6, Lots 5 through 8, and better known as 2621 General Boulevard (Sheet 23). Ms. Gold was present and stated that this was not a request for a new mobile home as it has existed for several years. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or ].eased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any 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. j 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. Where public (Cou~"i~.y) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, 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 the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 83-708 83S209 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Walter and Emma Singleton requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which belongs to William Rowlett, cousin of the applicant. Tax Map 115-11 (2) Chester, Block K, Lot 135A, and better known as 3922 Curtis Street (Sheet 32). Mr. and Mrs. Singleton were present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd inquired where this location was exactly. Mr. Singleton stated this was between Richmond and Curtis Streets. Mr. Dodd stated that he had some problems with mobile homes on the other side of the railroad tracks. He stated if this home were put there, screened properly, etc. he may not have any problems. He stated he had not heard of any opposition at this time but once it goes in, he might. He inquired if the applicant would accept a two year permit in case there is opposition, then they will have to get back together to discuss the matter and if there is major opposition from the area, it may have to be moved Mr. Singleton stated this was agreeable. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approw this request for a two year period subject to the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (]) mobile home shall be permitted to b~ parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of t'he 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. e Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the' shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant 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 abr>ve conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 17. REQUESTS FOR REZONI~G 83S119 In Midlothian Magisterial District, TURNER AND ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential Townhouse-for-Sale (R-TH) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development on a 23 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,300 fee~ on the north line of Lucks Lane, approximately 200 feet west of Abingdon Road, 11400 Lucks Lane. Tax Map 38-]. (1) Parcels 5, 6 and 7 (Sheet 14). ~3-709 Mr. Balderson stated the applicant has withdrawn this request. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr~ Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board accepted the request for withdrawal by the applicant. Vote: Unanimous 83S148 In Midlothian Magisterial District, ROLLING HILL DEVELOPMENT COR- PORATION requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance on a 17.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet on the southeast line of Old Buckingham Road approximately 150 feet northeast of Southwick Boulevard. Tax Map 16-10 (1) Parcel 15 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 60 day deferral of this request. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred consideration of this request until February 22, 1984 as requested by the applicant. Vote: Unanimous 83S189 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WALLACE H. LAPRADE requested rezoning from Residential (R-15) of 19.96 acres and from Agricultural (A) of 3.04 acres to Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH); and from Residential (R-15) to Office Business (O) of 1.0 acres plus a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing the entire 24 acres. This property fronts approximately 150 feet on Route 360, also fronts approximately 1,700 feet on Broadstone Road and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 39-14 (1) Parcel 4 and Part of Parcel 1 and Tax Map 39-11 (1) Part of Parcel 82 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant has requested a 30 day deferral. Mr. Wallace LaPrade was present. Mr. Bookman inquired what the purpose was for the deferral. Mr. LaPrade stated that at the Planning Commission meeting on November 22nd there was opposition present which he had not anticipated. He stated he had been working with a member of the Bexley Civic Association trying to get this resolved and he would like to continue negotiating with the residents to find a reasonable solution. Mr. Bookman stated that Mr. LaPrade was aware of opposition for almost thirty days and was now seeking a deferral. Mr. LaPrade stated he had submitted a letter to staff which was received on December 8, 1983. Mr. Bookman stated he was not aware of this nor was the Association and there are 35± people present in opposition. Mr. Moonie, representative for the Civic Association, stated they were not aware of the request for deferral. Mr. LaPrade stated he had been dealing with Mr. Bill Cowen for the last six months who is a member of the Bexley Civic Association. Mr. Bookman inquired if Mr. Cowen was aware of the Civic Association's feeling regarding this matter. Mr. Cowen stated he was but last night was the first he had heard ~f the request for deferal. Mr. LaPrade stated he had a letter dated November 8, 1983 that the Civic.Association wanted to go along with him on the rezoning provided it was in accord with Western Green and proffered the conditions for rezoning at the end of the lake to which he had agreed. Mr. Balderson stated that was for the other case before the Board today. Mr. LaPrade stated he had dealt with Mr. Cowen and thought everything was resolved because there is a certain amount of legal work which must be done I3or the proprietary society, transferring of land, establishment of 83-7]0 the legal entity to receive the land, etc. and that is what they were working on. He stated he had a surprise when he came to the Planning Commission and Mr. Moonie was opposing and representing the Civic Association, he had a surprise when he came to the Courthouse and found Mr. Heslip representing himself as a member of the organization, etc. He stated he would like the time to straighten it out. Mr. Bookman stated that he would recommend to hear this case today but due to the fact there ~.s a letter of record for deferral, he will request the Board to defer the case 60 days. Mr. LaPrade stated this could cause a hardship with his builder but he will go along with that if that is the will of the Board. Mr. Bookman stated a 30 day deferral did not leave much time for necessary things to be accomplished, especially with the holidays. Mr. Moonie stated the Association had some questions regarding the construction of some homes at the entrance to the lake but that is not the issue being discussed at this time. He stated there are approximately 35 people present in opposition to the townhouse/office complex proposal and presented a petition signed by 196 people opposed to said proposal. Mr. Bookman stated that the Board could hear the case and still defer it for 60 days since there are so many people present. Mr. Moonie stated that he did want to make a point that discussions were terminated between Mr. Cowen and Mr. LaPrade after the November 8, 1983 letter was sent and since the November 22, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. He stated if this is deferred 60 days he would like a condition included whereby Mr. LaPrade should meet frequently with the Association to discuss the entire proposal. He stated that they are strongly opposed to the townhouse, office park development and doubted seriously that there would be any change in 60 days. Mr. LaPrade stated he had letters from all of the adjacent property owners and across the road agreeing with what his plans were, etc. Mr. Bookman stated since the opposition is here he would like to hear the case in order and make it a part of the record, with the understanding that the intent will be to defer the case 60 days. It was generally agreed to do so. 83S180 In Bermuda Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a 40 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,400 feet on the north line of Centralia Road approximately 300 feet east oi Chester Road. Tax Map 97-2 (1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 32). Mr. Dodd stated Mr. Rowe has requested a 30 day deferral in order to meet with the residents of the community. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Danie the Board deferred consideration of this request until January 25, 1984 at the request of the applicant. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Bookman excused himself from the meeting. 83S125 In Dale Magisterial District, ROY N. NORTON AND ADAMS AND NORTON, INC. requested a Conditional Use to permit a contractor's shop and office in a Light industrial (M-I) District on a 2 acre parcel fronting ap?ro×imately 80 feet on the east line of Cast]ewood Road approximately 280 feet north of Cogbill Road, and also fronting approximately 50 feet on the north line of Cogbill Road approximately 5 feet east of Cas%lewood Road. Tax Map 53-2 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet ]6). 83-711 Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan prepared by M,L. Corso, dated February 23, 1983, shall be considered the plan of development. Prior to release of a building permit, thirty-five (35) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Cogbill Road, and thirty (30) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Castlewood Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. The existing drive to Cogbill Road shall be closed and access shall be relocated to Castlewood Road. Prior to release of an occupancy permit, this new entrance shall be constructed in accordance with VDH&T specifications. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Roy N. Norton and Adams and Norton, Inc., and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. This Conditional Use shall be for the purpose of operating a contractor's shop and office only. One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed an area of twenty (20) square feet, shall be permitted indentifying this use. This sign shall neither be luminous nor illuminated. (Note: All bulk requirements of the M-1 District must be adhered to. Outside storage will not be permitted.) Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr· Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Bookman. Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting. 83S181 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WALLACE H. LAPRADE requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) of two (2) parcels. The first contains 2.6 acres ~Tronting approximately 50 feet on the south line of West Providence Road, approximately 1,300 feet west of Ramsgate Lane. Tax Map 39-5 (1) Parcel 7 (Sheet 14). The second contains approximately 1.5 acres fronting approximately 200 feet on the south line of West Providence Road, approximately 1,400 feet west of Ramsgate Lane. Tax Map 39-.5 (1) Parcel 8 and Part of Parcel 9 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Bookman inquired if the conditions were identical to the parcel which was approved for Central Fidelity. Mr. Balderson stated they were. Mr. Bob Moonie, representing the Bexley Civic Association, was present. He stated with the conditions as recommended, provided they are the same as Central Fidelity's, they do not have any objections. There was no one else present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board approved the request subiect to acceptance of the following proffered conditions which are~'the same as those proffered conditions for Central Fidelity on the adjacent property: Any subdivision lot abutting Upper Beaver Pond shall have a lot area of at least 30,000 square feet, a lot width of at least 125 feet and a ~ear yard of at least 75 feet. Front yards shall be at least 50 feet and side yards shall be at least 20 feet. Any subdivision lot not abutting Upper Beaver Pond but situated such that ans' portion of the lot is within 350 feet of ~Der Beaver Pond shall have a lot area ~ at l~ast 83-712 25,000 square feet and a lot width of at least 115 feet. Front yards shall be at least 50 feet, side yards shall be at least 20 feet and rear yards shall be at least 50 feet. Houses constructed on lots described in (1) above shall contain at least 2,000 square feet of floor area if two or more stories in height and 1,800 square feet if one story in height. Square footage shall be measured exclusive of decks, porches, stoops, garages and storage areas. The following proffered conditions shall be incorporated into the restrictive covenants: Above trade foundations and chimneys for houses con- structed on lots described in (1) above shall be of brick or stone. No fence shall be constructed in any front yard setback area on any lot described in (!) above. Ce Storage buildings and garages shall be attached to houses on all lots described in (1) above. Houses constructed on lots described in (1) above shall have permanent roofing surfaces consistent with the structure's architectural character and be of one of the following materials~ 2. 3. 4. 5. Cedar shakes or shingles Concrete shingles or tiles Clay shingles or tiles Slate shingles or tiles Asbestos Supra Slate or other asbestos "look-alike" slate material. Vote: Unanimous 83S183 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THOMAS C. THO~S AND DEBORAH J. THOMAS, requested a Conditional Use to permit a riding school, the boarding of horses and associated uses in an Agricultural (A) District on a 20 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the north line of Woolridge Road, approximately 4~300 feet northeast of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 60 (1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 19). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions· Mr. Peter Nikas was present representing the applicant. He stated they would like exceptions to Condition 911 which limits the number of horses to 20 as they would prefer to have 60. He stated this condition was based on approximately 1-2 acres per horse for grazing but these horses will be boarded inside and fed with commercial feeds and grains and will not graze on the land· He stated that Condition ~4 speaks to one parking space for each two horses. He stated Mrs. Thomas' classes are for children who learn to ride and she will not be able to teach more than six to eight at a time and this means there will be no more than six to eight cars at the facility. He stated most parents will stay for the first lesson or two to see the children learn to ride, but there will not be that many to visit the horses at the same time. Mr. Bookman inquired if this was an ordinance requirement. Mr. Balderson stated that under the conditional use he would have to provide a minimum of six paved spaces. Mrs. Thomas stated there would be three to four employees but they would be coming at different times. Mr. Ba!derson stated that 10 spaces wo~ld be reasonable given the emp!oyees~ the patrons, etc. He stated the customary parking for horse shows will be in the fi·Id and it would not be necessary to require paved parking for those days when shows occur. Mrs. Girone inquired why paved spaces were necessary. Mr. Balderson stated this is a business operation and the traffic associated with it and you are dealing with a commercial enterprise. He stated that clientele is involved and they should be afforded reasonable parking and access. He stated they would have to pave the minimum number of spaces or reapply for a Conditional Use Planned Development. Mr. Nikas stated they would accept the six paved spaces. Mrs. Girone inquired about the number of stalls in the building. Mrs. Thomas stated there should be no more than 60. There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel suggested the hours of operation be changed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. because even the feeding could not be legally accomplished until 7:00 a.m. Mr. Bookman suggested "operation to the public" would handle this concern. Mr. Nikas stated that was agreeable. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan prepared by Bodie, Taylor and Puryear, dated October 3, 1983, shall be considered the plan of development. e This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Thomas C. Thomas and Deborah J. Thomas and shall not be transferable, nor run with the land. The permitted uses shall be limited to the teaching of horseback riding and the boarding and breeding of horses. No retail sales shall be permitted. There shall be no horse shows nor other uses or activities which would necessitate the assembly of more than thirty (30) persons at any one time. Ten parking spaces shall be provided with a minimum of six (6) paved. All driveways shall be paved. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained around the perimeter of the site. There shall, be no clearing or grading permitted within this buffer except for a single access from Woolridge Road and any clearing required by VDH&T to obtain adequate sight distance. This buffer shall consist of existing vegetation which shall be supplemented with additional plantings where necessary to effectively screen the proposed improvements from adjacent properties. Hours of operation shall be restricted to the public to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:~0 p.m· 7. The outdoor riding ring shall not be lighted. Prior to obtaining a building permit, thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Woolridge Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.. A single sign, not to exceed ten (10) square feet in area, shall be permitted identifying this use. This sign shall be set back at least 15 feet from the property line and shall not be luminous nor illuminate~. The facades shall employ subdued colors. Prior to erection of this sign, colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 10. Ail stables, arenas and ring areas shall be cleaned daily to eliminate odor and. insects. 11. There shall be no more than sixty (60) horses kept on this site at any one time. Vote: Unanimous 83S184 In Bermuda Magisterial District, AMY MORRIS PATE requested a Conditional Use to permit a child care center in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.75 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the west line of Quinnford Boulevard approximately 100 feet north of Willis Road, and better known as Bellwood Baptist Church. Tax Map 82-5 (4) Bellwood Heights, Lot lA (Sheet 23). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Ms. Pate was present and stated that she has to comply with both the County requirements and those of the Church. She stated the Church feels that condition ~5 should be deferred as there is already 100 tons of gravel in the parking lot and she can only afford to pave 15 spaces to the north which would leave part of the lot paved and part unpaved and the Church thought this would be an eye sore. She stated the Church does have plans to pave it in the future. She introduced Mr. Leo Myers, representing the Bellwood Baptist Church, who explained the layout of the parking lot and the Church. He stated that the lot does have 100 tons of gravel and it is almost as good as blacktop. He stated they do not feel it would be fair to Ms. Pate to pave parking spaces on a venture that might not be successful. He stated they hope this is successful but in two or three years, she may want to move to another location since the Church is not exactly designed for this operation. He stated they hoped to have this entire area blacktopped in the future. Mr. Daniel stated there certainly are no more cars parked there on a weekday then on Sunday and he could see no reason why if parking was okay on Sunday it weuld not be okay on weekdays. Mr. Myers stated they have ample parking according to the Planning staff. He discussed the area in detail with regard to additional lots owned by the Church, the widening of Willis Road, etc. Mr. Dodd stated he could not see requiring paving of spaces when they are using the Church parking space. Mr. Balderson stated when the Church was constructed there were no requirements to pave parking spaces but any new churches constructed today have to pave the parking lot. He stated the child care center is a change in use on this parcel and the paving of parking spaces is required by the ordinance and the only way to waive this would be to approve it under a Conditional Use Planned Development whereb~ an exception to that requirement could be made. Mr. Dodd inquired if this could be approved with parking to be accomplished within five years. Mr. Balderson stated the ordinance states the paving must be accomplished prior to occupancy. He stated there could be an argument made for this as this is a different type of land use and business operation but there are existing circumstances on the physical layout which makes this unique in terms of a zoning situation. Mr. Micas stated this would have to be readvertised for a Conditional Use Planned Development because it is less restrictive. Mr. Bookman inquired about waiving the fee. Mr~ Micas stated the fee cannot be waived for refiling. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel they were changing the use as this is allowed on Sunday morning. Mr. Micas stated it is a change in land use as day care and church uses are defined as separate uses. Mr. Dodd stated the entire ordinance should be reviewed as he has had problems with paved parking before which is causing runoff. Mr. Dodd inquired if the applicant would refile and inquired about the fee. Mr. Balderson stated the Board has in the past allowed the applicant to apply the existing fee to any new charges. Ms. Pate inq~]ired if it would have to go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Balderson stated it would. He stated further that the Board could allow her to proceed and come in an~ file a Conditional Use Planned Development. Mr. Micas indicate~ that would involve two fees. Mr. Bookman inquired if she could do that in six or eight months. Mr. Balderson stated that the County could not give her an occupancy permit without paving. 83-7].5 Mr. Daniel stated he did not understand why she could not obtain an occupancy permit when the Church has hundreds of people on Sunday. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this request be approved and the paving to be considered later subject to the following conditions This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Amy Morris Pate and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. 0 One sign, not to exceed four (4) square feet in area and a height of five (5) feet, shall be permitted identifying this use. This sign shall not be luminous or illuminated. e Enrollment shall be limited to a maximum of thirty (30) preschool children to be housed in the Preschool Building and a maximum of fifteen (15) school age children to be housed in the fellowship hall of the church. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. There shall be no Saturday or Sunday operations. Parking for this facility shall be confined to the area north of the existing structures. (Note: Per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, based on an enrollment of 45 children and 7 employees, a minimum of fifteen (15) paved parking spaces must be provided. Prior to obtaining an occupancy permit, site plans reflecting this requirement must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and the necessary improvements made.) Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd stated he would contact the applicant in the near future regarding the occupancy permit. 83S185 In Midlothian Magisterial District, ROLLING HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 81S006) to permit a te~ foot exception to the twenty-five foot rear yard setback for Townhouse for Sale structures on a 7.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 550 feet on the north line of Rockaway Road, approximately 150 feet west of Chatsworth Avenue. Tax Map 10-9 (13) Rolling Hill, Block B, Lots 7-9; Block C, Lots 1-7; Block D Lots 1-9; and Block E, Lots 1-9; and Tax Map 10-13 (3) Rolling Hill, Block A, Lots 1-7; Block B, Lots 1-6; and Block F, Lots 1- (Sheet 3). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. There w~ no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This exception shall be granted for the purpose of allowing the storage unit to encroach ten (10) feet into the require( rear yard setback. This exception shall not apply to any other portion ~f the structure or attachments thereto. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the plan "Typical Rear Yard Detail" pr~pare~ by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated 10/5/83. Vote: Unanimous 8~-716 83S186 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, BRANDERMILL requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 74S021) to allow an 8,000 square foot area, previously restricted to a grocery store and other retail uses, to be used for office and/or retail uses in Sunday Park. Sunday Park fronts the west line of Mill Ridge Parkway, approximately 250 feet north of Woodbriar Court. Tax Map 62-5 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 20). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. Clarke Plaxco was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the imposition of the following condition Ail previously imposed conditions of Brandermill's zoning shall be applicable. Vote: Unanimous 83S189 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WALLACE H. LAPRADE requested rezoning from Residential (R-15) of 19.96 acres and from Agricultural (A) of 3.04 acres to Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH); and from Residential (R-15) to Office Business (O) of 1.0 acres plus a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing the entire 24 acres. This property fronts approximately 150 feet on Route 360, also fronts approximately 1,700 feet on Broadstone Road and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 39-14 (1) Parcel 4 and Part of Parcel 1 and Tax Map 39-11 (1) Part of Parcel 82 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request. Mr. Dodd stated that Mr. LaPrade should present his case and the opposition can state their views and it will be deferred for final action for 60 days. Mr. Bookman stated the standard Board procedure is to grant a reasonable deferral on a first time basis but he would like to hear the case and the people who have come down in opposition. Mr. LaPrade stated planning is an art and over the years, when building Bexley, he took into consideration the changes in economic conditions, the things people can afford, etc. He stated in a national survey, people can no longer afford to build a single family home but are going to townhouses. He presented letters from the adjacent property owners, the architect who has has worked with him for years, stating no objection to the proposed plan. He stated that the things he has done sometimes have been to his detriment because the townhouse units are well below the maximum density allowable under County ordinances. He presented an excerpt from the letter from Mr. Cowen regarding the townhouses. He read an excerpt from the Covenants, Limitations, Requirements and Reservations whic~ was included in all deeds for Bexley since the beginning of the development, which basically say that the owners of the property comprising Bexley, Section 1, as of the date of the recording of these restrictions reserve unto themselves and their heirs, successors, the right to construct or permit cons'truction of, operate or maintain other facilities, i.e. churches, schools, country clubs, recreational areas, apartments, shopping centers or other facilities on such other property as owned by them in Manchester District, Chesterfield County, Virginia and any person acquiring any interest in Bex!ey, Sec%ion I, shall be agreeable and consented 83-717 thereto. He stated this paragraph was put in to protect him and his rights to develop the land in the same quality area but being flexible enough to handle the market and to be a part of the market as it is and grows from day to day. He stated some people will complain and that is expected. He stated that he is working on the adjacent 18 acres and they are the only two parcels left and he wants to develop the two together to make a satisfactory situation. He stated this proposal would create a sound barrier between the single family dwellings and the road itself to a certain degree. He presented a rendering of the proposed development for which the 18 additional acres would become a part of Bexley itself. Mr. Bookman inquired if he planned townhouses for that 18 acres as well. Mr. LaPrade stated they intend to incorporate this in the development of the area. He indicated a portion of this land was zoned for cluster homes. He stated he would be happy to work with the people to have this accomplished. He indicated there would be a lot of wooded areas remaining in order to develop a nice area. He stated the zoning is for cluster homes at this time and they are asking for 96 additional lots for townhouses. Mr. Daniel inquired what was approved for this area now. Mr. Balderson stated R-15 is the underlying zoning, and he is now operating under an existing Conditional Use Planned Development and he can build individual detached, single family homes with reduced lot sizes. Mr. LaPrade presented slides of a development in Washington and Arlington. He stated his townhouses would sell for a minimum of $85,000 and this would finish development of this property along Providence Road. Mr. Bookman stated that Mr. LaPrade should be complimented on one of the finest projects in the County, that being Bexley. He stated in 1976 he requested additional zoning and it was done because it was felt it would be in keeping with the Bexley Subdivision. He stated there was some opposition in the beginning but he worked with the people and there was no opposition in the end. He stated that there is a need for townhouses in the Metropolitan area but now he learns that there is an additional 18 acres planned for townhouses and office use. He stated once that move is made, if approved, it would continue in the area as it would set a precedent. He stated this has been zoned single family for seven years now. He stated he had received many letters and calls regarding this matter. He stated he felt this has gotten off to a bad start. He stated he would like to hear the people's comments since they came down and since the request for deferral was formally made, it would be honored. Mr. Bob Moonie was present representing the Bexley Civic Association. He stated a very high percentage of residents came to the Planning Commission meeting as well as residents from the Longwood Acres Association and neighbors from Lockhardt Road. He stated there are about 35 residents present on this normal work d which indicates the significance and degree to which they oppose this as well as 196 signatures opposing the office and townhouse complex. He stated they oppose th~s development because they oppose any office complex at Bexley's main entrance way, they oppose the very concept of having townhouses in Bexley, they oppose the quantity of townhouses that were originally proposed at the Planning Commission meeting~ that they are in opposition to the violation of the buffer zones originally approved, the significant traffic problems and the potential safety problems that this development would add. He stated this development would necessitate a traffic light at the intersection of R~>ute 360 and Broadstone ~oad. He stated the corner of Route 360 and Broadstone Road is the main entrance to Bexley and townhouses could ruin the entrance into Bexley. He stated to rezone this to allow some commercial zoning ~}n this corner would set a spot 83-718 zoning precedent which would impair the value and enjoyment of the surrounding land which is presently for single family and agricultural purposes. He stated they are also opposed to the townhouse concept because Bexley was begun as a community of unique, high quality homes valued at $200,000 and $300,000+, one of which is adjacent to the proposed project. He stated this is presently zoned for single family homes and over 135 homeowners have built or bought homes in Bexley assuming that the tradition of single family homes would be maintained. He stated this townhouse concept is incompatible with Bexley and endorse the staff's report that the density proposed for the townhouses for sale represents more than twice the number of units approved under the original Conditional Use Planned Development and that the land use and proposed density represents a departure from th~ spirit and intent of the original Conditional Use Planned Development. He stated that having townhouses ranging from $85,000 up may impair the existing home values in the neighborhood. He stated they are not opposed to appropriate development as they did not oppose the earlier case as long as i' was properly proffered and this is an illustration that they are willing and eager to see Bexley develop forward. He stated they oppose the concept of the office complex and townhouseso He requested that the request be denied at this time and not deferred. He stated since the last zoning hearing there has bee] no effort on Mr. LaPrade's part to discuss the matter and they see no compromise in their position to the concept of office buildings and townhouses. He stated they will feel the same 30, 60 or 90 days from now. He stated if the deferral is granted, they requested that it be conditioned on Mr. LaPrade meeting witt representatives of the Association beginning as soon as possible after January 1, 1984, that he endorse and work with them to get the Bexley Association going forward, that he deed the commoi areas and lakes to the Association, that he openly discuss his plans with emphasis on buffer zones, style of townhouses, quantities, etc. Mr. Charles Myer was present representing the Virginia First Savings and Loan Association, owners and developers of approximately 40 acres of land to the northeast of this section zoned R-15 with Conditional Use. He stated they are opposed to this rezoning for the same reasons mentioned above. Dr. Walter Orms, a resident of Bexley, was present. He stated he has no objection to high density housing in the County and other areas but it has to be in the right place and they feel this is the wrong place. He stated that the residents who purchased property in Bexley, received a brochure which says, "Bexley is a composite of elegant terrain endowed with stately trees, meandering streams, ravines, it seems only natural that iq should stay that way" and "trees cannot be indiscriminately devoured by bulldozers just to build a home" and "no where is there a better bond of individual homes and natural beauty than in Bexley." He also presented five pages of typed conditions, covenants, limitations, etc. applying to homes in Bexley. He stated there was also an architectural guideline which discussed copper flashings, how shutters will be installed, culverts, air conditioners, etc. of restrictions and methods of doing things. He stated he became a believer in all of these papers and it was enforced until 1976. He stated that Mr. LaPrade exercised his right and went and started to develop what he called Bexley Cosmopolitan. He stated five or six homes were built and they were very nice but small but they did not sell as anticipated an~ this development was not successful. He stated his successors built something entirely different and they did not meet the specification of Bexley. He discussed the value of the homes in the area which w~ll depreciate in value if the townhouses are built. He stated the townhouses as shown on the slides were $150,000-$200,000 not $85,0~0. He stated th~.s same situation will happen if they don't sell and someone will come in and ~3-719 build less quality. He cited traffic problems as well and the time involved trying to get across Route 360 and he did not feel this additional traffic could be handled. He stated there are 235 residents in Bexley with an average of $150,000 per home now Mr. Charles Marker, President of Longwood Civic Association, sta, they were opposed to this because of traffic congestion and problems as well as this would set a precedent for undeveloped land in the area to be zoned residential as well. Dr. Smith, a resident of Bexley, stated the name of a townhouse is a row hous, and you don't build row houses in neighborhoods with $150,000 homes. Mr. LaPrade stated the small houses he built in Bexley Cosmopolitan were 1948-3700 square feet and they were little gem: but the prime rate was 21½% at the time. He stated he would be glad to meet with the residents, staff, etc. and he would like the extension of time in this case. Mr. Bookman inquired if Mr. La?rade would consider withdrawing this request and look at the entire area again. He stated to build townhouses in the area would not be the right move but he would honor the request for deferral. Mr. LaPrade inquired if Mr. Bookman thought there would be a possibility of discussing this further. Mr. Bookman stated that could be accomplished but he felt this would be an exercise in futility on this particular case because it is out of place. He stated someone will develop the area but this is not the right situation. He stated the applicant had received denial from the staff and the Plannin¢ Commission and he could not support the proposal. He stated thai no one here expects the Route 360 corridor to be built with or remain single family dwellings but they envision some minor commercial utilization, or whatever because you do not build single family dwellings next to four lane major highways, but great care will be given to each application. He stated since ht has been on the Board there has been no speculative zoning granted in this entire area along Route 360. He stated it will have to be a Conditional Use Planned Development and a specific use, as far as he is concerned. He stated he would suggest to the Board that the fees be applied to another application. Mr. Moonie stated this would be acceptable and they would work with Mr. LaPrade in this regard. After further discussion, Mr. LaPrade requested that this application be withdrawn. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board accepted the request of the applicant for withdrawal of this application. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Micas stated there is no authority of the Board to permit an~ credit on these fees. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the credit of fees of this application to a new application submitted by Mr. Wallace LaPrade if it should come forward within 90 days. Mrs. Girone stated the fee was Used to pay the ~dvertising and staff time for th~s application and she felt it would not be fail to apply it to another application which would need staff involvement as well as advertising. Ayes: Nays: Mr. Dodd and Mr. Bookman. Mr. Robertson, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. 83-720 ed It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvening: 83S190 In Matoaca Magisterial District, S&B DEVELOPMENT CO. OF VIRGINIA requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) of 131 acres; to Residential (R-7) of 14 acres; to Residential (R-9) of 96 acres; and to Convenience Business (B-l) of 34 acres plus a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing the entire 275 acre tract. This property lies approximately 250 feet off the south line of Route 360, approximately 3,200 feet west of Winterpock Road. Tax Map 74 (1) Parcel 25, 26 and 103 (Sheet 19). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission referred this case t, the Board with a recommendation that this case be deferred for nine (9) months based on the lack of a land use plan in the area so that a Board policy and the plan could be developed and then referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Oliver Rudy stated he was present representing the applicant. He stated this is a well conceived plan for the County. He introduced Mr. Pat Bowe, one of the principals, who was also present. Mr. Bowe explained the concept and features of the proposed development. He stated they have worked with County officials, state highway officials, nearby developers, County staff and outside consultants in designing this plan. He stated time is of the essence in zoning this property because 10,000 feet of force main sewer line is ready to be installed by Woodlake. He stated the Board unanimously supported the developers request to enlarge this line at the April, 1983 meeting which cost is in excess of $350,000 and they must have firm commitments, lie presented slides showing the proposed land use and zoning of the parcel which is carried out through seven tracts of residential use, townhouses for sale, B-1 business district and recreational facilities, mixed use housing, office and restaurant with recreational area; pump station and related facilities, etc.; the road and parkway network; the architectural designs; the master plan; the lake and unique concepts regarding building to the water's edge; the establishment of a Community Association, etc. Mrs. Girone inquired about the time frame for this projet. Mr. Bowe stated it would take seven to ten years to complete and will begin this Spring if approved. Mr. Bookman inquired how many residential units would be included. Mr. Balderson stated 1,235. Mr. Bookman stated that would be mean about 200 per year. Mr. Bowe stated there usual development is 125-150 per year. Mr. Daniel stated that there were several questions before the Board. He stated the st~f gave the report to the Planning Commission with their recommendation ~o send it to the Board of Supervisors for a brcader decision. He stated the Planning Commission did not hear this presentation and did not have any opportunity for comment at all. He stated if we pursue this case and vote on it today, we will establish the precedent of voting on cases without Planning Co~nission review. Mrs. Girone stated she expressed this concern to staff. Mr. Daniel stated that the applicant did not feel the staff recommendation was appropriate but felt, under the circumstances, that was the only thing they could say at that time. He stated the Planning Commission fo]lowed the recommendation of Planning Staff to the letter and forwarded to the Board as written and there was no case heard. Mrs. Girone stated this wa~ a ~recedent, as she had never had a case like this b~for~ being sent to the Boar~ without being heard. Mr. Daniel sta~ed tb~t the case can be deferred for 9 months or sent back to the P!~nning Commission for recommendation. Mrs. G~rone started that she felt with this 83-P21 information and presentation, enough has been presented to deal with the case today. She stated the Planning Commission abdicated their responsibility by not dealing with this or telling the Board what the problems are. Mr. Daniel stated the applicant stated he disagreed with the Planning staff's recommendation but in light of things they accepted the recommendation. Mr. Balderson stated the applicant choose not to make a presentation. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the Planning Commission should hear the case before the Board of Supervisors acts on it and that staff should outline conditions, etc. He stated he is not opposed to this request, but he felt there are procedures that should be followed. He stated if the staff said they did not know what to do, what could the Planning Commission do. Mr. Bookman stated the matter before the Board is zoning. Girone stated she was prepared to hear the case. Mrs. There was no opposition present. Mr. Clarke Plaxco, representing Woodlake and Brandermill, stated they were not aware of this case until he read the staff report this morning. He stated they would like to be sure that proper measures are taken to protect the quality of the water in the reservoir similar to those conditions imposed on Brandermill and Woodlake and it is imperative to this case. He stated, particularly, because the density is about twice that of Brandermill as presently built. He stated it is an exciting concept but that these measures should be taken. Mr. Rudy stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Hedrick inquired if this was a Conditional use or zoning as there were no conditions. Mr. ~udy stated the conditions were self-imposed in the application. Mr. Daniel stated normally there is a list of conditions regarding the case. Mr. Rudy stated these conditions that the Board sees from staff are ones that staff has imposed in addition to the conditions self-imposed by the applicant himself under the categories and classifications of his application. Mr. Rudy stated it was his understanding that this application was written with directions from the staff and that it was delayed from being filed for another 30 days to get off the rough edges and it has the reputation of being perhaps the best Conditional Use Planned Development that has ever been filed in the County. He stated with the built in controls through the ordinance, the planned use development, and required conditions and all the other condJ, tions that are a part of this application that goes on for 20 pages, with the Master Plan, the schematics that are to be required later on and with the commitment that this County gave with the approval of the sewer force main, he felt there were numerous conditions. He stated he has seen the Board ignore conditions of the staff as well as approve them. He stated there is no opposition to the proposal. He stated all the mechanics are in place and all the controls are built in for the planned unit development concept, etc. Mr. Daniel inquired if staff had reviewed the self-imposed conditions. Mr. Balderson stated they had reviewed them but are not in total agreement with them and he was not prepared to outline those in detail at th~s time. Mr. Bookman stated that this seems to be similar to Brandermill through all the concepts h has seen and assumed it was backed up in the conditions in the application and that staff has the right to change the conditions or impose others. Mr. Micas stated 'the staff could not impose any conditions beyond what the Board does today. Mr. Bookman inquired if the Board could approve a project subject to its master plan and conditions. Mr. Micas stated it was legally possible for the Board to zone it and include the conditions in the application as well as the condition re~arding the preservation of water quality if you choose to do it today. Mr. Rudy stated additional conditions can be imposed today as well. 83--722 Mrs. Girone stated that the applicant indicates he has discussed this with the staff for 65 hours. Mr. Rudy stated he felt it was more like 65 contacts rather than hours but there has been a stream of communication. Mr. Dodd stated this will still have to go through schematic plan review. He stated he, too, had not seen a case handled this way. Mr. Hedrick stated he would have to take full responsibility of this because staff approached him regarding this case. He stated he had met with Mr. Bowe and Mr. Sowers and they indicated they did not want him to do anything but just wanted to inform him of the project. He stated basically the County was asking them to put in a collector road system to serve the property and they did not feel staff was in a good position to ask for those thing~ because we did not know what was to be developed around them. He stated this was across Route 360 from Brandermill, it was in the middle of a vast expanse of land, and staff had nothing to relate to it. He stated he was hearing the Board say more and more about dealing with issues that manage growth, how developers would help with costs, etc. He stated it was a deviation from previous practices because it would be better to have the Board deal with the big issue first prior to opening the area up for development. He stated staff felt there needed to be a master plan of the area. He stated past actions of the Board were saying they wanted plans and this seemed to need a plan more than any other. He stated it had noting to do with this case but it brought the issue to a head. Mrs. Giro~e stated it is the Board's responsibility to deal with the issue of planning County-wide and not identify one zoning case and pull it out and say now we are going to begin. She stated the Planning Commission d~d not say that. She stated when the Board voted on the force main, zoning was forth coming was evident. Mr. Daniel suggested that it be referred back to the Planning Commission for recommendations. Mr. Bookman stated the people who have this property ar~~ now faced with putting up money for a sewer line. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the force main was not contingent on zoning that might or might not be approved. He stated further that this would be bad policy to vote on this when staff cannot address conditions, etc. Mrs. Girone stated the application was very specific. He stated he hoped the Board knows what they are voting on because if it needs modification who knows how it will be done. Mr. Dodd stated he did not know how you could draw a line across the street and say this cannot be developed but across the street it is okay to develop. Mrs. Girone moved approval of this request based on information in the staff report which shows all of the individal tracts and actually and specifically what the uses will be, building types and density charts, tells exactly the acreage, the number of units, all the information is there; and based on the conditions listed in the application by the developer with the intent that we would zone the land as specified and that the individual development of each site or tract will come back to the Planning Commission for specific review and that the water in the reservoir will be protected in the same manner as it was for Brandermill. Mr. Dodd inquired if a statement could be included that this development be of the same quality development as Woodlake. Mr. Rudy stated that quality is a nebulous thing and the size may not be the same but the quality and workmanship could be included. Mrs. Girone amended the motion to include a condition that the general ~uality of construction of housing will be similar to Woodlake. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion. Mrs. Girone stated that when she voted for sewer she felt development would come and that she spent a lot of time reading the application and it is across from Brandermill which is a mixed development and the other choice would have been M-1 since adjacent land is M-1. She stated she felt this was a well thought out plan. Mr. Daniel inquired what the maximum 83-723 height was for Brandermill. Mr. Plaxco stated six stories for residential. Mr. Rudy stated when Brandermill was originally zoned, approval was granted for buildings which far exceeded this. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Leo Myers thanked the Board for being fair in its consideration of this case. 13. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 13.A. REPORT OF. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL STATUS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the water and sewer financial status. 13.B PUBLIC HEARING 13.B.1. ORDINANCE VACATING SHADY ACRES, SECTION 1 Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of Shady Acres, Section 1. There was no one present to discuss this matter. Mr. Welchons stated staff was in agreement. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following ordinance: An Ordinance to vacate a portion of a plat within Shady Acres, Section !, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 23, at page 65. Whereas, Jerre]l W. Ellis has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of a plat within Shady Acres, Section 1, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 23, at page 65, made by A. G. Harocopos, dated December 6, 1974. The portion of the subdivision plat petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A portion of Shady Acres, Section 1, more fully described as follows: 1) Lots 6 and 7, each in their entirety including the sixteen foot drainage and utility easement along the common property line between lots 6 and 7, however, excluding the 16' drainage and utility easement along the northern line of lot 6 and eastern line of lot 7, all as more fully shown on a plat made by Legat and Associates, Incorporated, dated September 20, 1983, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. Whereas, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of subdivision sought to be vacated and the vacation will not abridge the rights of any citizen. Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950,~ as amended, the above described portions of Shady Acres, Section 1, are hereby vacated and are no longer necessary for public use. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Co~e of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this ordinance, togethe~ with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title in the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lots free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Jerrell W. Ellis and Jeannie B. Ellis (husband and wife), or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 13.C. REQUEST FOR TWO ADDITIONAL PERSONNEl. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the establishment of two additional positions in the Utilities Department, Engineer III and Utility Locater at Grade 28 with the understanding that the current Utilities Budget will handle these associated costs. Vote: Unanimous 13.D. WATER ITEMS 13.D.1. REQUEST TO EXTEND WATER TO CHESTERFIELD ~NOR On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the extension of public water to serve area "A" in Chesterfield Manor, as outlined on a map filed with the papers of this Board, if easements can be obtained along Point of Rocks Road and further the Board deferred the request of three residents along Bermuda Avenue, Section B, at this time. Vote: Unanimous 13.D.2. REQUEST FCR PUBLIC WATER ON SUNCREST DRIVE On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized a survey be made of the Suncrest Drive area to ascertain the number of residents who will agree to connect to the public water system if installed. Vote: Unanimous 13.D.3. CO'NTRACT FOR WATER LINE EXTENSION ON REAMS ROAD On motion of Mr Dodd, seconded by Mr. B¢©~man, · '~ ~ the Board deferre~ consideration of awarding Contract W82-48B/6(8)2487, water line extension on Reams Road until January 11, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 13.D.4. CONDEMNATION FOR WATER EASEMENT ALONG REAMS ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred consideration of counteroffer and/or condemnation proceedings for a water easement along Reams Road from Mrs. and Mrs. Frank E. Watkins, Reams Road until January 11, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 83-795 13.E. CONSENT ITEMS 13.E.1. APPROVAL OF WATER CONTRACT ~83-141CD/6(8)3415, BREVARD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract W83-141CD/6(8)3415, Brevard, Section 1 Developer: The Brevard Group Contractor: J. H. Martin & Sons Contractor, Inc. Subcontractor: Castle Equipment (formerly Van Doren Brothers) Total Contract Cost: $63,794.00 Estimated Refund Through Connections: $13,850.20 Estimated Cash Refund: 5,000.00 Total Estimated County Cost: $18,850.20 Total Estimated Developer Cost: $44,793.80 Code: 559-1-00556-0000 - Refund throuqh connections for oversize main. And further the Board appropriated $5,000 from 563 Surplus to 380-1-63415-7212. Vote: Unanimous 13.E.2. WATER CONTRACT W84-4CD/6(8)4042, FIELDSTONE, SECTION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract W84-4CD/6(8)4042, Fieldstone, Section 1 Developer: L.C. Cole; J. T. Waddill, IV; R. A. Carrouth and Kenneth Lyerly Contractor: Shoosmith Brothers, Inc. Subcontractor: I.?.K. Excavating Co., Inc. Total Contract Cost: $44,978.46 Estimated County Cost: Cash Refund: Refund throuqh Connections: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Code: $ 978.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 8,778.00 $36,200.46 559-1-00556-0000 - Refund through connections for oversize mains. And further the Board appropriated $1,075.80 from 563 surplus to 380-1-64042-7212. Vote: Unanimous 13.E.3. WATER CONTRACT W83-140CD/6(8)3405, NEWBY'S BRIDGE ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve~ and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract W83-140CD/6(8)3405, Newby's Bridge Road Depositor: Louis Dinel!i Total Contract Cost: $ 9,649.98 Actual Cost to Depositor: $ 2,000.00 Estimated County Cost: $ 7,649.98 Vote: Unanimous It is noted that the homeowner has agreed to participate in the cost of extending the 16 inch water line along Newby's Bridge Road which is a portion of a propose~ transmission line and dedication of an easement across h~s property for the future extension of this line. 83-726 13.E.4. WATER CONTRACT W83-140CD/6(8)3405, NEWBY'S BRIDGE ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Contract W83-140CD/6(8)3405, installation of water line on Newby's Bridge Road, to Best Backhoe and Excavating Company in the amount of $9,649.98 and further transferred $2,000.00 from 566-1-00640-0000 to 380-1-63405-4393 and appropriated $10,615.00 from 563 surplus to 380-1-63405-4393. Vote: Unanimous It is a noted that a portion of the cost is being paid by Mr. Dinelli to extend water to his new home. 13.E.5. WATER CONTRACT W83-130B/6(8)3306, BREEZEWOOD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Contract W83-130B/6(8)3306 for installation of water lines in Breezewood to Sydnor Hydrodynamics in the amount of $3,5582.00 based on Alternative B using P.V.C. pipe and further the Board appropriated $39,130.00 from 567 to 380-1-63306-4393. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Welchons stated he thought this bid was lower than anticipated and work %~ould begin probably at the end of January. 13.E.6. WATER CONTRACT W83-133B/6(8)3336, WALTHALL MILL On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded bv Mr. Dodd, the Board approve~ and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for W83-133B/6(8)3336 for installation of water lines Walthall Mill Subdivision to Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. in the amount of $75,029, based on bid schedule A using P.VoC. pipe and further the Board appropriated $82,532 from 567 to 380-1-63336-4393. Vote: Unanimous 13.E.7. SEWER CONTRACT S83-103C/7(8)2035, 143 AND 151 IRONWOOD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for S83-103C/7(8)2035, installation of sanitary sewers to serve homes at 143 and 151 Ironwood Road~ for Best Backhoe, Inc. who submitted the bid of $9,286.89 and further the Board transferred $10,215.58 from 574 surplus to 380-1-73035-4393. Vote: Unanimous 13.F. REPORT OF DEVEL¢~-ER~ ' ' WATER AND SEWER CONTPJkCTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report of ~eveloper water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 14. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick stated the ttighway Department had formally notified the County that the roads J~n the fo]lowing subdivisions had been officially accepted into the State Secondary System, effective as indicated: ~'~ -727 Lmng~ h James River West, River Hills Section (12-5-83) River Hills Lane - Beqinn.~ng at the intersection with River Hills Drive and going 0.21 mile north- easterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.21 mi. River Hills Drive - Beginning at the intersection with Robious Road, Route 711, and going 0.05 mile horthw~sterly to R~ver Hills Lane, then 0.13 northwesterly to ~'iv{?r [I~tl!s Court, then 0.07 mile .~v~..r Hills Terrace, then 0 18 ~,,i.t]~w~.sterly to R' = · northwesterly to ]~iver Hills Circle, then 0.10 mile northwesterly to a 'temporary turnaround. 0.53 mi. River Hills Court - Beginning at the intersection with River Hills Drive and ~%~oing 0.06 mile north- easterly to a cui-de--sac. 0.06 mi. River Hills Circle - Beginning at the intersection with River Hills Drive and going 0.04 mile north- easterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.04 mi. River Hills Terrace - Beginning at the intersection with River Hills Drive and going 0.05 mile north- easterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.05 mi. Greenfield, Section D (12-6-83) Granada Road - Beginning st the intersection of Greenfield Drive, Route 2544, to 200 feet ess% of Route 2544. 0.04 mi. Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on appointments which were necessary. 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went into Ex(~cutive Session to discuss potential litigation involving the Bomrd of Zoning Appeals as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourned at 5:35 p.m. unhil 10:00 a.m. on January 4, 1984. Vote: Unanimous RichJr'd L. Hedrick County Administrator C~~/a~r~~aa n11 R°bertson 83-728