Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02-26-1986 Minutes
February 26, 1986 Supervisor~ in Attendance: R. Garland Dodd, Chairman Harry G. Daniel~ Vice Chairman JOan Girone Mr. Richard L. ~ed~ick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Batderson, Dir., Econ, Develop. A~%. CO. Admin. Dir. o£ ~en. Services Assr, CO. Admin. for F~r. ~ichard aoElfish, Assr. Co. Admin. of Budget & Ms. Jean S~ith, o~ Social Services Mr, M. D. Stith~ Jr.~ ~xec. Asst., Ce. Adm. Mr, David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Frederick W. Willis, ~r. James zook, Dir. (EST). 1. I~K~AT~0N Mr. Hedrick introduced Reverend William H. Jordan~ Pa~ter of New Covenant Presbyterian Church, who gave the invocation. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA~gCE TO TH~FT_~GOF THE ~I~D STATES OF The Pledge of Allegiance %o the Flag of the United gtat~s of America was recited. 3. i%PPROVAL OF MINUTES On mo~ien o~ Mr. Apgl~gate, seconde~ ~ Mr. Daniel, the Beerd ~pprov~d the minutes of February 12, 1986, as submitted. Vot~ Unanimous 86-123 4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR's COMMENTS Mr. Masden stated the County is privileged to b~ heating a meeting of the ~tate Board of the State Department of Mental Realth/Mentai Retardation and Substance Abuse. He intruduued Dr, Windsor, Chairman Of the State ~eard. Dr. Windsor expressed aDpreclatlon for the County hooting their meeting, briefly outlined their responsibilities, skated they are the largest department in State Government with a budget Of $6,000,000, etc. He stated that Governor Batiles has expressed a great deal of interest in this field as well a~ secretary of Ruman Resources, it had the lowest per capita use of the State hospitals during 5. BOARD COF~XTTEE RBPORTS Pit, Applegate stated he had attended a meeting of th~ Capital Region Airpor~ Commission a~ which they were advised that passenger t~avel is also up 19.9% from January, 1985. ~e state~ the air cargo i~ up 43% from a year aqo which is due in part to United Parcel relocating th=re. ~e atated the ccnstructiea of the e~panaion is ~lightly b~hind at ~he present time but by A~riI they ~uti¢ipate being ahead of schedule. H~ stated completion cf the e~pan~ion should Occur b~ July, 1987 or before. Mrs. Girone state~ that she had attended a Budget Committee m~%~ng with ~kr. Applegate; she p~rtieipa=ed in the James aiver Round Table which group is dissussing the future of t~e Jam~s River; and she at~ended =ha ~x=enaion Advisory Conu~ittee and there will be ~ teu~ cf CheSterfield County farms in July with more information forthcoming. She stated aha atte~da~ the Transportation Safety Committee meeting and they are interested in having t_hair budget separated from the ~olice Department and th%re will baa r~view of this recfuast. She stated that she and Mr. Dodd had an impressive tour of Lake Chesdin. She stated ~he participated in a discussion at the Valentine MuSeum regarding City vs. County, the advantages of living in %he County and the status of race relutions. Mr. ~4ayeS Stated he met with the Charter Committee and they are doing a fine job. ~r. Daniel atated he ha~ a!ao attended the meeting Of the Capita~ Region Airport Co~mission with Mr. Appleg~te. He stated he had spoken to a group in the field of agriculture from VPI and the Statm of Virginia, Re stated the topic was the place fei agriculture in an urban society and he reviewed the positive thing~ being ~one in ~he County tO encourage it, ~e expressed appreciation to Mrs. Mitchell for her assistance. Mr. Dodd stated he had been very busy ~or the pa~% several weeks representing ~he Board a~ various functions. 6. REQUESTS ~O ~OSTPONR ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CPLRNGES iN TH~O~D~ OF On motion of MrS. Girone, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board mcve~ Item !l,E,2,, Condemnation cf Sewer Ease~aent for ~pring R~ Sewer to Serve De~ Run Subdivision, ~o i~edlat~ly following item 8 on the agenda; added It~ 7,D,, Resolution Supporting Circuit Court; added Item 7.~., R~olution Supporting the Appoin~ent of ~erbert C. Gill a~ Judge for the 12th Judicial Di~tric~ Court; added Item 7.F., Resolution Regarding tko Mental Vote: Unanimous 86-124 resolution received from the City of Petersburg in pursuing the possibility of a brldg~ over the railroad tracks and Appomattox River be included. M~. Hedrick stated that it was his understanding that the item would he considered after the issue had been reviewed by staff. It was generally agreed %he item would be included on the next agenda. ~. Gillentine ~ntroduced ~. Ja~s Dowling, Grand Knight of the Che~t~rflel4 Knight~ of Coleus. H~ ~ta=e~ the Kn~gh~ of Col~u~ made a ~stantial donation to the Lucy Corr Nursing ~omm to be used for the r~cr~a=ional park area for the residents the handicapped and other ~pecial population gro~pz in the County. 0n mo=ion of %he Board, the following ~solution was adopted: ~E~AS, The cheste~fi~l~ County Knights of Col~u~ (Bishop Ireton Center - Co~ncit 6189) ha~ a long tradition Of supporting the n~dy ~n Chesterfield County~ and ~EREAS, Th~ Chesterfield County Knights of COi~B~ upon learning of Chesterfield County Lucy Corr Nursing ~ome's special, project to construct a recreational park fo~ the uldsrly, ~ handicappe~ and o~her needy wi=hin the Chesterfield Co.unity, ~ NOW, T~EREFO~ BE IT ~S0LVED that the Board of Supervisor~ hermby xecognizms and mxpresses ~h~i~ sincere appreciation an~ ~ gratitude ~o th~ Chesterfield Count~ Knight~ of Colu~us for ~ their continuing interes~ and co~itment to helping those in nae~ in Chesterfield County as evidenc%d by their generous donation to Vote: Unanimous ' Mr. Dodd presented tho ex~cuted resolution to ~. Dowling. ~. Dowlin~ stated thi~ resolution will encourage ~he me.ers of the council to continue ~heir charity work, LEON C. RUSKKLL UPON RETIREMENT FROM UTILITIES D~PART~NT ~r. Willis introduced Mr, David Welchons. ~. Welchons briefly outlined ~r. Nuskell's experiense and dedicated service to the County. On motion eft the Board, the following resolution was adopte~: WMEtLEAS, Mr. Leon C. kuskel! will retire from t~e utilitie4 Department, Chestsrfield County, on February ~8, 1986, and 9~MEREAS, Mr. RuskelI hat provided 17 years cf quality service to the c~t~zens of Chesterfield County; and W~EREAS, Mr. RBskell wa~ a nominee for ~mployee-of-the-Yea: in I98~ wus instrumental in establishing the f~liDg a~d record keeping system in the Right-of-Way division, and consistently received Superior rating~ on his annual performance evaluation~ and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and tho Board cf Supervisors will miss Mr. Ruskell's diligent service, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of 86~125 Supervisors p~liely recognizes Mr. Ruskell and extends on beha~J of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their AND, BE IT FURTHER R~SOLVHD, that a copy of this r~solutlon be presented to Mr. Ruskell and that thi~ resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: UnaDimous ~r. Dudd presented the executed resolution to Mr. Ruskell. Mr. Ruukell ex~ressed appreciation to %he Board for this recognition. 7.C. PROCLAIMING FEBRUARY 26, 19~8 AS "?i~.TRO FOOD DAY" MS, Smith stated "Matra Food Day" is a unified and coordinated effort by the governing hodies~ businesses eno organlzation$ i~ the Metro Richmond ar~a who are sponsoring this event. She stated the goal is fO collec~ large vulu~e~ of food for n~dy citizens in the area. Ohs stated the collections made in the County will be coming to th~ Social Services food =lose~, She stated it was important to realize that in times of plenty, ther~ are many citi=ens iu ~eed. She s:a:ed every month food items ar{ given to approximately 50 f~/~ilies on an on-going basis. On motion of the Board~ the following r~solufion was adopted: ~EREAS~ The C~n%ral Virginia Food Bank provides food and personal care items to over two hundred and seventy-five agencie~ cuzrently registered as emergency food distribution sites within Chesterfield, ~enrico an~ Hanover C0unti~, and the City of Richmond; and W~EREA$, Even though fha unemployment rat~ has and local business growth has accelerated, many new unemployed chr0n~cally disadvantaged persons have found the current times continue to be difficult~ and W~ER~AS, ~ny of these new ueen~loyed or chronically disadvantaged persons have a great need for food and personal ca~e items to supplement their limited resources; and WHEREAS, P~cognizi~g this ne~d the Metro Riek~ond Emergune~ ~e~vices Committee, which is compr%sed of twelve representatives~ from area business, religious, governmental and h~man service organizations, has declared Peb~uary ~6, 1986, ~TRQ FOODS~AR~ DAY~ and WHEREAS~ ~ETRO FOODS~ARE DAY is a communlfy~wide project where employers will ask their employa~ to bring one canned on Fe~r%lary ~6 to an ~stablished food collection box or area within the ccmpany~ and W~iEREA$, Once gathered, these items will be taken to the Central Virginia Food Bank, which will then make these items available fo over two hundred and seventy-five agencies currentl~ registered as emergency food distribution sites in the metropolitan area. NOW, THEREPORE BE IT P~SOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors, County of Chesterfield, Virginia, dues hereby p~o~la~m February 26~ 1986, to be METRO FOODS~5%i~ DAY in County of Chesterfield and ~rgee the busiue$s community and the citizens of the County to participate in this unified effort ts colleot foo~ an~ other personal care items to ~eet the local residents' emergency needs during the winter months. 86-126 AM JUDGE OF 12TE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT On motion of the Board, the following remolution was adopted: ~SER~Ag, in Bay of 19~6 a vacancy will arise the Virginia Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit due to the resignation of the Honorable William N. Humphrie~, and W~ERE;L~, the combined Chestexficld-CoIoniai ~aights Bar Association have unanimously endorsed the Honorable William R. Shettan, Chief Judge of ~ha General District Court for the Twelfth Judioia! Circuitr as a Qandidate for bha vacated Circuit Court bench; and W~RF318, Judge Shulton practiced law in Chesterfield county from 1961 to 1962; was Clerk of the General Distrlut Court from 1962 bo 1966 and from 1966 has been a Judge of the General District Ce=rt; and WH=R~AS, Judge Shulton has pnoven himself to be a faithful public servant over many years, a dedicated, fair and effective judicial o~f±cer, and a rempected member o~ the Chesterfield County community; and within the Twelfth Judicial District live in Chesterfield County~ by the year 1990 the population of th~ County will exceed that thc City of ~ichmoad~ it is appropriate to select a candidate from Chesterfiel~ County to sit on the Circuit Cour~ bench. ~OW~ TNEI~EFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Super¥iso~s that =he Eeard enthusiastically recommends the Honorable william R. shulton as a candidate for the vacancy on the bench of the Virginia Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial District and ~rge~ the Chesterfield Ceunt~ delegation to fh~ G~ner~l Assembly to support his Vote: Un~imous 7.E. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HERBERT C. GILL FOR APPOTNT~NT AS JUDGE OF 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT On motion o~ the ~oard, the followlnq resolution was adopted: W~ERRAS, in May of 1986 & vacancy will aris= On the bunch O the Virginia Circuit Court ~or the Twelfth Judicial Circuit due to the resignation of ~he ~onorable William N. Humphries, Jr.; and WHEREAS, the ~onorable William R. Shelton, Chief Judge of the Gene~aI District ~ourt, is a candidate to fill the vaCanCy o: the bench of the Circuit Court; and Circuit Court the appointment will vacate · full-time judgeship in the General District Court for the Twelfth Judicial District; and 86~127 WI~.EREA$, the combined Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Bar A~ociation has endorse~, by a substantial majority, ~erber~ C, Gill, Jr. as a candidate for the General District Court bench~ should a judgeship be available; and WHEP~A~, ~ir. Gill wes born and raised in Chesterfield County, graduated from T. C. Williams school of Law in 1971, served the County as Assistant Conm%onwealth's Attorney from to 1980 and since 1PS0 has been in privatu practice in the County; and past t~ be a worthy an~ ~eh~oal lawyer, and a faithful public ~E~EAS, due to the fact that 90% of the population livinq within the ~lfth Judicial District live in Chesterfield County, 92~ of th~ General District Court eases filed in the District filed in th~ County, and that by Lhe year 1990 the population of from Chesterfield County to sit on th~ General District Court beaut. NOW, THE~FORE BE IT RESOLVED by %he $oazd o~ supervisors that %ha Board ~nthusiastically race--ends Merbert C. Gill, Jr. General District Court for the ~elfth Judicial District and urges the Chesterfield County delegation to the General to support his appoin~ent. 5~s. Girone stated the County has beep working to secure a group home site on B~ford Road, She stated the 0w~er o~ 8033 Post Oak Road which was a selected site has another interested buyer who wishes to purchase it immediately and the owner would rather to him than go through a lengthy governmental p~ooes$. She ~tat~d Mr. Lerkin Goshorn indicated it would be possible to substitut~ another site if it is the County's daslrc to do se. She stated she had read the proposed resolution he Dr. Lnwe and Mrs. Yve=te Ridley and they did ~o= have any objections. ~r. Daniel inquired if the Community services Board would proceed with =he other group home. ~rs. Girone stated they would. Qn motio~ cf M~S. circle, seconded ~y Mr. Daniel, the ~nard adopted the following resolution: Whereas, The Board of Supervisors has acted in good faith t support the Community Services Board's desire to locate Group ~omes in certain neighborhoods in Chesterfield County; an~ extensively in the Rock Creek Perk neighborhood to inform the citisens of this desired project; and Wh~r=a~, %he health and welfare of %he oltizenu have b~ea placed in question by the continued investigation of this site; and Whereas, ~r. Lufkin Goshorn of th~ Virginia aousing substitute location can be applied for with no ~isruption of the present application; and an immediate buyer for the property, needs to sell quickly, does wi~hes to be relieved of all involvement with %his project. 86-128 Now, Therefore, BS It P~solved~ that the Board of Su~ervisor~ respectfully requests the Co--unity Servioo~ Board withdraw ali interest and involvement with the r~sldence at 8033 POSt Oak Road and seek a substitute Site in the Midlothian District, if po*sib}e. Mr, ~ayes inquired if Mrs7 Ridley had agreed. Mrs. Girone stated that she read the resolutzon to her, and ~he bad no objections. { She state~ she gave Mrs. Ridley, ~ir. Goshorn'n phone number and asked her to cell and varify that information and she did not hear from ~ra. Ridle~ to th~ contrary, She s~ated f~rther that this resolution will have =o qo to 9_he Community Services Board for consideration. 8. ~F2%RINGS OF CITIZENS ON ~N~U~DULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS ~lr. Hedrtck stated ~here were no hearings of citizens O~ unscheduled matters or claims. Mr. Applegate d£sel~sed to the Board tha~ this trunk se~e~ serve property for which he is a trustee and part owner, doclare~ a poten~iai conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Inter,st AC% and exouse~ himself from Mrs. Henry stated she ~as Dree~nt iu her husband's stead. She stated they want the Eoar~ ~e realize the reason they object to this proposed line is that this is the lovelie~t area on their property with running e~dar, laurei~ etc. She state~ this easement would clear a ~trip 36 ft. wide for a q~e~te~ of e mile there would be six large manholes installed, etc. which will de~troy the natural beauty of the area. She stated further that there was reference made to th~ developer's attempts to negotiate for thio easement which she did not feel was accurate. She seated also =ha= her property has been surveyed as well as areas are being cleared. Mr. Dodd stated he was aware that surveying could be accomplished but he did not think property could bm cleared. Mr. Micas stated property should not be cleared withou~ the permlssloa dC the property owner, Ee stated the purpose of much proceedingm as these are necessary to obtain easements before a contractor can begin work. Mr. Daniel inquired if there were an altcrnute route for this line. Mr. Welchonm stated the prepose~ sewer easement is along Spring Run Creek whiuh is in & s~betantial drainage area and the Sewer line would serve not only ~lr. DuVal's property b~t the entire drainage area. He stated the sewer lines generally must follow streams since they flow by gravity. Mr. Mayas stated he felt there were problems when developers indicated they have attempted to negotiate and the residents feel they have not. He stated he felt this item should be deferred until Narch 26, 1~6 to allow staff to check into %his matter further. Mr. Walchons stated that staff had discussed the matter ~ith Dr. and Mrs. ~enry but a deferral would ~ot make a difference in the~ to the Board on the entire issue and stated tho County is not trying to abridge anyone's riqhfs. Ayes= Fir, UCCC, FLY. Daniel~ Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr, Applegate. Mr. Applegato returned to the meeting. 86-129 Modernization of the 9~ovisions of th~ or~inance to conform with ohange~ in ~tate law; 5. Elimination from the ordinance of unnecessary technical details; and 6. R~organization and rewriting of all code sections tO make the ordinance readable and usable by the general reader. He reviewed the changes and stated the Board had discussed the provi~ien for mandatory connections under certain circumstances been eliminated; howeverr the 15% ~UrOharge portion still remains. ~r. sob Leipertz, representing the Richmond Hcmebuilde~ Association, was present add expressed a~preciatien for staff's cooperation in this matter. Me ~tated they generally support th~ encourages in-lilt within the County which =hey feel is a pruden~ in-fill. He explained that these hlg5 density issues would then be utilized as interior developments rather than exterior. ~tated that, for example~ wi~h the elimination of R-7, larger infra-structure type of availability and not necessarily always allow for the mathematics to work. He stated this oencern may added to the 3% currently charged for water, the~e would be a total fee of 4% on new d~v~lopmeDt. ~e ~tated if those figures were not supporting the cost, they would am in she past~ support inerease~ to iA~ure the recuperation of the costs. ~r. Welchons~ o~ w~at it is actually costing to accomplish the inspections. Mr. Daniel inquired if the prevailing rate of the salary of | employees, branspor=a=ion costs, ets. could be charged at the difficulties in imposing a charge when tho salary ranges vary, etc. Mr. Leip~rtz stated they were mot concer~ed with the percentage which they felt wcul~ be =he host way to handle the agree with this concept but felt there is a conflict as there is attributed to the expansion of the Appomattox River Water Tre~tmeDt Plant, He ~tated the water is provided to Petersburg water is provided from the sa~e plant. He stated he reduced his water usage by 5% and his water and sewer bill still increased 30%. He stated it was very hard to absorb this kind of increase. the 15% surcharge in certain months will only make hi~ bill Chesterfield Rosiness Council, ~i~cussions ~ake plae~ regardin~ cc~muercial to residential ratio; however, these charges and Ha stated the surrounding juris~ioti0ns do not have charges as high as the~e, h~ rma!izes w~ have tO keep pac~ with i~flation, are dramatic from several years ago. ~e stated the increases will raise his annual bill by approx'-merely 12% for water. Mr. ~edrlck stated the County did have to work Out an to expend the Appomattox Water Treatmeat Plant and the had to hea~ the mejczicy of the cost because the Authority felt the Co~nty would be the major benefactor and thu~ we had to reis, the rates to offset the cost of the new plant. ~e stated when plants ar~ built, the costs are higher in the earlier years because you are buildfng for future users but you have to pay it up front when you have fewer ~sers. ~e stated over time the also a chanfe ~n philosophy in ~het the heavy user pays the p~eviou$1y paid moro which was felt to be unfair. There wes discussion by the Board regerdlng the l~ water surcharge. ~essrs. Daniel and Applegate indicated strongly that they did not feel a 1§% surcharge was necessary or proper as the 1~% would not be enough to deter ~sage as it would only be ~edrick stated this was elmed at new development, Mr. Micas stated that anyone who a~ks the Board to use public dollars to chooses to fund it through County funds and there are four the project will be added as part of the czP when approved with County funds. Mr. Daniel inquired if a situation arises in any budget year in which there is a perceived need~ does the Bcerd that wee correct and theoretically this hes been done in the Mr, Mayas inquired if this ordinance would prevent the development of sewer projects in Matoaea District. ~r, Medrick stated that it would not, Mr. Apptegate in.?~ired about the change from 2gO ft. to 500 County sewer system. ~e inquired if staff could determine whicl was gravity sewer~ which struatures qualified, etc. Mr. Hedriok stated staff did sc when the 200 ft. applied. There was discussion regarding what wDuld qualify for off-site, the need fo~ condemnation, ~ho would and would not be required to connect, structures utilizing sep~i~ Systems which fail and then Mr. Dodd inquired how the rate structure wout~ affect the large industries. Mr. Welchons stated there were no changes in the was its effect OD l~rge industries to which he was opposed. Mr. Applegate inquired when the ordinance would be e~feotive. $chrum inquired if there were anything in the ordinence that[ Welchons stated that if you are on public weter er sewer you may 86-132 not disconnect+ Mr. nanial stated hs could not understand why he could not use water that would not he for domestic use. Mr. Micas stated that the ordinance would prevant him from ~nstalling a private well if it were for domestic type uses. ~r. Mayes stated the Board felt that the development of the budget is n~cs~gary to be reviewed by a subcommittee because o~ its complexity. He suggested that a utility comities also be established since utility services ars so broad and complex as welL. Mr. Dodd stated he would take this matter under advisement. On motion of the Board, the following ordinance was adopted: CHAPTER 20 UTILITIES Article I Article Article IIB Article III Article IV Article V Administration Repealed Cross-Connection 20-1, ~ Article I Administration Administration. The general manaqement and control of the utilities system as ~ell as the ~nforcement Of the provisions of this chapter shall be the responsibility of the Boa~d of Supervisors, The utilities department shall be the administrative agent for the Board of Supe~visors in the parformanc~ Of these functions. Definitions, For the purposes of this chapter, th~ following woxds and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed by this section. (a) Connection Fee. A charge payable to the county for connecting to a county water or sewer system, (b) consumer, ~y per,on to who~ ~uter or sewer services ar~ supplied directly el=her au cwnar, agent or tenant o~ th~ premises to which such service ~s supplied through a county meter, an~ who is liable to the county for the payment of charges ~or the con~ption Qf water and ~saqe of sewer services. The term "consumer" shall (c} Developer, Any person who develops or proposes to d~velop a trao~ Qf !an~ as a unit undem singla used for any business or industrial purpose or ia ~o wher~ such t~¢t is not to be principally devoted to includes any person who is ~ subdivider as defined in (d) Garbage. Solid waste an~ residue from the prepa~atian~ ~bbkin% and dispensing of food, and from the Aandling, (q) 20-1.3 (e) Human Waste. 5omen ~×crcme~L or kitchen or laundry (f) Indusbrial User. An industry listed in the Standard Industrial Clasgificatlon ~anual, United States Bureau of t~e ~u~get, 1967, as amended a~d ~upplemanted, unds~ tko category "Divisio~ D-Manufacturing" Or classified a~ a ~ignifigant waste producer under regulations Environmental Protection Agency. from any proueas o~ an industry, a manufacturer, a trade or a business or from the development of natural' (h) Infiltra,tion. Wa~er other than wastewater that entersj a sewer sys~m (including s~w~r service connections and foundation drains) from the ground through snch as ~efeo~iYe pipes, pipe joints, connections or manholes. (i) Inflow. Water that enters the se~er system which is not wastewatmr o~ infiltration. (j) No,al Domes:it Sewa~. S~wage in which the concentration of SuSpended ~aterials and five (5) da~s two hundred forty (240) ~a~t~ par million each~ by weight, 0n the basis of the normal daily o0ntribution of two-tenths (0.28) poundu per capita~ per on~ hundred (I00) gallons. {k) Off-site. ~ ~tensi0n of a ~ewer line whioh i$ than ~ feet and ~kes service available to property property. t~an the pipe needed to serve the developer's property; or eight inches in diameter, whichever i~ larger. (m) Service t0 ~other Area. ~en a utility line is the most economically practicable method of ~erving the area, no current line i$ avail~le and ~he property becomes directly se~ice~le by the utility line. (n) S~a~e. Water-carried hu~n wastes from ruuidenc~u~ buildings, industrial establis~ents or ether places together with industrial wastes or infiltration which {o) Total Construction Cost. Total ~o~nt bid by a line, and to restore propert~ as nearly as possible Total Project Co~t. Ail costs r~ired %o complete a ~tilities project, including, but not limited a~inistrative, engineering and right of way costs, Every person occupying ~Dy 10t or buildin~ tO which service i$ provided 0r into which watmr is conveyed t~ough a county water meter shall permit any authorized agent the county to eh=er such lo= or b~ilding at rea$on~19 hour to inspect the county water or sewer 86-134 20-I.4 Collection of ~tilities accounts. {a) All utilities accounts shall be due and payable to the treasurer of the county upon receipt Of the statement rendered by the utilities department, and shall be considered delinquent if not paid within twenty-five days of the hilling date. (b) Payment received on any utilities account shall be first applied to the amount cf any unpaid delinquent financing charges, then to amounts ia arrears reducing the oldest charges first, then to the current billing. FOr %ks current billing all monies shall f~rst be applied to the payment of the sewer bill. 20-1.5 Bills - late payment. Any amount for which payment ha~ not been received twenty-five (25) days after the billing date shall be subject to the imposition of a monthly d~liaquent ch~rg~ of $1.50 or 5% 0% the unpaid bill, whichever is greater, and an{ interest charge of 1% of the unpaid ~mOunt per month for each month until payment is made. 20-t.6 Termination of service for nonpayment of utilities char~es; additional charge. If the bill for any utili=y ohazqe becomes 4e!inguea~ and remains unpaid fe~ fifteen days thereafter, and written notice has been sent to the consumer that water or sewer services at the premises will be diucontinuedt the utilities departmen~ shall discontinue water or sewer services. If prior to d~sccnnection, the consumer pays a 4elin~uent bill to a county ~epresentatlve a~ the consumer's locationr a collection ~ee of ten ~sllars shall be pai~ ~n addition tq the total bill. If servic~ has been disconnected due to ~ nonpayment, a re¢onneotion fse of twenty-five dollars shell: be paid in ~ddition tO the total bill prior to re~toration I of sePvioe, '~ 20-1.7 Charges for utilities services a lien on real estate I e~rve__d, i Any unpaid fees or assessmonts made for utilities services I or connections to the utilities system shall~ from ~he date! such charges are due be a lien on the real estate served b~ such service Or connection; provided however, that the I imposition of a lien shall not relieve the tenant or I resident of such pr~ises from liability for the pay~a~nt of such charges. The utilities depart-meat may periodically certify ~S being ] unpaid such charges, together with interest from the date o~ such certification, to the clerk of the c~rcuit court, who Shall docket the same in the appropriate judgment llen book in accordance with section 15,1-296 Of the Code of vir inie, 1950, as amended. 20-1.8 Account initiation and reestab!ish~ent charges, (a} A fifteen dollar fee shall be charged each consumer to cover administrative costs associated with revising or amending a utilities asscunt with the county after the initial account i~ established. This fee ~ill be included with the first bill for service. (b) The charge for reinstal!ation of a meter previously remov=d shall be fifty dollars for all m~ears up ~o two inches and for all meters two inches or greater, the 86-135 equipment, plus twenty-five (c) The county shall ~t-of£ any refunds owed a consumer er the value of other assets of the consumer held by the utilities department against any d~_bta owed the utilities department by th~ con~u~er. 20-1.9 Dete~ination of utilities charges. (a} Beginning with the installation of the county ~eter, a consumer shall be charged ~or all water passing through the meter, whether used or wasted; provided, however, that where leaks occur in the water pipes or metered services within tho renpon$ibility of the consumer and the censu~er makes tAe necessary repairs within thirty (30) day~ ~fter receiving notice of the consumption, the county, subject to a final field inspection, upon application by the property owner ~hall refund chargeB for fifty (50} percent of the consumption i~ excess of the average consumption for the premises affected. Where the leaks occur in that port~on of th~ water ~ys~em under ~he responsibility of departmont*s satisfaction that any such leak did not affect the sewer system, tko utilities department shall a~just the sewer ~ortien of the utilities bill to the {e) Where leaks occur in that portion of the wa%er system refund will be made for the same or ~imilar condition W&%hin a period of eighteea (18) mouths. Whenever the utilities department determines that a meter fails ~o register properly and the consumer has reCeived thc the average of the three previous bi-monthly bills or if no history is available the average shall b~ determined by use of a theoretical consumer similarly situated. 20-l.ll Approval of a chanFe in use. It sAall he unlawful to use the f~cilitiem or services of the utilities department for any purpose other than the utilities department. 20-1.12 De~acin~ or ubstructln~ utilities property. property under the control of the utilities department or any fixture connected with o~ pertaining tO the (b) obstruct access to any fixture or facility of the (c) open any u~ilitie~ fi×%ure ~o as to waste the water of 86-~36 (d) discharge into any s~wer any Material ur substance whisk will in any way impair the efficiency of operating and maintaining utilitie~ facilities; or (e) use the servic~g er fa~ilitles of the utilities for a purpose £or which ho has neither paid nor obtained permission. 20-1.13 Trespass on property under_ control of county. I= shall be unlawful for any person not authorized by =he tko control ef the utilities department, to ~ut trash or any impoundment o~ the county, cr to operate any internal provided, however, that this section shall net apply to limited activities upon certain water impoundments Dy the apply to the operation of internal combustion engines ~y law-enforcement officials or county employees. 20-1.14 Prohibited construction on utility easement. within an utility easement which impedes access to any portion of th~ utilities SyStem 9hull b~ hold liubt~ fo~ th~ 20-1.1~ Compliancm ~ith article. NO person shall install, alter or rspa~r any f~×turo or equipment intended tO connect the sewer or water facility any premises with the county sewer or water systems until sush parsed complies with the terms of th~s article and all 20-1.16 Prevention cf water shortages. (a) In order to pr~ven~ a water shortage or sewer system publicly specific mandatary or voluntary conditions an~ restrictions limiting the use cf water or sewer Administrator may declare such conditions or at its next meeting. A for~I state of emergency arising wholly or with ~-146.13 et seq. cf the Cod~ of Virqinia, 1950, ontieipated capacity or treatment shortages, A system for allocating connections to the county utility system shall be and shall be approved at a public n~e=ing by the Board of 86-137 20-1.18 Requirement te install dry sower or water line. The county may ~equire a develaper to extend the sewer or water system to serve properties beyond the property being developed at the developer's expense provided that the ~eveloper shall be eligible to receive 100% of the cost of much o×tensio~ from refunds f~u~ sannection fees which shall be repaid prior to the repayment of any other extension or oversizing cesta subject to being refunded. 20-1.19 Fluoridation of water. Upon receiving a Dermi~ from the state department of health the utilitie~ department shall fluoridate the tounty water as necessary to determine that the water i~ p~operly 20-1.20 Ap~lica=ion for new wa=er service. Upon written application for service and advance payment of the applicable connection fee seh forth in this chapter, th~ utilities ~epar=ment shall install, subject to utilities department rules and regulations, a water meter where the consumer shall connect to the county water system. The ~On~umer shall pay the connection fee upon d~m~d O~ the utilities departn%ent in the full ameunt or on an installmen~ plan approved by th~ utili~io~ department. 20-1.11 Conditional use of water. If the u~ilities 4epart~nt dete~ines that a propose~ industriaI~ co~ercial or domestic use o~ th~ county water hazard to the water ~yst~, ~ ueilitie~ d~par~en% may which ar~ designed to m~nimize danger to the county water 20-1.22 Connection ~s - Connection fees for water in the co~ty shall be based on ~ter siz~ as determined by the county in accordance with the following schedule: Connection f~es for water for exit%inS ~d ~eW family residences, duplexes and townhous~s connecting to lines no= installe~ by the ~eve!oper of the propert~ shall Per the five-eighths-inch meter with three - dollars. (2) For ~e five-~ighth~-inch meter with on~-inch pips, ~he fee shall be one thousand and ten dollars. (9) For the one-inch meter with on~-inch pipe~ the shall be one thousand and seventy ~ollars. (4) Yet the one-inch meter with one and one-half-inch pipe, the fee shall be one thousand one hundred and thirty dollars, 86-~38 ~ingle family, duplexes end townhouses {5) For the one and one-half-inch meter with one and erie-half-inch pipe, the f~e shall be one thousand one huD~red and seventy dollars. {6) For the one and one-half-inch meter with two-inch pipe, the fee shall be one thousand one hundred and mevoDty dollars. I7) For the two-inch meter with two-inch pipe, the shall b~ one thousand two hundred and ten dollars. fees for water in the c0unzy shall be based on meter size as determined by the county in accordance with following schedule: {1) FOr the five-eights-inch meter with three- ~our~hs-inch pipe, the fee shall be five hundred dollars. {2) For the five-eighths-inch meter with one-inch dollars. (3) FO~ the one-inch meter with one-inch pipe, the fe shall be five hundred and seventy dollars. [4) For the one-inch meter with one an~ one-hal~-inch pipe, the fee shall be ~ix hundred and thirty dellars. FOr the one and one-haI~-inch meter with one an~ one-half-inch pipe, the ~ee shall be six hundred and seventy dollars. I6} For the one and one-half-inch meter with two-inch pipe, the ~ee shall be gi~ hundred and $pveDty dollars. For the two-inch meter with two-inch pipe, the fe~ ~hall be seven hundred and ten dollars. (8) All service~ over two inck~s in ~ize shall ~ installed for such charges as shall be determined at the time of application. (9) For a ~tor serving one ~nit Or serving more than one unit th~ connection fee shall be: Type Per Unit Fee each Basic charqe Apartments, each ~asic mete~ condominiums charge pin $200.00 a. Mebil~ home park each (mulaiplu} Basic mete~ charge $200.00 b. Mobile hom~ park {individuall Hot,t, motel, and travel trailer camp mash Basic mmte charge each Basic mete charge plu $100.00 86-139 Hospital each bad Nursing homes and each bed re m idential institutional users ~omes for adults as eauh de fined in house~ and rooming houses Co~erciaI, business, each office, industrial and public buildings W~ M~r ~e 5/8" ApD~nt ~ys ~ ~ ~g (g) $ 1,000 1,870 3,500 4,750 9,000 I~,500 31,250 56,250 ~e of appl~a~on based Ad~ w~ ~nn~ns. Any ~n may apply ~ (c~ of ~ (b) The wa~ ~v~ ~ugh ~y such ad~n~ m~ or ~du~ pu~5 or ~de b~n ~ ad~ m~ ~d ~y ~er wa~ (c) The ~n~n ~ ~r an 20-1.24 ~ ~ w~ ~ ~nn~n ~ ~ ~un~ w~ sy~m. ~o ~nzum~ u~g ~un~ wa~ may u~ a w~ ~r w~q ~wns and g~ens, w~q m~r $200.D0 charge plu~ $150.00 Basic mete~ ch=rge or $50.00 bed~ which over is veb/cl~s, the water 0-1.25 Wa~er rates. In a]l ca~e~ not covered by c~ntracL made by the Bcord of Super~L~sr~ p~ior tO July l, 1977 the consumer sh~ll p~y a minimum monthly ~ charge based on the mete~ ~ serving the pre~Lises and a monthly vc~u~ charge fc~ ~chedu]~: (a) D~ln~mum seru~c~ charge ~ p~, Water Me,er S/ze (Inches} Monthly Amount $18 or 314 $ 4.80 9.00 1t4 13.20 1/2 t6.80 44.40 150.00 10 420 12 (b) Volume charge: First 400 NeXt 39 r600 Next 500,000 ce.ft. A31 in excess ~ 540,00D ce.ft. bO Charge 84~ p~IO0 au.i~. 70¢ per 1~0 c~. ft. 65¢ per I00 cu.ft. (c) MultiFle unit residence chur~=. Th= minimum monthly charge shall be applicable to all ~partment~, condominiums; dupl~xes~ mobile homes and other premise: living unit. The service charg~ shall be the service charge ~or a five-eighths-inch or three-~uarter-~nch mete~ plus £Ou~ dollars and eighty cents per living unit for ~ach unit in excess of one. The anount O~ water included in the service charge ~hall be determined by multiplying the total nu~er of living units by four hundred cubic feet. The volume charge shall be the same as for all other classe~ e~ customer: for all water in excess of the product of the total nunsber of units times four hundred cubic f~et. 20-1,26 Water line unless approve4 by ~he coun=y subject to reasonable terms shall be at the expense of the developer ur th~ u%rners of owners may be eligible Ior re£un~s ~or all or a Dortinn cf (a) Th~ county shall ~mtermine th~ feasibility of all requests for water extensioms, and no extension shall be permitted unless snob extension is determined to be in the best interest of the county utility system and (b) NO water line e~tenaicn~ or installations shall bu until the developer has entered into a contract with 86-141 20-1.27 the county. Every each centr~e% shall county or supply the county with a coDF of acceptable executed contract with an approved, licensed utility contractor and shall convey all rights-of-way to the county necessary to serve the devclope~ property. The county shall approve the size, type, meter yokes, fitt~ng~ and service pipes and other f~cilitiesy and they shall be in,tailed in accordance ~ith county standards and specifications. All contractors installing such facilities shall be approved b~ the county, If private contractorm install facilities, the cost of such installation sh~ll, within thirty day~ of completion, he filed with the county. The entire cost of extending water mains~ including th~ actual cost incurred and pai~ out by the county, plus fixed overhead charge of twenty percent shall be paid for by %he person or persons making the extension when Refunds =or oversizing and oS~-sice extensions. res~ltlnq fr~m the ovecsizlng of lines, The amount to be refunded shall b~ the difference in cos~ ~etween (1) the ~ize water line whish is needed to serve the diameter, whichever is larger and (2) the size water line actually installe~. The difference in cos~ shalt dutormined in accordance with this s~ctlon. The count~ on-site oversizing of water lines when the project is schedule. The developer shall receive 75% of each connection ice until the eligibl~ cost of ov~rsizin~ i county at its sole option may permi5 cash r~f~nds in addition to ~r i~ lieu of connection ~ee re~unds overeizing provided that the utility department project iz not economically feasible without the u~e o area ~eing developed, all construction costs of off-site extensions required to serve the propert~ provided that the first 200 feet of extension shall be eligible for refunding and provided further that ovarsizing has buon refunded in aecu~danc~ with the rate of 75% of cash oonneczion fee for first 1000 feet of off-site extension after the exempt 200 feet of off-site extension; 86~142 The total amount eligible to be refunded shall be c~mpute~ by the utilities department based on an annual set price reimbursement schedule for labor costs and a semi-annual set price reimbursement schedule for material costs developed in accordance with proced~re~ adopted by the utilities department. As an alternative, the person eligible for refunds n~y, upon written notice tc the county, choose to publicly advertise the work for a sealed bid opening at particular date and time. If such a bid process engineer's office. The engineer shall eupply the county with a car=iliad bid ~abulation and the Dotentiai Eefand shall be CalCulated by usinq the bid most advantageous to the county. The developer is obligated to uae the lowest responsible bidder complete the work in order tu receive ra~unds. ~rior to receiving any refunds, the engineer must c=rtify that all applicable bid procedures have been followed a~d that the low bidder has be~n paid the actual construction cost based on the bid. Each bidder mu~t Sign an affidavit aS a condition of bidding that his bid was independently arrived at without collusion or communication with other contracter~ or developers and =bar he stands ready and willing to perform the the bid pricm. The utilities department may adopt rules and regulations further governing bid procedu~e~. When a refund is requested for an off-site extension, land to be developed showing boundaries, title to the property and any other information required by the county. The area within which Conn=cticn fees may be allocated for refunds must be c0ntiqu0us to the water line extension and reasonably related to the development of the area. In addition, the utilities department must approve the area to be severed in the case will the amount of reimbursement exceed the construe=ion cost of an ex~easion or overs~zing. Refunds made pursuant to this section shall be made a~ing the following priority system ~ntil completedz (1) Cost of wate~ e~tension$ to serve adjoining {!) Oversizing costs; and {3) Off-site costs. Developmsnt which has received tentative approval or for refunds under th~ terms ~nd conditiuu~ of existing ordinance provided a contract for the extension is ex~cuted by Mepte~r ~0, 1986, and construction is completed by September 30, 19~7. Require~ installations o~ water mains. In n~w subdivisions, the ~eveloper shal~ ~nstall all water service laterals in a subdivision at the time water mains are installed within the development and th~ developer shall furnish ~11 mat~rlat~ equipment an. labor for the installation of the service laterals, including corporation stops, servi~e pipes, meter yokes, meter hoxee, couplings and any other supplemental materials necessary to meet county specifications. The developer shall install service within the development. The developer, their successors and a~ign~ ~hall be responsible for the service connection until Such tim= a~ %he meter installed by the county. 86-143 In new subdivisions, the developer shall have the wate~ lines, servrce lines, yokes and mete~ boxes installed in all new subdivision roads after the road is constructed to eob-grade and prior to the base course county, 9ewers shall be installed prior to the installation of wa~er mains and eervlce lines. A separate service shall be reguired for each houme, each unit of duplex homes or separate business establishment. Where the utilities department has approved one meter to serve a trailer court, apartment or other props=fy, the utilities department shall require a minimum water service charge for each unit served on such property. No more ~han one dwelling unit or business eztablishment may be connectec to a service line e~cept tho~e approved by the utilities depar~rnent upon w~itten application and co~pliance with any reasonable oondition~ impe~ed by the utilities department. The utilities department shall permit reductions in the number of connections when the number of units or establishments cannot be determined at the time of application for water service or where the applicant requests a reduced number of connections and there is no basis for denying such re,actions. Any individual strect~re for which a boildin9 permit is obtained after the effective date of this ordinance, and which is within 500 feet of a water line shall connect to the county water system. If a county water line is within or adjacent te property served by the owner or developer, any structure on such parcel shall connect to the county water system regardless of the distance from the structure to the water liu~. 20-1.31 Extensions to serve developed areas. (a} All extensions of water lines to serve developed areas shall be paid for by those parsons desirieq such extension, unless (l) such extension project has been formally added us a past of tko utility capital improvement program by the ~oard of Supervisors or (2) the Board of S~pervisors approves an ~xtension after serving their subdivision. Prior to approval o~ any such project, the health department must certify that significant portion ef the hemes have failing well systems and that it is economically impractical to repair existing well systems. If the total project cost of an extension to a ~evelcped area is f~lly paid for by the conskt~ers ~ertici~ating consumers who beak up to the county ~ySte~ within 30 days of availability shall be reduced! by up to 90~, provided that the cumulativ~ reduction of the extension. If the cumulative reduction in | available to emch participating consumer shall be reduced by an equal amount until the cumulative reduction in connection fees is equal to or tess than the construction costs of the extension. $6-144 , In those limited circumstances where the extension of ~ water line using county funds will promote the economic development of the county and where it is not practica] for tho properties to be served to fund all or a portion Of ~uch extension costs, ~hc sounty may agree to fund such a×tensicns upon terms and con~itlon~ imposed by the county. Such extension should be calculated to result in tangible and definable economic development within the county and may not be used for extensions to ~erve new residential growth or conunorcial growth that is likely to occur in the economic development must be added as a project to the UtiIitlc~ Capital ~mprovoment krogram. Creation of special tax or assessment water district. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, :he Board of Supervisors may~ pursuant to section 15.1-239 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, wholly or partially fund the COSt of extension of the county's water system or other costs eligible for such funding through the creation of a special tax or assessment water district. Article 20-1.33 Application for connection with sewerage ~aci!iti~s. Any person who desires to connect the sewerage facilities o any structure tn the county sewer system must apply te the utili~ie~ dependent in accordance with department regulations and obtain approval prior to commencinq any 20-1.34 Sewer oonnection~--Owncrshlp; responsibility. The ownership of connections between premises and main sewers, including those portions located within rights-of-way of public or private streets an~ easements, shall be v~ted in th~ Owners of such premises. The County shall not be responsible for the operation and maintenance of such Any individual structure ~cr which a building permit has been obtained after the effective date of this ordinance an, which is within §00 feet of a gravity sewer line ~ball connect %o the sounty sewer system. If a county gravity ~r line is within or adjacent tO property tO be the owner or developer, any structure on such parcel shall (a} ~xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, every ~nildinq in which plumbing fixtures are installed ~hal toilet and sink plumbing fixtures of s~on building ~i~trlbubion ~ysbe~. (b) =xcept ~s provided in sub~eotion (d) of this section, the plumbing, drainage and ventilation of every building or lot shall be separate and i~dopcndent of that of every other building or lot and shall be separately an~ indeDenden~Iy connected with the county 86-145 cooperative development providing seperate exterior entrances for each dw~lllnq unit, each tow~house~ condominium or cooperative unit shall be deemed a separate building. ~very building containing apartments, cendominiums or cooperative units separate exterior entrances, each unit in a horisontal duplex~ apartment house, hotel, churuh, industrial plant or garage shall be considered a singl~ building. Upon written application th~ utilities department shell approve the connection of mo~¢ than one commercial, business or office establishment to a single mewer line conditioned upon compliance with any reasonable conditions. The utilities department shall permit reductians in the nu~b=r of conn~ctions when n~er of units or es~ablis~nts cannot be at the time of application ~or se~r sa~ice or wher~ the applicant requests a reduced a~e: o~ connections and there is no engineering ba~i~ for denying ~uCh ~Iior to th~ construction of condomin~ or cooperat~v~ m~lti-family ~lling unit~ or Conversion of any building ~o condomini~ or cooperative ~nership units in which moro than one dwelling unit w~lI be s~rv~d by a single connection to the oo~n=y sewer eye=em, duv=lopur of Such building shall prov~d% written notic~ tO purchasers of such ~w~lling units that the building is served by a ~ingle connection to the count~ sewer system ~d that an association or other appropriate entity will be responsible for maint~naUC~ Of SuCh private sewer lin= in connection to the connt~ ~ewer system. In ~ddi=~on, ~h~ d~veloper shall provide notice to the utilitie~ department identifying tho entity r~sponsibl~ for =he ~intenance of such private line or connection and the payment of the se~em bill. {d) The pI~ing~ drainage and ventilation ~acititi~s of lend in singl~ o~ership used as condominiums or cooperatives, hotels, churche~ or hospitals, uu oth~r similar pu~oses, industrial plants or garages ~y be connected with private sewer systems; provided that such systems are desiqned and in accordance with the standard s~cifications for suc~ syst~m~ ~nd th9 plans and specifi=ation~ ~herelore are approved by the county prior to con~tEuction~ provided f~rther that each such system is connected tO the county sewer system. Infiltration into sewer system. NO per,on ~hall pe~ie infiltration into th~ sawer system or connect to the county sewer sys%~ so as to cause infiltration into the (b) Upon writ%eh notification by abe county to the ~y cert~fiud mail ~hut =he county sewer system is a~jec~ ~o infiltration because of deficiencies locatec consumer, each consumer shall within 60 days notlf~oatlon el~mlnate such ~nfiltration by replacing Substance not to be deposited in s~itary s~wer system. It ~hall be unlaw~ut for any person to cause or p~rmit to di~cSar~d or ~po~i~d any of the following into any forming a par% of the county ~anitary ~ewer ~yste~: 20-1.37 20-1.3~ $6-14i (i) (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) Any waste, li~uid~ or vapo~ having a temperature highe~ temperature of the treatment plan influent to greater I khan 104 ~eqrees ~ahrenheit. J Any water Qr waste containing more than 100 partm per million Of fat~ oil, or grease, exclusive of Any gasoline, benzene, naphtha or other hydrocarbon solvents or oils, or 6tner fla~able or explosive liquids, solids or gases. Any solid waste in excess of concentrations present in normal domestic sewage that has not been properly shredded, except where authorized under Article III. Any ashes, cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, lintr glase~ ragSr ~etats~ feathers, tar, plastics, wood, paunch manure, i~&u!ation materials, fibers of any kind~ mtock or poultry f~eds~ processing grains, viscera er otter fleshy particles from proceamtng er packing plant~ or any other solid or vigGous in excess of conoent~atlon ~rement in normal domestic sewage capable of cau$in~ obstruction to flow in sewers or interference with proper operation of waste t~ea~ent facilities. Any waters or wastes having a stabilized pM lower ~han 6.Q or higher than 9,0 or having propertiem eap~bl~ of either causing damage to s~r~ctures and equipment of the sanitary e~wer system or sewage treatment plants creating a hazard to personnel engaged in operation and maintenance of ~¢h facilities, Any waters or wastes havin~ objectionable colo~ which Any waters or wastes containing contaminants of $~h character o~ in each quantity as will not be amenable to the waste t~eatmcnt processes, or will injure or interfere with the waste treaeJ~e~t prooessem~ or will ~o~stitute a hazard to humans or a~imals, or will create a hazard in the stream or watercourse receiving the effluent from the waste treatment plant. Any noxious or malodorous gas, or any substance which, whe~ introduced i~to a reducing enviro~¢nt~ could oa~se the evolution of a no~io~s er malodorous gas. ~ny storm w~ter, surface water, ground wa:er, roof runoff, subsurface drainaga~ uncontaminmted cooling wa:er, or unpol!uted industrial process waters. Any radioactive isotope in eonoaatration greater than that permittud by applicable federal regulations. Any ceramic glazing waste in excess of concentrations present in normal domestic sewage. Any lim~, calcium sulphate or other similar sludqes in e~cess of oonceutrationm pre,est in normal Any waters ~ waste~ conhain~ng ~uSp=nded ~olids solutions of such character or quantity that unusual at~ention or e~pen~e we~ld be required in the handlin~ of such waste materials at the waste treatment plant. Any other waters er was=es, the discharge of which violate EPA-promulgated pretreatm~nt standards or regulatiensr whe~ such standards or regulations are 86-147 All parcels connecting to the county sewer system shall access the system by a gravity sewer kine nnles~ use of forced~ lifted or pressured sewag~ Ks the o~ly practical Method to serve the property. The Board of Supervisors must approve all pump stations, after finding that: (a) It is o~oncmicslly impractical to extend the gravity ~ewer line and the use of a pump station will not advers%Iy affect ~he county'= ~bili=y to serve the with a gravity sewer line at a future time; and The proposed design and plan for the pump station and connecting lines do not adversely affect the current financial status of the county utility system Or the future ability cf the county to install a gravity (c) The proposed design of the pump station permits r~place~ent of the pump station with a gravity sawer without s~gnificant capital outlay at a future time: and (d) The pump station will not overload tAe existing Sewage facilities and will not otherwise negatively affec~ th~ sys=em. 20-1.40 sewer connection charges. Connection charges for sewer treatment in county shall be a~ follows: Single-family - [1) Existing residence, already h~ving a septic tank | system when application is made within time allotted two thousand five hundred dollars ~ffeetive July 1~ 1985; two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars effective July 1, 1986~ and three thousand dollars effective july 1, 1987. installed by the developer, tw~ thousand one hundred dollars effective July 1, 1985~ two thousaad three hundred dollar~ effective July 1~ 1986; and two thousand five hundred dollars effective July 1, 1987. (3) ~xlstlng residence when application is not made within the time allotted in (a) (1) above and new residence whose so,vice is connected to Sewe~ not installed by the developer of the lot, three thousand d011ar~ effective July 1, I985; three thousand three hundred dollars effective July 1, 1986; end three thousand ~ix hundred dollars effective July 1, 1987, (4) For any residential dwelling or let where sewer available but nc lateral has been constructed to serve a property, the connection fee will be reduced by $~00.00 from the fee shown in ($} above. The responsibility to COnStruCt a lateral will be that of {b) Duplexes - Same as single-family residenue for each {c) Mobile Homes not located in a mobile home park Or subdivision - Same as z~5~l-e~ily residence. 86-148 Churches - Sam~ as single-family r~sidence, when churches are used for schoolsr kindergartens, etc. ~artments, condominiums and townhouSeS~ mobile Aome parks and subdivisions - Sa~e as single-family Travel trailer camps, hotels, motsls - Seven hundred dollars pe~ uni~ effective July l, 1985: seven hundred and seventy dollars per unit effective July 1, I9~6; and eight hundred and thirty ~ollars per unit effectlv6 July 1, 1987. C0rmm~rcial, business, office, indu~trial and public buildings - The sewer ~onnection f~e is based on the ~ize water meter required. ~e~er size ~hall be appro¥~d by utilities department as adequate to serve projected u~age. The fee schedule is set forth below: Wa~_r Meter Effective Effective ECfe C~ve E f~ec~ive Size {Inche2 ) 8-1-04 7-1-85 7-1-~6 7-1-S7 5/8 $ 1,800 $ 2,100 $ 2,300 $ 2,500 3,000 3,~00 3,~40 4,120 1/2 ~,0O0 ?,000 ?,650 ~,3S0 2~,000 ~,QOO 3~,~GO $3,400 50~OG0 58,35O 53,900 69~500 llO,000 128,370 140,600 152,800 275,000 ~20,900 351,500 382,500 Above 8 - projected To be negotiated at time of applioation based up0u usage. Mospftals, nursing homes or homes for adults - [1) Hospitals - effective July 1, 1985 one thousand one hundzed amd twenty dollars pe~ bed: effective Julyl 1, ~986 one thousand two hundred and thirty dollars bed, and effectiv~ July 1, 19S7, one thousand three hundred and thirty dollars per bed. ! (2) Nursing ~omes - effective July t, 198S seven hundred and ~eventy dollars per bed; and effective J~I~ 1, 1987 eight hundred and thirty dollars p~r bed. (3) ~omes for ad~lts - as defined in section 63,1-172 of the Cede cf Virginia, 1~0, as amended, boarding houses and rooming houses, effective July 1, 1985 fhre, hundred and fifty dollars per bed~ effective July 1, I98S three hundred and eighty five dollars per bed; an, effective July 1, 1987 four hundred an~ fifteun dollar per bed. (i) Construction of ~ lateral to $~rve any establishment property other tSan residential as listed in item (a) shall be the r~sponslbility ~f the us~r. Sewer rates. All consumers shall be required to pay a monthly user charge comprised of a mater size minimum service charge and a volume charge in accordance with the followinq schedule: (a) 9e~vio~ charge per premise (minimum char~e)t ~6-149 Size (Inches) 5/8 or 3/4 1 1-1/4 1-1/2 2 4 10 12 Monthly $ 6.00 13.20 20.40 26.40 36,00 78.00 :~0. O0 240.00 450.00 600. O0 780.00 Each consumer . . $ 0.68 per 100 cu. ft. (e) where residential premiGes are connected to the county service charge shall be $12.D0 per month. For all private meter at his expense and the service charge will be based on the meter reading or at the sole discretion oi the utilities department, a monthly service charge will be set. The location, size and manor&crater of the m~ter ~hall be as approved by the utilities department, Where a connection fee has been paid for a res~den=zal shall pay $6.00 per month. (e) The multiple-unit residence charge shall be applicable! to all apartments, condominiums, duplexes, mobile home~ and other premises wherein more than one living unit served by one service connection. The service charge w£1I be the service charge for a 5/8 inch or 3/4 inch meter plue $6.00 per livinq unit for each unit in excess of one in addi=ien uo =he applicable volume ohu~ge. (f) ~hcr¢ ?pplicabl¢~ conSum¢~ of th~ ~ewez ~ystem shall,~ · n add=tion to the monthly user charge, pay a suruhar~ to cover the cost of treating ~xce~ive strength wa~te~ or pollutmnts as prov~de~ in Article III of this chapter. (g) Thc consumer shall b~ liable for the payment Of charqes made for Service rendered until such consumer m~ko~ application for discontin~ance of service to the utiI~ties department. 20-1.42 Sewer lin= NO extension of the county's sewer syst%m shall be permibt~ ~nless approved by the county subjec~ to reasonable terms and condition~ imDo~ed by the county. Any ~ueh extension shall be at the empense of the developer or the owners of the parcels to be s~rv=d~ pSo¥id~d that such devutopur or owners may be eligible fo~ ~efunds for all or a portion of the cost of c~rtain ~xtensions cr overs~zing in accordance (a) The county shall determine the feasibility of all requests for sewer extensions, and no extension shall in the best interest of the county utility syst~ and th= health, safety and welfare of county residents. 86-15D {b) No sew=r line extensions or installations shalI be made until the developer has entered into a contract with the county. Every ~u~h contract shall provide that the developer shall deposit the estimated cost of ~uch copy of an aeceptabl~ executed contract with an approved Licensed Contractor, with epecializatio~ and experience in public water and sewer facilities, and sAalI convey all rights-of-way to the COunty necessary to serve the developed property. The county shall approve tho size, type, location and material of all sewer mains and service lines, incI~dln~ fi%tlng~ and service pipes, and other facilities; and they shall be installed in a~oo~danc~ with county $~an~asd~ and specifications. All contractors installing such facilities shall be approved by the county. If privat~ contractors install such facilities, the cost of such installation shall, within thirty days of completion, be filed ~ith the county. (c) The entire co~t of extending sewer m~inst including th~ actual coot incurred and paid out by the o0unty, plus ~ fixed overhead charge of twenty percent shall be paid for by the person requesting a~ extension whe~ work is performed by county forces. When contract work is performed by an approved contractor, an inspection feeI of three percent shall be charged based on final actua~ cost. Refunds for oversizin~ and o~f-site extensions. from the area b~ing ~evelope~ and other contiguous areas approved for refunds in accordance with thio oversizing of linem. The amount to be refunded shall be the difference in cost between (1) size sewer line which is needed to serve th~ area being developed or a line eight inches in diame=er, whichever is larger, and (2) the size ~ewe~ line actually installed. The difference in cos= shall be the difference in ma:oriel' und labor OoSts~ aS determined in accordance with this section. The county will only refund the difference in material costs for on-oite ovursizing of sewer lines when %he project is priced by using the anneal set price reimbursement schedule. The developer shall r~co±ve 75% of each connection fee until the eligible cos~ of oversizing is refunded or no additional connections exist. The county at it~ ~ole option may permit c~$h refunds in add~tion tO or in lie~ of connection fee refunds for oversizing provided that th~ uti!i~y department 4etermine~ that the 0versi~ing is necessary for the orderly expansion of the sewer syscoN and that the project is no~ economically ~oasible | without th~ use of a CaSh ~efund. I (b) The county shall refun~ from connection fees collected! from tkm area being developed all construction costs o~ off-oit~ extensions required to serve the property provided that the f~rst 200 feet of extension shall no b~ ~ligibl~ ior rc£=ndin§ and provided fu~the~ that th~ remalni~g 0ffsite costs shall be refunded after all oversising has been refunded, iB accordance with th~ 100% of the off-site oenstr~ction costs at the rate cf 50% of each connection fee for th~ first 1000 feet of off-site ~xtenBicn after the exempt 200 feet of off-site extension; thereafter, 86-151 id) 20-1.44 50% of the off-site construction costs at rate cf 50% of each connection fee for any ofi-slt~ extension beyond 1200 fset. The total amount sli~ible %o be refunded shall be computed by :ge utilities department based on an annua~ set price rein~bnrs~ment schedule for labor costs and a semi-annual set price reimbursement schedule for maberlal costs developed in accordance with prooedure~ alterna%ive, the person eliqibl~ for r~fond~ may, written notice to the county, choose to publicly adv~r%i~e th~ work for ~ ~l~d b~d opening a~ particular date and time. If ~uch a bid process is engineer's office. The enginesr shall snppty the county with a certifisd bid tabulation and the potential refund shall ba calculated by using the bid mos% advantageous to the c0un~y. The developer is obligated to use the lowest responsible bidder to complete the work in order ~o receive refunds. Prior to receiving any refunds, the engineer must c~rtify ~ha% all applicable bid ~rscsdur~s have been followed and that the low bidder ham been paid the actual construction cost based on the bid. Each b~dder must sign an affidavit as a condition of bidding that his bid was independently arrived at without collusion or communication with other contractors or developers and that he s~ands ready and willing to perform the ~0rk a' the bid pries. The utilities department may adopt ~uleE and regRlations further governing bid procedures When a refund is requested for an off-site the developer shall furnish a plat of the tract cf to be developed mhowing beundarie~ title to the property and such other information require~ ~y the county. The area within which connection fees may be line extension and reasonably related bo the proposed development of the amen. IA addition, :he utilitie~ department must approve the area bo be covered in the refund at the time the CQn~rac~ Us execnte~, In nc case will the amouDt of reimbursement exceed using the following priority system until completed: (1) Cost of sewer extensions to serve adjoining Ov~rsizing costs~ and Off-site coStS. site plan approval by March 30 1996 shall be eligible for refunds under the terms and conditions of the existing crdlnanca p~evldmd a contract for the construction is eompleeed by s~ptember 30, 1987. Extensions to serve developed areas. arsas shall be paid for by those persons desiring such! extension, unless (1) such extension project has been formally added as a part of the utility capital improvement program cr (2) the Board of Supervisors approves an extension after 70% of th~ homeowners in extended sewer lines serving their subdivision. ~rior 86-152 to approval of amy such project, the county health department must certify that a significant portion cf %he hQ~es have failing septic systems and that it is economically impractical tc repair e~isting septic (b) If the total project cost cf an extension to a developed area is fully paid for by the eonsum=rs served by such extension, each connection fee for gueh participating consumers who hook up to the equity sewer by up to 90%, provided that the cumulative raduction i~ connection feeb shall not exceed ~he construction cost~ of the extension. If the cumulatzve reduction in connection fe~s e~ceed~ the conptruction cost of the extensxon, the amount of each connection fee reduction! available to each participating co~tu~er shall be ' reduced by an equal amount until the cumulative the construction costs of the extension. (c) In these limited circumstances where the extension of sewer lin~ using county fun~ will promote the economid development of the county and where it is net practical for the proper%its to be served to fund ail or a tQ fu~d SuCh extensions upon ~erms and conditions i~osed by the County. such extension should be calculated to result in tangible and deZlnable economic d~vulcpment within the county and may not b~ used for co~ercial growth that is likely to occur in the ~sence of county fun~ing. ~y ~ch e~ten~io~s for economic development must be added as a project to the Creation of s~divisi0n and Development .Sewer Dintrict~, ~otwith~tanding an~ other provision of this ordinance, Board of Supervisors may pursuan= to Section 15.1-239 or to Section 1~,1-466{j) 0f th9 CO~ Of Virginia, 19~0, as amended, wholly or partially f~d ~he cost of extension of the =ounty's sewer system or other costs eligible ior such funding throngh the creation of a ~ubdivimion and development sewer district, 20-1.45 10.S. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TAX ~XEMPTION FOR NATIONAL RAILWAY HISTORIC~.L SOCIETY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN CEESTERFIELD Mr. Hedrlck stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider a resolution supporting a r~al estat~ tax exemption for the old Dominion Chapter o~ thc National Railway Historical Society for property located in the County. Mr. Chuck MoIntire, President of the old Dominion Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society, was presenb and outlined some e~ their accomplishments. Mr. Stith stated the General Assembly will ~ot be able to act on ~his issue until ne~t y~ar because of the public hearing process which took additional time Ne stated that the Society has been working with Delegate Watkin: in this matter. Th~r~ w=~ no opposition pz¢~mnt. Mrs. Oirone stated that 8he was 9rood to have the Society ~oca~ed in Midlothian District. Mr. Mica~ stated for the record that the ~oard had received answers to the statutory questions provided and has carefully considered those responses. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~rs. Girone, the Beard adopted the following resolution: B6-153 WI~ER~A$, the Old Dominion Chapter of the National /%ailway ~istQrlcal ~ociety was formed in 1957 to pr0mot~ public interest in railroad history and to prese~e materials related thereto; and W~R~AS, they have undertaken to accomplish these aims in part by operating over 150 railroad passenger excursion~ for the public in the past 29 years; and W~EREAS, the 01d Dominion Chapter has ~a~ed a ~nb~tantial which are stored and maintained at their yard located in western Ches~erfiel~ Coumty an~ used on ~heir excursions ~d ~de uvailable for similar tripe by other such similar or~uni=ations~ ~RHA~, the provisions uf ~30-I9.04 (~) of the Code of ~ t950~ a~ amended, have been examined and ConSidered by the ~oard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County at a public h~aring; and into the Chapter's re,tore%ion program an~ enablem the Chapter tc of Virginia to grant the Old Dominion Chapter of %he National its property located in Chesterfield County. Asme~Iy to support the ~ffoT%s of the Society in attaining rheim goal of a tax exemption. 10.C. 0RDINANCR R~L~TING TO M~ECIAL SIGN DISTRICTS ~. Hodrick staked this date and time had been advertised for public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the special $1gR di~%r~cts. Mr. Mock stated that on January ~2, 1986 the Board suggested the Planning Commission consider two amendments the ordiaance rotatiDg to the special ~ign district which would reduce the height of a si~n in the district from 25 ft. to 10 ft. as well as incrmasing the special sign di~ric~s to include ~opkins Road from ~he City of Richmond to C~ntralia Road. s~at~d th~ Planning Commission had reuommanded approval of the proposed ordinance. Me stated if approval includes a new area in ~he special sign distriut, sta£~ will not be abl~ to initiate an active enforcement until December, 1986 but new signs will have to comply and staff would encourage that compliance through the sign per, it pro,ess. Ee stated the amendment includes a requirement for a 25 ft. side yard setback for the s~gn. Mrs. Girone stated she would recommend elimina~ion of the side ~ard z@tback as location could be addressed during site plan review. sr. Zcok presented the ~oard with slides from the Midlothi~n ~omparing various height~ of ~igns. Mrs. Girone referred to the of proportion with others in the area. She stated she had r~ceived lette~ and pe=ition$ in favor of the height =eduction. ~LT. Paul Stotts, representing LaMa~ Advertising, Smith Adve~tisin9 ~nd Colony Advertising, stated ther~ was a problem with obtaining a cupy of the proposed ordinance after advertinln~ which =taff indicated was not available but others received 86-154 proposed ordinances wore not available as indicated. He stated they are also concerned that this special sign district will creep over tho entire COunty one area at e Pime. He stated that if there is a desire to extend the special sign district over th~ entire County, that it be don~ at one time so all realize what i~ happening in order that ali concerns can be addressed. He stated i further that the height limitation of 25 ft, was studied by the Planning Commission and he was unaware of any special study for 10 ft. ~e stated 10 ft. signs will create a safety problem because of the visual plain of motorists. He ~tated the more that is in that plain, the more v~sual difficulties are likely t~ ocsur. He stated because o~e sign is inappropriate should not make a change for all necessary, Be added ~hat ali ether signu in th~ area that a~ over I0 ft. high in a special sign district will be nonconforndeg and will hav~ to be replaced at the conforming height. Mrs. Gircne stated the one sign in the area did not bring this matter forth as it was her intention from the beginning that the height be 10 ft. and somehow the ordinance wa~ approved with the 25 ft. limit. ~Lr. Eob Schr~m stated he is concerned with the cost of doing businese~ acquiring property, building buildlnge, and co~tlnuing to grow in the county as costs to do sc are increasing dramatically. ~e ~a~ed ~he higher the costs, the more impossible it becomes fo~ a businessman to expand and grow. He will block a ten foot sign thus preventing a possible customer vision. ~e stated the bu~ines~ma~ needs to advertise his business and if the sign is low sash as ~rio's, he is losing business. M~s. Girone stated that Erie indicated his sign was effective and he was oppoee~ to the height of the 25 ft. sign at! the 7-11. She stated she would lika to include in her motion today that the location of the sign would be considered during the sit= plan review ~rocaSs. M.r. Schrum Stated with the 25 ft. side yard setback he could nut have constructed his sign at his · business location. He ~tated he is in favor of controlled grcwt~ throughout the County hat he is concerned that the res{~ential ratio not go any higher as compared to commercial but restrictions being placed on businesses could hinder commercial gr~n~th. Mrs. Gircne stated she felt the sign industry should ge together to snqqast improvements so that another Route 60 zs nat created. ~he Stated the public i~ up,et with the appearance because of excesses where sis'ns block others. Mr. Mayes stated he does not have problems with the height of ei~n~ in Matoaca District but he is concerned with the people no being able to obtain copies of ordinances on two occasions which indicates that the ordinance was drafted without their input which he felt wax not right. Mr. rook stated that this erdinanc, was available in accordance with law and he has taken steps to eliminate the communications p~obl~m at the counter in the Planning Department. He stated the amendment was advertised within 3~ days after the Board requested it and at the time the ~oard directed the short time frame, staff ~ndloated involvement[ by the public would be limited to the advertisement and public hearings becaese of the time frame. Mrs. Girone state~ she felt the ordinance should be approved wit~ the climinatieD of th$ sid~ yard setback and that sign placement be subject to s~te plan review~ Mr. rook stated that staff felt it better to create the 25 ft. side yard setback but allow the Planning Director to allow a variance to that through site plan cass basis. Mrs. Girone stated she felt staff should ~0t be concerned with visibility and should net make that judgment on | how it can be seen. Mr. Zook suggested that if the Board did no' placement of the sfgn should not be addressed any differently than is dons currently which is i~ ft. from the road. Mr. Applegate clarified that the proposed ordinance did net affect the billboard industry. Mr. Stotts stated anything that affects the height o~ side yard setback could affect billboards from the point that any Off premise sign is a billboard. Mr. Applagate stated this was not the intent of the ordinance. Mrs. Gir0ne stated she ~ould like to have just the h~ight addressed and no reference =o the side yard setback. She stated that this issue is net because of the 7-11 ~ig~, but because to 25 ft. She stated ~hewo~ld like the Board to approve a sign height of 13 ft. which ia ~he average of all the signs existing in the corridor today and %hat would be the basis for the i~clud~d in the special sign district which was recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mayas inquired if the people along ~cpkins Read had been nazified. Mr. Daniel stated the ordinance, had been advertised properly. Mr. Applegate inquired about the one year trial basis for %he special sign district and how it ~ district can axis= as well as a general sig~ policy for the not vo~e in the future for the special sign district to apply County-wide. £ollowlng ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF TEE COUNTY OF C~ESTERFIELD 1978, AS AMEnDeD, SY AFl,DInG SECTIONS 21-63.1, 21-63.3 A~n 21-63.5 RELATING TO TE~ SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICTS BE IT ORDAINED by ~he ~oard cf Mupervizo~ of CheSterfield County: (1) That Section 21-63.1 of the code of the County Cheuturfi¢ld~ Vir~inia~ 1978~ as amended~ is a~nde~and r~nac~d as follows: Sections 21-59 through 21-~2 of this Code ~otwithstandinq, this division shall apply to signs located in the ~pecial ~iqn district~: (c) The Hopkins ~ad special sign district stall include all parcels of land loca~d within 300 f~et of the boundaries of tho right of way of State Rou~ 637 (Kopkins Road) between aha Chesterfield Co~%y/City of Richmond !~ne and the intersection of State Route 637 (Hopkin~ Road) and Stat~ Route 145 (Cen=ralla Road), unles~ the parcel on which the sign located ext~nd~ further ~h~ 3Q0 f~et, i~ which case the special sign district shall include such additional property for a maximum depth ci 1~500 feet, O 00 (2} That Section 2t-63.3 of the Code of =he Cowry ChestPV~!~%~ V!r~!~, 1978, a~ amended, is a~ended and =e~nacted as foll~s: 86-156 Sec. 21-63.3. Sa~e 0 and B-1 Districts. The following nigDs shall b~ permitted in the 0 and B-1 Districts: (b) on individual parcels or l~ts on9 freestanding business sign per Daroel or lot not exceeding one hundred square feet in area is permitted on th~ premi~s in all business districts. Where the side or rear lot line adjoins an "R" District~ the extprior sigus shall be attached flat against the building and shall not fa~e the adjacent Io% located in an "~" District unles~ such sign is located at leas% one hundred and frfty feet from "R" District. .Business signs may b~ integral with ~r aetna%ed t~ the main build,ns and shall not project from the bur!ding or appendage more than ~i~hteen inches. The aggregate Sign a~ea all business signs on any one lot shall not exceed one square foot for each two feet of lot frontage (on corner lots, either the front lot line or the corner side lot linc, bat not both, ma' ba used to compute sign area~ r~gardless of the road tio~) provided that a mi~imu~ of twenty square Ieet or a maximum of one hundred fift~ square feet ~hall be permitted. signs shall net exceed thirteen ~eet in height. Other than on not e×ne~d twenty-f0nr inches in heigh~ plum two inches for each fifty feet of yard setback. {c) In shopping cee%ers, office parks or similar groups of buildings, one sign not exceeding cna hundred Square feet i~ are~ and thirteen feet in height, identifying the devel0pment and announcin~ ouly fh~ name or loc~tion cf th~ shopping center or office park and business na~es of tenants therein. If a shoppin! center or office park fronts along two major arterial~ as indicated on the Chesterfield General Plan, as amended, e freestandin~ sign may be permitted along mac% mejo~ arterial. Ail individual business signs within a shopping center or office park shall be attached tO fh~ main building or major appendage including, but not limited to canopies, marquees and awnings, 97neff the side cr rear lot line adjoins an "R" District~ the terror signs shall be at~aehed ~tet against the building and ·ball not face the adjacent t0t in an "R" District ~nless such sign is located at least one hundred and fifty feet from the "R" District. No sign shall project more than eighteen inches from ~he building Or major appendage. Other than on the permitted freestanding signs, ~ign letters or numbers shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height, plus two inches for every fifty foe~ of yard setback, The aggregate sign area of all business siqns for any one business shall not exceed one s~uare ~ooc for each =w~ feet of store fUODrago pr0vlaed that a minimu~ of twenty square feet and a maximum of one-hundred fifty mquare feet shaI1i be permitted.I, (~) That Section 21~63.5 of {he Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, 1978, as amends~ ~ am~n~ reenacted as follows: sec. 21-63.5 Same--~-3, ~-1, ~-2 and M-3 Dis%fists. M-2 The ~ollowing signs ~ha%l be pe~itte~ in the B-3, and M-] Districts: (a) Any sign permitted and as regulated in Section 2~-63.4 e~cept, that the a~regata sign area ~or all bu~ine~ mign~ on any one lot may be increase~ to 2.5 square feet for each two fee of lot or building (shopping cenfar) frontage. c o c 86-157 Mr. Sock introduced MS. Lorena Oden, who has been doing a fine job working with businesses in the special sign dis~rict explaining the regulations and encouraging their participation. Mr. ~edrick introduced visitors ~rcm the virginia commonwealth University Ccmmunicetion~ Department whs were pre,eat observing the meetlag. I1. NEW BUSIN~S$ il.A. CO~B~U~I~¥ DEVELOPMEN~ ITEMS ROUTE 36 GRADE S~kR~TION R~CON$IDERATiON Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board ~hat he owned preparty in the area, declared a conflict of in~eres~ pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and ex,used himself from the meeting. Mr. Mayas stated that when this problem cams before the Board, this ~oard agreed this grade separation was necessary and agreed to support this project. Ee stated at that time the ~atoaca Advisory Council agreed that the overpass because c~ the lower cos? would be the best solution aSd to align it from River! Road to ~ver Road. ~a stated he disagreed and informed this Board that he did not think it was the best Solution but recommended what appeared to be the majorit~ recommendation. He! stated business people now feel that was no= =he best solution, , that an overpass would displace too many buSzneSS=s and muke valuable land useless and would cost more than it would if it ~ollowad the Original recommendation to ~o west of the present crossing, be an underpass and align with chesterfield Avenue. ~tated in 19S5, the Highway Department had four possible solutions--River Road to River Road overpass or underpass and East River Road with Che~terfiet~ Avenue by an overpass or underpass. He stated at the last meetln~ of the Advisory Council, the majority agreed an underpass would be best and the Board was presented with a petition of at %east 200 names for an! underpass. He stated he would like the Board to cbt the County'~ losses end instruct the Highway Department to proceed with dev¢lcp~nt of the ~inal plans for underpa~s with a~ ~lig~m$~t with Chesterfield Avenue. HU stated this would open up the southern ~nd of th~ County for dev~lop~nt along the Basin. Ne stated it would be less than one million dollars differenc~ between the two design~. He stated he never understood th~ e~t~at~ by ~he Nighway Depa{~e~t that an 9var- pass ~uld cost less than an ~derpass and anqumred zf movmng dirt costs more than bu~ing steel. ~e sta~ed the underpa~s woul~ displac~ l~ss businesses, would display9 1~65 people, ~Bld go through land that is cheaper and could be dona much faster, Mr. ADplegate stated ~ thought the Board had already approved ~he p~oj~ot an~ referred %o minu~e$ of Feb~ary, 19S~ and 1985 reflecting th~ Board's action approving an ove~amm with alig~en~ of River Road no River ~ad. He state~ the Board approved %he project because of its concern to hav~ the people cross th~ railroad track~ ~afely. ~. Giron~ stated that the Highway Department would build the grade separation in the most cOSt effective ~nner ~d funds were allocated. ~. Applegate ~ta%~d th~ Advisory Council had ~d$ their d~ci$ion because they felt they might get the overpass but never see an underpass. ·tated it i$a year later, the ~ighwmy Depar~ent is proceeding, and if the Board were to change its mind, inquired where the $2,000.000 in dii~erence would be found. ~. Mayas stated what has been race--ended for the two lane rout~ on Rt. 36 comas to $4~g3S,000 for the River Road nnd~rpa~ and Plan $2, four laned i$ $4,233,000. He stated it ~uld be ludicrous to build a two lano undorpaus for a route which would b~ oomparabl~ ~o 301 and we ought to b~ talking about the four lanes. ~r. Applegate stated it would co~t $6,000,~00 and in~ire~ where the money ~ould =oma ~rom. ~r. Mayas state~ th~ needed $~2 million doll~r~ to complete Powhite ~arkway and Matoaca D~strlct voted to pass that Bond Issue because it was 86-158 essential to complete ~owhlte Parkway hecauee of the economic base and development of the %oral County and nsc one dime of tha' wag spent in the southern end. He stated they v~tcd for it because it was for the best interest of the County. He stated the ~oard indloate~ a need for $30 million for Rt. 288 and not on~ dime of that was supposed to ba spen~ in the southern end of the County hut the people voted for it. He stated now we need a project in the southern 9nd of the County across the railroad tracks so that we can get some investments and make the area attractive for development. He stated now the ~oard is asking of the Powhite Parkway was seven additional million dollars, no determine from where the additional funds world tome. ~e stated thie is the first major project in the southern end of the County and it should be done right. Be sta~ed the ~ighway Department i~ not alway~ right in its decision and referred tO th~ Shirley entitled to it~ major prejeo% ~one right. F~cs. Giron~ stated ~he felt tho ~ighway Department will build that gets ~he people safely aoross' that railroad is tho one they will approve. than this project and r~cfaested Mr. Ramsay to outline the fun~in~ with a combination of County and State bonds--S22 million by the inorease ~o $78 million. Me stated tho facili~y will be a=oll Bonds in full and the agreements will include a repayment to the~ County for thm $22 million plum th~ interemt that Wam paid am 28~ will b~ a County funded project and was established by the Board as a top priority road project in the county with $30 million in bon~. Mr. Daniel stated each one of those bonds were placed on the ~atlot several months before th~ general election by the Board o~ Supervisors and then had to have that partioular i~em sustained Mr. Ramsay stated in 198¢ the Board set aside $4% million of the County's General Fund ~alanoe for two projects--ac. 36 Grade there was no official action that designated how much of the $4%! ~illion w~uI~ go to each project. $3,985,000 for tbos~ two proje=ts. ~e stated basically the mona9 you have invested in the design is lost and if ~o~ changed the design there would be additional costs. Mr. McCracken stated i~ the Board were to ohange %he alignmen~ of approximately $300,000. Mr. Daniel stated the River ~mad/Ches=er~ield Avenue underpass which im ~6 million rouMhly and with the $300,000 desig~ which ii omitted from this paper is an additional cost of $3,000,00~ if h~ Chester projeot. 86-159 Mr. Daniel inquired where the additional funds should come from. Mr. ~ayes stated perhaps fzom the same place that we would get the money ~or the overruns for Powhite Parkway and Rt. 288. Mr. Dan~ei stated the ~eard does nut have that ~eohanism available for this project az Pcwhite is predominately funded through the State 9C Bonds and because the interest rates on the 9C Bonds fell that gave the prerogative of borrowing a ~itttu more money at lower interest and etitl have the same net cash flow. He stated if the underpass were a toil facility funded by ~C Bends ~hen you toe would have tha~ privilege of going and asking the General Assembly for additional borrowing capacity based on drop~ in the interest rate. ~e stated that this project is funded by the General Fund and that funding by the State ~s not availablc. Mr. Mayss stated he and Mr. Dodd regneste~ that the County receive ~atehing funds for the underpass from ~he ~tat~ but he did not know if this request wo~ld be sucsessful. Mr. Daniel money, the Board would move in that direction. development of the othe~ projects but not with this one. Mr. Daniel stated the Board wants to p~ovido for the most cost effective crossing that we can get provided that we know who is goin~ to pay the hill. He stated this Hoard would ~f~ than state le~el~ to determine if additional funds can he obtained for bogeyer, will slow do~ th~ ut%~a%~ da~e when the crossin~ will do~ tho development of the ~rade separation. ~r. Apple~ate stated the Board paper indicates that any change a~ stated ~n addition to ad~ing $2 million ~o the co~, we ar~ ~ ~ettin9 further anC further away from ~oin9 it. ~ Mr. Mayas stated the oripinal reoo~endation was ~oin~ along with the majority and the m~jority has n~ stated that they do not the County and Highway Department have bee~ reassured that th~ ~ ~erpa~m can be built an~ built within the ~ount of money that ~ the County has set aside for bringing that project to completion~ the Overpass, He stated the Highway Department would utop what ~hey were doing and $tar~ ~he designs for the uader~ass, the source of money ~ld need to be deeerminud~ and you will prob~ly delay the project for several years into =ko future. ~ in,ired if the Chester project were not going to be undertaken approxi~tely $3,000,000. }~. Daniel stated he understood what the p~lic and Mr, Mayas ~s project for many years to c~e. ~e stated if the money is not allocated to pay the bills when the contractor comes, you can't ~. Mayas stated this Doard has Go~itted to the people to co~lete th~ project but he would not vote for it because that i~ not wha~ th~ people said they wanted as they said that the with chesterfield Avenue. There was no second to the motion. ~. Daniel deulared =he 86-16U Mr. Daniel inquired if this action m~ant that everything would continue as previously approved by the Board. 5~. Micas stated that was correct. Mr. Daniel inquired if fh~ Board would ~upport a resolution to the delegation as well as the GQvernerPs Office explaining the problem and regue~ting the state to come forwurd with additional funding. Mrs. Girone stated She would support a resolution to the delegation seeking additional funding ~or a grade separation in Ettr±ck. ~. Applegate agreed, but only i~ the record shows that the entire project, for whatever period of time that =he delegation works on it whether it is an overpass the Highway Department to delay anything. Mr. Applagate state~ if th~ ~oar~ adopt~ a resolution, we have literally tied the hands of the Highway Department and Our Transportation Department in that they oannot go forward because there may be a conceptual change ~heul~ our delega~ion be able secure additional ~unds. Mr. Daniel stated the previously approved project would move along its own traQk and can continue up until the time that you have actually submitted the new plans. Mr. Applegate stated that would be throwing more money away. He stated he coul~ suppor~ the resolution, as long as it is in the record that this approach will delay the project, ~r. ~yes s~ated if it is going =o delay the project then he will not SuppOZt the resolution. ~. Daniel stated anything that you do ~hat is differen~ from what is already approved will delay tbs project by approximntely one year. ~ir. Maye~ stated he made a Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting, Mr. McCra0~n stated virginia Stat~ Univermity has attempted to obtain a grant for the construction of h~s ~helt~r~ On campus, He seated in order to obtain those fund~, the fund~ must be requested by a locality. ~e ~%ate~ Virgiuia State has indicated they will s~pply the looal fund~ but has asked the County to also pursue the issue o~ ooming up with ~he ~% matchin, shar~. He stated the grant would rei~urse 95% of the project. Mr. Dodd rucogaiz~d Dr. Gre~nfluld and his staff who were present. On ~o%ion of ~, Mayuu~ seconded by Mr. Daniel~ th~ Board adopted the ~ollowing r~soluti0n: S~ I% ~solved by the chesterfield count~ Be=rd of Supervisors that the County A~iniutratcr ix authorized~ for and cation %o the Virginia Department of 5ighways and Transportation Co~onwealth of Virginia, for a grant o~ t:ans~ortation a~thor~zed ~n the 1986 Acts of the ~eneral Asse~ly for State Al, fo~ Capital Cost~ in %he amount of $12,500 to defray ninety-five equipment~ facilities~ and %he associated costm of an approved Tederal Capital Grant, to accept ~rom the Virginia Department ~ighways and Transportation grants in such amount as may be ~ha Virginia Depar~ena of Eighways ~d Transportation such Ches%grfield County Doard of Supervisors cer~ifie~ %ha~ th~ fund~ ~hall be used in aa~ordan~a with tke retirements of the Appropria~ion Ac% of 1986, that the Co~ty will provide ~unds in tha ratio a~ requized in such ~at (five parcent (5%) cf %he looal matching shara), [ha~ ~he records of r~celpts expenditure o~ funds ~ranC~d tka County, as authorized by the Acts of ~he General As~ly, may D~ subj~cz ~Q ~udiK Dy Virginia Depa~tmen~ of ~i~hway~ and Tran~pOrfiaSion, and b~ ~a~e Auditor of Public A~ou~g~t and that fund~ grant~ to th~ 86-161 County far defrayin~ the cost of public transportation capital costs of the County ~h~l~ be used only for such purposes as authoxized in the Aotm of the General Assembly. Vote: Unanimous 5%r. ~edriek suggested the Board recess for lunch and handl~ the remainder of the agenda after zoning since they are behind schedule. It was ~ener~lly agreed the Board would reCeSS for lunch. ll.G. LUNCH WITH MUSEUM COMMITTEE The Beard met with members of the Chesterfield County Museum Committee ab the Count~ ~useum and discussed business o~ mutual Recon~eninq: Mr. Dcdd stated M~. D~niel would be presiding over the afternoon session ascording to the rules and pr0oed~res adapted by the Board. Mr. Doole stated Mr. McCracken would be introducing the this afternoon. ll.H. REQUESTS FOR NUBILE HOME PERMITS 86SR045 In Mutoaca Magisterial Dist~iot~ Jehovah M. Cohen requested renewal of a Mobile Eom~ Permit on property fronting the east line of JefferSon Street app~oxJJ~utely 230 ~eet uouth of Fairfex Avenue, and better known as 21313 Jefferson ~trset. Tax Map lS0-14 (~} Radcliffe, Block F, Lots 11, 12, 13 (Sheet 52). Nr. Cohort's son-in-Iaw was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the ~oar~ approved this request for a period of five years subject to the ~cllowing standard conditions: I. The aDplicnnt shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile preper~y, Only one {1} ~obile hom~ shall ~e permit~ tO b parked on an individual lot sr parcel. and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning shall ~e l~eated closer tkan 20 feet to any existing a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirte~ but shall 5. Where public (Canary) water and/ct sewer are available, shall be then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Buildinq Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. 7. Any violation of the a~ove conditions shell be grounds for revocatlo~ of the Mobile Home Permit. 86-162 Vote: 86SR046 In Bermuda Magi~terlal District, Walter g. and E~a D. Singleton requeste~ renewal Of a Mobile Home Permit on property fronting the southeast lin~ of Curti~ Street ap~oxlmate!y 1OD feet northeast of Richmond Street, and behtez known as 3921 Curtis Street. ~ax KD I12-11 (2) Chester, ~lock K, Lot 135A {Sheet 32). home site. There was no opposition present. ~ir. Dodd stated had received a petition from approxi~=e!y 20-22 residents o~poeing thi~ request. He stated the site is ~intained in an orderly fashion and there is another mobil9 hom~ in the area but the neighborhood is opposed. He ~tated when it was originally ~pproved ii was only approved for ~o years because ha felt th~s problem ~y arise. Mr. Singleton staled h~ ha~ been trying to ~. Dodd ~ndicated he felt he should d~ny the ~que~7 however, relocate would be reasonable. ~. D0dd made a motion that Boa~d =pprov= this request for a perio~ of six mon=hs in order to all0w Mr. Singleton time to relocate th= mobile ~. Mayas s~ated he felt %we years would be more considering the financial hardships. Mr. Sinqleton stated he be~n ~ry~ng to relocate ~he hom~ for the past =WQ year~ and financial hardships have prevented it. ~. Mayas stated if it were gra~d for two y~ar$ i: ¢oul~ ~e in~icate~ ~hat it would b the intent of the Board not to renew if and when ~. Singleton reapplie~. ~. Mayas made a Substitute motiou, seconded by Mr. Daniel, thi~ Mobile Home Permit be granted for a period o9 two years subject to %h~ following s%and~rd condltion~: 1. The applicant sh~ll ~ th~ Owaer aad occupant of the mobile No lot or parcel ~y be rented or leased ior ns~ as a mobil h0~ site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental pr~arty. Only on~ (1) mobile ho~ shall b~ 9er~i~ted to b parked on an individual lo= or parcel. 3. The minimnm lot ~iz~, ~=r~ s~tbacks, r~red front yard, and other zoning r~ire~nts of the applicable zoning shall be located closer than 20 ~eet %o any existing not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public ~County) water and/or s~w~r ar~ available, shall bu used. 6. Upon being granted a ~obile acme Pe~it, the applicant sha] then obtain'the neCeSSary pe~its from the Office of the Build~ng Official. Th~s shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile 7. ~y violation of the ~ove comdition~ ~hall be grounds revocation of the ~obile Home Ayes: Mr. Daniel~ Mr. Applagat~ Mrs. Girone and Mr. }~yes. 86-163 Il. P~QU~TS FOR 85S16D In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE CHEST~RFITLD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION requested reconsideration of a p~eviously granted conditional Usa Planned Development (Case 76S130) in a Residential (R-15) District on ~ 55.3~ acre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet on the west line of Libro Loop, also fronting approximately 700 feet on the west line of Lockhart Road, ann generally located in the western quadrant of the inter- section of these roads. Tax Map ~-11 [1] Parcel S2 and Part of Parcel 5; 39-11 (7} Be~le~ Cosmopolitan Phas~ V, Block B, Lot~ 25, 26, 35, 34, 35, 36, ~7, 3~, a~d 39; 39-15 (8} Bexley Cosmo- politan Pha~e V, Block B, Lots 27~ 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32; and common open space owned by Virginia Firet Savings and Loan A~uo-. clarion (Sheet Mr. McCracken stated th~ applicant ha~ requesked a wi%hdrawaI this request. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. the Board accepted the appl%c~t'$ request for withdrawal. Vote: Unanimous 85S1D5 Tn Matoaca ~aglsterial District, C~AR~ ~. SAILEY, ING. requested rezoninq from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12} o a 2~.4 acre parcel fronting ap~roximatel~ 680 feet on the so~th line of Ce~tfalia Roud~ apprcxi~tmly I50 feet west of ~ollyberr~ ~. M~Cracken s~a~ed ~he apDlicant had Zequested a 60 day deferral. There was no one present to dimcunm the ma~tPr. motion of Mr. Mayas, me,ended by ~. Dodd, th~ Board consideration of ~is matter until April 23, Vote= Unanimous In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~ALFORD I. ~AY~S ~eq~e~ted rezoning ~rom Residential {R-15) to 0flies Susinass (0) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions on a 4.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 8~0 feet On the southwest line of Forest Hill Avenue~ also fronting appro~imatel 140 feet on Choctaw Read, and located in the southwest quadrant of the inter~ectien of the~= roads. Tax Map tO-6 (~) Ben Air ~la~, Block ~4, Lots 26A, 26~, 26D and 27~ Mr. $¢cracken stated the app~iuant h~ req=ested a 3~ day deferral but staff r~co~ends a 60 day deferral. Mr, ~a~es was request would be deferred until after the Ben Air ~lan had been considered. Mr. Peele indicated the Ben Air Plan should be considered at the April 9, 1986 Board ~ooting. Mr. ~ayes indicated tkat a 60 day deferral would be acceptable if that war the time schedule. On motion o~ ~re. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Bcar~ deferred this matter until April 23, 1986. Vo~e: Unanimcue Mr. ~cCracken statsd ~r. ©liver Rudy, representing Casco 86S010 and 8~S022~ had r~que~ted that these be placed at ~he end of the agenda if possible a~ he had to attend a funeral and may not be present at the appropriate time. The Board agreed %0 b~r th~ cases at the en~ of the agenda if Mr. Rudy were not present. 85S097 In Matoaca Magisterial District, NORMAN D. COOL~Y, SR. requested a Conditional Use to permit four (4) two-family dwellings in a Residential (R-71 District on a 0.518 acre paroel fronting approximately 150 fe~t on the east llne of Pannit Street also fronting approximatsly 140 feet on the north line of Light Street, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersectiol of these ro~ds. Tax Map 182-13 (1) Parcels 69, 70, 71, and 72 (Sh'eets 53 end 54).. M~. M¢Craoken stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Cooley was present and stated his original request was for the construction of four units; however,I the staff recommended two which was not oonsidered. 5e stated a{ duplex was oonst~cted in the area recently and he requested thag the Board be consistent in its decisions. He stated the only objections to the request were for the four units, that it will be rented to students and the concern for the activities by the students in the units, ge stated there is other property rented- to students in the area. He stated he would consider similar conditions as placed on Mr. Raymond Spain's duplex and agree to build ~v0 units. Mr. Mayes stated that he has on several occasions indicated that he wo~ld not approve any construction i~ the Matoaca area until the land use plan has been completed and he was not awa~e of another duplex. He stated he made this statement at the time Mr. Cooley was here last. Mr. Zook stated the Boar4has been consis~en~ in that the request for Mr. Spain was approved prior to Mr. Cooley's request. Mr. Peele stated th~ land use plan is in the draft state at this time and will come before the Board within the next four to six months. Mr. Cooley stated that he has a mortgage on the property and he needs a decision. Mr. Peele stated the draft of the plan, which has not. been approved by the ~oard, indicates that conversion of single family homes to duplexes for student housing be discouraged unti~ a detailed study is done of the co--unity. Mr. Mayes stated he would consider deferring the matter until the plan has been approved by the Board. Mr. Cooley stated he would like a decislo~ today. Y~r. Hawkins, representing his mother who lives adjacent to the requested property, stated opposition due to the narrowness of the streets and to the problems with students tiring in the area.I He stated after the last meeting the parking situation was reviewed and "No Parking" signs were installed along the sidewalk side but allowed on the other which has a ditch and is dangerous.. He stated approval of this request will increase the traffic problems in the area. Mrs. Pond stated that due to the narrow streets and the litter and careless attitude by the students, she is opposed to this request. Mrs. Pulley stated that she did not object to the students renting units, however, the traffic is bad at this time and withI ~our rental units, this will add greatly to the congestion. She stated this is an old established single family neighborhood. Mr. Zook stated that the land use plan indicates that the duplexes interior to the single family area are inappropriate land uses. He stated the plan further indicates that the community of Ettrick should be looked into greater deal through eommunlty planning effort such as in Ben Air, in Enon, etc. He stated when the plan is approved in six months, it will not provide any better level of g~idance than it does today. Mr. Mayes inquired for clarification if M~. Zook were saying that when the plan is approved, the request by Mr, Cooley will not fi~ into that plan. Mr. Zook stated the plan would not be sUpportiv9 of the request and the staff will recommend denial. Mr. ~ayes inquired if Mr. Cooley understood that his request would not fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Cooley stated he understood. 86-165 On motion of ~r. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board denied this request. Vote: Unanimous 858155 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, R~CHARD E. COLLIER requestes rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) to Office Business (0) with a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk (setback) exceptions on a 4.24 acre parcel fronting approximately 460 feet on the south line of Hull Street Road, also ~ronting approximately 425 feet on the west line of Randolp~ Road, and fronting approximately 355 feet on the east line of Lynchester Road. The parcel is located between the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 50-5 (11 Parcels 3, 4, and 5 and {4) Falling Creek Farms, Section C, Block A, Lots 6 and 6A (Sheet i4). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of rezoninq to Office Business (0) with a Conditional Use Planned Development for the parcels fronting Route 360 and Randolph Road and that the parcel fronting 5ynehester Road exclusively remain zoned R-15 but be incorporated into the Conditional Use Planned Development and remain as a buffer. Mr. Bruce Hnlcher, representing the applicant, stated they are i~ agreement with the plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr, Peele stated a revised plan had been submitted by the applicant which he reviewed. He stated the new plan complies with the Planning commission's recommendation relative to utilities, buffers, parking, etc. Mr. Dodd stated there was an ordinance adopted this morning requiring a connection within 500 feet of public sewer and this is 800 feet away but involves a lot of office space. Mr. Applegate stated in the original application the applicant intended to use public sewer but the Planning Commission saw fit to ask him to buffer Lot 6 and not use it for his development an¢ he traded that cost off for the sewer extension. Mr. Hulcher stated also that the top portion of that parcel can be served by sewer in terms of gravity and the front will have to have a pump station. Mr. Caldwell, an adjacent property owner, stated he has ne objections to the development except for building On Lot 6 which he will now use as a drainfield. He inquired if this would be taxed as residential or commercial property because once the sewer goes on Route 360 it would be easier to zone this for business if it is taxed that way. ~r. Applegate stated that he would prefer it remain Residential and Mr. Patterson agreed that this would be the effect of the conditions for that parcel te remain residentially zoned. Mr. Peele discussed the square footages originally planned, the revieed plans for density, parking spaces, etc. Mr. Caldwell requested that no medical ! offices be allowed because of traffic problems with Lynchester, j Route 360, and Randolph. He stated he wo~ld like a buffer on hi~ side of the property planted with white pines, he did not have j any problems with the windows on the buildings, etc. f Fir. Bill Wright, representing the Utilities Department, stated the Department is concerned with Condition #10 which stated that the Health and Utilities Departments will approve the use of a septic tank and the Utilities Department will not de So. He stated that the front two buildings as laid Out will require a sewer extension across the Bates property or along Route 360 to Falling Creek which in both instances will be expensive for two buildings. He stated there is a proposed development known as the Bates property which could bring sewer to the general area depending on the developers' timing. He stated the three buildings in the back are 550 feet away from the existing public sewer and net 800 ft. as he originally thought. He stated it would cost approximately $25,000 to extend public sewer. Be stated they strongly recommend the use of public sewer for those three buildings and the entire site. Mr. Eulcher stated he felt the sewer extension will be closer to 800 ft. and the original cluster of buildings is no longer there, only two which could be served instead of three larger buildings.I Be stated it not economically feasible to bring sewer and use only part of the parcel. He stated if they could install dralnflelds and pha~e this development, they could include the cost as part of each building. He stated septic tank systems ar~ acceptable methods of sewage disposal, is proper in this case and the Rockwood Office Park is also on septic tank and has been for five years. There was some comparison as to the square footage density in Rockwood. Mr. Applegate stated he had concerns regarding the drainfields which may be in road side ditches, there are discrepancies with regard to the square footages and the cost of the public sewer extension; the revised plan being submitted this date; etc. He stated unless the applicant csn agree to public sewer, it might be best to defer the matter to clear up these issues. Mr. Hulcher stated a deferral would be acceptable. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this matter until March 26, 1986. Vote: Unanimous 85S164 In Bermuda Magisterial District, GREENHILL, A VIRGINIA PARTNERSHIP rec~/ested resorting from Agricultural (A) to Residen- tial (R-15) of 282.02 acres and from Light Industrial (M-I) to Residential (R-15) of 3.36 acres on a 285.38 a~re parcel frontin¢ approximately 1,423 feet on the northwest line o£ Meadowville Road, approximately 1,600 feet northeast of West Mundred Road also lying approximately 280 feet off the north line of West ~undred Road, approximately 1,100 feet west of Meadowville Road. Tax Map 117-11 (1) Part of Parcel 24 and 118 (1) Parcel 23 (Shee~ 33). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. ~tr. P001e presented the Board with a list of eight proffers cf which staff would recommend acceptance of 7. Mr. Jeff Collins was present representing the applicant. He stated the applicant held a meeting with the Enon Civic Association and the proffers were offered to address their concerns which he explained. He stated there was a statement of intent also which states that there is a large ravine which splits the property and the eastern half is currently being studied for multi-use development. He stated there has been favorable response for this possibility. Me stated they may be coming back to the Planning Con%mission and Board with a / Conditional Use Plan which will show a multi-use arrangement. stated because of contracts, etc. they would like to have the entire parcel zoned R-15 at this time because it is necessary to mare the project feasible. He stated the residents are interested in seeing the eastern portion zoned light industrial but they cannot commit at this time. Me stated they have considered constructing a lake in the large ravine which would b~ compatible with either use but this is also a possibility. He stated that approximately 14 acres is in the Johnson Creek Drainage District but most of the property drains to the river. Mrs. Girone inquired if this property would be assessed as industrial and if they planned to participate in the drainage district. Mr. Collins stated he was not sure what they will be assessed at but he hoped it would be a residential assessment an~ they would participate. 86-167 Mr. Dodd stated that there were conditions that the ravine rem&i! as an open area and the County will call back if there are erosion problems. Mr. Collins stated that was one of the reasons to install a lake because a large part of the ravines will be covered with water and will allow them to build improvements to the waters edge which will diesipate the flow that would cause erosion. Mr. Steve Perkins~ President of the Enon Civic Association, stated they were opposed to this subdivision since its inception since it goos against the General Plan 2000 as this corridor should be industrial. He stated this property has significance in that it was mentioned as a key piece of property for development because of its ~nu~al nature. He stated the wester~ portion would be best utilized as residential but the eastern portion should bc o£flce/industrial use and lies in the i~dustrial breadbasket which the County is counting on ~or its industrial base in the future. He stated the developer has indicated he may come back with multi-uses but he is requesting blanket R-15 now. He stated they favor a split zoning and they would not oppose the application, the ravine would buffer the t~ areas and it would follow the philosophy of buffering residentia~ with office and light industrial. Mr. Ronnie Luck stated ho felt this is basically a good proposal! but he feels the density is too high since the housing will be septic tanks and drainfields. He stated the lake that is proposed will drain about 300 acres and there will probably be erosion problems. He stated on the east side of the ravine the houses will have 100 ft. frontage and he would rather see ~rontages of 125 ft. He stated he would like to see the development road run along the King property or there he a 50 £t buffer at this location. He stated Meadowville Road will come into Route 10 at an angle and align with the road on the other side or if they move up higher to the western portion, the road will have to be extended to old Bermuda Hundred and then back ou' to 95. Ee stated he would rather see the two parcels joined together to enter onto Meadowville Road and as it stands there are two separate s~bdivisions. M~. Dickie King represented his parents who own property at the intersection of Meadowville Road and Route 10. He stated they are in favor of the western portion being development residential. He stated his concern is basically that the larges' portion of their property is B-2 with some agricultural~ however hc is concerned with the homes that back up to his property. ~e stated that the original proposal would have lots of 110 ft. by 180 ft. He noted he was also concerned about drainage as it is ~ low lying area. He stated they have been told their property is very valuable to them as well as the County, and should be protected as well as the people backing up to this property. He suggested a road be constructed along the two property lines which would buffer the two properties. He stated there are drainage problems existing now and if the property is not reduce~ in density, a lot of people will reguest the County to improve the drainage later. He stated the road as he proposes, would provide a buffer, the developer could use all his land and reduc~ the density that borders the B-2 properties. He stated he is not opposed to the basic project but environmental engineering should carefully review the 300 homes to be constructed with drainfields. Mr. Collins stated there is light industrial zoning in the northeast quadrant with a ravine which he felt i~ a good buffer.I He stated if the agricultural property goes light industrial or mixed use to the east, this would also be a good transitional area as well. He stated the tentative plan that they have drawn does not connect the roads across but they have been considerin, , connecting a road across at the upper end of the ravine which is 86-168 still a possibility and will help the traffic flows and maybe improve the water flows in the area. He stated he did not feel the density of one acre lots is excessive. Be stated they do not want to run a road along the King property because they dc not want to create a situation where commercial traffic will enter into a residential road but they wo~ld consider a 50 ft. buffer between the properties even though it is zoned agricultural and it is usually the responsibility of the higher density use which Mr. King would have. There was some discussion regarding where Old Bermuda Hundred Road and Meadowville Road will intersect at Route 10 and various alternatives. Mr. Dodd inquired why the conditions did not address right of wa5 on ~eadowville Road. Mr. McCracken stated the road issue~ will be addressed at the tentative subdivision process. Mr. stated he would like a 45 ft. right of way from the centerline el Meadowville Road. He stated that public sewer is not available and may never be available, the topography ia from level to steep, ravines are erodible, etc. ~e stated ths~e exists an erosion problem on property to the west which is zoned industria2 but it is ~eing handled. He stated the river at this point is very ~hallow and the bluff is 75± ft. He stated ~he property is really not industrial land. He stated this is a gateway to the industrial area, there i~ nothing wrong with the proposal, they are offering to buffer the property, etc. He stated if we are successful in getting an interchange at Meadowville Road, this would be the key way in and out of thia property. He stated there is talk about other roads to relieve some of the pressures but if there were a port constructed, the people will be opposed near their hemes. He stated he felt it would be hard to go against the recommendation of staff and Planning Commission but he felt the Board's 0oncern for the property to the east should be recognized as the people are as concerned as he is. He stateq he would have preferred to see this request come forward as a multi-use but he finds it hard to deny it at this point. He stated if the applicant applies for mixed use, it better be very! well thought out if changes are requested. He stated he would like the applicant to provide the 45 ft. of right of way.from th~ centerline along Meadowville Road during subdivision review, that there be a 50 ft. buffer along the King property and that the open space on the lake area be written so that the County will not be responsible for drainage maintenance problems. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided adjacent to the King property (Tax Map 117-12 (1) Parcel 3). (BS) And further the Board accepted the following Proffered Conditions: 1. The existing cemetery and adjacent Civil War Battery loca%e~ in the northwest corner of the property shall be preserved by dedication of a restrictive easement that will allow access from the proposed road running through this area. 2. The property shall be limited to a density no more than unit~ per acre under the proposed R-15 zoning. This shall not be construed to limit density if a future application i~ submitted changing or conditioning this zoning status. $. A fifty (50) foot ~uffer shall be dedicated along the eastern property line adjacent to the Liqht Industrial (~-1) and Agricultural (A) parcels. This buffer shall be allowed to have drainfields installed within its limits. 4. Ail interior lots shall have homes with a minimum of 1,800 square feet of finished living area exclusive of garages. 86-169 5. All homes adjoining any other property owner outside of subdivision will have a minimum o~ 1,600 square feet. 6. Ail lots adjoining the King property will have an average rear lot size of 120 feet. 7. Riverbend will have, as a minimum, the latest restrictions recorded in Walthallmill Subdivision with the exception of square footage requirements on exterior lots. Vote: Unanimous Mr. King inquired about the lots along his property. stated the sizes are 120 ft. Mr. Dodd 86S001 In Bermuda Magisterial District, ~R~N~LL PARTN~RS~iP requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (office) and bulk (eign and paving) exceptions in a Residential (R-7) Dietric~ on a 0.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 110 feet on the nort~ line of West Hundred Road, approximately 470 feet east of Old Centralia Road. Tax Map t15-4 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 32). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commisslcn had approval of the rec/~est subject to certain conditions. Mr. Collins was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated that he did no~ have any objection to this request as long as it is a temporary Situation. ~ir. Collins stated that the applicant is attempting to purchase several parcels and is planning to tie them together. Mr. Dodd inquired if a five year time limit would be acceptable. Mr. Collins Stated that would be acceptable. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board approved this requeet subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding the plan prepared by Charles C. Townes & Associates, dated October 4, 1985 shall be considered the Master Plan. (CPC) 2. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted t~ Greenhill Partnership and shall not be transferrable nor r~n with the land. (CPC) 3. Forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Route 10, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield~ free and unrestricted prior to the release of an OCCupancy permit. (CPC) 4. Within five (5) year~ of the ~ate of approval, all driveway~ and perking area~ ~hall be paved and curb and g~tter installed. Prior to paving, driveways and parkinq areas shall be graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of %21A or %21 stone. Prior to paving, the driveways and parking areas shall be delineated by a permanent means (i.e. timber~ curbs, railroad ties, etc.} The driveway and parking area shall be designed to allow traffic to flow east and west into adjacent properties at such time as they are developed for office/commercial use. (CPC) 5. Uses permitted shall be limited to those permitted in the Office ~usiness (O) District, except medical and dental offices shall not be permitted. There shall be a maximum o~ five (5) on-site employees. (CPC) 6. There shall be no additions or alterations to the existing structure to accommodate this use. (CPC) Access shall be limited to one ingress/egre~e to Route 10 and shall be designed to be shared with the adjacent 86-170 property to the west at such time it is developed for office/commercial use. (CPC) 8. A single freestanding sign or a single building mounted sigr identifying this use shall be permitted. This sign shall not exceed an aggregate area of twenty (20) Square feet. the sign is freestanding, it shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet. The sign shall not be lighted. The sign shall be constructed of wood and the facades shall employ subdued colors. Prior to erection of the sign, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Mo other signs shall be permitted. (CPC) (MOTE: The Zoning Ordinance requires that the f~eestanding sign be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the ultimate right of way of Route 10.) 9. Previous conditions, notwithstanding all bulk requirements of the Office Business (O) District shall apply. (CPC) 10. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the ~aster Plan, subject to the conditions herein. (CPC) (NOTE: The Zoning Ordinance requires that the driveway andl parking area be screened from the adjacent R-7 property to the east, west and north. Final site plans must reflect this requirement.) Vote: Unanimous 86S005 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ANNIE T. LEWIS requested renewal of a Conditional Use to permit an antique iurnlture and bric-a-brac business in an Agricultural (A) District on a 3.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 90 feet on the north line of Hull Street Road opposite Wintsrpook Road. T~ Map 75 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 20). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Ms. Lewis was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Annie T. Lewis and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. 2. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to exceed five (5) years from date of approval, and may be renewed upon satisfactory reapplieation and demonstration that the antique shop has not proved a detriment to adjacen properties or the area in general and continues %o be compatible with area development trends. (P) 3. This Conditional Use shall be limited to the Operation of antique shop, exclusively. NO employees, other than the applicant and/or her immediate family, shall be engaged in this operation. (P) 4. Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. (P) 86-171 5. No deliveries shall be permitted before 9:00 a.m. nor after 6:00 p,m. (P) 6. Off-street pa~king shall be provided for at least four (4) customer vehicles, plus vehicles belonging to the applicant.' Ail driveways and parking areas shall either be paved or graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of ~21 or 92lA stone. Parking areas and driveways shall be defined by a durable means (i.e., railroad ties er curbing, etc.). These' improvements shall be completed within ninety (90) days of approval of this request. (P) 7. Other than normal maintenance, no additions or alterations related to this operation shall be permitted to the exterior of the existing structure. (P) 8. Outside display of merchandise for sale shall be permitted, provided it is located a minimum of fifty (50) feet from thc right of way of Route 360. Outside storage of equipment or other items associated with this business shall be prohibited. 9. One (1) business sign, net to exceed four (4) square feet i~ area and five (5} feet in height, shall be permitted. This sign may be externally lighted, but shall not be internally lighted. (P) vote: Unanimous 86s010 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, FRED F. WILSON requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (retail sale and assembly of hot tubs, spas, pools and accessories) exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on a 1.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 220 feet on the west line of Providence Road, approximately 150 feet north of Provincetown Drive. Tax Map 28-2 (1) Part of Parcel IS (Sheet 8). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request. Mr. Peele stated staff met with the applicant and an addendum has been submitted. Mr. Oliver Rudy was present representing the applicant and stated most of the conditions in the addendum were acceptable. He stated this property has become uninhabitable for residential use because of its close proximity to the commercial use which is occurring on Route 60. He stated they cannot keep a tenant, those they do get are undesirable, etc. He stated they are seeking a temporary use of a portion of their property which would allow them to be able all of their property to something that is compatible with the County's General Plan. He stated the Planning Commission had requested a deferral but the applicant had requested it be passed on because the use is basically seasonal. He stated the propert~ along Providence Road into Penn Acres is a hodge-podge of uses that may be there with or without proper zoning. He stated the addendum is acceptable except for Conditions %5 and %7. He stated they would prefer not to connect to public water and sewel at this time as the well and septic tank are functional and they would prefer not to dedicate the 45 ft. strip at this time. He also requested that rather than one pool that there be one functional and one display pool. Mr. Applegate inquired if the applicant would amend the hour~ of operatlc~ to 9:00 a.m. to p.m. He also stated he would like to include a two year limit beginning today on this approval but the applicant can reat~ply a that time. He stated he felt the 45 ft. dedication measured fr= the cent~rline should remain as it will eventually be necessary. Mr. Rudy stated he would prefer that this not be done at this , time to allow Mr. Wilson to receive full value of his property should he sell. After further discussion, it was agreed that widening had already been taken care of. 86-172 On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan dated October 17, 1985, shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. Other than normal maintenance, a deck addition and the widening of the front door, there shall be no additions or alterations te the existing structure. (BS) pool, there shall be no outside storage i a exact location Of the swimming pool shall be approved by th~ Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan r~view. (BS) 4. The driveways and parking areas shall be delineated by a permanent means (i.e., concrete curb and gutter, timber curbs, etc.). The exact material~ utilized shall he determined by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review. (BS) 5. The access to Providence Road shall be designed, located, and constructed such that it may be ~hared with adjacent property to the north. (BS) (Note: Commercial entrance permits must be obtained from VDH&T. The V~H&T may require installation of additional pavement and curb and gutter along Providence Road.) 6. Between Providence Road and the prOpoSed parking area~ ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. A conceptual landscapinq plan depicting this requirement shall be sttbmitted to the Planning Commission for approval i~ conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be mitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (BS) 7. Other than directional signs which shell be governed by the recs~irements of the Office Business (O) District, a single s~gn identifying this use shall be permitted. The sign may either be building-mounted or freestanding. The aggregate area ef the sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet. If the sign is freestanding, it shall not exceed a height ten (10) feet. The sign shall not be lighted. The facades of the sign shall employ subdued colors. In conjunction with the sign permit application, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Depar~ent for approval. (BS) 8. Hours of operation shell be limited to between 9:00 a.m. an¢ 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There shall be no Sunday operation. (~S) (Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic and site plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission and Planning Department for approval.) 9. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be valid for a period not tc exceed two (2) years ~rom the date of approval. (BS) Vote: Unanimous 86s012 In Bermuda Magisterial District, GEORGE P. EMERSON, JR. requeste amendments to a Conditional Uso Planned Development (Case 81S081 to permit use (professional offices) exceptions and to increase permitted free-standing sign size in a ~%esidential (R-7) Distrio on a 0.54 acre parcel fronting approximately 175 feet on the north line of West Hundred Road, also fronting approximately 160 86-173 feet on the east line of 01d Centralia Road, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map i15-3 (1) Parcel 36 (Sheet 32). Mr. McCracken stated that the Planning Commission had reco~ende~ approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jeff Collins was present representing the applicant. He stated this parcel is also part of the large scheme for the entire area which they pla~ to improve. He stated the developer has improved the traffic an~ turning meven~nts in the area which he explained. He stated the~ would like the paving as is so that they can do the entire area at one time. Mrs. Dottle Armstrong was present and wa~ interested in protecting the integrity of the central portion of Chester. She indicated that she felt additional traffic in this area should not be increased as the area is already congested. She stated she is also concerned about the increased size of the sign. She stated the Chester area would like to have been included in the special sign district but wa~ not and they are concerned with tbs signage carrying into fhe residential areas. She stated when this parcel is developed sh~ hoped the parking would be in the rear, with appropriate buffers, the preservation of trees, etc. Sh~ stated she hoped when all the properties are developed, tasteful signs will be approved as this is a very important aspect. She requested that the Board take these matters into consideration now. Mr. Dodd inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to a sign which is similar to that of Sam West in the area. He stated he felt 15 ft. of right-of-way is adequate otherwise it will run into the structure and this will allow the sidewalks to be extended along Old Centralia Road. He stated he would also like to have a five year limitation for the gravel parking. Mr. Emerson asked that if he could not acquire the property, he not have to ecme back for zoning but only asphalt the parking tot. Mr. Dodd stated that was agreeable. Mr. Patterson stated the gravel parking lots could remain for five years at which time they have to be paved. Mr. Emerson stated these conditions were acceptable. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: 1. This Conditional Use shall be limited to professional offices only, except medical and/or dental offices shall be prohibited. No retail activity shall occur on the site. (C~C) (NOTE: This Condition supersedes Condition 5 of Conditional Use Planned Development 81S081.) 2. One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed twenty-one and one-quarter (21~) square feet in area and a height of six (6) feet, shall be permitted. This sign shall not be lighted. The facades of the sign shall employ subdued colors. This Sig~ shall be ¢0nst~ucted of wood. Prior to erectio~ of the sign, colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. There shall be no o=her signs permitted. {CPC) (NOTE: This Condition supersedes Condition 5 of Conditiona Use Planned Development 81S081.) 86-174 Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved with asphalh within five (5) years of approval of thi~ request. Parkinq areas and driveways shall be delineated by timber curbs. Driveways and parking areas shall be designed to facilitate traffic movements through the site to the adjacent property to the east at such time as it is developed for office~commercial u~e. {CPC) (NOTE: This Condition super~ede~ Condition 9 of Conditional Use Planned Development Fifteen (15) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Old Centralia Road, and forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the cente~line Of Route 10, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior to the issuance of an occupanc] permit. (CPC) (NOTE: This Condition supersedes Condition 4 of Conditiona~ Use Planned Development (NOTE: Conditions 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of Conditional Use Planned Development 81S081 remain in effect.) Vote: Unanimous 86S013 In Bermuda Magisterial District, RAYMOND O. JENKINS requested rezoning from Community Susiness (~-2) to General Business on a 0.37 acre parcel fronting approximately 80 feet on the eastl line of Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 50 feet on Elokomin Avenue approximately 450 feet north of Wonderview Drive. Tax Map 82-13 (4) Halfway House Heights, BlocK 1, Lots 1, 2, and 22 (Sheet 23). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain c0ndition~ and acceptance of proffers. 9ir. Tom Valentine, representing the applicant, was present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd inquired about the actual location of the parcel on which the request is being made. He stated that the County is trying to improve Jefferson Davis Highway and he would have to recommend a denial Or delay until he could discuss this matter with the applicant detail, Mr. Valentine stated a deferral would be preferred. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred this request until March 26, 1986. @6S014 In Matoaca Magisterial District, RICHARD L. DUNCAN, SR. requeste~ a Conditional Use to permit a stock farm (miniature horses) in Residential (R-25) District on a 7.03 acre parcel fronting approximately 330 feet on the north line of Graves Road, also fronting approximately 880 feet on the east line of Katie Lane, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads, Tax Map 172-9 (2) Wendall Acres, Lot 11 (Sheet 48) Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. and Mrs. Duncan were present. Mrs. Duncan stated they would like to keep one miniature horse now an maybe one other in the future. She stated they are basically th size of dogs, they would be kept in a wooded area, the people nc~t door and across the street are agreeable, they are agreeahl with the conditions, they are for pets and not breeding, etc. 86-175 ~r. Bill Angel, property owner across the street, stated this proposed horse farm would devalue his property because of the odor and he is opposed to the request. He stated he has had an offer to purchase his property at this time of which a good portion runs directly across the street. (A copy oi the map was presented.) Mr. Peele responded, when asked, that properties to the south and the west are agricultural and residential to the east. Mr. Angel stated he understood the front of the property would be cleared along the road for the horses. ~e stated he opposed to the stock farm. Mr. E. H. Stewart, speaking on behalf of his son who owns property on the west side of the requested parcel, stated opposition as he felt it would devalue his property and had the same concerns as Mr. Angel. When asked, Mr. Stewart stated a structure does not exist now but when his ~on returns from Germany, he plans to build. There was further discussion regarding the zoning of surrounding properties. Mrs. Duncan stated they have a buffer, they have eight acres of land, they will clear a small area which will not be seen from Graves Road or from Katie Lane, etc. which are conditions. She stated there are conditions regarding odor pollution which they have to adhere to as well. She stated the Planning Commission indicated to them where the horses would have to be located because of drainaqe ditches not because they were trying to locate the animals away from their home. She stated this is not to be a stock farm, that was how they had to apply to have one two horses for pets, etc. Mr. Mayas stated the request as presented is for a stock farm. Mr. Peele stated the keeping of domestic animals requires a stock farm application but condition %4 restricts them to keeping of no more than two miniature horses. Mr. Mayes inquired if additional horses could be added. Mr. Peele stated only if they came back through the zoning process for any more than two miniature horses. Mr. Dodd inquired if the closest neighbors were opposed. Mr. Duncan stated the neighbors across th~ street and adjacent do not object. He stated that the people who are objecting, either do not live in the area or are across the street. He stated that behind his house there is a used car let/junk yard which he felt was a larger detriment, there are other horses allowed in the area, etc. Mr. Mayas stated he did not feel he could deny the request since the neighbors that live there do not object but he can also understand the concerns for the gentleman in Germany wh¢ may want to build in the future. He stated he felt the conditio~ allowing this for five years be changed to two years at which time they can reapply. Mr. Duncan stated this was aqreeable. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use shall he granted to and for Richard L. Duncan, Sr., exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P) 2. NO commercial activity, with respect to the keeping of the animals, shall be permitted. (P) 3. The pasture and corral area shall be cleaned and made free of manure daily. Manure shall be stored in enclosed containers. Manure shall be disposed of weekly and shall not be disposed of by spreading on fields at this location. In addition, fresh straw and disinfectant shall be applied to eliminate the proliferation of odor and the propagation of insects. {P) 4. This Conditional Use shall be limited to the keeping of no more than two (2) miniature horses. (P) 86-176 5. A fence shall be installed along the southern edge of the drainage easement such that the horses shall not have access tc the easement. 6. A seventy-five (75) foot buffer strip and building setback shall be maintained along Katie Lane, Graves Road, and the eastern property line. This buffer shall remain in its natural state and no clearing er access shall be permitted in this buffer. The buffer may, however~ be utilized as part of the pasture area. 7. This ~se permit shall be limited to the area south of the drainage easement which traverses the property. (P) 8. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to exceed two (2) years from date of approval, and may be renewed upon satisfactory reapplication and demonstration that the keeping of these animals has not and will not adversely affect adjacent property Owners. Vote: Unanimous 86s016 In Bermuda Magisterial District, THE CHESTeRFIeLD COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISORS requested rezonlng from Residential (R-15) Residential (R-7) on a 5.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 30C feet on the north line of Osborne Road, approximately 345 feet west of Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 98-9 (4) Shields Property, Block C, Lots 1, 2, and 3; Tax Map 98-10 (3) Shields Property, Block B, Lots 7 and 8; Tax Map 98-14 (1) Parcel 15; Tax Map 98-14 (4) Shields Propexty, ~lock A, Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14; Tax Map 98-14 (4} Shields Property~ Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, I0 and 10B (sheet 32). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of rezoning to R-7 of those lots on which mobile homes are located and denial of rezoning of thos~ lots ~n which mobile homes are not currently located. F~. ~oole stated that several months ago an individual who owns land in the area purchased a new mobile home to replace his eld home. He stated when applyin~ for th~ permit it was discovered that use was not allowed in a Residential (R-15) dist~iot. ~e stated several options were considered and it was determined that the best alternative would be to rezone the property. ~e stated staff felt this would provide transitional uses from the industrial/commercial uses along Jefferson Davis Highway to the R-7 subdivision and to the R-15 subdivision. He stated the Planning Commission felt it would be proper to rezone only the three sites where mobile heme~ Mrs. Young stated her main concern is that the County does not permit R-7 zoning in the County and inquired why it would consider it in this area. She stated she felt this would devalue her property, this would be a detriment to the area and they are paying more and more taxes. She stated that it is not so much the trailers themselves but the maintenance of the property on ! which the trailers exist to which she objects. Mrs. Dottie A~mstrnng stated that she was also concerned that th lots are R-7 size but wene zoned R-15, and how the County can rezone tO R-7 when the County has indicated it does not want R-7 zoning. Mr. Dodd stated he felt this property was originally R-7 or R-9 as did the previous Bermuda District supervisor. Be stated this action will not really ohange anything as it will no~ resubdivide the property, just make it oon£or~ing. M~s. Armstrong inquired if all the Shields property were R-15. Mr. Dodd stated he was not certain. Mrs. Armstrong ~tated instead of making this R-7, why did they not just make an exception for thi~ one parcel. Mr. Peele stated that some of the mobile homes hav~ existed in this location since early 1950's and until 1960 there 86-177 was bo need to obtain a permit so many of the uses have existed for years. Ne stated R-15 does not allow a mobile home except b~ Planned Development which he did not think had a Conditional Use ever happened in the County. Ne stated alternatives were considered and this was felt to be the most reasonable and would I limit the area to the existing mobile homes. There was considerable discussion regarding other possibilities. Mrs. Armstrong stated that she felt that the people could live there until they moved, then eliminate the mobile homes and then have good transition Of property. Mrs. Joseph Sheets stated that she has lived in the mobile home at this location for 22 years, her husband is disabled and they are unable to upset their home at this time. Mrs, Young stated she felt the Board should not rezone the entir area, but indicate there are hardship cases and they can remain until other arrangements can be made, etc. There was another lady present who indicated she was against the zoning classification rather than the mobile homes themselves. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved( rezoning to R-7 of Shields Property, Lots 1, 2 and 3~ Block C; Lots 7 and 8, Block A; Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block D; and d~nial o rezoninq to R-7 of Parcel 15 on Tax Map 98-14 (1); Shields Property, Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, ~lock A; and Lots 5, 6,~ 7, 8, 9, 10, and 10B, Block D; and lots 7 and 8, Block B. Mr. Applegate inquired how the Board could rezone the property R-7 when R-7 zoning does not exist in the County. Mr. Peele explained that the amendment allows R-7 but that it has to be developed to R-9 standards if it has not yet been subdivided. R~ stated that property which has been subdivided can follow the requirements. Mr Zook explained the ordinance in detail. Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone indicated they felt the R-7 classification should be remedied. Mr. Daniel stated he did not understand why a Conditional Use Planned Development would net have been an easier way to handle this case. Mr. Zook explained staff's recommendation in d~tail. 86S022 In Midlothlan Magisterial District, CARROLLTON ENTERPRISES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) on a 2.1 acre parcel fronting approximately 210 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 370 feet east of Fairwood Drive. Tax Map 18-15 (1 Parcels 7 and 43 (Sheet 8). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to acceptance of a proffered condition. Mr. Oliver Rudy was present representing the applicant. There was n opposition prssent. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to acceptance of the following proffer: Tho applicants herewith proffer that the only B-3 uses as listed in Section 21-163 of the Zoning Ordinance of Chester field County, Virginia, shall be the following: 1. Any uses permitted in the B-2; 2. Cocktail lounges, dining halls and nightclubs; 3. Drive-in establishments; 4. ~otels, motels, motor courts, tourist homes; 5. Motor vehicles, sales services and ropalr; 6. Recreational establishments, indoor; 7. Veterinary hospital and boarding kennels. 86-178 86S026 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WOODFIELD CORPORATION requested rezoning from Agricultural {A) to Residential (R-12) On a 1.9 acre parcel fronting approximately 250 feet on the west line of Turner Road, appre×imately 50 feet north of Dyer Lane. Tax Map 29-14 (1) Part of Parcels 2 and 3 (Sheet 9). Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to a single condition and acceptance cf the proffered conditions. Mr. Ken Turner was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. Mr. George Weston inquired about the conditions. Mr. Peele stated the Planning staff and Planning Commission had agreed to the same conditions. Mr. Weston steted he had no objection to the request. Mr. Applegate stated when the W0odfield Corporation Subdivision was approved they referred to the conditions as conditions and not as proffers. Mr. Peele stated there were both proffers and conditions on the other case which are identical to this but there were other proffered conditions which spoke to homes adjacent to Forestdale Subdivision and this parcel is not adjacent and those proffers were ~elt unnecessary. Mr. Applegat~ stated the conditions do give the same assurances that the small! parcel will be developed in the same manner as the previously granted acreaqe. Mr. Peele stated that was staff's opinion and Mr. Turner stated that was the applicant's intent. Mr. Poote stated the Board's action today will not affect the previous On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A £ifty (50) foot building setback line and buffer, exclu- sive of utility easements, shall he provided on lots adja- cent to Turner Road. The area within this buffer shall be planted and/or left in its natural state if there is suffi- cient vegetation to provide adequate screening. (P) And further the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. All one-story homes shall have a minimum of 1,500 square feet finished heated livable space. All other homes shall have a minimum of 1,800 square feet finished heated livable space. 2. The following will be incorporated into the restrictive a. All homes shall conform to a colonial architectural styl~. b. No homes shall be erected or altered on any lots until! the construction plans have been approved in writing an Architectural Control Committee. Particular attention shall be given to quality and types of mate- rial, exterior design, harmony with existing homes and location with respect to topography and finished grade~ Three members of the committee shall be selected from Forestdale Civic Association. These me~bers' sole responsibility shall be to insure that all restrictive covenants and proffered conditions are adhered to. All houses must have some covered exterior appurtenanc, on either the front or side elevation such as stoops, porches, decks, or bree=eways. These exterior appurtenances must have a minimum of 40 square feet. 86-179 No fences shall be permitted along lot lines so as to encompass the entire lot. e. The exterior walls of foundations shall be constructed of brick. The extarior of all chimneys shall be constructed of brick. g. No prefabricated housea will b~ erected on any lot. h. No aluminum siding will be used with the exception of aluminum trim. Trim may include gutters, downspouts, fascia, and soffit. i, Ail windows shall be double hung wooden mullions. Storm windows and bay windows of standard construction will he allowed. j. Roof pitch except for covered po~ohes shall have a minimum of 5" rise per foot. k. Any open porch built on piers with a height exeeedin9 3' shall be enclosed with wooden or brick lattice work. 1. All Virginia Power, C&P Telephone, and television cables shall be ~nderground. There will be no above ground transmission poles constructed in Woodfield Subdivision. 86S021 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, LaSALL~ FUND II requested rezoning from R~idential (R-7) to General Business (B-3) on a 5.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 385 feet on the west line of Starview Lane, approximately 650 feet north of Cloverleaf Drive. Tax Map 29-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet Mr. McCracken stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. A gentleman was present representing the applicant and stated they concurred with staff and Planning Commission's approval. There was no opposition present. On motion of M~. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request. It wag generally agreed the Board would rece~ for five minutes. Reconvening: On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board suspended its rules and added Ite~ ll.D.3., Consideration of Dat~ for Public Hearing to Consider 1986-87 Tax Rate, and added Item ll.A.3., Consideration of HOUSe Bill 414. Vote; Unanimous ll.A.3. CONS!D~RATION OF HOUSE BILL 414 Mr. Patterson stated the Board has been requasted to consider whether it is in favor of or opposed to Hous~ Bill 414 which requires the disclosure in any land use application of the real parties and interests in a corporate applicant or a partnership 86-180 applicant. The Board indicated they are interested in making land use decisions and not getting involved with ownership. ll.B. AGReeMENT WITH SIGMA FOR ALTERNATE DESIGN OF POWHITE HARKWAY EXTENDED AND JAHNKE ROAD INTERSECTION On motion of M-rs. Girone, Seconded by ~r. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute two contracts on behalf of the County which allows consideration of an alternate design for the intersection of Powhite Parkway Extended and Jahnke Road by ~i~ma which is in conformance with previously established procedures with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for consideration of such alternate designs. (A copy of the new design is filed with the papers of this Beard.) Vote: Unanimous ll.C. APPOINTMENTS ll.C.1. TRA~S9ORTATION SAFETY COMMITTEE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board nominated Fir. 2race Wingo to the Transportation Safety Committee whose official appointment would be made at the March 12, 1986 Vote: Unanimous 11.C.2. CHESTERFIELD SUPPLEMENTAL EETIRH/~NT SYST=~ BOARD OF TRUSTEE______~S On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Hoard nominated Mr. Frederick W. Willis, Jr. and Fir Bradford Ha~er the Chesterfield County Supplemental Retirement System Board of Trustees which official appointments will be made at the March 12, 1986 meeting. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated he was aware of a resignation from the John Tyler Community College Local Board and inquired if it should be handled at this time as he would be missing several meetings in the future. Mr. Dodd stated that this item could be handled at the March 12, 1986 meeting. ll.D. CONSENT ITEMS ll.D.1. RESET PUBLIC H~ARI~G DATE FOR AMENDMENTS TO 1985-86 CIP AND WATER AND SEWER DEBT SERVICE BUDGETS On motion of M~s. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board reset the public hearing date for Maroh 12, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. (instead of February 26, 1986 at 9:00 a.m.) to consider amendments to the 1985-86 CIP and Water and Sewer Debt Service Budgets. Vote: Unanimous ll.D.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Autum%nleaf Drive, Grap¢leaf Drive, Elml~af Court and Winterleaf Drive in Hilmar, Section B, Dale D~strict. Tpon consideration whereof, and on motion of M~S. Girone, 86-181 seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Autumnleaf Drive, Grapeleaf Drive, Elmleaf Court and Winterlea£ Drive in Hilmar, Section B, Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, b~ and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Autumnteaf Drive, beqinning at the western end of existing Autumnleaf Drive, State Route 1972, and running westerly 0.02 mile to the intersection with GrapeleaJ Drive, then continuing westerly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Elmleaf Court, then continuing northerly 0.13 mile to the intersection with Grapeleaf Drive, then continuing northerly 0.0( mile to the intersection with Winterleaf Drive; Grapeleaf Drive, beginning et the intersection with Autumnleaf Drive and ru~ning northwesterly 0.19 mile to again tie into Autumnleaf Drive; El~leaf Court, beginning a% the intersection with Autumnleaf Drive and running southwesterly 0.06 mil~ to end in a cul-de-sac and Win~erleaf Drive, beginning at the intersection with Autu~nleaf Drive and running westerly 0.02 mile to end in a dead end. Again, Winterleaf Drive, beginning at the intersection witl Autumnleaf Drive and running easterly 0.09 mile to tie into existing Winterleaf Drive, State Route 1973. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage easements. These roads serve 70 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Depar~uent of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads except Elmleaf Court which ha~ a 40' right-of-way. This section of Hilmar is recorded as follows: Section B. Plat Book 44, Pages 67 and 68, November 30, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Lucks Lane, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegat~, it is resolved that Lucks Lane, Clove: Hill District, be and it hereby is ost&blished 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, Lucks Lane~ beginning where Stat6 Maintenance ends, Lucks Lane, State Route 720, and going 0.92 nile westerly to the intersection with Coalfield Road, State Route 754. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage This road Serves as ~ connector. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees te the Virginia Department of Highways a 90' right-of-way for this road. Thi~ section of Lucks Lane is recorded as follow~: Plat Book 45, Page 89, May 14, 1984. Deed Book 1021, Page 606, January 9, 1970. Deed Book 1565, ~age 120, July 27, 1981. 86-182 vote: Unanimous D.3. ~UBLIC BEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 1986-87 TAX LEVY On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set the date of March 19, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. to consider an ordinance establishing the 1986-87 Tax Levy, the Budget and Use Revenue Sharing Funds. Vote: Unanimous ll.E. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS ll.E.1. ~UBLIC NEARINGS lt.~.l.a. ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF DABL!NGTON ROAD Mr. Welchons stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of ] Darlington Road. Thc~e was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr, Applegate, seconded by Mrs, Girone, th Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of a 50 foot right of way adjacent to Lot 1, Block E, Rook Spring Farms, Section B, Dale M~gisterial District, Chesterfield County, virginia, at shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Eook 10~ at pages 1 and 2. WI~EREAM, William H. Rosen and Margaret L. Rosen have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 50 foot right of way adjacent to Lot 1, Block E, Rock Spring Farms, Section B, Dale Magisterial District Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Blat Book 10, pages 1 and 2, made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated June 29, 1956. The right of way petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 50 foot right of way adjacent to LOt 1, Block E, Rock Spring Farms, Section B, the location of which is more full5 shown, shaded in red on a plat made by Balzer and Associates, ~ncorporated, dated November 21, 1985, a copy o~ which is attached hereto and made a part of this o~dinance. WNEREAM, 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 right of way sought to be vacated. MOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of ~, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid right o~ ~a~ be and is hereby vacated. The grantees hsreby convey unto the County and the County hereby reserves a 35 foot utility easement as shown on the attached plat. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Vir inia, 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, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 86-183 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. Since the portion of right of way hereby vacated is located on the periphery of the recorded subdivision plat, this ordinance shall vest fee simple title of the entire width of the right of way hereby vacated in the property owners of tke abutting lot within Rock Spring Farms, Section B, free and clear cf ~ny rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield as grantor and William E. Rosen and Margaret L. Rosen, or their successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.l.b. SALE OF 5.32 ACRES TO VDH&T FOR ROUT~ 288 Mr. Welchons stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the sale of 5.32 acres and a drainage easement to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for Route 288. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board declared 5.32 acres of land which was purchased for the Centralia Lagoon as surplus property, approved the sale of 5.32 acres and a drainage easement in the amount of $5,365 to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for 288 and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute the necessary option agreement and Vote: Unanimous ll.E.3. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS ll.E.3.a. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC WATER ALONG OLD STAGE ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to proceed with the design and construction of public water service along Old Stage Road subject to the $100,000.00 being co~maitted from the property owners in a form acceptable to the County Attorney. And further the Board appropriated $170,000.00 from 5B Improvement F~nd to 5E-5835-644M and authorized the $100,000.00 developer contribution be deposited in the Improvement Fund to reimburse the expenses incurred upon recolpt. Mr. Applegate inquired where the difference of $70,000 would be found. Mr. Dodd stated $45,000 would come from development fees from water that is sold, etc, Vote: Unanimous ll.E.3.b. SPECIAL CONSENT ORDER WITH STATE WATER CONTROL EOARD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the Special Consent Order issued by the State Water Control Board to address concerns regarding the County's wastewater treatment plants and authorized the County Administrator to sign the document. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.4. CONSENT ITEMS ll.~.4.a. AGREEMENT WITH VDH&T FOR UTILITY RELOCATION ON ROUTE 288 FROM ROUTE 10 TO ROUTE 1 On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Danielr the Board 86-184 approved an agreement with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for an engineering consultant to design utility relocations on Route 288 from Route 10 to Route 1 which cost is estimated at $1,100 and authorized the County Administrator to execute the agreement on behalf of the County subject to approval by the County Attorney. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd stated he thought utility relocations for this project had been approved. ~r. Welchons stated that there were some changes and modifications for the facilities. ll.E.4.b. AGREEMENT WITH VHD&T FOR UTILITY R~LOCATION ON ROUTE 147 FROM SOUTH OF RICHMOND LIMITS TO ROBIOUS ROAD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved an agreement with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for an engineering consultant to design utility relocations on ROUte 147 from end existing four (4) lane at south of City of Richmond limits to north of Robious Road which cost is estimated at $600 and authorized the County Administrator to execut~ the agreement on behalf of the County subject to approval by the County Attorney. ll.E.4.c. AGREEMENT WITH VDH&T FOR UTILITY RELOCATION ON ROUTE 147 FROM ROBIOUS ROAD TO ROUTE 60 On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved an agreement with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for an engineering consultant to design utility relocations on Re,to 147 f~om Robioue Road to Route 60 which cost is estimated at $1,100 and authorized the County Administrator to execute the agreement on behalf of the County subject to approval by the County Attorney. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.4.d. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON Pd~FUND PROVISIONS FOR WATER CONTRACT W78-14CD On motion of Mr. Applegate, sesonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request from Mr. Max H. Goodloe for an extension of time for refunds under Water Contract Number W78-14CD until February 8, 1987, since the refunds are for Oversized mains. Further since this will be the third extension and the original request was for three (3) years, it is the Board's intent that there will be no additional extansions granted. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.4.e. GRANT FOR DECHLORINATION FACILITIES AT PROCTORS CREEK WASTEWATER TPd~ATM~NT PLANT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board accepted a State of Virginia Grant for deohlorination facilities at the Proctors Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant which is for 754 of the cost of constructing the dechlorination facilities in an estimated amount of $135,225.00 and further that the County Administrator is authorized to execute the contract subject to approval by the County Attorney. It is noted that these 86-185 facilities are required fo~ the plant expansion and the grant will reimburse the County. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.4.f. VACATION OF BASEMENT ACROSS W~NDSOR INDUSTRIES, INC. AND CHESTER TRUST JOINT VENTURE PROPERTY On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board vacated the 16' drainage easement across property of Windsor Industries, Incorporated and Chester Trust Joint Venture in the vicinity of Surry Road and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute the necessary quit-claim deeds. Vote: Unanimous 11.E.4.9. PERMIT FOR BETTY SMITH TO ERECT FENCE ON COUNTY PROPERTY On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board granted permission for Ms. Betty Smith to erect a fence within a dedicated County right of way off of Kingsland Road subject to her agreeing to remove the fence if required by the County or the Virginia Department of Righways and Transportation. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.4.h, nEED OF DEDICATION ALONG OLD STAGE RO~ On motion of Mr, Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf of the County the conveyance of a 20' strip of land along Old Stage Road from Laverne C. Cole and Alexander B. Sadler, Jr. Vote: Unanimous ll.B.4.i. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG TURNER ROAD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf of the County the conveyance of a 30' strip of land along Turner Road from B. Gordon Beasley, Jr. Vote: Unanimous ll.B.5. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. ll.F. REPORTS Mr. Hammer presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency, the General Fund Balance, the Road Reserve Funds, the District Road and Street Light Funds. M~. Hammer stated the County had been officially noti£ied that the roads in the following subdivisi0n~ had been left,ally accepted into the State Secondary System, effective as indicated 86-186 Length Brookfield South, Section A (Feb. 6, 1986) Route 2664 (Hartford Lane) - From 0.11 mile southeast of Route 2669 to a southeast cul-de-sac. 0.11 mi. Glamorgan Subdivision, Section ii (Feb. 7, 1986) Route 1341 (Glamorgan Lane) - From 0.11 mile south- west of Route 1026 to 0.05 mile southwest of Behetra Drive. 0.11 mi. Route 1373 (Behetra Drive) - From Route 1341 to Ducatus Drive. 0.24 mi. Route 1374 (Ducatus Drive) - Prom 0.06 mile north- west of Route 1373 to 0.05 mile southeast of ROUte 1373. 0.11 mi. Spring Grove Subdivision (Feb. 10, 1986) Route 3444 (Spring Meadow Road) - From Route 789 to a southwest cul-de-sac. 0.35 mi. Route 3445 (Spring Meadow Terrace) - Prom Route 3444 to a south cul-de-sac. 0.03 mi. Route 3446 (Autumn Way) - From Routs 3444 to a northwest cul-de-sac. 0.07 mi. Route 3447 (Jonquil Terrace) - From Route 3444 to a west cul-de-sac. 0.06 mi. Route 3448 (Poplar Hollow Trail) - From Route 3444 to an east cul-de-sac. 0.18 mi. Route 3449 (Popular Hollow Terrace) - From Route 3448 to a Southeast cul-de-sac. 0.04 mi. Gleh~ Point~ Section II (Feb. 10, 1986) Route 3015 (Glebe Point Road) - From 0.03 mile southeast of Route 3016 to 0.03 mile southeast of Skybird Road. 0.27 mi. Route 3016 (Rosky Run Road) - From Route 3015 to 0.01 mile north of Rocky Run Court. 0.25 mi. Route 3018 (Rocky Run Court) - From Route 3016 to an east cul-de-sac. 0.09 mi. Route 3019 (Skyblrd Road) - From 0.16 mile northeast cf Route 3015 to 0.11 mile south of Skybird Court. 0.54 mi. Route 3020 (Skybird Court) - From ROUte 3019 to a west cul-de-sac. 0.08 mi. 12. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adjourned at 5:30 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. on March 12, 1986 for a work session on the budget, if appropriate. Vote: Unanimous RicHard L. ~edrick County Administrator Chairman 86-157