Loading...
1986-05-28 MinutesSup~visor~ in Attendance: Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman Mr. Harry S. Daniel, Vice Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate Mrs. Joan Girone ~ir. Rio~ard L. H=drick C©u~ty Administrator Mr. Robert ~cdder, Building Official ~_r. William MowelI, ~ir. of Env. Eng. Attorney Dir. ~f Naw~/Info. Col. Joseph Pi~tman~ Chief of Police Dir. Of Libraries Dir. of Utilities Mr, Frederick W. Willis, Nr, Jam~s Zeok, Dir. cf Planning ~-r. DOdd called the meeting to order at tks Courthouse a~ 9~00 a.m. (EDST). I. iNVOCATION ~r. Hedriek introduced Reverend Ray Turne~, Pastor of Fair Havens Independent Mathodist ChurGh, who gave the invocation. 2. FL~DG~ OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATE~ O~ The Pledge ~£ All,glance to the Flag of the United State~ of A~erica was recited. 0n motion of Mr, kpplegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved tha minutes of the May ~, 1986 meeting, as amended. 86-368 4. C0UNTYADMINISTPJ%TOR'~, COF~T$ Mr. Ramsay stated %he Government Finance Officur~' Association of A~erica is using Chesterfield County's financial statements in a ~ational ~ralning progr~. ~e s~ated the statements are bring n~ili~ed p~imarily because the County has very Associatien wishes to mod~i its tralni:g 9rogr~. He seated the star,eats are comprehensive and represent the stare-of-the-art nationally. Th~ Roa~ congratulate~ ~taff on its aCCOmplishment. Nr. Masden ~tat~d ~hat the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department ha~ been named the 19~6 recipient coveted National Association of County Parks and Recreation official~ (NACPRO) 0rqantzatlonaI Award for Overall n~t only in signifleant accomplls~ents during the year but also recognized the leadership and ~i~ance of Mr. ~hil Hester. ~. Hedrick announced that Sgt. J~ Bourque of the Department has been elected Presiden5 of the Virginia ~ssociatio~ of Crime Solvers for two years. Mr. Welchons stated the County was notified by th~ state Water nominated to the Bnviro~pn~al ~rotection Agency (EPA} for Operations and Maintenane~ ExCellence Awards. Ee stated only four plants wer~ nominated in this category. Mr. Masden recognized Dr. Robert Wagenknecht who received hi~ Doctor of ~t~ D~gree from Si~on~ College in BOSton, Mas~a~hu$~=~ o~ May 18, 19S6. Ee ~tated Dr. Wagenknecht's congratulated Dr. Wagenkne=ht on this aGGomplishment. 5. BOARD CO~ITTEE REPORTS With respect to the Capital Region Airport Cemmissi0s meeting, Hr. Applegate stated the passenger traffic fo~ the month had increased by 6.17% and y~ar-to-date had increased by 11.9%; and that cargo traffic, continuing to lead the ~rowth percentage, had increased by 72.3% and year-to-date had increased by 7O~. He stated the new terminal building construction is twenty (2G) day~ behind schedule, however, tho project should be completed On schedule. MS stated there is no additional information available at this time on tho additional expansion of the undergoing expansion project, however, there should be news within the next two (2) w~ek$ upon submittal of the consultants' repert. Mr. Mayas reported that he had attended the Appomattox River Water Authority meeting where Senator Gray made a presentation. He stated he had aisc attended a "roasting" of himself at Virginia State University. Mrs. Girone stated she had attended many of the same functions as other Board members, she stated she attended the Bueines~ CounsiI meeting where Ms. Vivimn Watt~, Secretary for Commonwealth. She stated, during a conversation with MS. Watts, she was disturbed to learn MS. Watts was unaware of the County's position relative to the funding of the Powhite Parkway. She stated she attended the Bighway Commission meeting and they have recelve~ requests of every type for road fending and now they ~6-369 grow. She stated a final list of needs should be available by the end of June. Mrs. Oirone stated she attended the Prayer Breakfast Conducted by Judge Thomas at the Airport on May 22, 1986 and they expected participation woeld improve in the fall when news of th~ event has been moro widely circulated. ~rs. Girone stated she had also attended the Bun Air Historical 9ocietyAnnual Meeting. Mr. Daniel ~tat~d he would be attending the NARC m~etlng in New Orleans, Louisiana, and would subsequently report on that meeting. REQUESTS TO ~OST~0N~ ACTION~ EMeRGENcY ADDITIONS OR CHANG~ 1/{ THE ORDER OF P~NTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Hayes, ~he Board added Item ?.B.~ Resolution of Recognition for Mrs. Dewana Sheppard, School ~oard Reprseentative for Dale District; added Item lI.E.3., Schedule Public Hearing Da~s(s) to Consider Count~ Char=er; added Item ll.E.6., A~end Prior Resolutions ~egarding the Public Improvemeut Kefunding Bends, series of 1986; and adopted the agenda a~ a~ended. Mr. Dodd ~eated he would like to suspend %he rules to allow nomiR~tioa and appointmen~ of Mr. Colon H. Rowe, Jr. to the Chesterfield Planning Ccmmlssion witheu~ a two week waiting period, tt was indicated this could be accomplishsd at the the item wac discussed. 7. ~SOLUTIO~$ OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION ~'.~. RESOLUTION HONORING MS. F~ANCES SUGGS Mrs. Mitchell introduced Ms. Frances suggs, a clinic Aide at Gordon Elementary S~hooi, and O~tlined h~r prompt action during two emergency situations. 0~ motion of the Eoard~ the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, On May 5~ 1986, Ms. Frano~s Guggs, a Clinic Aids at Gordon Elementar~ Rcheol, did act promptly and efficiently to help save the lifs of a private contract employee who was workin~ on an adjeinlng Chesterfield County Parks and Heoreation Department Project; and W~EREAS, Ms. Suggs did perform emergency fimst aid to a Second cons%ruction worker ~ a similar accident on the followin WHEREAS, MS. Suggs applied lifPsaving techniques learned a~ an ~ergeney medical technician student in a program ~pon~0~ed b3 the Manchester Rescue Squad; and W~TEPJEAS, ~. Charles Gurkln, Principal of Gordon Elementary school, stated that Ms. Suggs "did not waste any ti~e to surVey the situatiom end take corrective action." NOW, T~REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County ~oard Of Supervisors does h~r=by commend ~$. Franc~s $uggs for emergency procedures in suc~ess£~lly coping with two life-threatening urise~ sltuation~. Vote: Unanimous ~6-378 ~Z. Dudd recognized we. Suggs' children and Mr. Charles Catkin, Principal at Gordon Elementary, who ware present. Mr. Dodd 7.B. RESOLUTIO~ R~COGNIZING MRS. DAW~/~A SHEPPARD On motion of the Eoard, the following resolution wa~ adopted: W~R=AS, Mrs. Dawana O~Steen Sheppard wa~ appuinted to the Chesterfield County School BcarO, repuo~en~ing Dale Magisterial District, in December, 1983, becan~e of her active involvement in promoting quality education; and WHER=AS, ~rs. Sheppard was considered the most qualified b~¢au~e of her involvement and concern for education which was evidenced by her serving as President of the Falling Creek Elementary School PTA; as First Vice President of the Falling Cre~k Mi~dl~ School FTA; as ~resident cf the Chesterfield Co:nty Council of PTA's; as Chairman of the School Bond AOtiOD Committee; as Capitol Committee Chairman of the Virginia Congress] of Parents and Teachers; as Legislative Chairman of the Virginia Congress of Parents and Tmachers~ as Second Vice Pra~iden~ of th( Virginia Congress of Parents and Teachers; as a Membe/ of the Career Education Advisory Committee of the State Department of Education~ and W~EBEAS, since her appointment sh~ has con~inua!ly demonstrated her desire to achieve guality education for not the County hut al~o the Commonwealth by her participation as Legislative Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for th~ Virginia School Board Ass0clatio~ and as a M~mber of %he ~oard Directors for the Math-Science Center~ and WHEREAS~ Mrs. Sheppard served as a member of the Chesterfield County SChool Board du~ing a time when the largest School Board Bond Referendum was passed in the County~ which demonstrated voter confidence in the leadership and direction of the School Sys~er~ and WI{EREAS, Mrs. Sheppard has resigned her position on the Chesterfield County school Board, leaving a~tar serving two and one-half years to relocate to Luxembourg, Germany, with her family. NOW, THEREFORE ~E IT R~$OL~r~D, =hat the Chesterfield county Board of Supervisors does hereby appreciate and re¢ogni=g the outstan4inq lea~er~hfp and ability of Mrs. Dawana o'steen Sheppard for two and on~-half y~ars of ssrvise and dedisatio~ to the education cf the fnture leaders of tomorrow; and FURTEE~ BE IT RESOL%q~D~ that the Chest~rfield County Board si Supervisors hereby record this recognition in the pages of its Minute Book; offers Mrs. Sheppared mnccess and best wishes in future endeavors and presents her with a plague inscribed as foll0~s: M~$. DAWANA O~STEEN SHEPPARD DALE DISTRICT f~EPRESENTA~IVE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD DECE~ER~ 19S3 - J~E, 1986 ~6-371 ~, ~EAR~NG~ OF ~TI~NS ON UNSC~ATTE~_g O~ ET.~TM~ ~tr. Hedric~ stated there were no hearings of citizsn$ scheduled at this time. 9, DEFERRED ITEMS 9.A. CONSIDER REQUEST FROM E~IDENTS I~ STONEHENGE FOR PUBLIO S~ SERVICE On motion of Mrs. G~rone~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Doard denied th% request from residents in the Stonehenge Subdivision area for public Sewer service due t~ tee lack of response by the renidents agreeing to connect to th~ ~ystem. 9.B~ APPOINTMENTS 9.B.1. APPOINTMENT TO CM~$TF~F~LD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION On motion cf Mr. DO~, seconded by ~ir. Daniel, the Board suspended its rules and regulations and nominated an~ mppointed Mr. Colon H. Rowe, Jr. to the Chesterfield Coun=y ~lanniug Ce~issien to fill the vacancy oreated by the r~signatlon of Mr. David E. Thomas. The ~em of office is effective immediately and wilt e~ire On June 30, 1987. Vote* Unanimous 9.~.2. CHESTERFiELD/COLOnIAL HEIGHTS BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board appointed Mrs. Elsie Elmefe and Mrs. Jan~ee Kack ~o %he Chesterfield/Colonial ~efght$ Social Services Board, who~e terms are effective July 1, 1986 and will ~pire June 30, 1990. 9.B.S. ~ICHMOND REGIONA~ 2LA~ING DISTRICT COMMISSION On motion of ~r. Applegate~ seconded by ~r. Mayer, the Board appointed Mr. M. D. "Pete" Stlth to serve as an alternate on the Richmond Regional Planning District Co~ission on a temporary basis, effective immediately. Vote~ Unanimous 9.B.4. CRATER PLAWNING DISTRICT CO~!SSION On motion ef Mr. May~s~ seconded by Mrs, ~iron~, the BoaI~ aRpointed ~r. M. D. "Pete" st{th to serve as an alternate on the Crater Planning District Commission on a temporary basis, effective immediately. PUBLIC ~ING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF WATER AND S~R CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEARS t'~87 TO ~991 AND CONSIDER INITIAL Y~AR OF T~E CIP AS _~APITAL ~UDGET FOR WATER AND SE~ER PROGRAMS Mr. Hedrick stated this dat~ and time had been advertised for a public hearing =o consider adoption c~ Water and Sewer Capital 86-372 Improvement Frograms (CIP~ for Fiscal Years 1987 tn 1991 and consider initial year of the CI~ as capital budget for Water and Mr. Welehons sba%ed staff presented the proposed Water and sewer Capital Improvement Programs to the Board et its me=ting on May I4, 1986, outlining the major projects for the upcoming six year period and providing information for the on-going y~arly projects. He stated the Board is requested to adept the Water of $3,365,000 az the Water Syste~ capital Improvement Budget and Budget for the fiscal year 1986/97. Mr. Mayas questioned figures presented in the Capital Improvement Programs summary sheet for ~ew~r projects as they did not appear to add properly. Mr. Dodd inquired if the Capital Improvement Program were approved, ~ould the Board still have tmhe leeway for approving emergency action for subdivisions if they qualify with 7~% participation. Mr. Welcbons stated that included within the into existing subdivisions and $400,000 for water extensions existing subdivisions. In response to a question by Mr. Daniel regarding excessive cost for sewer/water extensions into existing subdivisions, Mr. Welchon~ stated that if tkose funds are exceeded other projects can be modified or deferred until the next fiscal ysar at which t~me dollar figures can be adjusted. Ee stated these figures are a~erage but can be modified if necessary. Nr. Daniel stated if this C~P were approved, he would like to r~iDiag. There was no one present to discuss the matter and Mr. Dedd closed the public hearing. Mr. Dodd stated the Johns0~ Creek Pump Station ia sGheduled for 1990 and questioned if the development being planned for the 295 corridoE will be included in th% plans for sewer fasilities as did not want the quality development for this corridor to be precluded because of a lack o£ adequate facilities to aosommodat~ thslr needs. Mr. Welchons stated th~ Capital Improvement Program is projected for six (6) year~, however, appropriations for th~ upcoming fiscal years are submitted annually for approval, thereby providln~ the Foard wish the opportunity to review the Capital Mr. Applhgate inquired i~ anyone has projected what this Capit~l Improvement Program, if adopted, will mean in increased fees. Mr. Welchons stated the b~dgeb has been projected for four years. Mr. Applegate questioned if it would be safe to assume that even though this Board cmn only adopt rates for the next two (2) years tha~ the rates pr0pos~d in ~he neRt two {2) papers would take oa~e Of financing thi~ Capital I~provement Program. ~r. Welehons sba=ed it weald p~obably taka some additional rate ne~t two (2) years wilt finance the program. increas~ annually for the next four (4) ysars to accommodate the program. ~r. Applegate ~tated he saw a figure of $9~OU0~000 for the Swift Creek/Little Tomahawk Trunk but he did not realize that had b~en consultant. ~r, Appl~gat~ sea=ed he wo~td, in the very near 86-373 future, reco~end that th~ County study the £easihi~ity of of off-peak pumping, it Kay be a wise financial decision. Hedrick stated the Board's policy, to date, hag been to have primarily a gravity flow system, however, this item can be reviewed and brought back before th~ Board for consideration. Mr. ~pplegate stcted he f~lt this action would be appropriate because this proposal only raises the fees and such action is disturbing, Mx. Daniel read and submitted a letter he had received from Mr. eelmont~ Lewis, Chairman o~ the Chesterfield Legislative concerns regarding ~he proposals to fund these projects as they connection fees by 2B0% in one year while at the s~uue time increasing service rates by only 7%; their concern regarding the cver~l~ iDcr~as~ ~n new housing COSTS Xn Chost~r~ie~d County. Ne stated the latter indicated the development community i~ willing to do more than its :haze to meet these new revenue requirements and are not opposed to raising ~ingle-family dwelling fees ~y $200, with the stipulation that there would be no further increases during the remaining four years of the plan. He stated subdivision bcnding~ increased sewer connection fees and water of a new home and this affects their goal of providing safe and affordable hoasin~ to our community. {A cory of the letter is filed with the papers of this Board.) Mr. Delmonte Lewis ~tated he had anticipated addressing the proposed water and sewer rate i~crease; however, Mr. Daniel already addressed the issues when he read the letter he had submitted fr~m the Nome Builders Association and that was still their position. Mr. Daniel ~tated the ~oard has a tendency to want to vot~ for bonds and capital improvements and ~hen back off on the revenue that it takes to imploment these programs; he stated he wanted to ensure that everyone understood the entire issue and not just the individual components. Ne stated he felt the Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Programs/Budget and the Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Increase issues are significantly related and should be considered at the same time. M~. Dodd recessed the discussion by the Board relative to the Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Programs/1986-87 Capital Improvement Budget. OF THE COUNTY OF ~ME~TE~LD~ ~978~ AS A/~E~DED~ BY AMENDING EPLAPTER 20 RELATING ?O WA~ER CONMECTION FEES, W~T~R SERVICE CHAR~EE, O~rERSIZE AND OFFSITE EXTENSIONS, AND CONNECTIONS TO THE ~ATER SYSTEM Mr. ~edrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as Amended, by Amending chapter 20 ~e~a~ing ~c Water Connection Fe~, Water Service Charges, Sewer Service Charges, Oversize and Offsite Extensions, and Connections which are necessary to fund the increased debt service and to last year the County adopted a Capital Improvement Program and financed the largest bond issuo in the history of the wate~ ~d sewer system, one of the reasons being that the County could no longer depend on Environmental Protection Agency funds to assist 86-374 purposes of meeting coverage and nOrMal requirements Of the bond coverage which was not included in the previous financial water system is based completely on a revenue bond basis which solely through the revenuus of the system. He stated if the sewer and water system were to default at the pre~ent time On debt service the General Fund would not be pledged to make up that debt service. He stated prior to the previous year the County did have a ccmmi+-ment to pay the shortfall from the tax dollars even though we had never had to do that. He stated there was a major reorganization of th~ financing structure of the Utilities System conducted last year. He stated the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted last year and the concept built into the financing structure was one that would allow connection fees to pay for a portion of the growth of the systeat. Me stated the CIP is based primarily on expansion of the sewer and water system for growth of tho County and the connection fees represent the revenues from that growth. He staked the current tIP end thc fiscal year and this tIP projects those increases will be period mentlonod earlier in the discussion. ~e stated this which is basically a 7% increase for the next four years. In needs projected for the next four years are $1,43~,080-$1,744~00£ r~co~nded rat~ ~tr~c%u~e ~$ a 7% adjustmen~ annually to the increase is recommende~ ~or the fiscal year 1986-87 and an time the fee would become stabilized for the following two years. He stated the revenues generated by each of these increases would be $532,000 from the service charges and $900,000 from the $500 alternatives and their results for adjusting only connection effect on the system. He stated each $100 on the connection concept basically in tho bond market because the bond raters do to bonds primarily because they see that as a fairly volatile primarily that connection £e~ could cease at any time, however, service charges continue. Me stated the CIP is primarily for expansion and to provide for growth of the system so if the growth wer~ to cease ~hen some of the capital improvements would cease. He stated that projections indicate that bonds will be issued in three to four years for the sewer and water system and at that time, the rating agencies will be scrutinizing how well ~r. Dod~ inquiro~ if conndcticn fees were used for expansion and this ia how the County arrived at using revenue bonds rather tha~ ~6-375 General Obligation bonds. Mr. Ramsay stated th~ rating agencies for escrowing two-thirds of the sewer connection fe=s fo provide for expansion of the system. He stated there wore several million dollar~ accumulated in that account which addressed the CIP that was adopted last year. There was some di~c~ss±en regarding the CtP, how a CIP would grated he ~n~erstoe~ the situation %o bo ~hat if only rates are would be necessary to handle the existing shortfall. Ha stated cost. Me stated he felt this issue was a primary co,cern o£ both Mr. Daniel inquired if no action by the Boa~d would result in a $4,000,000 ~efioi~; if action on ~he proposal as recommended would result in a $3,0OO~O00 surplus; thus r~quiring a total of 8?,000,000 in the revenue to cover ~he amount o£ money already on in 1988-89. including the CIP, is tha~ at the end of 1987-88 we would have, even if you approve wha~ wo have propose~ to you on the earnings at the end of the second year. ~ertinent to the proposed service charge and connection Mr. Applegats questioned ~ha figures outlined and Mr. Welchons dietribu~ed corrected copies. Committee for the Home Builders Aeseoiation, stated he appreciated the opportunity to appear before the Board as well the £act that Mr. Welchons and his staff did attend a ocnm~ittee increased by 100% rather than 250%. Be stated members of the Association were preson~ at =he meeting in support of their opportunity to work wi~h %he County, they are attempting to build e~phasized %he fact that new housing does pay for itself, which not pay for itself the problem is that the density is however, as in the analogy that occurre~ with the gas crisis, if its use. He stated in comparison with national figures, the aver with a more appropriate service increase the County will 86-376 and an unfair increase can bs avoided Xor the new home bayer. public hearing was clo~ed. ~irs. Girone questioned if the Rome Buil~ors Association had calculated the impact of the 250% increase in the connection fees On the COSt of the average house in the county. Mr. Lewis stated this data had net been evaluated at this time. He r~q~ested the soard eon~ider all the fee increases which arc ~oing placed on In response to a question by Mrs. Girane~ Mr. Lewis stated the Countyts houslag markst is vary competitive, the reasons being not 0nly because ihs County has good schools, but because the County is a nice place tO l~ve and developers are building affordable homes. He stated the A~ociation is striving wa~ possible to ~etain the ~ousing market in Ch~ter~ield County and that the population will grow thereby i~c~a~i~g industry and othe~ growth potential for the County. ~r. Sidney Stern of stern Realty stated that i~ water connection f~e~ are raised by $~0~, ~h~t ad~s $500 to $600 to the cost of the lot ~nd as the lot price increases the price of the home would increase 4 to ~ times that cost, so you are talking about $2,000 er $2,500 increase in the cost of the house. In to a question by Mr. Daniel, relative to why this increase occurs industry, to de=ermine the cost cf a kome~ one would uormaliy multiply the price of the lot times a factor of four or fiv~ to determine the sale price Of the house. He ~urther stated he was speaking as a single family developer and builder, not as a multlfamil~ as well as ~ingle family developments, ~e stated the proposed rates fur multifamily equates to abo~t $250 per unit and in Henrico the cost is approximately $500 pst unit; he stated the increase in Chesterfield for multifsmily has increased by 10% er 15% and one solution to the problem would be to raise single family by appro2imately $400, multifamily by approximately $350 and then have the usage rate increase~ to approximately 10%. When a~ksd~ Mr. Welchons stated the e~tsting rate had been in e~e~t for a number o~ years. Mr. Mayas staPed it appears that even if ~ho Board were ~0 approve an increase at the present time it would be no where near addressing th~ problem. He stated he f~lt the Hoard is facing a ~eriou~ problem in the growth of the Co~nty without considering all of the elements and he is in a position where he is not prepared to deal with it at thio time. Mr. Applegete stated he felt the important issue is that the bonds have been sold an~ the County is obligated to ~ay the service connected with the sale of the bonds. ~e ~tated he favors th~ ¢0nccp~ tha~ growth should pay its way but he does not pay the burden of the cost to develop a new ~y~te~. HO questioned ii the proposed rate increase takes into consideration what it takes to upgrade the existing system to meet the of the existing customers and to upgrad~ the ~ystem as proposed. ~r. ~edrick stated when ~taff wa~ developing materials and looking at the various formulas for dealing with the cost, they looked at what was needed on an incremental basis in each of the next four years. He stated the formula ~eing recommended is a levelling cut of ~hose rate inerease~ n~essary to early us through the next four years based on the recommended existing opera~ion 5s well as the teach,mended CIP. There was considerable di~oussion as to exactly what was needed to handle existing Custom,rs and needs as w~ll as future Mr. Applegate stated his primary concern is that ha wants to ~Jgsol~tely certain that the 7%, or the adjustment to the current water and sewer rata, is actually paying the way for wha~ has be done to maintain the service levels to the existing customers. Mr. Welchons stated that if you look at the increase in our debt service on the water system for the first year, it is in excess so the increase picks up 5/7 of the additional ~ebt service but some of the debt service is for existin~ people as well as to expand facilities. Mr. Applegate stated he wanted %e be certain the proration is right because we talk about the cost with growth, which he s~pport~, but what we ara asking the acme ~uilders to do is to absorb this and he would like them to pay their pro ra~a ~ut not more than their pro rata share. 8e stated that if that is the dlroation of ~he Board~ then we need to let the Builders know that it will cOSt more ~o b~ild houses in Chasterfield County if we are going to continu~ tO grOW rate we are growing today. ~e eoggestad that when ~he report on off Desk pumping is prepared that there be a work s~ssio~ on Mrs. ¢irono stated she did nat like a rate ineraas¢~ or uny kind of an increase, anymore than anyone else. She stated she only regretted that this 9recess had not been started sooner, whereb~ the County eased into th~s and not have %his abrup~ chauge. She stated that basically the Board ia just adopting a policy of qrowth paying for itself and the ~ys~em did not do that prior to this last bond referendum so we have changed and slipped into this concept or philosophy which she ~upperts and she thinks the citizens of ~he County support, She stated she realized it would be hard on the Home Builders to adjust but they are going to pas~ the cost on and there is nc other way to look at it. Sh~ Stated she agreed with tho preposal and there is no way to avoid doi~q what is outlined. Mr. Daniel stated that all agree philosophi0ally that growth should pay its pro rata share. Ha stated he agreed that the Board should have taken a more deliberate approach on step-wi$~ increasing connection fees rather than having a lump sum charge at one time. He stated a strong pomitlve vote is mecassary to important to the County that ha thinks th~ Board D~o~s a unanimous vote on the issue so that the policy is clear as to what direction the County is going, Mr. Dodd stated there are a lot of people who do~t realize what growth benefits are an~ say 'don~t grow." Ke stated when he was elected t0 this Soard hi~ watmr and sewer bill on his own small project was $2,990 every two months and now it is $6,800 and with this proposal it will go over $7,000 every two months. He s~ated other supervisors fr~m high growth areas have a fee for a building permit as high as $~,~00 which is an extreme but layinq it all on the new home c~ner is not right either. Hs stated he i~ trying to look down th~ middle between the resident w~0 has lived here 20 years and the One who has lived here 20 months to be as fair as we can. ~e stated he would like t0 ~e the County ~o some innovative things such a~ eOnserv~ water, red~¢a for solar energy, provide incentives for im.novativs ideas, etc. should ba ready to innovate with them and be willing to try ideas. ~e stated he felt it wrong to raise the rate 7% on while you're in the middle of a water restriction and not allow them to water their lewes. Ho stated it might be wise to delay these issues two weeks. 86-~78 what the building requirements should be so same conmideration Can be given a~ %o wha~ reads arc needed, what water is needed, and wha~ sewer is needed before construction im b~gun. ~e stated the County is in a crisis now because tbs builders have built and it has to furnish the roads, schools and the water. Ne. Daniel stated it appears that we want to approve capital expenditures long before time it takes to raise the revenues to plan if we had known what the revenue requirements ~o fund it policy that we do net deal with capital issues unless we deal I~ was gene~ally agreed tha~ a two week deferral o~ the matter county of Chesterfield, 1978, AS Amended, by ~mending Chapter 20 ~U~LiC H~ARI~G TO CONSIDER A~ AF~ND~dE~T TO TH~ I985-86 BUDGET BY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS TO T~E ROUT~ 36 GRAD~ SEPARATION ~ROJECT BY $2~335,0G0 AND THE ROUTE 10 PROJEC5 IN CHESTER BY Mr. Medrick stated this dat~ and time had be~n advertised for a public heaein~ to consider aa ~mendmsnt to the 1985-86 budge~ by iucr~a$1ng appfopriatienm to the Rou~ 36 Grade Separation Project by $2,335,000 and the Route 10 Projaot in Chester by $1,~50,00~. ~ir. Mayas req~emted a change to mtaff'm reOOrmmendation tO allow $165~000 of that designated for the Route 10 Chester Projest~ to be ~ransf~rr~ to the Route 36 Cr~de Separation ~roje¢~ in Ettrick so that there will be sufficient monie~ [$2,500,008~ satisfy a previous resolution adopted b~ ~he Board so as not to jeopardiz~ th~ project. Hu stated this money can be repaid over a period of futura years from revenue sharing funds, 3¢ Road Funds Or whatever accounts may be approDriate. Mr. Applegate Mrs. Girane ~ueztioned how the money would be repaid when there wa~ no where near that amount allocated to each district through revenue sharing or 3¢ ~cad Funds. Mr. Dudd and Mr. Mayas indicated they we~ld a~&n§e zepayment details at a lute~ date. ~fter f~rther dimcu~ion, on mo~ion of ~Lr, Nayes, seconded by NLr, Dodd, the Boa=d approprlate~, ~rom ~he pr~vi~usiy ~stabli~h~d $2,500,000 to the Route 36 Grade Separation Project in Zttrick, with th~ understanding that $165,000 that was originally escrowed to the Route 10 project in Che~ter and has been loaned to the Route 36 Grade S~paration project in ~ttrlck, as agreed to by Messrs. Dodd and Mayas, be paid back to the Route 10 Chester projec~ as pres=leal over ~he nee= =we (~) years. Vote: Unanimous 86-37~ 11. NEW BU-q IEE~ S ll.A. CONSIDER FIREFIGHTER POSITTON~ TO ~PLACE POSITIONS FOR ~n motion of ~rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the five (5) additional firefight~r positions to be funded from overtime funds currently in the Fire Department budget for 86-87 to replace the pogit~on$ move~ to the Mad-Flight VOte: Unanimous At this time~ the Board ~eeognized Mr. Phil Has%er, Director of during the County Administrater'~ co~ent~ segment relating to receipt of the ~atieaal Association of County Parks and Recreation Officials Organi=ationat Award (NACPRO) for Overall ~xsellenoe. Th~ Board 8xproesed a~preciation for his efforts and wished him good luck in his future endeavors with his new position in LOS Angeles. .~..~. PA~S AND R~C~ATION ITF~4S ll.B.1. CO~SID~R ~IDS FOR VARIOUS PARK LIGHTING P~OJECTS On motion of Mrs, Girone, eec0nded by Mr. Mayee~ the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the ~oard and the County Administrator to eze~ute any necessary documents awarding the Park Lighting Projects for :dyne, Harrowgate and Huguenot Parks to the 1OW Didder, Tats and Hill~ IncorpoRated, in the amount of $59,700. Funds included in =he 19~ park bo~d$. Vote: Unanimous ll.B.2. CONSIDER BIDE FOR BIRD ATHLETIC COMPLEX on ~otien of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by Mrs. Girone, the Roard approved end authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute uny necessary do¢~ment~ awarding the contract [ba¢e bid and alternate #1) far the r~stro~m/conceeeion building at thc ~ird Athletic Complex to the low bidder, Anderson Construction company, in the amount of $87,000; and transferred $40~ from the ~cn-projeot account to this project. R~maind~r of fnnds included in 19S5 park bonds. 11.B.3. APPROPRIATION dP FUNDS ~0~ ~%N¢~$$TER SENIOR HIGH FIELD on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board appropriated funds in %he am0un% of $3,000 to the Manchester High School, to 5= expended from the Clover ~ii1 District 3e Road ~nnds, to ins%all a football irrigation system for the athletic field whicA cost is $6,000 and the Booster's Club has raised the iemaining $3,000. I1.~.4. ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS FOR D~TCH GA~ BOAT ,.,P~..,~_~,.R:I~..~ On ~otion of Mr. Daniel, ~a¢onded by M~. ~ayes, the Board approved and authorlze~ the County Ad~inistrator to accept on behalf of th~ Count~ a gsant in the amount cf $5,$00 from the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fi~herie~ for imprOvementS to the Dutch Gap boat ra~p area. Further, the Board resolved that a letter of appreciation be forwarded to the Virginia t6~380 Commission of ~me and Inland Fisheries expressing the Board's appxe¢iation for the contribution. FUNDS FOR =TTRICK/MATOACA YOUTE BASKETBAIJ, LEAGUE On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Nit. DO~, the ~oard app~0priat~d funds in the amount of $700t to be expended from the ~a%oaca District 3¢ Road Fund~, ~o~ t~ Ettric~/~atoaca summer BaskethaI1 League for~ June 16-JDly 17, 1986 which total cost ig $850 of which $150 will be contributed ~y the League. ll.C. ACCEPT FUNDS FOR STUDY OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS FOR HEALT~ DEPARTFi~T CLI=~TS On me,ion Q£ ~I$. Gi~cne, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized th~ County Administrator to execute the necessary documents accepting Matsrnal and child Health Care Bloek Grant fundu~ Stain Health D~partment, i~ ~he a~ount of $2,400, for the purpos~ o~ oontracting with Virginia Commonwealth University to study transportation need~ of ~llsn~s attending th~ aealt~ Depar%m~n~ olinios under our ~utual Support Agreement with the University. Vote= Unanimous ll.D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.D.1. STP~ET LIGET REQUEST On motion Of Mrs. Girths, seconded by Mr. Applegate, th~ Roar~ approved the request for a street l~ht at the entrance to the parking lot for Ben Air Baptist Church, Choctaw Road, between Buford Road and ~ore~t 5ill Avenue with funds to be expended from the Midlo~hian Distric~ Street Light Funds. Vote: Unanimous lI.D.2. CONSIDER A~.~Q~H%ATIO~ FOR FLASEINQ SCHOOL SIGNAL AT ~T. ~DWARD'S EPIPEANY SCHOOL On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, ~hs Boaxd adapted the following resolution~ WHEREAS, the reconstruction Of ~ugu~not Road will necessitate the adjus~ent of th~ flashing school sigaals at st. Edward's Epiphan~ School; and ~HEREAS, the Hoard of Supervisors has been requese~d participate is th~ adjustment of the signals. NOW~ TEE~FORE ~E IT RESOLVED, that the Hoard of reguests the Virginia D~partment of Highways and Transportation ~O inulude th= installation of flashing school siqnal~ ~ugu~not Road wit~nlng project, and approDr~ates $4,~00 from the Midlothi~ District 3¢ Road Fund for il.K. SET DATES FOR PUELIC REARINGS ll.E.1. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Pd~LATING T£ MUSIC AND ENTERTAIS?MENT FESTIVALS Cn motion O£ ~r$. Girone, seconded by Mr. Appl~gater tho So,rd set the date of June 25~ t986, at 9:00 a.~., to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 4, Article III, r~latiog to Music and ~ntertalnment Eemtivals. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Giro~e stated the 0rdinancu did not address alcoholic beverages being prohibltod. Mr. Micas stated the Board's action udopting a resolution disallowing consumption of alcoholic bev~rago$ in County parks would apply to these activities as well. ll.E.R. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE RELATING TC COMPETITIVE REALED BIDDING On motion of Mr. Applegate, seound~d by Mrs. Girone, the Board set the date of June 25~ 1986, at 9:00 a.m., to censldsr an ordinance amending section 2-42 relating to competitive sealed bids. SET PUBLIC BEARING TO CONSIDER COL~TY C~ART~R It was generally agreed that there should be ~hree public hearings in er~er ~ allow input from residents rugarding Charter. Mrs. Girone stated the ~ubli= should be educated on the proposed County Charter prior to ~he Board's hearing to adopt the Charter. Mr. Daniel s~ate~ August 13, 1986, should be set as the Board'~ deadline to complets its work, as th~ final submitted to the Courts no later than Septsmber 4, 19~6 for consideration. Bo added conducting public hearings outside the Courthouse will set a precsdent that consideration of.any future, critical issues would necessitate the setting of public hearings in the respective areas of the County if they are affected On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. ¢irono, the Eoard set the ~ellowing public hearinq dates for oonEideration of the proposed County Charter~ July ~, 1986 7:00 p.~. $oard Roem~ Courthouss Complex July 30, I986 7~0~ p.m. MOnacan High School A~g~s~ 4, 1956 7:30 p.m. Matoaoa Middle School It was also generally agreed that the ~enerat Ag~ombty delegates sheul~ ~a invited to atten~ the public hearing sessions+ This dey the County Environmental Engineer, in a0~or~aa~o with directions from this Board~ made report in writing upon his Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded b~ Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that wh~ts Fawn Drive in Hunters Green, section A~ Mateace District, be and it hereby is estab- lished as a public road. Highways amd Transportationr be and it is hereby requested to t~k~ iato the Secondary System, White Fawn Drive, beginning the i~tersection with River Road, State ROUte 602, and running northerly 0.24 mile to the intersection with Hunters Trail Read, then continuing norther17 0.05 m/la to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive Of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Depa~%Z~ent of Eighway~ drainage This road serves 30 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of supezvis0rs~ guarant~e~ to the Virginia Department of ~ighways a right-of-way for this rued. This day the County Environmental Rngineer, in accordance wit~ directions from this Board, made rep0~t in writing ~pon his e~a~iD~Dion of ~in~ola Dxive and Timonium Drive in ~ineola, Sections A & B~ Bermuda Diutrict. U~o~ con,id=ration ~hereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seoonded by Mrs. Girdle, i~ is resolved that Mineela Drive and Timonium Drive in Mineola, Section~ A & B~ B~mu~a District, be and they hereby ere established as public reads. And be it further r~solved, that the Virginia Department of Highwayz and Transportation, be and it is h~r~by requested to take into the Secondary System, Mineola Drive, beginning at the iht=reaction with Old Centralia ROad, $%at~ Route 509, and running easterly 0.16 mile to the intersection with Timonium Drive, then continuing westerly 0.22 mile to tie into proposed Mine01a Drive in ¢hipshase S~bdivisi0n; and Timonium Drive, beginning at the intersection with Mineola Drive and running ~ortherly 0.36 mile to the in%erssstion with pr0p0~ed Betbesda Drive, Mineota, Section D, then co~tlnulng northerly 0.15 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This reques~ is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance And be it further reselved, that the Board of SupPrvi~or$~ guarantees to the Virginia D~pa~tment o~ Highwa~ a 58' ~ight-of-way for Timonium Drive and a variable 50' to 90' right-ef-way for Mineola Drive. Thes~ section~ Of Mineola are recorded as follows: S~ction A. Plat BOOk 41, Paq~ 36, Jul~ 16, 1982. Section B. ~lat Book 41, Pages ~7 & 38, July 16, 1982. Thi~ daM %he County ~nvlronmen~l Engineer, in accoxdance wi~ dire~tion~ from thim Board, made report in writing upon hi~ examination of Pennbrook Drlv~ and P~n~rook Ceurt in Pennw00d, section 4, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, ~d on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded 86-383 by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Pennbrook Drive and Pennbrook Court in Pennwood, ~ection 4~ Clover Mill District~ be and they hereby are established as public roads, ~d be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of H~ghwayS ~nd Transportation, be and it i~ hereby requested to take into the 8~condary System, P~nnbrook Drive, beginning at th intersection with Drexelbrook Road, state ROute 2181, and going 0.16 mile southwesterly to the intersection with Pennbrook Cour~ then continuing 0.0~ mile ~outhwesterly to a temporary turnaround; and Pennbrook Court, beginni~g a= th~ i~erseotio~ with Pennbreek Driv~ and going O.1O mile ~eutheasterly to a cul-de-mac. This r~que~ is inclusive of the adjaceat slope, site ~istsnoe and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage ease- These roads ~erv~ 2~ lots. n_nd be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors, guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' righ=-of-way for all of these roads. Section 4. Plat Book 47, Pages 46 & 47, October 3, 1984. Vote= Unanimcu~ This day the Con~ty EnviroD_~ental E~gi~eer~ in accerdanc~ with directioas from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Meorefield Park Drive~ Mctropolitan Court and Farter Court in Moerefimld, Clov~r Mill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dan~el, ~econde( hy Mrs. Girone~ it im resolved that Meorefield Pack Drive, Me~ropo!itan Court and Farrar Court in Moorefield, Clover Mill Bis%rict~ be and they hereby are established a~ public roads. And be it further cesol~ed~ that the Virginia Department Oi Highways and Transportation, be and it is hereby requested to take into the S~condary System, Moorefield Park Drive, beginning a~ the intersection with Midlothian Turnpike~ U.S. Route 60, and going 0.20 mile southwesterly to the intersection with Metropoli- tea Co=ri, ~han continuing 0.13 mile southwesterly to the inter- ~eetion with Far,ar Court, then continuing 0.60 mile in a circu- lar ~irection to re-intermect with Midlothian Turnpike~ U,S. Route 60; Metropolitan Court, beginning at the inter~eotion with cul-de-sac~ and Parrar Court, b~ginning at the in=erseo=ion with Meorefield Par~ Driv~ and going 0.08 mile southeast=fly to a Thi~ request is inclusive of the adjaeen~ slope, site ~istance and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage ease- These roads serve as access to the adjacent commercial property, And be ic further resolved, that the Beard e~ Supervisors, guarantees to the Virginia Department cf ~ighways a 60' right-of-way for all of these roads except ~eorefield Park Drive which has a variable 60' to 461.44' right-of-way. Plat Book A&, Page~ 91-95, December ~9, 1983. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.2. REQUESTS FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the request for a raffle permit for the Lloyd C. Bird Sand Boosters for calendar year 1986. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF POLICE OFFICER On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board hereby respectfully requested the Circuit Court Judges to appoint Mr. Michael Reed as a Police Officer for Chesterfield County beginning June 9, 1986. Vote; Unanimous ll.F.4. FNDERkL MINI-GRANTS FOR POLICE DEPANTMENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any decuments accepting on behalf of the County, two mini-grants through the Chesterfield Highway safety commission from the State of Virginia, Department of Motor Vehicles, Transportation Safety Administration--one in the amount of $1,500 for an advanced accident investigation course and the other in the amount of $1,408 for an accident investigation course in motorcycle and commercial vehicle accidents. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.5. FEDERAL GRANT FOR DRIVING UNDE~ INFLUENCE DETECTION AND APPREHENSION FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for a grant in the amount of $20,000 through the Chesterfield Highway Safety Commission from the State of Virginia, Department of Motor Vehicles, Transportation Safety Administration, for Driving Under the Influence Detection and Apprehenei0n. ll.F.6. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION REGARDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS Mr. Lane Ramsay stated on Sun~ 11, 1986, staff plans to present the appropriation resolution for the 1986-87 Budget and make the adjustment for that $80,000 at that time. Mr. Daniel stated he would like for the Board paper to clearly indicate where the funds will he going. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following resolution: "RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY TEE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MAY 14, 1986 AND MAY 21, 1986 TO PROVIDE FOR REFEP~NCES TO DOMINION TRUST COMPANY, AS REGISTRAR" BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE BOARD 0P SUPERVISORS OF TEE COUNTY O~ CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, that the resolutions a~thorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of the County's $14,445,000 principal amount of public improvement refunding bonds, Series of 1986, dated as of June 1, 1986, adopted by this Board on May 14, 1986 and May 21, 1986, respectively, are hereby amended to provide that the references to the Registrar for the Bonds in Section 3 (a) of the Resolution adopted on May 14, 1986 and in the first paragraph of the form of Bond set forth in Section 5 of the Resolution adopted on ~ay 21, 1986, shall refer to Dominion Trust Company, N.A., as its principal corporate trust office in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Registrar. 86-385 Vote: Unanimous 11.~. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS il.G.I. PUBLIC BEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE CONVEYING A PARCEL OF LAND FORMERLY KNOWN AS WADSWORTH DRIVE Mr. Welchons stated this date and time had been advertised for public hearing to consider conveyance of a parcel of land formerly known as Wadsworth Drive. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard authorized the Chairman and the County Administrator to execute the necessary quit-claim deed conveying the abandoned portion of Wadsworth Drive, Route 887, to the adjoining owners. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.2. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred consideration of adoption of the Water System Master Plan until June 11, 1986, Board meeting, at 7:00 p.m. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.3. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS ll.G.3.a. CONDEMNATION FOR SEWER EASEMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF FALLING CREEK SEWER FORCE MAIN Mr. Welchons stated the County had previously obtained an easement agreement from Mr. and Mrs. Joseph B. Lohr for the installation of sewer across their property. He stated, however on May 19, 1986, the Lohrs contested the County's right to construct an air release stack on the rear of their property within the easement and appealed to the Circuit Court ~er an injunction to halt the project. Be stated the judge ruled the~e had apparently not been a meeting of the minds concerning the location of the air release stack. Ee stated that in view of the County's good faith efforts to acquire the easement and the public importance of the project, the Court denied the Lohrs' motion for an injunction and directed the County to bring a condemnation action to determine the full amount of compensation to which th~ Lohrs are entitled including damages resulting from the location of the air release stack on their property. Mr. Daniel conveyed to the Hoard the details of a telephone conversation regarding the agreement which the Lohrs signed in good faith stipulated that no exceptions would be allowed other than what the actual agreement had stated. He stated that since that time it is his understanding that the County approached the Lohrs requesting an exception which was to install the air release stack on the rear of their property. He stated he ha~ been informed that this air release stack is obtrusive and unsightly. He stated he is not prepared to make a motion on the issue at this time because in his opinion there needs to be continued discussion. He stated that to proceed with additional condemnation proceedings at this point would be inappropriate. Hs stated he has also been informed that neighboring property Owners are very disturbed about the possibility of this particular pipe being installed in tho area and would suggest that the County and the Lohrs continue their discussions in an effort to resolve the matter. ~lr. Welchons stated originally the air release stack was to be installed on the lot, however, by modification of the elevation 86-386 of the line being laid the stack was moved to the rear corner of the lot. ·here was considerable discussion regarding the height of the aix release stack, its location on the property, the need to clearly define such projects, etc. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, th~ BOard deferred consideration of condemnation of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph R. Lohr for sewer easement for installation for Falling Creek Sewer Force Main until June 25, 1986, at 9:00 a.m., in order to resolve the issues. Mr. Daniel stated he hoped that whatever the issue is, it can be resolved administratively within the framework of the existing contracts. Mr. Welchons stated the main line has been constructed on Mr. Lohr's pr0pexty, howevex, the stack has not been installed. He stated the j~dge'$ decision was to come back with condemnation tc ensure there was just compensation to the Lohrs resulting from the location of the air release stack. He stated that along with the easement agreement a letter was sent to the Lohrs indicating that the air release stack could not be moved off their property but that it would be moved to the rear of the property. In response to a question by Mr. Daniel, Mr. Welchons ~tated the first contract signed by the Lehrs included a provision fox the installation of the air release stack. Mr. Daniel stated the Lohr's indicated this was not the case. Mr. Steve Micas stated he wished to indicate that all of these issues were discussed judicially, when the County was in court and if the Board has concerns then perhaps several weeks delay is appropriate. Mr. Dodd stated the Board wants people treated as fairly as possible. Mr. Welchons stated that, at the end of the thirty day de£er:al, should the Soard decide not to permit the installation of the air release ~tack on thc subject property the System% will not work properly. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the stack could be relocated to a site that is not so close to an individual'~ home. Mr. Dodd stated that possibly screening the air release stack would be agreeable to the property owner. ll.G.3.b. PURCHASE OF AVIATION EASEMENT FOR COUNTY AIRPORT EXPANSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the purchase of an aviation easement from Alva E. Tate, Jr. and Inez T. Tare, in the amount of $69,150 for the County Airport ~xpansion and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents to obtain the easement which lies within the proposed clear zone, approach zone and transition area of the airport. This easement and purchase for this amount has been approved by F.A.A. and the County will be reimbursed for 90% of the purchase price by the F,A.A. and 5% by the State. Vote: Unanimous 86-357 ll.G.4. CONSENT ITEMS ll.~.4.a. WATER CONTRACT FOR FIELDSTONE, SECTIONS 2 and 3 on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract Nllmber W86-111CD, Fieldstone Section "2 & 3" Developer: Laverne C. Cole, Nancy J. Carrouth, United Virginia Bank Trustee for Estate of Carrouth Contractor: Shoosmith Brothers, Inc. Sub-Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc. Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: Code: Vote= Unanimous $42,129.05 $ 7,548.00 Refund through Connection Fees $34,581.05 5B-2511-997 ll.G.4.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR PJLDIAL TIRE STORE, ROUTE 60 On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Sewer Contract N~mber S85-129CD/7(8)5C9M, Radial Tire Store-Route 60 Developer: George B. Sewers, Jr. and Associate~ Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Tnc. Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number Of Connections: Code: Vote: Unanimous $17,596.80 $ 7,422.90 Refund through Connection Fees $10,173.90 2 5n-2511-997 ll.G.4.c. SEWER CONTRACT FOR BEXLEYt SECTION 12 On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Sewer Contract Number S86-62CD/7(8)662E, Bexley-Section 12 Developer: The Penn Company Contractor: Lewis ~. Easter ~ Co. Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: $80,972.60 $ 1,340.00 Refund through Connection Fees $79,632.60 40 ll.G.4.d. S~W~R CONTRACT FOR GLENWOOD, S~CTION F On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to any necessar, documents for the following sewer contract: Sawer Contract Nut,bet S86-67CD/7(8)667M, Glenwood-Seotion onsite and offsite trunk sewers Develepcr: William B. and Gene B. Duval and Pennwood, Inc. $~-388 Total Contract Coot: Total Estimated Ceunty Cost: ~stimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: Code: 5N-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous G.L. Howard, Inc. a/~d Rhyne Contractors, Inc. $278,963.50 $156,923.33 Refund through $122,040.17 75 ll.G.4.e. SEWER CONTRACT FOR CHURCH OF THE EPIPHANY, SMOKETREE DRIVE On motion of Mrs. Gircne, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved an~ authorized the County Administrator te execute any necessary do~tnnents for the following sewer contract= Sewer Contract Number B86-75CD/7(8)675~, Church cf the Vote: Epiphany-Smoketree Drive Developer: Church of the Epiphany Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Total Contract Cost: $33,956.00 Total Estimated County Cost: Cash Refund $ 8~616.90 Refund from Connection Fees $20,070.10 Estimated Developer Cost: $ 5,269.00 Number of Connections: 3 Code: 5P-8724-8009 Cash Refund 5N-2511-997 Refund from Connection Fees Unanimous ll.G.4.f. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER FOR W85-97C-30, WATER LINE FOR AIP~ORT COMPLEX On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Hoard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a change order for Richard L. Crowder Constru0tien, Inc., in the amount of $96,245,84 for Contract W85-97C-30 to extend the 30" water line 1430 feet on this water line project to connect this line with a 20" water line on Cogbill Road and t0 extend the project an additional thirty (30) days to complete the extension. It is noted this addltlen will be done at the unit cost in the original bid. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.4.q. AGREEMENT WITH VDH&T FOR ADJUSTMENT OF UTILITIES ON HUGUENOT ROAD On motion of Mrc. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and auth0ri~ed the County Administrator to execute an agreement with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for an adjustment of utilities on Huguenot Road, subject to approval of the County Attorney, With the funding for the utilities sewer adjustments to be expended from 5P-5838-700E Miscellaneous Highway Projects. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.4.h. VACATION OF EASEMENT ACROSS PROPERTY OF MIDLOTHIAN HIGH SCHOOL On motion of Mrs. Girone, s~conded by Mr. Mayes~ the Hoard approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute a quit claim deed to vacate a portion of 86-389 a 16' water easement across the property of Midlothian High School. ll.G.4.i. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG BRANCHWAY ROAD FRO~ T~XACO R~FINING AND ~LANKETING, INC. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the ~oard approved and authorized the County Administrator to accept on behalf of the County the conveyance of a variable strip of land, along Branchway Road from Texaco Refining and Marketing, Incorporated. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.4.j. ACCEPTANCE OF D~D FQR ~A-~C=L OF LAND ALONG PROCTORS CREEK On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents to accept on behalf of the County the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 58.7 acres along Proctors Creek from Natty W. Easterly, Jr., et al., for a sewer easement for the Bally Bridge Force Main. ll.G.5. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. At this point, Mrs. Girone stated that the August 4, 1986 date set for the public hearing on the Chesterfield County Charter mas present a conflict for both she and Mr. Mayes, Mr. Mayes stated he would try to reschedule his meeting to August 11, 1986 and confirm this information late. 11.H. P~EPORTS Mr. Hedrick stated the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following streets into the State Secondary System: Additions Lengths Route 869 (~u~y Street) - From Route 623 to 0.18 mile west of Route 653. 0.18 Mi. Route 3347 (Manders Knoll Terrace) - From Route 3340 to a west cul-de-sac. 0.16 Mi. Route 3348 (Manders Knoll Court) - From 0.07 mile north of Route 3347 to 8.04 mile south of Route 3347. 0.11 Mi. Route 3340 ($moketree South Parkway) - From Route 720 to 0.01 mile southeast of Route 3349. 0.08 Mi. Route 3349 (Logan Trace Road) - From Route 3340 to a west cul-de-sac. 0.14 Mi. Route 3379 (Logan Trace Court) - Prom Route 3349 to a northwest cul-de-sac. 0.06 Mi. Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the schedule fo~ the Charter Referenda, a status report on the General F~d 86-390 Contingency Account, the General Fund Balance~ the Road Reserve F~nds, and the District Road and Stree% Light Fund~. ll.I. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND LUNC~ WEATHERSHIELD SYSTEMS~ INC. AND LUNCH On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss legal matters pertaining to Chesterfield County v. USM Weathorshield Systems, Inc., and suspended the rules to include consultation with legal counsel regarding contractual agreement with 1rDH&T and Chesterfield County relating to the Powhite Parkway, as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel~ ~econded by Mr. Mayas, the Board amended its motion and set the public hearing date of August 11, 1986, for consideration of the County Charter in the Mat0aca District at Matoaca Middle School at 7:30 p.m. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved a settlement regarding the Fire Department and authorized the County Administrator to sign a release on behalf of the County with USM Weatbershield Systems, Inc., for the amount of $7,500, the amount being equally divided in the sums of $3,750 each to the County and the contractor. Vote: Unanimous ll.J. ~EQUESTS FOR REZONING Mr. Peele reported there were no requests for mobile home permits for conside~atlen, however, there were ~everal reque~t~ for deferrals. 85S105 In Matoaca Magisterial District, CHARLES E. BAILEY, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on a 25.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 680 feet on the south line of Centralia Road, approximately 150 feet west of Hollyberry Drive. Tax Hap 96-10 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 31). Mr. Peele statsd the applicant has requested a ninety (90) day deferral in order to resolve subdivision issues and concerns relative to the Central Area Plan. On motion ef Mr, Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred Consideration of Case 85S105 until August 27, 1986. Vote: Unanimoes 85S168 ~n Clover Hill Magisterial District, TOMAHAWK PARTNERSHIP, LTD., A VIRGINIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requested rez0ning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (B-2) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 34 acre parcel fronting approximately 2,530 feet On the north line of Hull Street Road, approximately 420 ~est we~t of Warbro Road. Tax Map 62-3 (1) Parcels 2 and 3 (Sheet 20). 86-391 Mr. Pool~ stated that the applicant has requested a thirty (30) day deferral of this request. Mr. Herbert Gill stated the applicant desires a thirty (30) day deferral to resolve staff concerns relative to the appropriateness of the request. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferred consideration of Case 85S168 until June 25, 1986. 86S034 In Midlothian Magisterial District, TOM ~¢ATH~WS requested Condi- tional Uee to per~it an Outdoor recreational facility in an Agricultural (A) District on a t0.74 acre parcel fronting approximately 300 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting approximately 1,180 feet on the east line of Dry Bridge Road and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 14 (1) Part Of Parcels 9 and 92 (Sheet 5/6). Mr. Peele stated the applicant has requested a thirty (30) day deferral in order to meet with area residents to resolve concerns relative to the project. Mrs. Girone stated there were several members of the public present who are interested in this case and requested that it be heard in its proper sequence on the agenda. It was generally agreed that Case 86S034 would be heard as scheduled. 86S052 In Matoaca Magisterial Dietrict, E. LINWOOD GETTINGS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O) on a 0.50 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the south line of Harrowgate Road, approximately 800 feet northwest of Beechwood Road. Tax Map 163-2 (1) Parcel 14 (Sheet 49). Mr. Peele reported that the applicant has requested that his request be remanded to the Planning Commission so that he may amend his application. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board remanded Case 86S052 to th~ Planning Commission per the applicant's request to amend his application. Vote: Unanimous 86S075 In Bermuda Magisterial District, FIORUCCI FOODS, INC. requeeted amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 85S121) to permit five (5) residential dwellings and modifications to buffer reqllirements along Ruffin Hill Road in a Light Industrial (M-l) District on part of parcels fronting the north and west lines of Ruffin Mill Road. Tax Map 150 (1) Parts of Parcels 4 and 32 and Tax Map 150-5 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 42). Mr. Peele stated the request was double-advertised, however, the Planning Commission deferred the case for sixty (60) days at its May 20, I986 meeting. He stated that since there is no recommendation from the Planning Commission for the Board's consideration, staff is recommending that the Board also defer the case for sixty (60) days. ~e stated the request for deferral is acceptable to the applicant. 86-392 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board deferred consideration of Case 86S075 until July 23, 1986. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd stated per the established rules and procedures of the Board, Mr. Hayes will chair the zoning session. 85S048-1 In Dale Magisterial District, VERNON E. LaPRADE, JR. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (K-9) plus Conditional Use Planned Development of approximately 31.12 acres, located approximately 400 feet off the east line of Salem Church Road, approximately 1,200 feet south of Huntingcreek Drive. Tax Map 80-10 (1) Part of Parcel 5 (Sheet 22}. Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Be noted Condition 5 should not be included as that pertained to a perrier of the property zoned through a previous application. Mr. Vernon LaPrade, Jr. staked the conditions were acceptable. In response to a question by Mr. Daniel relative to the access, Mr. Peele stated that a letter from the VDH&T Resident =ngineer verified approval of the entrance from Ashton Woods South onto Salem Church Road, however, it did not give approval for the design of the entrance. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the recommended R-9 zoning with Conditional Use Planned Development is appropriate for the site, however, he stated he is concerned with the configuration of the large flag lot with a single entrance onto Salem Church Road and out to proposed Route 288. He stated he would prefer that the request be remanded to the Planning Commission so that the entrance design could bo reviewed to prevent potential problems. He stated the zoning would be useless if the entrance design is not approved. He stated it appears that there is very limited road width for the proposed access and questioned if the access could be relocated with the adjacent p~operty. Mr. LaPrade stated Richmond Lumber Company owns adjacent properties to this cite and the creek and drainage area in the rear of that property will be difficult to cross. He stated he has attempted to negotiate in order to gain accost to the location. He stated he had met with Lynn Wagner (VDH&T) and discussed the tentative subdivision plans and the entrance, however, Mr. Wagner was concerned with the site distance in regard to the design. He stated Mr. Wag~er has requested that when the applicant is ready to construct his entrance that the applicant design the entrance with site distance standards acceptable to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. In response to a question by Mr. Daniel, Mr, LaPrade stated he would be agreeable to a condition which stated that ne building permits shall be issued ~ntil such time as the entrance design i~ approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Potts and Minter, dated 2/18/85, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 86-393 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, forty- five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Salem Church Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) 3. A~ditional pavement shall be constructed along Salem Church Road, and the existing roadside ditch shall ba relocated. (T) 4. Prior to recordation of any 10ts, profiles shall be submitted to the Transportation Department and VDH&T showing available sight distance. If ~dequate sight distance is not available, the developer shall be responsible for reconstructing Salem Church Road to obtain required sight distances. (T) 5, A fifty (50) foot buffer, exclusive of utility or drainage easements, shall be maintained along Salem Church Road. This buffer may consist of existing vegetation which shall be supplemented, where neces- sary, to effect a proper screen, Other than the pro- posed public road and fences on individual lots, no facilities shall be permitted within this buffer. (TAP) 6. Racordsd lot sizes shall be within 10%, plus or minus, of lot sizes shown on the Master Plan, provided that no lot shall be smaller than 9,000 square feet. (P) 7. The following proffered conditions shall be incor- porated into the restrictive covenants: A. All original exterior houze colors to be s~lscted from Williamsburg color chart with final approval to be given by Architectural Revlaw Con~ittee. E. There will be no aluminum or vinyl siding. C. There will be no fences erected between front of houses and street, with exception of approval by Architectural Review Committee. D. No window or through the wall air conditioners will be allowed. 8. Each single family residence shall have the £ollowing minimum square footages: a. Two-story houses shall have a minimum of 1,496 square feet with 900 square feet finished. b. Cape Cod housez zhall have a minimum of 1,414 square feet with 896 square feet finished. c. Ranchers shall have a minimum of 1,200 squats feet finished. (Note: Ail square feotages include first floor ztorage facilities. Does not include porches, carports or garages.) 9. ~o building permits shall be issued until the VDH&T has approved road plans for access to salem Church Road from this site. (ES) And further, the Board accepted the following pro~fered conditions: 1. Exterior of homes shall have: a. All foundations shall be of brick. 06-394 b. All fireplaces shall be of brick or stone. ¢. All houses to have covered front porches. Recreation area: a. Land for recreation area will be deeded to Homeowner ASsociation upon Occupancy of at least 75 homes; however, until the sale of 95% of all lots, in Ashton Woods North and South, developer will have controlling voice in Association with regards to type of con- struction, landscaping and construction schedule. Vote: Unanimous 85Slt8 (Amended) In Matoaca Magisterial District, HOWARD E. GHUBB requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (mobile home sales, service, and repair) and bulk (setback) exceptions in a Mobile Home Park (MH-1) District on a 1.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 140 feet north of Whitestone Road. Tax Map 163-11 (1) Part of Parcel 16 (Sheet 49). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Conunission had recouu~ended approval of this request subject to certain conditi0n~. He noted that in reviewing the case staff determined that a change was necessary in Condition 6, which he sxplained, and that change is ra£1eeted in the addendum as distributed to the Board. He stated Condition 6 in the addendum clarifies the original intent of the condition to require landscaping along Jefferson Davis Highway in the form of one (i) tree every fifty (50) feet along the 350 feet of frontage at the site. Mr. Dean H. Hawkins represented the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable with the exception of Condition 5 and Condition 6 in the addendum. He stated the applicant's site plan conforms to setbacks required for B-3 zoning. With respect to Condition 5, Mr. Hawkins stated the applicant has no problem with providing the thirty (30) foot buffer along the western property line, however, the site layout necessitates a reduction in the buffer requirement along the northern property line from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet as providing the thirty (30) foot requirement will interfere with the road alignment. Mr. Hawkins stated the applicant does not object to providing the fence within the buffers along the western property line, however, he does object to providing landscaping in the required buffers. With respect to Condition 6 in the addendum, Mr. Hawkins stated the applicant does not object to installing landscaping along Jefferson Davis Highway, however, it should be noted that there is a sight distancs problem along this portion of the property. He stated he could agree that only One (1) free may be insufficient for the distance along Jefferson Davis Highway, however, a requirement for one (1) tree every fifty (50) feet may not be the best solution for this particular site. He stated the applicant would be agreeable to installing trees along this distance for every 100 feet which would equate to three (3) trees as opposed to seven (7). Mr. Peele stated the applicant's plan shows a twenty (20) foot setback, however, staff feels that the twenty (20) foot setback i~ inadequate because it is incompatible wi~h the adjacent residential development and that landscaping over and above the fence can be utilized to provide initial visual screening and buffering from the noise and other nuisances of the proposed business. 86-395 Mr. Peele stated sight distance for this location does present a problem, however, Condition 6 requires that trees be planted that provide five (5) feet of visibility beneath the low,st branches to prevent visual interference along Route 1 and one (1) tree for every fifty (50) linear feet is consistent with recommendations on other projects. He added staff is of the opinion that this requirement will not hamper vision along this portion of the property. Mr. HawKins stated thc amended Condition 6 in the addendum was added to this request after a reoommendation had been made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Peele stated that was correct, however the requirement is consistent with conditions imposed on other developments. Mr. Hawkins stated, in his opinion, the planting of only three (3) trees along this portion of the property would be more appropriate and suitable for the development of the site. With respect to Condition 5, Mr. Hawkins stated providing a thirty (30) foot bufier along the northern property line will interfere with the road alignment and that according to the Zoning Ordinance the building side yard aetback requirement for this site is only twenty (20) feet. Mr. Mayes suggested a twenty-five (25) foe{ setback along the northern property line whichMr. ~awkins indicated would not be beneficial. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Hoard approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Dean H. Hawkins, ASLA, dated February 4, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U) 3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedes- trian traffic. (EH) 4. in conjunction with site plan mubmission, documentation verifying adequate sight distance shall be submitted t¢ tho Transportation Department and VDH&T for approval. 5. A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern boundary and a thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western boundary where adjacent to Mobile Home Park (MH-1) zoning. The buffer shall consist of landscaping, having a sufficient initial height and of a species which will provide year-round screening. Other than utilities, which run generally perpendicular through the buffer, and any access which is for the sole purpose of providing services to the adjacent mobile home park, there shall be no facilities permitted in these buffer areas. A fence shall be installed along the southern boundary of the site and shall be constructed of material which will effectively screen the use from adjacent property to the south. A conceptual plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and grading, or prior to occupancy, whichever occurs first. (P&HS)) 6. Ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted within the fifty (50) foot setback along Jefferson Davis Highway. Minimum landscaping shall include at least three (3) trees, having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet, plus a mix of medium and low height shrubs and ground cover. A ooncep%ual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commis- sion for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Detailed landscaping plans depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P&BS) 7. The interior of the public parking area shall be land- scaped with a minimum of ten (10) square feet of inter- ior landscaping for each parking space. ~ach rcqulred landscaped area shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet and have a minimum dimension of at least ten (10) feet. Each landscaped area shall include at least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at least (4) feet. The total n~mber of t~ses shall not be less than one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. ~he remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs and other vegetative material. This landscaping shall be in addition to the required landscaping within the fifty (501 foot setback along Jefferson Davis Highway. In conjunction with schematic plan review, a conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. A detailed landscap- ing plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department in ~onjunction with ~inal site plan review. (P) 8. Prior to the release of any building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerlin~ of Jefferson Davis Highway, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) 9. There shall be no outside speaker or paging system. The Planning Commission may modify this ~ondition at the time of schematic plan review if documentation is submitted which proves that an outdoor speaker or paging system will not be audible from adjacent Mobile Home Park (ME-I) property. (P) 10. Ail exterior lighting shall be low level and positione~ so as not to project into the adjacent Mobile Eome Par~ (MH-1) property. (P) 11. SIGNS a. One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed 10O square feet and a height of thirty {30) feet, shall be permitted to identify this use. Other than directional signs, no other freestanding signs shall be permitted. Ail other signs shall comply with B-3 bulk requirements, Except where specified herein. Signs may be externally lighted, but may only be internally lighted if ths signfi¢ld is opaque with ~ranslucent letters. b. Prior to erection of any signs, a complete sign package, to include typical colors, sizes, light- ing, etc., shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (P) 12. In conjunction with ~chematic plan review, render- ings/elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. The facades of the building which are exposed to Jefferson Davis ~ighway shall employ decorative masonry and/or glass material. All other facades shall be of subdued colors. 86-397 13. The uses permitted shall be limited to mobile home sale~ and service as well as sale of related equipment and accessories. (P) 14. The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements of the Convenience Business (B-l) District shall apply. (P) (Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit or site plan approval, schematic plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.) Mr. Applegate stated, in his opinion, the proposed land uses are incompatible with adjacent residential land uses and could adversely affect adjacent residents and hinder their enjoyment of residential property rights. Mr. Dodd stated that to be consistent with his past actions On requests pertaining to mobile homes he would abstain from voting on this request, In response to a question by Mr. Applegate, Mr. Poole stated staff has concerns relative to the appropriateness of the proposed use for this site and recommended denial when the request was submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. Me stated staff has attempted to address its concerns through the recommended conditions to ensure that the site is developed in a manner that would encourag~ the development of quality businesses along Route I and not adversely impact area residents. Me pointed out the building locations on the site, explained the proposed uses of said buildings, and indicated where the required buffering would be located. Mr. Hawkins stated the applicant owns this site as well as the adjacent mobile home park and is basically upgrading the area. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayas. Abstention: Mr. Dodd. 85S162 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JOHN C. CULLAT~R requested amendment to Conditional Usc Planned Development (Case 84S156) relative to ac0ess, buffers, and dedication of right of way. This request lies in an Office Business (O) District on a 0,44 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the west line of Turner Road, approximately 945 feet north of Cloverleaf Drive. Tax Map 29-1 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 9). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jack Cullathcr was present. Mr. Poole explained the conditions in thc Request Analysis, as requested by the applicant. Mr. Applegate stated this request has been before the Board on three (3) occasions and Mr. Cullather objected only to the share¢ access requirement, not the buffer or the forty-five (45) foot right of way dedication. He requested that Mr. Cullather exptair why, at this time, he feels that the forty-five (45) foot right of way dedication should not be required. Mr. Cullather ~tated that in the original request he was being required to obtain shared access to the property on the southern side of the site because he could not gain access to the northerr aide of the property as recommended by staff. He stated at that 86-398 time Realty Industries owned Cloverleaf Office Park, there were five (5) deeds of true% on the property and it was impossible to gain access through their driveway. He stated in the interim the property was sold tO a syndication which he then approached to obtain a shared access. He stated when the shared access was accomplished, at added expense, conditions and options having to be granted to the syndication, he did not feel it was appropriate that he should be forced to dedicate part of his land to the County since he was not entering or disturbing Turner Road. Mr. Applegate questioned if the applicant were not well aware that the firs% staff recommendation required net only the dedication of the forty-five (45) foot right of way but also to construct the pavement and turning lane off Turner Read to this Mr. Cella%her stated this was incorrect as the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation came back with that requirement after the preliminary meeting prior to his purchase of the property and took an entirely different position that he did not have to construct anything but he had %0 pro rate and share the cost in an escrow account which was totally unacceptable because it was a change of what had been agreed upon. He stated that at the meeting with the ~ighway Department and Miss Kanode's supervisor it was realized that someone had erred in their discussion. Mr. Applegate stated he concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation with the exception of the requirement to dedicate the forty-five (45) foot right of way. Be stated t/~e Board has been consistent in requesting that developers dedicate right of way and in his opinion any change in the Board'z actions would be deviating from the general policy. Mr. Dodd stated the original use of this structure had been residential use and had the Board retained residential uses along Turner Road there would not have been the need to require the forty-five (45) feet of widening. He stated he understood how dedicating the forty-five (45) foot right of way could be unacceptable, however, he could not support waiving the dedication requirement because it has been imposed on numerous other people and should be imposed consistently. ~e stated that if the County does not obtain right of way, where possible, existing road situation will never be alleviated or improved. Mr. Daniel stated he concurred with Mr. Dodd's statements that in the concept of legislative responsibilities and protecting the health, safety and welfare of the general public the zoning request dictates that the forty-five (45) foot right of way be included in the approval. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request ~uhject to the following conditions: 1. The plan prepared by Youngblood, Tyler and Associates, P.C., revised May 29, 1985, shall be considered the Master ~lan. (P) 2. With the exception of Condition 1, relative to the Master Plan and Condition 2, relative to access all previously imposed conditions of Conditional Use Planned Development 84S156 shall remain in force. Specifically, Condition 2 shall be amended as follows: Access shall be shown as on the Master Plan. (CPC&BS) 3. Prior to obtaining a building permit, a crees-easement agreement, between the property owner(s) of the request parcel and the Owner(s) of adjacent property, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) 86-399 Mr. Cullather questioned what would happen if he did not comply with the requirement to dedicate the forty-five (45) foot right of way. Mr. Micas explained that should the applicant ~efuse to dedicate the forty-five (45) foot right of way he would not be issued a building permit. Mr. Cullather stated he already has his building permit. Mr. Poole stated that at the tame Mr. Cullather requested his building permit the only condition which had not been complied with was the dedication of the right of way and he advised that if this request was denied he would in fact dedicate the right of way because he knew he had to comply with the conditions unless they were amended. Ee stated that should Mr. Cullather refuse to dedicate the right of way at the present time staff would not be in a position to recon~nend approval of the certificate of occupancy on the building until all the conditions have been complied with. Mr. Poole stated that there is a letter to this effect in the applicant's file. Mr. Cullather stated he had never agreed to the dedicated right of way except in the original plan. Ne stated the building is constructed, the request was deferred to have l~gal resolve questions, and if the forty-five (45) foot dedication is required, the request should be denied as he did not feel he should dedicate this right of way. Mr. Mayes called for the question. Mr. Daniel questioned i£ the Board did not approve the amendments would the original zoning prevail end, if sc, would the original zoning require the forty-five (45) foot dedication of right way? Mr. Micas stated that information is correct. Mr. Applegate etated that what the Board has done is adopted the amended plan relative to the Master Plan which is Condition 1 and waived the access off Turner Road which is Condition 2. Mr. Daniel stated that in his judqment he did feel that the health, safety and welfare of the public is in the best interest of the revised changes if you do not continue to keep the dedication. Ne stated he did not see the relevance of waiving the dedication of right of way. There was no opposition present. Vote: Unanimous 86S029 In Matoaca Magisterial District, TEE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ~URERVISORS requested reconsideration of a Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 859146) relative to bulk requirements (fence height and setbacks for one-story accessory buildings) and specific requirements relative to footing designs and emergency spillway construction in Residential Townhouse (R-TH) and Residential (R-9) Districts on a 207.0 acre parcel lying approximately 200 feet off the south line of ~nll Street Road, approximately 3,200 i~et west of Winterpock Road. Tax map 74-00 (1) Part of Parcels 26 and 103; Tax Map 74-12 (2) Aehbrcck, Section 1, Block H, Lots 12-21; Ta~ Map 74-12 (2) Ashbrook, Section 1, Block C, Lots 3-28, Parcels A and C-I; Tax Map 75-5 (2) Ashbrook, Section 1, Block A, Lots 2-6 and D; Tax Map 75-9 (2) Ashbrook, Section ], Block A, Lots 7-14; Block B, Lots 1-11 and B, Block E, Lots 1-11 and C-2~ Block C, Lots 1, 2, C, and D-2; (Sheets 19 and 20). Mr. Poole stated a p0~tion of this request was before the Board several months ago by $&B Development Corporation at which time the Board acted on part of the request and remanded part of it to the Planning Comm~ssi0n for further study. He stated the 86-400 Planning Commission has recommended denial of Requests I and II, withdrawal of Request IV and approval of Request III. Be stated, subsequent to the reoo~nendation for approval of Request III, the Environmental Engineering Department, in conjunction with the Bnildinq Inspection Department, has developed an a~ministrative procedure to handle their concerns. He stated this procedure is the same procedure that is applied in all subdivieions when there are concerns about soil conditions and, accordingly, stafi would recommend that Request III also be withdrawn. Be stated the developer is in agreement with the recommendations, however, is not in attendance at the meeting. No one was present to address the matter. On motion of M_rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board withdrew Requests III and IV and denied Requests I and II. Vote: Unanimous 86s034 In Midlothian Magisterial District, TOM 55%THEWS requested Conditional Use to permit an outdoor recreational facility in an Agricultural (A) District on a 10.74 acre parcel fronting approximately 300 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting approximately 1,180 feet on the east line of Dry Bridge Road and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 14 (i) Part of Parcels 9 and 92 (Sheet 5/6). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He stated the applicant has requested a deferral of the matter. Mrs. Girone stated the applicant had stated that he intended to request that this case be deferred and she had informed him that citizen concern had been expressed to her through letters and telephone calls, as well as the fact that several citizens were present to address the case. Mr. Jeff Ti~tmons, representing the applicant~ stated the Conditional Use is for a temporary use in anticipation of the completion of Route 288 near this site, so that at that ti~e the property could be developed for a better use than that which is presently proposed. He stated that the applicant has requested a deferral because, in discussions with Mrs. Giron~, he had become aware of area resident opposition to the proposal, which had not been apparent at previous Planning Commission meetings. ~e stated the applicant has no objection to the recommended conditions. He stated there would be one (1) structure for the purpose of storing equipment and supplies. Mr. David Watson stated opposition to the proposed project and requested that it be denied. Mr. Peele e~plained the layout of the site, number of parking spaces, otc. Ms. Mary Dance stated in her opinion a driving range is not an appropriate use for the subject property because there are nice reeidences and historical landmarks in the area which will be adversely impacted by the use and it will set a precedent for other inappropriate uses. Mrs. Marie Watson stated the area residents have nice homes and do not want the proposed use in their neighborhood. She stated that the use, even though it is to be temporary, would disrupt the family residential ~nvironment. She supported a quality development for the area. Mr. Dodd inquired about the ~ezoning in the area and stated ha thought there had been another request for rezoning in the area several years ago at which time he was opposed and he would oppose this requestas well. 86-401 M~s. Girone stated that west of Bethel Church there was a previous zoning request comparable to the one being presented at this time. She stated the request was for a driving range and the applicant does have approval to develop the site, under Conditional Uze Planned Development, however, the site has never been developed. She stated that, as indicated in the Request Analysis, the p~oposed use does not conform to the Powhlte/Route 288 Development Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. She stated she has received five letters in which residents object t( the request as they feel it is spot zoning and that thc use in incompatible with existing area land use and development trends. She stated this particular parcel is only a part efa large tract of land, which has been deeded into six smaller portions, and she is concerned that if this type of piecemeal development is permitted it will encourage uncontrolled development such as that which is prevalent along Route 60 east of Courthouse Road. She stated she concurs with staff's recommendation that the request is inappropriate and premature, as well as the residents' con,ems that the use is not in accord with existing area land use and development trends and would adversely impact their environment. She stated the request for deferral is in hopes of settling the opposition, however, she stated she feels the request represents spot zoning and deferral would serve no purpose.. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr, Daniel, the Board denied this request. $6S047 In Matoaca Maglcte~ial District, PELO CORPORAT~0N requested rezoning from Agricultural {A) to Residential (R-15) on a 79 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,308 feet on the east line of Bundle Road, approximately 1,800 feet south of Woodpecker Road. Tax Map 128 (1) Parcel 11 (Sheets 30 and 39). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recon~ended approval of this request subject to a single condition and acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Lloyd Journigan stated the recommended condition was acceptable. No one ca~e forward in opposition to the request. On motion Of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A fifty (50} foot buffer, e×~lusive of utility easements, shall be maintained along Bundle Road. This buffer chall b~ left in its natural state and shall be supplemented with additional landscaping, fencing, or berms, where necessary, to effect a proper screen. Other than public roads and subdivision entrance signs, there shall be no facilities located wi%tin this buffer. There shall be no individual lot access to Bundle Road through this buffer. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, thc Planning Department prior to any recordation o£ lots con- taining this buffer. The Planning Commission may modify this condition during the tentative subdivision review process. (~) And further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Maximum number of lots - 40. 2. Minimum lot size - 30,000 square feet. 86-402 Vote: Unanimous 86S048 In Midlothian Magisterial District, GERBER CHILDP~EN"S CNNTER, INC. requested an amendment to Conditlonal Use Planned Development (Case 795078) to permit use (Child Care Center) and bulk (parking space) exceptions in an Office Business (o) Dis- trict on a 0.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the west line of Alverser Drive, approximately 200 feet south of Old Buckingham Road. Tax Map 16-8 (2) Alverser West, Block A, Lot 4 (Sheet 7). Mr. Pools stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Skip Gelletly, representing the applicant, stated the conditions were acceptable. No one came forward in opposition to the request. Mr, Gelletly stated the capacity of the facility is for 100 children and the playgrounds are located behind the building and in some of the ~hrubbery areas. Mr. Peele stated there is no County standard relative to the required amount of space for the playground; however, Mr. Gelletly stated there is a State standard with which the facility does comply. Mr. Peele pointed out that the facility has to be licensed by the State in order to operate therefore such a licensing procedure eliminates the necessity for the County to verify compliance with these standards during site plan approval. Mr. Gelletly explained the operation in detail. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Beard approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Balzer and Associates, dated January 22, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter ef all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed sc as not to interfere with pedes- trian traffic. (EE) 3. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northwestern property line. This buffer shall be exclusive of any utilities, with the exception of those which run generally perpendicular through the buffer. In conjunction with schematic plan approval, a concep- tual landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Commission for approval. Prior to any site clear- ing, the buffer shall he flagged and the Planning Department contacted £or inspection. Within ninety (90) days of rough clearing and qrading, a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 4. The driveway and parking area shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs so as to divide up the expanse of pavement. Within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and grading, a landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for approval. (P) 5. In conjunction with the approval of this request, an exception shall be granted to the required number of parking spaces. Specifically, parking shall be provided based upon the following ratio: one (1) spac( for each 20 children enrolled up to a maximum of six (6) spaces plus one (1) for each employee. Fur- 86-403 thermore, an area for drop-off and pick-up, which is separated from the main parking area and connected to the main building by a sidewalk, shall be provided to preclude the need for children to cross the driveway. (P) (NOTE: The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements of the Office Business (0) District will be applicable. Prior to obtaining building permits or final site plan approval, schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission.) Vote: Unanimous 865050 In Bermuda Magisterial District, JOHN H. INGRA~ requested an amendment to a Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 84S098) to permit an exception to the ten (10) foot parking setback requirement in a General Business (B-3} District on a 3.54 acre parcel fronting approximately 880 feet on the east line of Burge Avenue, al~o fronting approximately 140 feet on the north line of Crossblades Street, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 82-5 (1) Part of Parcel 6 (Sheet 23). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Ccmmisslon had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. John Henson came forward to present the request and explained briefly why this request was necessary. He pointed out that the applicant did agree to plant 2-2½ inch Red Maples On the ~ite however the builder has learned that these trees are very difficult to obtain and requested that Willow Oaks be substituted. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan prepared by J.K. Ti~uons and Associates, P.C., revised March 12, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. The following notwithstanding, the landscaping plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., dated March 26, 1986, shall be the landscaping plan for the site. The berms depicted on the plan shall be deleted Within the setback, a minimum of fifteen (15) willow oaks, having a caliber of 2-2½ inches and spaced a maximum of fifty (50) feet apart, ~hall be planted. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, a landecap. ing plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planninq Department for approval. The required landscaping shall be installed no later than the Pall 1986 planting season. (P,CPC&BS) Vote: Unanimous 86S051 In Bermuda Magisterial District, NORTH MARKET REALTY CORPORATION requested rezoning from Mobile Home Park (MH-1) to General Bu~ine~e (B-3) On a 2.10 acre parosl lying approximately 450 feet off the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway, measured from a point approximately 700 feet north cf West Hundred Road. Tax Map 116-6 (1) Part of Parcel 31 (Sheet 32). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to a single condition and acceptance of proffered condition. 86-404 Me. Mary Frances Rainey was present representing the applicants. She requested that the recommended ten (10) foot buffer along the southern property line adjacent to the mobile home park be amended to require only a solid board fence, as this parcel is a narrow strip of land. She stated adjacent property owners are not opposed to the request. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, ~eoonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approve6 this request, subject to the following conditions: A buffer shall be maintained along the southern property line adjacent to the Mobile Homo Park (ME-i) District. A solid salt-treated board fence ~hall be installed within this buffer for a sufficient distance and height which will effectively screen any outside storage, parking or driveway areas from tho adjacent MH-1 District. In conjunction with site plan review, a detailed plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condition: There will not be any outside speakers. The auction will ho held on the inside of the building. Vote: Unanimous $6S059 In Bermuda Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS requested rezoning from Light Industrial (M-i) to Residential (R-12) on a 42 acre parcel lying approximately 1,400 foot off tho west line of Bermuda Orchard Lane, measured from a point approximately 4,500 feet south of East Hundred Road. Tax Map 135-5 (1) Part e£ Parcel 1 (Sheet 42). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. Zook came forward to pr0sont the request. He stated the Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment to the Bastern Area Plan and subsequently initiated a rezoning process fox property owned by Mr. Thomas Jefferson, III. He stated the subject parcel is presently zoned M-1 and rezoning of the property from light industrial use to a residential use is important for fostaring the continued development of residential areas south of Route 10. He stated increased residential development in this portion of the Eastern Area is vital to creating a community which is large enough to be efficiently served by a full range of public facilities and is adequately proteet0d from incompatible land uses. He stated the Eastern Area Comprehensive Plan recommends that the area be developed as medium high d~nsity residential uses and the amendment to the plan proposes medium high density residential development north of the railroad tracks and low density residential development south of the tracks. Me further stated staff believes that development of the M-1 zoned property would he detrimental to the future development of a viable residential community and, therefore~ recommends that the subject property be rezoned to R-12. Mr. Zook stated the property owner had be0n notified of the public hearing however he was not in attendance. Mr. Dodd stated in his opinion the M-1 zoning for this parcel of land cannot be permitted to continue because it will have an overall detrimental impact on the community and rezoning it to R-12 is the appropriate and proper action to take which he explained in detail. 86-405 There was no opposition present. on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer, exclusive of utility easements, shall be maintained along the ~eaboard Coast Line Railroad. This buffer shall be left in its natural state and shall be supplemented with additional landscaping, fencing and/or terms, where necessary, to effect a proper sereen. Other ~han public roads that are generally perpendicular to the railroad, there shall be no facilities located within this buffer. The Planning Co~ission may modify th~s ~ondition in conjunction with tentative subdivision plan review if, based on the subdivision layout, they feel the spirit and intent of this condition can be met. (P) Mr. Mayes questioned why a presentation/explanation was not provided on Case 86S029. With respect to case 86S029, Mr. Zook stated the ~oard took ~ position that was consistent with the Planning Co~mi~ion'~ recommendation for denial. 865061 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, C&P TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 74S021) to permit a private utility structure in a Residential (R-7) District on a 1,600 square foot easement lying approximately 60 feet off the west line of Old Hundred Road, approximately 820 feet south of Hunts Bridge Lane. Tax Map 62~5 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 13). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions, Mr. Victor Shewin, representing the applicant, stated the conditions were acceptable. No one came forward in opposition to this request. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, thc Board approved this request subject to the following conditi0n~: 1. Only clearing n~cessary for the placement of the struc- ture, minimal parking area, and an access drive shall be permitted within this open space area. (P) 2. Upon completion of construction, the Planning Depart- ment shall be contacted to inspect the site. If the remaining vegetation is not sufficient to screen the structure and parking area from the golf course and 01d Hundred Road, additional landscaping shall be required. If additional landscaping is required, landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of site inspection. The required landscaping shall be installed during the first planting season after approval of the landscaping plan. (P) 3. The previous conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the applleati0n shall be the Master Plan. (P) 4. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the ~aster Plan. (P) Vote: Unanimous 86-406 86S076 In Midlothian Magisterial District, MAX P~AR$0N requested amendments to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 85Sl11) to modify freestanding sign si~e and lighting requirements in Community Business (B-2) and General Business (B-3) Districts on a 6.9 acre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting approximately 470 fee% on the east line ef Chinaberry Boulevard, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 19-13 (i) Parcels 4, 6, and 25 (Sheet 9). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approve] of this request subject to certain conditions. Ne one came forward to ~opresent or oppose the request. Mr. Peele stated the applicant was present at the Planning Commission meeting and he understood that the Planning Commission's recommendation was acceptable to the applicant. Mr, Boward Jenkins, representing Sigma Development, questioned if the applicant's project wcnld interfere with the projection of the Boulders sign. Mr. Peele displayed the slides of the site for Mr. Jenkins. On motion ef M~$. Givens, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. Two (2) freesta~%ding signs shall be permitted identify- ing the development (i.e., the existing dealership and the new dealerskip). One (1) sign shall not exceed an aggregate area of 180 square feet and one (1) sign shall not exceed an aggregate a~ea of 209 square feet. Signs shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet. All other temporary construction, building mounted, and directional signs shall he as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for COmmttuity Business (B-2) Districts. Signs shall be similar in colo~, design and lighting. With the exception of temporary constrection signs, no signs shall be erected until a sign package depicting these requirements is submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. (P) (Note: This condition supersedes Condition 5 of Case 85Sl11.) 2. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the two (2) ireestanding signs. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Medrick inquired if the Board would be interested in staff's bringing forward an Ordinance amendment for consideration that would permit the Director of Planning to have authority to administratively consider amendments, such as the one previously heard by the Board, provided such action does not violate the spirit and intent of the action of the Board. He stated it would reduce time and effort of all concerned. Ee stated if there were a minor modification, the Department of Planning could approve the request and if there were a problem it could be brought through the normal process. He suggested various alternatives that could be used. After a brief discussion, it was generally agreed that the Board would be willing to consider such an Ordinance amendment and or policy which would speed up the process, save developer money and staff time. 86-407 12. ADJO~'T~ENT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adjourned at 3:35 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on June 11, 1986. Vote: Unanimous Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator R. 'Garr~nd Dodd ~- ~ Chairman , @6-408